Li-Ion Batteries Get Green Seal of Approval

thecarchik writes "It is not an easy task to compare the environmental effects of battery powered cars to those caused by conventionally fueled automobiles. The degree to which manufacture, usage and disposal of the batteries used to store the necessary electrical energy are detrimental to the environment is not exactly known. Now, for the first time, a team of Empa scientists have made a detailed life cycle assessment (LCA) or ecobalance of lithium-ion (Li-ion) batteries, in particular the chemically improved (i.e. more environmentally friendly) version of the ones most frequently used in electric vehicles. Researchers decided to find out for sure. They calculated the ecological footprints of electric cars fitted with Li-ion batteries, taking into account all possible relevant factors, from those associated with the production of individual parts all the way through to the scrapping of the vehicle and the disposal of the remains, including the operation of the vehicle during its lifetime."

Comments

Hmm, the source is interesting

[afidel]

It's a research group focused on bringing academic lab work to the commercial world, I can't imagine that they would possibly have any bias for new technologies =) I'm not saying their methods are flawed, but since there's no actual paper available just a press release I'll take it with a grain of NaCl until I can read their actual work. I've seen too many vendor TCO claims to be swayed without the detailed disclosure.

Re:Hmm, the source is interesting

[aethogamous]

...but since there's no actual paper available...

Link to the actually available paper: http://pubs.acs.org/doi/full/10.1021/es903729a

Re:Hmm, the source is interesting

[Rei]

Um... huh?

Thanks, well they assume a battery technology that's not commercially available

Oh really? Then what are they putting in the Volt? Or the Leaf? LiMn2O4 is one of the most popular chemistries for EVs. Here, want to buy some?

To be fair, their wording could have been clearer. Nickel and cobalt-based li-ions currently dominate the market. But LiMn2O4 absolutely are already out on the market, and have been for years. Their main competitor is LiFePO4. Both chemistries offer much better cycle life, stability, and power than traditional cathodes, at the cost of lower energy density. They used to be a lot more expensive, but their prices have been falling, and they'll probably be cheaper within the next few years.

a maximum vehicle lifetime of 92k miles

No, they assume a vehicle lifespan of 240,000 km (pgs 2 and 4). They assume two batteries used per vehicle over it's lifespan (one replacement) -- even though most upcoming mass-market EVs are being *warrantied* for 8-10 years.

a lithium extraction technology that's low energy but unlikely to scale to widespread usage of the lithium for transportation

Huh? What they describe is the standard way of producing lithium carbonate. And energy to produce a product generally declines as you scale up, rather than increasing. And the lithium extraction is only 1.9% of the battery's energy consumption anyway. The biggest chunk is aluminum, at 15.1%. So even if you have to jump to spodumene, like they mention (you wouldn't jump straight there, by the way -- you'd first use lithium hydroxide, like is found in Nevada), it would hardly change the picture.

Lithium is just such a small part of the overall picture; the only reason people focus on it is it's in the name. As they make clear, it's the bulk metals (aluminum, copper, etc) and the roasting of the cathode that takes most of the energy of production.

and finally they don't take recycling into account but rather attribute all inputs to virgin materials.

They specifically note that recycling would *improve* the picture for BEVs (bottom of page 5 / top of page 6)

Still if you tweak the numbers towards a more realistic mix you still come out with battery powered vehicles being no worse than ICE unless the battery vehicle is primarily powered by coal.

Tweak nothing. That would take a complete rewrite with absurd bogus numbers to get a breakeven value. The comparison numbers aren't even close, and coal only increases the total energy 13.4% (page 4). BEVs blow ICEs away.

Re:Hmm, the source is interesting

[s122604]

parent: I'm not a +1 type of guy, but hat's off to you, this post is complete ownage

Missing factor

[T Murphy]

Li-Ion batteries are in fact very bad for the environment: by reducing reliance upon fossil fuels, demand for fossil fuels drops, which reduces prices, which encourages future use, which reduces pressure to research green alternative energy sources, which ultimately means more pollution. Conclusion: drive a Hummer, it's the new green.

Re:Missing factor

[DamienRBlack]

I know you're being snarky, but first off, we're probably going to exhaust our entire supply of fossil fuels anyway, the question is just how quickly. Secondly, electric cars are still being powered by fossil fuels, for the most part anyway. Thirdly, any reduction in demand can be easily offset with tax schemes like cap-and-trade.

Re:Missing factor

[DamienRBlack]

We're going to run out of fossil fuels sooner or later. Environmental concerns aside we should be investing in renewable power sources. The market needs a little nudge in the right direction even without pollution worries. Imagine a world where power is plentiful and cheap. Imagine the technologies that could be implemented, the research that could be done. Imagine grow lights in remote areas for food. Imagine water filtration systems everywhere. Imagine automatic manufacturing on demand. Imagine constant high speed transportation all over the world and beyond. All for 1000th the price it would cost today because power is dirt cheap. This type of progress isn't possible while we remain tethered on fossil fuels. It has a limited supply to it will simply always be too expensive.

Re:Missing factor

[DamienRBlack]

Oh I know it won't happen in my lifetime. I just think it is good to keep the end goal in site no matter how far away it is.

Re:Missing factor

[DamienRBlack]

Ah, well. Thank you for your incredible lack of specificity. I'm glad you replied to further insult me, yet didn't clarify yourself. It shows where your priorities are.

Re:Missing factor

[willy_me]

we're probably going to exhaust our entire supply of fossil fuels anyway

Not before acidifying the ocean to the point that everything dies. The increased CO2 in the atmosphere would also destroy countless ecosystems and result in mass extinctions.

Long story short, there is way too much carbon available to burn. We will kill ourselves long before we run out. Those who think governments should piss off and just let the market determine the price of oil really don't see the problem. As long as the environmental costs of oil are ignored, the market does not work to our benefit.

What carbon taxes do is they try to associate a dollar amount to the environmental costs of oil. When this tax is applied the market actually works to our benefit. In addition, because renewable sources of energy would not be taxed, there is increased motivation to develop these sources of energy - even without government grants.

The problem is that the world powers can not agree to universally implement such a tax. And because the CO2 emissions are shared by all, an agreement is really required. Without said agreement, a country would be sabotaging it's economy by implementing such a tax.

Re:hmmm

[Black Gold Alchemist]

This study takes in to account all those factors and says you're wrong.

Lithium peak

[OrangeTide]

When we hit the lithium peak, how will we make more Li-ion batteries?

Re:Lithium peak

[Rei]

Not going to happen.

Re:Lithium peak

[Black Gold Alchemist]

Peak lithium is a Li!

Re:Lithium peak

[Rei]

Please read the GP. Thanks.

Also, your numbers on how much lithium is used per EV is wrong. The leaf's battery pack is about 600lbs and contains 9 pounds of lithium (1.5%).

Hasty Disposal

[tirefire]

One thing that bothers me about seeing Li-Ion battery-powered devices everywhere these days is the way so many people view them as disposable, when in reality the battery is good for hundreds of charge/discharge cycles, and the device for many times that number.

Take for example the laptop I just bought secondhand today. It's a 2001 Gateway with a pentium 3 and the original li-ion battery. The battery is still capable of FOUR HOURS of constant web browsing and disk thrashing on a single charge. I paid $40 for this thing, and it performs just as well as any "netbook" for about 13% the price. My purchase was environment-agnostic, but if you don't want li-ion batteries going into landfills, finding ways to re-use them like I did is a good way to start.

Re:Hasty Disposal

[Cochonou]

Are you sure this is the original battery ? My anecdotal evidence on a dozen of samples tells me that after about 6 years, most laptop Li-On batteries cannot hold charge anymore.

Re:Hasty Disposal

[Moridin42]

You and I have very difference opinions on notable degradation. 80% of original capacity .. is huge.

Under optimal conditions, Li batteries degrade just a few % per year. Under average conditions, 8-10% is fairly normal. Under poor conditions, 25-35% loss in a year is reasonable. And you could kill one entirely in less than a year under worst case conditions.

Re:The assumption

[dangitman]

The assumption is made that I would really care if I am driving a so called "green car" when in reality I don't.

I don't think they performed this study just for you, personally. So, I doubt that they are making such an assumption. Speaking of assumptions, do you usually presume that everything that anybody in the world does is for your benefit?

Re:hmmm

[XDirtypunkX]

Or you know, it could be this well researched study is more credible than your unsupported assertion on slashdot. Just saying.