Slashdot Mirror


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."

4 of 69 comments (clear)

  1. Missing factor by T+Murphy · · Score: 5, Funny

    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.

  2. Re:Lithium peak by Black+Gold+Alchemist · · Score: 5, Funny

    Peak lithium is a Li!

    --
    Responsibility is an addiction
    Virtue is a temptation
    Community is a cartel
  3. Re:Hmm, the source is interesting by aethogamous · · Score: 5, Informative

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

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

  4. Re:Hmm, the source is interesting by Rei · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.

    --
    "... even though he sins so much that people cast him out of demons."