Increased development of Variable Renewables (VREs) and Electric vehicles (EVs) are important for decarbonization. However, integrating VRE and EVs into the grid poses challenges, which can be addressed through energy storage technologies. Lithium-ion batteries, due to their cost-effectiveness and functionality, are the preferred option for energy storage. However, the environmental impacts of lithium-ion batteries, from extraction to disposal, need to be considered.
Future Energy Landscape Demands More Batteries
In order to achieve deep decarbonization of the global energy sector and attain net-zero emissions, decarbonization efforts must be undertaken on both the supply side and the demand side. For supply side, as discussed in previous articles [22], the deployment of variable renewables, namely solar PV and wind power, is of utmost importance due to their low operational emissions and cost-effectiveness. It is projected that by 2050, over 60 percent of the electricity supply needs to be derived from variable renewables (VRE) to accomplish the net-zero target.
In addition, to avoid wasting efforts and effectively utilize low-carbon energy produced on the supply side, decarbonization initiatives must also be implemented in the final energy demand sector. This entails the establishment of a circular economy approach, whereby measures such as implementing energy efficiency practices, promoting the electrification of cooking processes, and transitioning to electric vehicles (EV) assume paramount significance in decarbonizing the demand side.
Recognizing the imperative of decarbonization across both the supply and demand sides of the energy sector, various regions worldwide have committed to decarbonizing both end of the energy sector. The following tables provide an overview of the advancements and current decarbonization efforts pertaining to the supply-side integration of VREs and the adoption of EVs on the demand side.
The integration of VRE and EV technology presents a potential challenge to grid stability. High penetrations of VRE sources, such as solar PV and wind, increases the level of harmonics and destabilizes the grid frequency due to the unpredictable nature of their energy outputs in matching the demand curve. On the demand side, the introduction of EVs will inevitably lead to a sustained increase in energy demand during both nighttime and daytime, primarily driven by the charging requirements of these vehicles. However, as long as dispatchable generating units are available, the increase in demand itself does not pose significant issues. The concern arises from the fact that the future grid will heavily rely on solar PV and wind as the major sources of electricity supply. This will result in high energy production during the daytime, which may be partially wasted due to the low demand at that time. Conversely, there will be limited to no energy production from these sources during nighttime, precisely when peak demand occurs. This situation is particularly relevant as people tend to charge their electric vehicles in the evening, use electric stoves for cooking, and engage in similar activities.
The preceding discussion has prompted us to explore the subject of energy storage. Energy storage enables the capture of surplus electricity generated by variable renewable sources during periods of low electrical demand, facilitating its subsequent use during nighttime or under specific circumstances when supply fails to match demand. At present, various energy storage technologies exist, each designed to cater to the requirements of both the grid and consumers. Among these technologies, the lithium-ion battery stands out as a notable and widely utilized form of energy storage.
The widespread adoption of lithium-ion batteries as the primary energy storage technology is unsurprising, given their cost-effectiveness, functionality, and modularity. These factors contribute significantly to its current and prospective utilization in our low-carbon future. The affordability, versatile functionality, and adaptability of lithium-ion batteries have been instrumental in driving their widespread adoption and establishing them as the preferred energy storage solution for transitioning to a low-carbon economy.
In terms of cost, the levelised cost of storage (LCOS) is a parameter utilized to assess the affordability of various storage technologies. The LCOS is a metric that quantifies the expenses involved in storing 1 kilowatt-hour (kWh) of electrical energy within an energy storage technology [13] This calculation incorporates factors such as capital expenditures (CAPEX), operational expenditures (OPEX), and the energy stored within a given technology. Based on the available data from 2023, it is observed that lithium-ion batteries emerge as the most economical option for peaker replacement applications. These applications necessitate approximately 1000 charge-discharge cycles per year. The LCOS for lithium-ion batteries in this context is estimated to be approximately 20.94 USD cents per kWh. By comparison, alternative storage technologies such as Pumped Hydro Energy Storage (PHS) and Vanadium Redox Flow Battery (VRFB) are found to be comparatively more expensive. Furthermore, lithium-ion batteries offer additional modularity benefits compared to the aforementioned technologies. Grid-scale lithium-ion battery installations can be constructed relatively quickly, unlike pumped hydro systems that require several years for dam construction or VRFB systems that necessitate anolyte and catholyte liquid storage tanks.
In addition to cost, lithium-ion batteries are highly functional and suitable for both small and large-scale applications. At a larger scale, lithium-ion batteries play a crucial role in maintaining grid frequency stability. This is due to their rapid startup time, allowing them to quickly balance discrepancies between energy supply and demand, thus ensuring grid frequency stability. Furthermore, at a smaller scale, such as in electric vehicle applications, lithium-ion batteries exhibit the highest energy density in their class. This characteristic leads to several advantages, including increased battery lifespan, enhanced efficiency, and a larger energy storage capacity. Consequently, the reason why lithium-ion is currently selected as the most EV battery is due to the reason that lithium-ion enables longer travel distances while maintaining a streamlined and lightweight vehicle design.
Hence, considering the escalating demand for batteries in the context of our low-carbon future, it becomes paramount to address not only the financial and technical aspects of lithium batteries but also their environmental implications. It is of utmost importance to ensure that the increasing demand for and utilization of batteries do not give rise to detrimental effects on society resulting from intensified extraction of raw materials, manufacturing processes, and usage patterns. To comprehensively evaluate these effects, it is necessary to employ a lifecycle analysis (LCA) approach, which assesses the technology not only based on its immediate operational impacts but also throughout its entire lifecycle, encompassing stages such as raw material extraction, manufacturing, operation, and disposal.
In this special article, a collaboration between a research analyst and talents from the Ailesh Sustainability Officer Programme, we will delve into the identification of the detrimental costs associated with the lifecycle of lithium-ion batteries. Furthermore, we will explore the implementation of various methods aimed at mitigating their environmental impact. Finally, we will draw conclusions based on our findings.
Applying Lifecycle Thinking on Lithium-Ion Battery
Lifecycle thinking is a method of thinking that considers the beginning of material extraction, production, and the end of product life (EOL). To begin with, we must understand the upstream process, of, how the material is extracted. At present, the acquisition of Lithium primarily relies on two distinct approaches: ore mining and brine mining. Ore mining entails the extraction of Lithium from rock formations found on the Earth’s surface, while brine mining involves the extraction of concentrated Lithium from aquatic regions [28].
Ore mining involves the exploration of mineral-containing soil in open-pit mines. Spodumene, a lithium-rich mineral found in pegmatites, undergoes a series of steps: crushing and milling at 1000°C, cooling to 65°C, crushing again, and roasting at 250°C with sulfuric acid. This acid-leaching stage facilitates the displacement of hydrogen ions by lithium ions, resulting in the formation of lithium sulfate and insoluble residue. Lime is then employed to neutralize excess acid and remove undesirable compounds like magnesium. Finally, lithium is precipitated through the addition of soda ash, leading to the formation of lithium carbonate [15].
On the other hand, brine mining offers a relatively simpler yet more time-consuming approach. The process begins with the extraction of brine from underground sources and pumping it into evaporation ponds. Over a span of 18-24 months, solar heat facilitates the natural evaporation of the brine, leaving behind the mineral content. In the evaporation ponds, calcium hydroxide is introduced to precipitate undesired components like magnesium hydroxide and calcium boron salts. This is followed by filtration, and then the addition of calcium carbonate to precipitate lithium carbonate. The resulting lithium compound is subsequently purified and dried.
Based on the literature reviews, upstream methods process adversely affects the environment by increasing Global Warming Potential (GWP), abiotic depletion using fossil fuel use, water scarcity, and freshwater ecotoxicity. The extraction of one tonne of lithium carbonate from both methods results in CO2eq emissions ranging from 23.1 to 23.5, and a depletion of fossil fuel resources amounting to 248,000 to 254,000 megajoules. A comparison of the two methods reveals that ore mining has a greater impact in terms of carbon dioxide emissions and resource depletion. This is attributed to factors such as explosions, diesel usage for heavy-duty transportation, and coal combustion, which significantly contribute to higher global warming potential and abiotic resource depletion. In contrast, brine mining relies on natural evaporation driven by solar energy, resulting in lower impacts on both global warming potential and resource depletion.
Moreover, the production of lithium presents potential risks of freshwater contamination resulting from the use of chemicals during the extraction process. In brine mining, for instance, polyvinyl chloride (PVC) is employed as a protective barrier in evaporation ponds, which can pose a leakage risk, leading to the pollution of freshwater sources. PVC release human hormone-disrupting chemicals, including organotins and potentially phthalates, that can cause myriad health problems, particularly in pregnancy and children [33]. Additionally, residual lithium may be present in evaporation ponds, waste tanks, and transported products, posing a threat to aquatic life. Exposure to lithium concentrations of 1.2 mg/L, for instance, has been observed to immobilize the microscopic crustacean Daphnia magna for a duration of 64 hours, while concentrations of 1.7 mg/L have been found to impede the development of embryos in fish eggs [6].
From the previous passage, we can see that an LCA can give us countable visualization of how a product impacts the environment or even impacts life casualties. Contrary to its importance in correctly accounting for the impacts, there’s still a debate on the LCA methodology itself. Lai et al (2022) [19] and Fahmi (2022) [11] similarly reported the challenge of accounting for the environmental impact of batteries comes from the determination of the reference unit. Some papers use a reference unit of mass (environmental impact value presented per mass of a battery), but the unit cannot justify other batteries in the market with higher energy density per mass of the product, or basically some batteries might have bigger energy capacity but lighter weight. On the other hand, the reference unit of energy, impact presented per kWh battery cannot justify the fluctuations of the energy capacity a battery can store throughout its cycle life, corresponding to the usage style of the consumer. Research shows that the upstream contributes the most significant impact on the environment, as by far LCA reports, compared to other stages. Nevertheless, one of the factors impacting the rise of global temperature, which greenhouse gas emissions, had released by battery production: production of battery materials and components, cell production, and battery pack assembly, which results differently in different countries and different cathodes used.
Moreover, life cycle assessment (LCA) encompasses not only the production stage of a battery but also takes into account its post-production phase and end-of-life (EOL) considerations. The utilization phase, which involves the long-term aging process of the battery and is closely linked to its cycle life, has been identified as a critical stage that significantly impacts the environment. This impact is largely influenced by the battery’s capacity and efficiency. Consequently, ongoing research aims to extend the battery’s lifespan by increasing its energy density, promoting the utilization of charge-and-discharge cycles, or developing batteries using sustainable materials.At the end of the battery’s life cycle, recycling efforts play a vital role in promoting circularity and minimizing environmental consequences. Addressing this challenge requires a multifaceted approach, encompassing innovative business models and financing mechanisms, material research advancements, and the implementation of public policies. By embracing these diverse solutions, the goal of reducing environmental impacts and fostering sustainability can be achieved.
Innovative Countermeasures
Despite the numerous challenges involved, stakeholders ranging from companies to governments consistently strive for endless innovation in terms of technology and policies. Within the business realm, the recycling process stands out as a promising venture for lithium-ion batteries. One notable example is Ascend Elements, a company based in the United States which specializes in utilizing discarded lithium battery waste to produce reusable batteries.
Ascend Elements employs a two-step process at their “Base” and “Apex” facilities. After collecting the spent battery, it is later processed at the Base facility, where its electrical properties are discharged and materials such as metal and plastic are separated [3]. The remaining active battery materials are then ground to produce a substance known as the black mass. This black mass, consisting of valuable mineral battery commodities, undergoes further processing at the Apex facility. Here, an innovative Hydro-to-Cathode direct precursor synthesis process is employed to separate impurities, resulting in the production of highly efficient and engineered cathode materials suitable for use in new batteries.
Despite being recycled batteries, Ascend Elements claims that their products outperform those made with newly mined and refined metals. According to their assertions, their upcycled batteries exhibit a 50% longer cycle life and an 88% higher power capacity compared to traditional materials.
Still in the U.S., Redwood Material is actively engaged in the establishment of a closed-loop, domestic supply chain for lithium-ion batteries. This comprehensive approach encompasses the stages of collection, refurbishment, recycling, refining, and remanufacturing of sustainable battery materials. To execute this process, Redwood Materials initiates the collection of battery packs and consumer electronics from diverse sources. In order to facilitate the collection, Redwood Materials has strategically placed “Redwood Collection Bins” across 14 states within the United States [23]. Subsequently, the company undertakes recycling and refining procedures, yielding two crucial battery components: copper foil, commonly utilized as an anode, and precursor & cathode active materials. Furthermore, Redwood Materials actively participates in public discourse to enhance awareness surrounding electronic waste and battery recycling.
Other battery recycling company and the market leader in the field of lithium-ion battery recycling is the Li Cycle [21]. Its innovative approach encompasses a spoke and hub system, which claimed an impressive recovery rate of 95% for lithium-ion battery materials. Li Cycle initiates the journey by transporting the batteries to its dedicated “Spoke” facility to commence the recycling process. In this facility, all types of lithium batteries are transformed from a charged state to an inert product, separating plastic and metal components from the black mass. This black mass represents a mixture of valuable minerals utilized in battery production. Once plastic and metal are separated, the black mass undergoes rinsing, drying, and packaging procedure, rendering it ready for shipment to Li Cycle’s recycling partners.
Furthermore, the black mass material is transported to Li Cycle’s “Hub” facility, where a hydrometallurgical processing material occurs. This process facilitates the extraction of various minerals, including graphene, iron, manganese, sodium sulfate, cobalt sulfate, lithium carbonate, and nickel sulfate. With each component successfully isolated, they can be sold or utilized across diverse industries, thus maximizing their value and potential applications.
Presently, Li Cycle is actively pursuing market expansion opportunities beyond the borders of the United States. As part of this endeavor, the company intends to establish centralized headquarters in Europe, commonly referred to as the “Rochester” Hub. This facility is projected to possess the capacity to process approximately 81 thousand tonnes of lithium-ion battery materials while also accommodating an annual black mass processing capacity of 35 thousand tonnes.
Public Policy Aspects
Batteries, as well as EVs and many other electric devices, will come to the EOL which will impose another problem around its waste. Therefore, applying regulation and restricting law enforcement by countries, in addition to multilateral cooperation is needed besides applying solutions on the end user to mitigate the environmental impact of the battery industry. One of the best practices regarding the management of electronic waste is by enforcing Extended Producers Responsibility, a financial incentive strategy coined by the EU in 1990 which places the responsibility of moving the circularity of the generally categorized as Waste from Electrical and Electronic Equipment (e-waste, WEEE), including battery, to the producers themselves which have to comply and make an online report. Recently, the EU reached an agreement on improving the policy which had received critics about burdening the consumer with the product price increment and the difficulty of removing the battery before turning it back to the producers or the third party assigned by the producer [8][10][12]. According to the deal, a carbon footprint declaration and label will be obligatory for EV batteries, LMT batteries, and rechargeable industrial batteries with a capacity above 2kWh. The new regulation also imposes producers to create better designs so that the consumer can replace batteries easier and have better information related to their capacity, performance, durability, and chemical composition, as well as the “separate collection” symbol through labels and QR codes.
This EPR framework has been a role model for other countries’ laws and regulations, especially in China. As the biggest electronics producer country, China reckons their widespread use of lead-acid batteries thus exerts the main focus of early battery regulations due to its toxicity. Later, as LIBs spread, the laws also expanded to cover them. The rules assign duties to build a comprehensive system for managing spent batteries and encompass various LIB manufacture, collection, and recycling elements.
Through the Ministry of Industry and Information Technology, China has introduced measures to restrict unauthorized battery production [5]. The objective is to regulate excessive production capacity and mitigate the environmental consequences of irregular and uncontrolled production practices. Additionally, the Chinese government has strengthened its oversight of waste and pollution generated by the battery industry, reflecting an enhanced commitment to waste management and pollution control. Similar initiatives are also observed in other countries, such as the United States, Canada, Japan, and South Korea, where several measures have been implemented to address the adverse environmental effects. Detailed information regarding these measures is provided in the table below.
The Take
The development of energy storage systems, particularly lithium-ion batteries, plays a crucial role in achieving net-zero emissions. This is essential to accommodate the increasing deployment of both supply decarbonization methods, such as variable renewable energy sources (VREs), and demand decarbonization methods, such as electric vehicles (EVs). However, considering the widespread future utilization of lithium-ion batteries, it becomes paramount to explore their lifecycle costs and environmental impacts and propose effective mitigation strategies.
Based on the findings of impact analyses conducted in the literature review, it has been observed that the extraction phase and end-of-life management of lithium-ion batteries represent significant hotspots in terms of negative environmental impacts. Policies emphasizing responsible extraction practices and energy efficiency in the lithium carbonate lifting process can be considered as potential solutions to reduce the intensity of hotspots during the material extraction phase. Additionally, research focusing on the development of more efficient lithium-ion batteries using sustainable materials and investigating methods to extend their lifespan are crucial factors influencing both end-of-life and operational environmental impacts. Simultaneously, efforts should also be made to promote recycling practices in order to address the current challenges associated with the end-of-life phase of lithium-ion batteries.
However, it is pleasing to witness the emergence of innovations in the business sector that aim to bridge the gap between recycling efforts and end users. These businesses are not only driven by environmental concerns but also benefit from the enabling role of public policy. This can be observed in countries such as China, the European Union (EU), and the United States, where regulations act as facilitators for the emergence of innovative business models focused on battery recycling.
Therefore, considering the aforementioned discussions, the question arises: What is next for Indonesia? Before delving too deeply into the matter, it is imperative to assess the existing reality. Currently, Indonesia’s renewable energy mix stands at a modest 14.5%, with a target of reaching 23% renewable energy by 2025, a goal that must be achieved within the next two years. Hence, Indonesia’s immediate focus should be on addressing this challenge.
However, once this issue is resolved, Indonesia can then shift its attention to other aspects. Presently, in comparison to materials such as nickel, manganese, and cobalt, there have been limited studies or investigations conducted by the government to explore and utilize lithium resources for battery manufacturing in Indonesia. Therefore, explorations related to resources, including brine mining and ore mining, could be pursued under strict governmental supervision to minimize upstream environmental impacts. Additionally, legal frameworks governing recycling, research, and waste disposal standards should be established. These measures would require limiting waste disposal and setting standards specifically for lithium-ion or other battery waste. Furthermore, incentives, research funding, or grants could be provided to individuals and businesses engaged in sustainable battery material production and battery recycling, thereby fostering their growth.
If these measures can be effectively implemented, Indonesia could not only leverage its lithium resources to become a battery or battery component producer country, but it should also ensure that such advantages are not accompanied by negative environmental and societal costs.
Author: Aditya Perdana
Co-Author:
Fauziah Rismawati
Widiartyasari Prihatdini
M. Miftahur Rahman
References :
[1] Alkousaa, R. 2022. Germany’s 2022 Renewable Production Rises but Still behind 2030 Target. https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/germanys-2022-renewable-power-production-rises-still-behind-2030-target-2022-12-11/ . Accessed on 19 June 2023.
[2] Argyrou, M. Christodoulides, P.Kalogirous, S. Energy Storage for Electricity Generation and Related Processes : Technologies Appraisal and Grid Scale Applications.
[3] Ascend. 2023. Product and Services Information. https://ascendelements.com/ . Accessed on 20 June 2023
[5] Bird, R. Baum, Z. Yu, Xiang. Ma, Jia. 2022. The Regulatory Environment for Lithium Ion Battery Recycling. ACS Energy Lett, 22, 7, 736-740.
[6] Bradley, D.C., Stillings, L.L., Jaskula, B.W., Munk, LeeAnn, and McCauley, A.D. 2017. Lithium, chap. K of Schulz, K.J., DeYoung, J.H., Jr., Seal, R.R., II, and Bradley, D.C., eds., Critical mineral resources of the United States—Economic and environmental geology and prospects for future supply: U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 1802, p. K1–K21,
[8] Deutsche Recycling. 2023. Extended Producer Responsibility-We Can Handle that For You and Much More. Extended producer responsibility | Deutsche Recycling GmbH (deutsche-recycling.com) . Accessed on 21 June 2023.
[9] DTSC. 2007. DTSC AB 1125 : Rechargeable Battery Recycling Act Fact Sheet. https://dtsc.ca.gov/ab-1125-rechargeable-battery-recycling-act-fact-sheet/ . Acessed on 20 June 2023.
[10] EU. 2022. Batteries : Deal on New EU Rules for Design, Production and Waste Treatment. https://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/en/press-room/20221205IPR60614/batteries-deal-on-new-eu-rules-for-design-production-and-waste-treatment . Accessed on 20 June 2023.
[11] Fahmi, I. Soelistyo, T. Maulani, M. Afandi, F. Sasongko, N. Yoesgiantoro, D. 2022. Analisis Life Cycle Asessment Baterai pada Kendaraan. Jurnal Patriot Biru Triwulan Ketiga Volume 1 No 3
[12] IEA. EU Directive 2006/66/EC Battery Directive. https://www.iea.org/policies/15684-eu-directive-200666ec-battery-directive . Acessed on 20 June 2023.
[13] IESR. 2022. Enabling Renewable Energy through Lower Cost and Longer Lifetime Battery Storage. Institute for Essential Services Reform. Jakarta
[14] IESR. 2023. Making Energy Transition Succeed : a 2023’s Update on The Levelized Cost of Electricity and Levelized Cost of Storage
[15] International Battery Metals. 2021. The Environmental Impact of Spodumene Mining https://www.ibatterymetals.com/insights/the-environmental-impact-of-spodumene-mining. Acessed on 20 June 2023.
[16] Irena. Indonesian Energy Outlook 2022.Irenational Renewable Energy Agency.Abu Dhabi
[17] Kelly, Jarod C., Wang M. Dai, Q. Winjobi, O. 2021. Energy, greenhouse gas, and water life cycle analysis of lithium carbonate and lithium hydroxide monohydrate from brine and ore resources and their use in lithium ion battery cathodes and lithium ion batteries. Journal of Resources, Conservation and Recycling. Volume 174,
[18] Kengo, Y.2021. South Korea Revises to Promote Recycling of Used Electric Vehicle Batteries. https://enviliance.com/regions/east-asia/kr/report_3592 . Acessed on 20 June 2023.
[19] Lai, X. Chen, C. Tang, X. Zhou, Y. Gao, F. Guo, Y. Bhagat, R. Zheng, Y. 2022. Critical review of life cycle assessment of lithium-ion batteries for electric vehicles: A lifespan perspective. Journal of E Transportation Volume 12 May 2022
[21] Li-Cycle. 2023. Making Lithium Ion Batteries a Circular and Sustainable Product. https://www.redwoodmaterials.com/about/ . Accessed on 20 June 2023.
[22] Perdana, A. 2023. Variable Renewables on The Eyes of Lifecycle Thinking : The Current Reality and Things we Can Improve. https://ailesh.id/article/variable-renewables-on-the-eyes-of-lifecycle-thinking-the-current-reality-and-things-we-can-improve . Acessed on 19th June 2023
[23] Redwood Materials. 2023. About. https://www.redwoodmaterials.com/about/ . Accessed on 20 June 2023.
[25] RPRA. 2016. Resources Recovery and Circular Economy Act, 2016. https://rpra.ca/programs/batteries/ . Accessed on 22 June 2023.
[28] Storage & Transfer Technologies. 2023. Lithium extraction. https://www.sttsystems.com/industries/lithium-extraction/ . Accessed on 20 June 2023.
[33] Wilcox, M. 2023.The Perils of PVC Plastic Pipes. Beyond Plastics, Environmental Health Sciences & Plastic Pollution Coalition Publication
[34] Clare, J. LaMotte, R. 2022. California Passes Two New Laws to Overhaul State’s Battery Extended Producer Responsibility Program and Broadly Expand State’s E-Waste Program. https://www.bdlaw.com/publications/california-passes-two-new-laws-to-overhaul-states-battery-extended-producer-responsibility-program-and-broadly-expand-states-e-waste-program/
Comments