IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jresou/v10y2021i9p87-d621921.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Assessing the Application-Specific Substitutability of Lithium-Ion Battery Cathode Chemistries Based on Material Criticality, Performance, and Price

Author

Listed:
  • Steffen Kiemel

    (Fraunhofer Institute for Manufacturing Engineering and Automation IPA, Nobelstraße 12, 70569 Stuttgart, Germany)

  • Simon Glöser-Chahoud

    (Institute for Industrial Production IIP, Karlsruhe Institute of Technology, Hertzstraße 16, 76187 Karlsruhe, Germany)

  • Lara Waltersmann

    (Fraunhofer Institute for Manufacturing Engineering and Automation IPA, Nobelstraße 12, 70569 Stuttgart, Germany)

  • Maximilian Schutzbach

    (Fraunhofer Institute for Manufacturing Engineering and Automation IPA, Nobelstraße 12, 70569 Stuttgart, Germany
    Institute for Energy Efficiency in Production EEP, University of Stuttgart, Nobelstraße 12, 70569 Stuttgart, Germany)

  • Alexander Sauer

    (Fraunhofer Institute for Manufacturing Engineering and Automation IPA, Nobelstraße 12, 70569 Stuttgart, Germany
    Institute for Energy Efficiency in Production EEP, University of Stuttgart, Nobelstraße 12, 70569 Stuttgart, Germany)

  • Robert Miehe

    (Fraunhofer Institute for Manufacturing Engineering and Automation IPA, Nobelstraße 12, 70569 Stuttgart, Germany)

Abstract

The material use of lithium-ion batteries (LIBs) is widely discussed in public and scientific discourse. Cathodes of state-of-the-art LIBs are partially comprised of high-priced raw materials mined under alarming ecological and social circumstances. Moreover, battery manufacturers are searching for cathode chemistries that represent a trade-off between low costs and an acceptable material criticality of the comprised elements while fulfilling the performance requirements for the respective application of the LIB. This article provides an assessment of the substitutability of common LIB cathode chemistries (NMC 111, −532, −622, −811, NCA 3%, −9%, LMO, LFP, and LCO) for five major fields of application (traction batteries, stationary energy storage systems, consumer electronics, power-/garden tools, and domestic appliances). Therefore, we provide a tailored methodology for evaluating the substitutability of products or components and critically reflect on the results. Outcomes show that LFP is the preferable cathode chemistry while LCO obtains the worst rating for all fields of application under the assumptions made (as well as the weighting of the considered categories derived from an expert survey). The ranking based on the substitutability score of the other cathode chemistries varies per field of application. NMC 532, −811, −111, and LMO are named recommendable types of cathodes.

Suggested Citation

  • Steffen Kiemel & Simon Glöser-Chahoud & Lara Waltersmann & Maximilian Schutzbach & Alexander Sauer & Robert Miehe, 2021. "Assessing the Application-Specific Substitutability of Lithium-Ion Battery Cathode Chemistries Based on Material Criticality, Performance, and Price," Resources, MDPI, vol. 10(9), pages 1-27, August.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jresou:v:10:y:2021:i:9:p:87-:d:621921
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2079-9276/10/9/87/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2079-9276/10/9/87/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Kaufmann, Daniel & Kraay, Aart & Mastruzzi, Massimo, 2007. "The worldwide governance indicators project : answering the critics," Policy Research Working Paper Series 4149, The World Bank.
    2. Viebahn, Peter & Soukup, Ole & Samadi, Sascha & Teubler, Jens & Wiesen, Klaus & Ritthoff, Michael, 2015. "Assessing the need for critical minerals to shift the German energy system towards a high proportion of renewables," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 49(C), pages 655-671.
    3. Bach, Vanessa & Finogenova, Natalia & Berger, Markus & Winter, Lisa & Finkbeiner, Matthias, 2017. "Enhancing the assessment of critical resource use at the country level with the SCARCE method – Case study of Germany," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 53(C), pages 283-299.
    4. T. E. Graedel & Julian Allwood & Jean‐Pierre Birat & Matthias Buchert & Christian Hagelüken & Barbara K. Reck & Scott F. Sibley & Guido Sonnemann, 2011. "What Do We Know About Metal Recycling Rates?," Journal of Industrial Ecology, Yale University, vol. 15(3), pages 355-366, June.
    5. Haglund, David G., 1984. "Strategic minerals : A conceptual analysis," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 10(3), pages 146-152, September.
    6. Helbig, Christoph & Bradshaw, Alex M. & Kolotzek, Christoph & Thorenz, Andrea & Tuma, Axel, 2016. "Supply risks associated with CdTe and CIGS thin-film photovoltaics," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 178(C), pages 422-433.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Tadeusz Białoń & Roman Niestrój & Wojciech Skarka & Wojciech Korski, 2023. "HPPC Test Methodology Using LFP Battery Cell Identification Tests as an Example," Energies, MDPI, vol. 16(17), pages 1-21, August.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Kim Maya Yavor & Vanessa Bach & Matthias Finkbeiner, 2021. "Resource Assessment of Renewable Energy Systems—A Review," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(11), pages 1-19, May.
    2. Christoph Helbig & Martin Bruckler & Andrea Thorenz & Axel Tuma, 2021. "An Overview of Indicator Choice and Normalization in Raw Material Supply Risk Assessments," Resources, MDPI, vol. 10(8), pages 1-26, August.
    3. Arendt, Rosalie & Muhl, Marco & Bach, Vanessa & Finkbeiner, Matthias, 2020. "Criticality assessment of abiotic resource use for Europe– application of the SCARCE method," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 67(C).
    4. Yu, Shiwei & Duan, Haoran & Cheng, Jinhua, 2021. "An evaluation of the supply risk for China's strategic metallic mineral resources," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 70(C).
    5. Ren, Kaipeng & Tang, Xu & Höök, Mikael, 2021. "Evaluating metal constraints for photovoltaics: Perspectives from China’s PV development," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 282(PA).
    6. Hu, Xueyue & Wang, Chunying & Elshkaki, Ayman, 2024. "Material-energy Nexus: A systematic literature review," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 192(C).
    7. Hache, Emmanuel & Seck, Gondia Sokhna & Simoen, Marine & Bonnet, Clément & Carcanague, Samuel, 2019. "Critical raw materials and transportation sector electrification: A detailed bottom-up analysis in world transport," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 240(C), pages 6-25.
    8. Zheng, Biao & Zhang, Yuquan & Chen, Yufeng, 2021. "Asymmetric connectedness and dynamic spillovers between renewable energy and rare earth markets in China: Evidence from firms’ high-frequency data," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 71(C).
    9. Helbig, Christoph & Bradshaw, Alex M. & Kolotzek, Christoph & Thorenz, Andrea & Tuma, Axel, 2016. "Supply risks associated with CdTe and CIGS thin-film photovoltaics," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 178(C), pages 422-433.
    10. Wang, Peng & Chen, Li-Yang & Ge, Jian-Ping & Cai, Wenjia & Chen, Wei-Qiang, 2019. "Incorporating critical material cycles into metal-energy nexus of China’s 2050 renewable transition," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 253(C), pages 1-1.
    11. Adriano Cordisco & Riccardo Melloni & Lucia Botti, 2022. "Sustainable Circular Economy for the Integration of Disadvantaged People: A Preliminary Study on the Reuse of Lithium-Ion Batteries," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(13), pages 1-15, July.
    12. Guo, Tianjiao & Geng, Yong & Song, Xiaoqian & Rui, Xue & Ge, Zewen, 2023. "Tracing magnesium flows in China: A dynamic material flow analysis," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 83(C).
    13. Chen, Wei-Qiang & Graedel, T.E., 2012. "Dynamic analysis of aluminum stocks and flows in the United States: 1900–2009," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 81(C), pages 92-102.
    14. Omar Jraid Mustafa Alhanaqtah & Veronika Vladimir Alexey Alhanaqtah, 2018. "Governance Indicators for Strategic Business Decisions: Diversity of Western Asian Countries in Terms of Democracy," Asian Economic and Financial Review, Asian Economic and Social Society, vol. 8(3), pages 378-393, March.
    15. Khurshid Djalilov & Jens Hölscher, 2016. "Comparative Analyses Of The Banking Environment In Transition Countries," Economic Annals, Faculty of Economics and Business, University of Belgrade, vol. 61(208), pages 7-26, January -.
    16. Konara, Palitha & Shirodkar, Vikrant, 2018. "Regulatory Institutional Distance and MNCs' Subsidiary Performance: Climbing up Vs. Climbing Down the Institutional Ladder," Journal of International Management, Elsevier, vol. 24(4), pages 333-347.
    17. Tobias Junne & Sonja Simon & Jens Buchgeister & Maximilian Saiger & Manuel Baumann & Martina Haase & Christina Wulf & Tobias Naegler, 2020. "Environmental Sustainability Assessment of Multi-Sectoral Energy Transformation Pathways: Methodological Approach and Case Study for Germany," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(19), pages 1-28, October.
    18. Tomer Fishman & Rupert J. Myers & Orlando Rios & T.E. Graedel, 2018. "Implications of Emerging Vehicle Technologies on Rare Earth Supply and Demand in the United States," Resources, MDPI, vol. 7(1), pages 1-15, January.
    19. Minxi Wang & Ping Liu & Zhaoliang Gu & Hong Cheng & Xin Li, 2019. "A Scientometric Review of Resource Recycling Industry," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 16(23), pages 1-18, November.
    20. Pérez-Sánchez, Laura À. & Velasco-Fernández, Raúl & Giampietro, Mario, 2022. "Factors and actions for the sustainability of the residential sector. The nexus of energy, materials, space, and time use," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 161(C).

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jresou:v:10:y:2021:i:9:p:87-:d:621921. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.