TY - JOUR
T1 - Electrochemical leaching of critical materials from lithium-ion batteries
T2 - A comparative life cycle assessment
AU - Adhikari, Birendra
AU - Chowdhury, Nighat A.
AU - Diaz, Luis A.
AU - Jin, Hongyue
AU - Saha, Apurba K.
AU - Shi, Meng
AU - Klaehn, John R.
AU - Lister, Tedd E.
N1 - Funding Information:
This research is supported by the Critical Materials Institute, an Energy Innovation Hub funded by the US Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Advanced Materials and Manufacturing Technologies Office. Work is conducted under DOE Idaho Operations Office Contract DE-EE0007888–8.7 and University of Arizona contract DE-AC02–07CH11358; Agreement No. 26110-AMES-CMI. The authors would like to acknowledge Youssef Elsakkary of The University of Arizona for his help in the initial LCA. The views expressed in the article do not necessarily represent the views of the U.S. Department of Energy or the United States Government. The U.S. Government retains and the publisher, by accepting the article for publication, acknowledges that the U.S. Government retains a nonexclusive, paid-up, irrevocable, worldwide license to publish or reproduce the published form of this work, or allow others to do so, for U.S. Government purposes.
Funding Information:
This research is supported by the Critical Materials Institute, an Energy Innovation Hub funded by the US Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Advanced Materials and Manufacturing Technologies Office . Work is conducted under DOE Idaho Operations Office Contract DE-EE0007888–8.7 and University of Arizona contract DE-AC02–07CH11358; Agreement No. 26110-AMES-CMI. The authors would like to acknowledge Youssef Elsakkary of The University of Arizona for his help in the initial LCA. The views expressed in the article do not necessarily represent the views of the U.S. Department of Energy or the United States Government. The U.S. Government retains and the publisher, by accepting the article for publication, acknowledges that the U.S. Government retains a nonexclusive, paid-up, irrevocable, worldwide license to publish or reproduce the published form of this work, or allow others to do so, for U.S. Government purposes.
Publisher Copyright:
© 2023 Elsevier B.V.
PY - 2023/6
Y1 - 2023/6
N2 - The manufacturing of lithium-ion batteries (LIB) requires critical materials such as cobalt (Co) and lithium (Li) that are essential for clean-energy products including electric vehicles. Because of their rapidly increasing demand and limited supply, the recycle and reuse of these materials from end-of-life LIB have garnered a lot of interest. Electrochemical leaching has emerged as a sustainable method to extract critical materials out of LIB, so life cycle assessment was conducted to compare the environmental impacts with traditional peroxide-based leaching and another emerging technology – SO2-based leaching. The results showed that electrochemical leaching reduces the global warming potential (GWP) by 80%−87% compared to peroxide-based leaching due to a lower acid consumption, avoidance of hydrogen peroxide, and regeneration of reducing agent iron (II) sulfate and compares well with SO2-based leaching in most impact categories. The analysis suggested renewable energy can further reduce the environment footprint of electrochemical leaching.
AB - The manufacturing of lithium-ion batteries (LIB) requires critical materials such as cobalt (Co) and lithium (Li) that are essential for clean-energy products including electric vehicles. Because of their rapidly increasing demand and limited supply, the recycle and reuse of these materials from end-of-life LIB have garnered a lot of interest. Electrochemical leaching has emerged as a sustainable method to extract critical materials out of LIB, so life cycle assessment was conducted to compare the environmental impacts with traditional peroxide-based leaching and another emerging technology – SO2-based leaching. The results showed that electrochemical leaching reduces the global warming potential (GWP) by 80%−87% compared to peroxide-based leaching due to a lower acid consumption, avoidance of hydrogen peroxide, and regeneration of reducing agent iron (II) sulfate and compares well with SO2-based leaching in most impact categories. The analysis suggested renewable energy can further reduce the environment footprint of electrochemical leaching.
KW - Circular economy
KW - Environmental impact
KW - Peroxide-based leaching
KW - SO leaching
KW - Value recovery
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85150406291&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85150406291&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1016/j.resconrec.2023.106973
DO - 10.1016/j.resconrec.2023.106973
M3 - Article
AN - SCOPUS:85150406291
SN - 0921-3449
VL - 193
JO - Resources, Conservation and Recycling
JF - Resources, Conservation and Recycling
M1 - 106973
ER -