IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v11y2019i20p5679-d276454.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Prospective Life Cycle Assessment of a Structural Battery

Author

Listed:
  • Mats Zackrisson

    (RISE IVF AB, SE-100 44 Stockholm, Sweden)

  • Christina Jönsson

    (RISE IVF AB, SE-100 44 Stockholm, Sweden)

  • Wilhelm Johannisson

    (Department of Aeronautical and Vehicle Engineering, KTH Royal Institute of Technology, SE-100 44 Stockholm, Sweden)

  • Kristin Fransson

    (Engelsons Postorder AB, SE-311 39 Falkenberg, Sweden)

  • Stefan Posner

    (Stefan Posner AB, SE-439 55 Åsa, Sweden)

  • Dan Zenkert

    (Department of Aeronautical and Vehicle Engineering, KTH Royal Institute of Technology, SE-100 44 Stockholm, Sweden)

  • Göran Lindbergh

    (Department of Chemical Engineering, KTH Royal Institute of Technology, SE-100 44 Stockholm, Sweden)

Abstract

With increasing interest in reducing fossil fuel emissions, more and more development is focused on electric mobility. For electric vehicles, the main challenge is the mass of the batteries, which significantly increase the mass of the vehicles and limits their range. One possible concept to solve this is incorporating structural batteries; a structural material that both stores electrical energy and carries mechanical load. The concept envisions constructing the body of an electric vehicle with this material and thus reducing the need for further energy storage. This research is investigating a future structural battery that is incorporated in the roof of an electric vehicle. The structural battery is replacing the original steel roof of the vehicle, and part of the original traction battery. The environmental implications of this structural battery roof are investigated with a life cycle assessment, which shows that a structural battery roof can avoid climate impacts in substantive quantities. The main emissions for the structural battery stem from its production and efforts should be focused there to further improve the environmental benefits of the structural battery. Toxicity is investigated with a novel chemical risk assessment from a life cycle perspective, which shows that two chemicals should be targeted for substitution.

Suggested Citation

  • Mats Zackrisson & Christina Jönsson & Wilhelm Johannisson & Kristin Fransson & Stefan Posner & Dan Zenkert & Göran Lindbergh, 2019. "Prospective Life Cycle Assessment of a Structural Battery," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(20), pages 1-14, October.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:11:y:2019:i:20:p:5679-:d:276454
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/11/20/5679/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/11/20/5679/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Matthew Simon & Steve Poole & Andrew Sweatman & Steve Evans & Tracy Bhamra & Tim Mcaloone, 2000. "Environmental priorities in strategic product development," Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 9(6), pages 367-377, November.
    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. Nils Thonemann & Anna Schulte & Daniel Maga, 2020. "How to Conduct Prospective Life Cycle Assessment for Emerging Technologies? A Systematic Review and Methodological Guidance," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(3), pages 1-23, February.
    2. Elitza Karadotcheva & Sang N. Nguyen & Emile S. Greenhalgh & Milo S. P. Shaffer & Anthony R. J. Kucernak & Peter Linde, 2021. "Structural Power Performance Targets for Future Electric Aircraft," Energies, MDPI, vol. 14(19), pages 1-30, September.
    3. Alan Ransil & Angela M. Belcher, 2021. "Structural ceramic batteries using an earth-abundant inorganic waterglass binder," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 12(1), pages 1-8, December.
    4. Qiuchen Wang & Jannicke Baalsrud Hauge & Sebastiaan Meijer, 2019. "Adopting an Actor Analysis Framework to a Complex Technology Innovation Project: A Case Study of an Electric Road System," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(1), pages 1-35, December.

    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. Özdemir, Öznur & Denizel, Meltem & Guide, V. Daniel R., 2012. "Recovery decisions of a producer in a legislative disposal fee environment," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 216(2), pages 293-300.
    2. Pujari, Devashish & Wright, Gillian & Peattie, Ken, 2003. "Green and competitive: Influences on environmental new product development performance," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 56(8), pages 657-671, August.
    3. Bjorn De Koeijer & Jos De Lange & Renee Wever, 2017. "Desired, Perceived, and Achieved Sustainability: Trade-Offs in Strategic and Operational Packaging Development," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(10), pages 1-29, October.
    4. Petrus Kautto, 2006. "New instruments – old practices? The implications of environmental management systems and extended producer responsibility for design for the environment," Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 15(6), pages 377-388, November.
    5. Driessen, P.H., 2005. "Green product innovation strategy," Other publications TiSEM f14c1bcc-f1bf-4637-b4a6-8, Tilburg University, School of Economics and Management.
    6. Rick Edgeman & Jacob Eskildsen, 2014. "Modeling and Assessing Sustainable Enterprise Excellence," Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 23(3), pages 173-187, March.

    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:jsusta:v:11:y:2019:i:20:p:5679-:d:276454. 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.