sustainability
Article
GHG Emissions from the Production of Lithium-Ion
Batteries for Electric Vehicles in China
Han Hao, Zhexuan Mu, Shuhua Jiang, Zongwei Liu and Fuquan Zhao *
State Key Laboratory of Automotive Safety and Energy, Tsinghua University, Beijing 100084, China;
[email protected] (H.H.); [email protected] (Z.M.); [email protected] (S.J.);
[email protected] (Z.L.)
* Correspondence: [email protected]; Tel.: +86-10-6279-7400
Academic Editors: Liexun Yang, Peng Zhou and Ning Zhang
Received: 14 January 2017; Accepted: 21 March 2017; Published: 4 April 2017
Abstract: With the mass market penetration of electric vehicles, the Greenhouse Gas (GHG)
emissions associated with lithium-ion battery production has become a major concern. In this
study, by establishing a life cycle assessment framework, GHG emissions from the production of
lithium-ion batteries in China are estimated. The results show that for the three types of most
commonly used lithium-ion batteries, the (LFP) battery, the (NMC) battery and the (LMO) battery,
the GHG emissions from the production of a 28 kWh battery are 3061 kgCO2 -eq, 2912 kgCO2 -eq and
2705 kgCO2 -eq, respectively. This implies around a 30% increase in GHG emissions from vehicle
production compared with conventional vehicles. The productions of cathode materials and wrought
aluminum are the dominating contributors of GHG emissions, together accounting for around three
quarters of total emissions. From the perspective of process energy use, around 40% of total emissions
are associated with electricity use, for which the GHG emissions in China are over two times higher
than the level in the United States. According to our analysis, it is recommended that great efforts
are needed to reduce the GHG emissions from battery production in China, with improving the
production of cathodes as the essential measure.
Keywords: greenhouse gas; life cycle assessment; lithium-ion battery; electric vehicle; China
1. Introduction
In recent years, the great promotion of electric vehicles (EVs) by the Chinese government has
boosted the development of the EV battery industry. Among all sorts of EV batteries, lithium ion
batteries are currently the best sellers on the market due to the advantages of high energy density,
high power density, long service life, and favorable environmental properties compared to lead-acid
batteries and Ni-MH batteries. In 2015, China’s EV battery yield reached 15.45.GWh, up 277.7%
compared to 2014 [1]. This boom for the lithium ion battery industry will surely leave a considerable
burden on the environment.
Vehicle-use lithium ion batteries are currently divided into three categories depending on their
different anodes, i.e., the (LFP) battery, the (NMC) battery, and the (LMO) battery. Among the battery
distribution on the Chinese market in 2015, LFP accounted for 52%, NMC 39%, and LMO 3% (relatively
preferred for Japanese and Korean cars) [2]. At present, domestic research on lithium ion batteries is
primarily focused on performance, falling short of further understanding the environmental impact of
the battery, particularly of the manufacturing process of the battery.
This study focuses on the manufacturing process of vehicle-use lithium ion batteries in China.
Based on the life cycle assessment (LCA) method, it establishes a local model for study of the green
gas (GHG) emissions of vehicle-use lithium ion batteries, reveals the carbon emission strength of all
components in the “Cradle-to-Gate” phase, analyzes the GHG emission reduction potential of all
Sustainability 2017, 9, 504; doi:10.3390/su9040504
www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability
Sustainability 2017, 9, 504
2 of 12
components, and makes a transverse comparison and Sino-US comparison of the GHG emissions of
LFP, NMC, and LMO batteries. In addition, it analyzes the uncertainty of the GHG emission model
based on study results in the existing literature.
2. Overview of Relevant Studies
As the life cycle database has been established and gradually improved, many foreign studies
have adopted LCA for automobiles or accessories. Notter and other foreign scholars have studied
the entire-life environment and energy impacts of LMO batteries [3], giving the mean values of input
and output materials during the production of LMO batteries. Zackrisson et al. have explored
the environmental impact of different binders during the production of LFP batteries based on
experimental data [4], suggesting that it is environmentally preferable to use water as a solvent
instead of N-methyl-2-pyrrolidone, NMP, in the slurry for casting the cathode and anode of lithium-ion
batteries. Majeau-Bettez et al. have studied the environmental and energy impact of LFP and NMC
batteries based on secondary data [5], contributing a public and detailed inventory, which can easily
be adapted to any electricitytrain, along with readily usable environmental performance assessments.
Ellingsen et al. have researched the GHG emissions during the manufacturing process of NMC
batteries based on primary data provided by the battery manufacturers [6], providing us with a
transparent inventory for a lithium-ion nickel-cobalt-manganese traction battery. Dunn et al. from
the Argonne National Laboratory in the U.S. have researched the energy flow and material flow
during the production of all materials of the NMC, LFP, LMO and LCO batteries [7,8], and have
calculated total (full fuel cycle) energy consumption associated with the production of each of the
cathode materials. Other foreign studies on lithium ion batteries include the Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) Amarakoon et al. [9] of the US, who have presented a life-cycle assessment (LCA) study
of lithium-ion (Li-ion) batteries used in electric and plug-in hybrid electric vehicles, Kim et al. [10], who
reported the first cradle-to-gate emissions assessment for a mass-produced battery in a commercial
battery electric vehicle, and Hendrickson et al. [11], whose study combined life-cycle assessment and
geographic information systems(GIS) to analyze the energy, (GHG) emissions, etc. for lithium-ion
batteries in California.
Domestically, Wang Qi from South China University of Technology assessed the environmental
effect and life cycle cost of three lithium battery anode materials (NMC, LMO, and LFP) [12], and
the results show that the environmental benefits of LMO is the highest, with greater environmental
benefits than the LFP and the life cycle environment cost of LFP is the lowest, followed by LMO and
NMC. Lu Qiang from Jilin University analyzed the GHG emissions throughout the entire cycle of LFP
batteries [13], providing us with the values of energy consumption and greenhouse gases emission in
the “cradle to use” stage. Chen Bo from Beijing Institute of Technology assessed the environmental
impact of lithium batteries with such anode materials as NMC, LNM, LFLM, and LFP [14], and the life
cycle environmental impact scores of these batteries were 275 Pt, 129 Pt, 142 Pt and 100 Pt respectively.
Above all, while more foreign studies on the energy and environmental impact of EV batteries
were carried out earlier, the domestic study of this topic still in the initial phases. Additionally, electric
vehicle is becoming a main application field of lithium-ion batteries, whereas there is no specialized
study on these kinds of batteries. As such, this study mainly assesses the environmental impact of the
vehicle-use lithium-ion battery.
3. Research Content and Methods
3.1. Research Framework and System Boundary
Based on the LCA study method, the study process is divided into four parts: Definition of
Target and Scope, Inventory, Impact Assessment, and Results Interpretation. For collection of life cycle
inventory, this study primarily adopts the literary consultation and factory investigation methods
(Figure 1).
Sustainability 2017, 9, 504
3 of 12
Sustainability 2016, 8, x FOR PEER REVIEW
3 of 12
Sustainability 2016, 8, x FOR PEER REVIEW
3 of 12
Figure 1. Study Framework.
Figure 1. Study Framework.
Figure 1. Study Framework.
In the LCA process, the manufacturing process of lithium ion batteries is also called the “CradleIn
the LCA
process,
the manufacturing
of lithium
is exploitation,
also called the
to-Gate”
phase.
The manufacturing
process is process
divided into
the four ion
linksbatteries
of material
In the LCA process, the manufacturing process of lithium ion batteries is also called the “Cradlematerial processing,
part
manufacturing
and battery
manufacturing.
Sincethe
vehicle-use
lithium
ion
“Cradle-to-Gate”
phase.
The
manufacturing
process
is
divided
into
four
links
of material
to-Gate” phase. The manufacturing process is divided into the four links of material exploitation,
batteries
are
not
widely
recycled
in
China
now,
it
is
hard
to
find
data
to
support
the
research.
Thus,
exploitation,
material processing,
part manufacturing
and battery manufacturing.
Since
vehicle-use
material processing,
part manufacturing
and battery manufacturing.
Since vehicle-use
lithium
ion
instead
of an analysis
the GHG
emissions
throughout
entire
life,tothis
studythe
simply
lithium
ion batteries
are notofrecycled
widely
recycled
China
itthe
is
hard
tobattery
find
data
research.
batteries
are not widely
in China in
now,
it is now,
hard to
find
data
to
support
thesupport
research.
Thus,
studies
manufacturing
process
(Figure
2).
Thus,instead
insteadthe
analysis
GHG
emissions
throughout
entire
battery
life, study
this study
simply
ofofanananalysis
of of
thethe
GHG
emissions
throughout
the the
entire
battery
life, this
simply
studies
the manufacturing
process
(Figure2).
2).
studies
the manufacturing
process
(Figure
Figure 2. System Boundary.
Figure 2. System Boundary.
Figure
2. System
Commonly used functional units
for the
energy Boundary.
and environmental impact of batteries include
“per km of travel”, “per kWh of battery”, and “per kg of battery”. A study with “per km of travel” as
Commonly used functional units for the energy and environmental impact of batteries include
the functional
unitfunctional
will always have for
the usage
phase of the
batteries within
its system
boundaries,
Commonly
used
environmental
impact
“per km of travel”,
“per kWh ofunits
battery”, the
and energy
“per kg and
of battery”.
A study with
“per of
kmbatteries
of travel”include
as
which
can
intuitively
embody
the
usage
features
of
the
battery,
and
facilitate
the
comparison
with
“per km
of travel”,unit
“per
kWh
of battery”,
and “per
battery”.
study
“per
km of
travel”
the functional
will
always
have the usage
phasekgofof
the
batteries A
within
itswith
system
boundaries,
other energy-driven cars in terms of energy and environmental impact. Since this study focuses on
can intuitively
usage
of theof
battery,
and facilitate
theitscomparison
with
as thewhich
functional
unit willembody
alwaysthe
have
the features
usage phase
the batteries
within
system boundaries,
the manufacturing process of the battery, it is more intuitive and accurate to select “per kWh of
other
cars in terms
of energy
and environmental
impact.
Since thisthe
study
focuses on with
which
canenergy-driven
intuitively embody
the usage
features
of the battery,
and facilitate
comparison
battery” as the functional unit. The index used for assessment of GHG emissions in this study is the
the
manufacturing
process
of
the
battery,
it
is
more
intuitive
and
accurate
to
select
“per
kWh of
other emission
energy-driven
carsdioxide
in terms
of energy and
impact.
Since
thisofstudy
focuses
the
of carbon
as equivalent
to theenvironmental
energy production
of each
kWh
battery
(kgCOon
2battery” as the functional unit. The index used for assessment of GHG emissions in this study is the
manufacturing
process
of
the
battery,
it
is
more
intuitive
and
accurate
to
select
“per
kWh
of
battery”
as
eq/kWh).
emission of carbon dioxide as equivalent to the energy production of each kWh of battery (kgCO2the functional unit. The index used for assessment of GHG emissions in this study is the emission of
eq/kWh).
3.2.dioxide
Calculation
Method
carbon
as equivalent
to the energy production of each kWh of battery (kgCO2 -eq/kWh).
3.2. Calculation
Methodof GHG emissions includes two parts, the GHG emissions from the “raw
The calculation
material exploitation, material processing, and parts manufacturing” process of all
The calculation of GHG emissions includes two parts, the GHG emissions from the “raw
components/materials
(Formula
(1)),includes
and the GHGparts,
emissions
from emissions
the single cell production
and
The
calculation
of GHG
emissions
the GHG
the “raw
material
exploitation,
material
processing,twoand
parts
manufacturing” from
process
of material
all
assembly
process
(Formula
(2)).
As
most
emissions
during
the
battery
manufacturing
process
come
exploitation,
material
processing,
and
parts
manufacturing”
process
of
all
components/materials
components/materials (Formula (1)), and the GHG emissions from the single cell production and
from combustion, we need to know the energy and material input of each process, as well as the
assembly
(Formula
As most emissions
battery
manufacturing
process come
(Formula
(1)),process
and the
GHG(2)).
emissions
from theduring
singlethe
cell
production
and assembly
process
process energy consumed by this process, and substitute the GHG emission factor for the process
from (2)).
combustion,
need to know
thethe
energy
and manufacturing
material input ofprocess
each process,
wellcombustion,
as the
(Formula
As mostweemissions
during
battery
come as
from
energy, so as to work out the GHG emissions. It should be noted that while GHG emissions
process
energy
by material
this process,
and
the GHG
emission
factor for
the process
we need
to know
theconsumed
energy
and
input
of substitute
each
well
as be
theneglected
process
energy
consumed
originating
from
non-combustion
are not
shown
in theprocess,
formula,asthey
can
if they are
too
energy,
so
as
to
work
out
the
GHG
emissions.
It
should
be
noted
that
while
GHG
emissions
by this
process, and substitute the GHG emission factor for the process energy, so as to work out the
small.
originating from non-combustion are not shown in the formula, they can be neglected if they are too
GHG emissions. It should be noted that while GHG emissions originating from non-combustion are
small.
𝐶𝐸𝑀𝑃 = ∑𝑖 ∑𝑗 𝐸𝐹𝑗 · ∑𝑘 𝐸𝐶𝑖,𝑗,𝑘 ,
(1)
3.2. Calculation Method
not shown in the formula, they can be neglected if they are too small.
𝐶𝐸𝑀𝑃 = ∑𝑖 ∑𝑗 𝐸𝐹𝑗 · ∑𝑘 𝐸𝐶𝑖,𝑗,𝑘 ,
CE MP =
∑i ∑ j EFj ·∑k ECi,j,k ,
CEBP = CE MP + CEBA ,
(1)
(1)
(2)
Sustainability 2017, 9, 504
4 of 12
wherein, i refers to the material, j to the energy, and k to the process (to the GHG emissions of each
component/material, to the GHG emissions from the single cell production and assembly process,
and to the GHG emissions during the battery manufacturing process).
3.3. Establishment of Battery Model
For battery modeling, this study adopts the BatPac Model of the Argonne National Laboratory
of the US. For the battery capacity option, investigation of the EV market in mainland China in 2015
and 2016 and relevant literature revealed that the capacity of lithium ion batteries carried by purely
electric vehicles normally ranges between 20 kWh and 30 kWh [15]. With reference to the GREET-2015
Model (The Greenhouse Gases, Regulated Emissions, and Energy Use in Transportation Model of the
Argonne National Laboratory ), as total battery capacity of 28 kWh comparatively conforms to the
current technical mainstream, 28 kWh is presumed as the total battery capacity in this study.
The BatPac Model and GREET-2015 Model of the Argonne National Laboratory are adopted
because (i) they are relatively reliable due to their summarization of research findings of
Majeau-Bettez et al. [12], and Notter et al. [10], to establish a rather complete assessment chain for a
car’s life cycle; and (ii) it’s easy to compare the GHG emissions calculated by local data in the Chinese
market with that of the Laboratory (Table 1).
Table 1. Setup of Lithium Ion Battery Parameters.
Battery Type
LFP
NMC
LMO
Rated Capacity (kWh)
Battery Weight (kg)
Battery’s Energy Density (Wh/kg)
Qty. of Battery Cells
28
230
122
100
28
170
165
96
28
210
133
96
The mass fraction of each material/component of the three lithium ion batteries fitted through the
BatPac Model is shown in Table 2. Among all of these, the anode active materials take up the biggest
share, respectively 24.4%, 28.2%, and 33.6% for LFP, NMC, and LMO batteries. Wrought aluminum
then follows. Aluminum is also heavily used in the batteries, including the anode current collector,
anode tab, aluminum plastic film of battery cell, battery package, and module shell. Plastics include
PP, PT and PET, used in the membrane and aluminum plastic film.
Table 2. Battery Mass Composition.
Battery Components
LFP
NMC
LMO
Anode Active Materials
Graphite
Binder
Copper
Wrought aluminum
Electrolyte: LiPF6
Electrolyte: EC
Electrolyte: DMC
Plastic: PP
Plastic: PT
Plastic: PET
Steel
Fiberglass
Coolant: Glycol
Battery Management System(BMS)
24.4%
15.2%
2.1%
12.4%
20.3%
2.7%
7.8%
7.8%
1.9%
0.3%
1.3%
1.5%
0.3%
1.0%
1.0%
28.2%
18.3%
2.4%
11.4%
19.7%
1.9%
5.4%
5.4%
1.7%
0.3%
1.2%
1.4%
0.4%
1.0%
1.3%
33.6%
14.7%
2.5%
10.9%
18.7%
1.9%
5.4%
5.4%
1.7%
0.3%
1.2%
1.4%
0.3%
0.9%
1.1%
Sustainability 2017, 9, 504
5 of 12
3.4. Data Localization
The most important step in establishing the local model for GHG emission of lithium ion batteries
in China is to localize the database. Energy consumption or carbon emission data of each process is
shown in Table 3.
Table 3. Source of Energy Consumption/Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emission Data of the Battery
Manufacturing Process.
Material
Data Source
Anode Active Material (LFP, NMC, LMO)
Graphite
[12]
Carbonization
[16]
Graphitization
GREET-2015
Production of Copper Ingot
[17]
Brushing
[18]
Production of Aluminum Ingot
[19]
Binder
GREET-2015
Copper
Wrought aluminum
Punching (Cold Rolling)
GREET-2015
Extruding
GREET-2015
Electrolyte: LiPF6, EC, DMC
GREET-2015
Plastic: PP, PT, PET
GREET-2015
Steel
[20]
Glass fiber
GREET-2015
Coolant: Glycol
GREET-2015
Battery Management System
GREET-2015
Single Cell Production and Battery Assembly
[13]
Note: When the data come from GREET-2015 (The Greenhouse Gases, Regulated Emissions, and Energy Use
in Transportation Model of the Argonne National Laboratory), the energy consumption data adopt those in
GREET-2015, and the GHG emission factor of the energy is localized.
Since many production processes and technologies are still under research and development
amid the rapid development of the lithium ion battery industry, most enterprises are reluctant to
disclose their primary data for process details and energy consumption of the production process.
The study on energy consumption of the manufacturing process of anode active materials mostly
relies upon the process flow, coupled with the physical and chemical parameters of the material.
By presumption of the production equipment, reaction temperature and finished product yield,
it estimates the thermal consumption of the reaction process. Representative studies include those
carried out by Majeau-Bettez et al. [5], and Dunn et al. [7].
The data from the study on the whole-life environmental impact of anode materials
(LiMn2 O4 , LiNi1/3 Co1/3 Mn1/3 O2 and LiFePO4 ) based on LCA method as carried out by Wang Qi
from South China University of Technology in 2012 primarily come from the China Energy Statistical
Yearbook [12]. As it directly refers to the research of Majeau-Bettez et al., it is relatively compliant with
China’s current production reality [5]. Due to the difficulty in gaining first-hand data on the anode
materials, the data on GHG emissions during the exploitation, transportation, and production process
in this study all originate from Wang’s study (Table 4).
Table 4. GHG Emissions of Three Anode Materials* [12].
Material
Raw Material
Exploitation
Raw Material
Transportation
Anode Material
Production
LiMn2 O4
LiNi1/3 Co1/3 Mn1/3 O2
LiFePO4
11,600
18,200
13,200
796
522
1130
7200
18,100
12,100
* Unit: kgCO2 /t-Anode Material.
Sustainability 2016, 8, x FOR PEER REVIEW
6 of 12
Sustainability 2017, 9, 504
6 of 12
Graphite is chiefly used in the cathode material of the battery. Graphite in this study is presumed
to be artificial, which undergoes the carbonization and graphitization phases during the
manufacturing
dataof
come
from the
GHG emission
data is
during
Graphite isprocess.
chiefly While
used inthe
thecarbonization
cathode material
the battery.
Graphite
in this study
presumed
carbon
cathodewhich
production
in the carbonization
aluminum industry,
the energyphases
consumption
data
of the
to be artificial,
undergoes
and graphitization
during the
manufacturing
graphitization
process
originate fromdata
GREET-2015.
process. While
the carbonization
come from the GHG emission data during carbon cathode
production in the aluminum industry, the energy consumption data of the graphitization process
3.5. GHG Emission Factor of Process Energy
originate from GREET-2015.
Commonly seen GHG emission factors of process energy are shown in Table 5, which have all
3.5. GHG
Emission
of Process
Energy
been
localized,
withFactor
the data
source listed
in the table below.
Commonly seen GHG emission factors of process energy are shown in Table 5, which have all
Table 5. Commonly Seen GHG Emission Factors in China.
been localized, with the data source listed in the table below.
GHG Emission Factor
Data Source
Table
5. Commonly
GHG Emission Factors in China.
(g-CO
2/MJ, g-CO2Seen
/kWh)
Coal
94.8
Chen Yisong, 2014 [21]
GHG834.5
Emission Factor
Electricity
NBSC, 2016 [22], Ma Cuimei, et al., 2014 [23]
Data Source
Process Energy
(g-CO263.5
/MJ, g-CO2 /kWh)
Natural Gas
Chen Yisong, 2014 [21]
Coke 1
105.9
NDRC,
[24];
IPCC,
Coal
94.8
Chen 2014
Yisong,
2014
[21] 2006 [25]
Electricity
834.5
NBSC, 2016 [22],
MaYisong,
Cuimei,2014
et al.,[21]
2014 [23]
Residual Oil
89.3
Chen
Chen
Yisong,
20142014
[21][21]
GasolineNatural Gas
82.063.5
Chen
Yisong,
1
105.9
NDRC, Chen
2014 [24];
IPCC,
2006[21]
[25]
Diesel Coke
79.9
Yisong,
2014
Residual
Oil
89.3
Chen Yisong, 2014 [21]
1
COG
44.4
IPCC, 2006 [25]
Gasoline
82.0
Chen Yisong, 2014 [21]
BFG1
260.0
IPCC, 2006
Diesel
79.9
Chen Yisong,
2014 [25]
[21]
1
1 Coke, LPG and
44.4 the production of coke. Although
IPCC, 2006IPCC
[25] only specifies
COG
BFG
are generated during
1
260.0could be used for the wholeIPCC,
2006 [25]
BFG
emission factors
during the use phase, they
life cycle.
Process Energy
1
Coke, LPG and BFG are generated during the production of coke. Although IPCC only specifies emission factors
during the
use phase,
they
could be used for the whole life cycle.
4. Research
Findings
and
Discussion
4. Research
Findings
and Discussion
4.1.
GHG Emissions
Calculation
Result
UsingEmissions
the data above,
Formula
(1) and Formula (2), we calculated that the production of a rated
4.1. GHG
Calculation
Result
capacity of 28 kWh of LFP, NMC, and LMO vehicle-use lithium ion batteries respectively leads to
Using2-eq,
the data
Formula
(1) and
Formula
(2), we
calculated
thatthe
thesame
production
a rated
3061 kgCO
2912 above,
kgCO2-eq,
and 2705
kgCO
2-eq of GHG
emissions.
With
capacity,ofthe
capacity ofof28LMO
kWh
of LFP,results
NMC,inand
LMO lower
vehicle-use
lithium ion
batteries
respectively
leads to
production
batteries
relatively
GHG emissions,
while
LFP and
NMC batteries,
3061 kgCO
-eq,
2912
kgCO
-eq,
and
2705
kgCO
-eq
of
GHG
emissions.
With
the
same
capacity,
the
taking
the largest
share
in
the
Chinese
market,
generate
basically
the
same
amount
of
GHG
emissions.
2
2
2
production
of
LMO
batteries
results
in
relatively
lower
GHG
emissions,
while
LFP
and
NMC
batteries,
Anode active materials take up the greatest share of the contribution to GHG emissions made by all
components
of theshare
battery,
respectively
48.4%, 60.7%
andbasically
51.1%; followed
wrought
taking the largest
in the
Chinese market,
generate
the samebyamount
of aluminum,
GHG emissions.
respectively
26.2%,
19.7%,take
andup
24.9%
Anode active
materials
the (Figure
greatest3).share of the contribution to GHG emissions made by all
components of the battery, respectively 48.4%, 60.7% and 51.1%; followed by wrought aluminum,
respectively 26.2%, 19.7%, and 24.9% (Figure 3).
1.20E+02
Battery cell production and assembly
Others
kgCO2-eq per battery
1.00E+02
BMS
8.00E+01
Plastic products
Electrolyte
6.00E+01
Forging aluminum
Copper
4.00E+01
Binder
2.00E+01
Graphite
Anode active material
0.00E+00
LFP_China
NCM_China
LMO_China
Figure 3. Comparison of GHG Emission Strengths of the Manufacturing of Three Commonly Used
Lithium Ion Batteries.
Sustainability 2016, 8, x FOR PEER REVIEW
7 of 12
Figure 3. Comparison of GHG Emission Strengths of the Manufacturing of Three Commonly Used
Sustainability
2017,
9, Batteries.
504
Lithium
Ion
7 of 12
What do such high GHG emissions mean? The manufacturing process of a traditional car will
What do such high GHG emissions mean? The manufacturing process of a traditional car will
emit about 9 t of GHG [20], while LFP batteries emit nearly 3 t. Carrying the 28 kWh LFP battery will
emit about 9 t of GHG [20], while LFP batteries emit nearly 3 t. Carrying the 28 kWh LFP battery will
increase the GHG emission of the whole car manufacturing process by 30%. While the car consumes
increase the GHG emission of the whole car manufacturing process by 30%. While the car consumes
electricity throughout the entire use phase and GHG emissions in the manufacturing process account
electricity throughout the entire use phase and GHG emissions in the manufacturing process account
for merely 5% of the whole life cycle, only a limited impact is left for GHG emissions from the battery
for merely 5% of the whole life cycle, only a limited impact is left for GHG emissions from the battery
manufacturing process on the total life cycle.
manufacturing process on the total life cycle.
4.2.Comparison
ComparisonofofGHG
GHGEmissions
Emissionsbetween
betweenChinese
Chineseand
andAmerican
AmericanLithium
LithiumIon
IonBatteries
Batteries
4.2.
The data
data on
onAmerican
American batteries
batteries come
come from
from the
the GREET-2015
GREET-2015 Model
Model of
ofthe
theArgonne
ArgonneNational
National
The
Laboratory. Generally
Generally speaking,
speaking, GHG
GHG emissions
emissions during
during the
the manufacturing
manufacturing process
process of
of Chinese
Chinese LFP,
LFP,
Laboratory.
NMC,
and
LMO
batteries
are
respectively
3,
2.8
and
2.9
times
greater
than
those
of
their
American
NMC, and LMO batteries are respectively 3, 2.8 and 2.9 times greater than those of their American
counterparts. Anode
Anode active
active materials
materials and
and wrought
wrought aluminum
aluminum are
are the
the main
main causes
causes of
of the
the differences.
differences.
counterparts.
Due
to
complexity
of
the
process
and
uncertainty
of
the
data,
the
GHG
emissions
in
production
of
Due to complexity of the process and uncertainty of the data, the GHG emissions in production of
anode
materials
show
an
apparent
difference
with
those
in
the
U.S.
The
second
biggest
contribution
anode materials show an apparent difference with those in the U.S. The second biggest contribution
fromwrought
wroughtaluminum,
aluminum,particularly
particularlyin
inChina.
China. As
AsChina’s
China’s average
average electrical
electrical structure
structure leads
leads to
to
isisfrom
higher
GHG
emission
factors
and
aluminum
production
consumes
a
considerable
amount
of
higher GHG emission factors and aluminum production consumes a considerable amount of electricity,
a remarkable
amount
of GHG(Figure
emissions
itelectricity,
generatesita generates
remarkable
amount of GHG
emissions
4). (Figure 4).
120
kgCO2-eq per kWh battery
100
80
60
40
20
0
LFP_China
LFP_USA
NCM_China NCM_USA
Anode active material
Binder
Forging aluminum
Plastic product
Others
LMO_China
LMO_USA
Graphite
Copper
Electrolyte
BMS
Battery cell production and assembly
Figure
Figure4.4.Comparison
Comparisonof
ofGHG
GHGEmissions
Emissionsby
byChinese
Chineseand
andAmerican
AmericanLithium
LithiumIon
IonBatteries.
Batteries.
4.3.
4.3.Exploration
ExplorationofofGHG
GHGEmission
EmissionReduction
ReductionPotential
Potential
Because
BecauseChina’s
China’s electricity
electricityfeatures
featureshigher
higherGHG
GHGemission
emissionfactors,
factors,different
differentelectrical
electricalproduction
production
structures
structures lead
lead to
togreatly
greatlyvarying
varyingGHG
GHGemission
emissionfactors
factorsinindifferent
differentprovinces.
provinces. Therefore,
Therefore, GHG
GHG
emissions
emissions caused
caused by
by electricity
electricity consumption
consumption are
areseparated.
separated. GHG
GHG emissions
emissions due
due to
to electrical
electrical
consumption
consumption during
during the
the manufacturing
manufacturing of
of LFP,
LFP, NMC,
NMC, and
andLMO
LMObatteries
batteriesrespectively
respectively account
account for
for
46.1%, 35.2%,
35.2%, and
and 43.8%
43.8% of
of the
thetotal
totalGHG
GHGemissions.
emissions. Though
Though GHG
GHG emissions
emissions due
due to
to electricity
electricity
46.1%,
consumptiontake
takeupup
a considerable
share,
an optimized
electricity
production
structure
could
consumption
a considerable
share,
an optimized
electricity
production
structure
could greatly
greatlythe
impact
GHG emissions
of batteries
(Figure 5).
impact
GHGthe
emissions
of batteries
(Figure 5).
Sustainability
2017, 9,
504
Sustainability
Sustainability 2016,
2016, 8,
8, xx FOR
FOR PEER
PEER REVIEW
REVIEW
8 of
12
8 of
of 12
12
100.00%
100.00%
90.00%
90.00%
80.00%
80.00%
70.00%
70.00%
60.00%
60.00%
50.00%
50.00%
40.00%
40.00%
30.00%
30.00%
20.00%
20.00%
10.00%
10.00%
0.00%
0.00%
LFP_China
LFP_China
GHG Emissions from Electricity Consumption
GHG Emissions from Electricity Consumption
NCM_China
NCM_China
LMO_China
LMO_China
GHG Emissions not from Electricity Consumption
GHG Emissions not from Electricity Consumption
Electricity
Consumption.
Figure
Figure5.
5. Proportion
Proportion of
ofGHG
GHGEmissions
Emissionsfrom
fromElectricity
ElectricityConsumption.
Consumption.
We
have
explored
the
GHG
emissions
reduction
potential
battery
components.
Figure
We
ofof
allall
battery
components.
InIn
Figure
6,
Wehave
haveexplored
exploredthe
theGHG
GHGemissions
emissionsreduction
reductionpotential
potential
of
all
battery
components.
In
Figure
6,
different
colors
of
circles
refer
to
different
battery
components
and
their
sizes
according
to
their
different
colors
of of
circles
refer
to to
different
battery
6, different
colors
circles
refer
different
batterycomponents
componentsand
andtheir
theirsizes
sizesaccording
accordingto
to their
their
respective
GHG
emissions
of
aa unit
of
respective
mass
fractions. While
Whilethe
thetransverse
transversecoordinates
coordinatesstand
standfor
forthe
the
GHG
emissions
a unit
respective mass
mass fractions.
While
the
transverse
coordinates
stand
for
the
GHG
emissions
ofof
unit
of
mass
of
the
battery
component,
rising
from
left
to
right,
the
horizontal
coordinates
signify
the
of
mass
thebattery
batterycomponent,
component,rising
risingfrom
fromleft
left to
to right,
right, the horizontal coordinates
mass
ofofthe
coordinates signify
signify the
the
proportion
of
GHG
emissions
due
to
electricity
consumption
of
each
component,
rising
from
bottom
proportion
proportionof
ofGHG
GHGemissions
emissionsdue
dueto
toelectricity
electricityconsumption
consumptionof
ofeach
eachcomponent,
component,rising
risingfrom
frombottom
bottom
to
top.
The
bigger
the
circle
and
the
further
the
position
is
toward
the
upper
right,
the
higher
the
to
to top.
top. The
The bigger
bigger the
the circle
circle and
and the
the further
further the
the position
position is
is toward
toward the
the upper
upper right,
right, the
the higher
higher the
the
component’s
GHG
emissions
reduction
potential.
It
is
obvious
that
wrought
aluminum
has
component’s
reduction
potential.
It is It
obvious
that wrought
aluminum
has the highest
component’sGHG
GHGemissions
emissions
reduction
potential.
is obvious
that wrought
aluminum
has the
the
highest
potential
of
GHG
emissions
reduction.
Though
positioned
at
the
upper
right,
the
battery
potential
of
GHG
emissions
reduction.
Though
positioned
at
the
upper
right,
the
battery
management
highest potential of GHG emissions reduction. Though positioned at the upper right, the battery
management
(BMS)
and
account
for
aa small
fraction.
Though
showing
system
(BMS)system
and LiPF6
account
for a small
mass
Though
showing
a rather
high alevel
of
management
system
(BMS)
and LiPF6
LiPF6
account
for fraction.
small mass
mass
fraction.
Though
showing
a rather
rather
high
level
of
GHG
emissions,
the
three
anode
active
materials
currently
carry
a
low
potential
for
GHG
emissions,
the
three anode
materials
currently
carry
a low carry
potential
forpotential
GHG emissions
high level
of GHG
emissions,
the active
three anode
active
materials
currently
a low
for GHG
GHG
emissions
reduction
due
limited
GHG
emissions
reduction
to the limited
GHG
emissions
the during
manufacturing
process. process.
emissionsdue
reduction
due to
to the
the
limited
GHGduring
emissions
during the
the manufacturing
manufacturing
process.
Figure
Components.
Figure6.6. GHG
GHG Emissions
Emissions Reduction
ReductionPotential
Potential of
ofDifferent
DifferentBattery
BatteryComponents.
Components.
4.4.
4.4. Result
Result Comparison
Comparisonand
andDiscussion
Discussion
As
recent
years,
studies
Aslithium
lithiumion
ionbatteries
batteries have
have been
been widely
widely used
used in
in the
theEV
EVindustry
industry only
only in
inrecent
recentyears,
years,studies
studies
on
GHG
emissions
during
the
battery
manufacturing
process
vary
greatly.
While
research
findings
GHG
emissions
during
the
battery
manufacturing
process
vary
greatly.
findings
on GHG emissions during the battery manufacturing process vary greatly. While research findings
from
of
theliterature
literatureare
arelisted
listedin
Table
comparison
is intuitively
shown
in Figure
7.
6,
the
comparison
is
shown
in
7.
from some
some of
of the
the
literature
are
listed
ininTable
Table
6, 6,
thethe
comparison
is intuitively
intuitively
shown
in Figure
Figure
7. The
The
The
difference
in such
studies
primarily
comes
the uncertainty
the battery
structure
and
the
difference
in
studies
primarily
comes
from
the
of
structure
and
GHG
difference
in such
such
studies
primarily
comes
fromfrom
the uncertainty
uncertainty
of the
theofbattery
battery
structure
and the
the
GHG
emissions
in
the
assembly
process.
While
the
difference
of
physical
batteries
and
battery
models
emissions in the assembly process. While the difference of physical batteries and battery models is
is
Sustainability
2017,
9, 504
Sustainability
2016,
8, x FOR PEER REVIEW
9 of
9 of
12 12
inevitable in different studies, only the gradually improving battery standardization can reduce this
GHG emissions in the assembly process. While the difference of physical batteries and battery models
uncertainty. The difference in research findings due to different production processes and channels
is inevitable
in different
studies,
the gradually
improving
battery standardization
can reduce
this
of data acquisition
during
theonly
battery
cell production
and assembly
process is also worth
deeper
uncertainty.
The
difference
exploration
in the
future. in research findings due to different production processes and channels
of data acquisition during the battery cell production and assembly process is also worth deeper
exploration in the future.
Table 6. Summary of Literature Research Findings.
GHG Emission (kgCO2-eq/kWh Battery)
Battery Cell
Reference
Battery Type
Capacity
Material/Part
Mass (kg)
Production
Total
(kWh)
Production
GHG
Emission (kgCO
Battery)
2 -eq/kWh
and
Assembly
Battery
Battery
Battery Cell
Notter
et al. (2010) [3]
300
34.2
51
2
53
Battery LMO
Type
Capacity
Reference
Material/Part
Mass (kg)
Production53and
Total
(kWh)Majeau-Bettez et al. (2011) [5]
NMC
143
196
Production
Assembly
Majeau-Bettez et al. (2011) [5]
LFP
177
69
246
Notter
et
al.
(2010)
[3]
LMO
300
34.2
51
2 1.9
5363.4
EPA (2013) [9]
LMO
61.5
Majeau-Bettez et al. (2011) [5]
NMC
143
53
196
EPA (2013) [9]
NMC
86.7
34.3
121
Majeau-Bettez et al. (2011) [5]
LFP
177
69
246
EPA
(2013)
[9]
LFP
90.8
60.2
EPA (2013) [9]
LMO
61.5
1.9
63.4151
Ellingsen
et al. [9]
(2014) [6]
NMC
EPA (2013)
NMC
- 253
- 26.6
86.765
34.3107
121172
EPA
[9] [10]
LFP + NMC
- 303
- 24
90.870
60.2 70
151140
Kim
et (2013)
al. (2016)
LMO
Ellingsen et al. (2014) [6]
NMC
253
26.6
65
107
172
GREET-2015
LFP
230
28
34.6
1.9
36.5
Kim et al. (2016) [10]
LMO + NMC
303
24
70
70
140
GREET-2015
NMC
170
28
35
1.9
36.9
GREET-2015
LFP
230
28
34.6
1.9
36.5
GREET-2015
LMO
32.9
GREET-2015
NMC
170 210
28 28
35 31
1.9 1.9
36.9
GREET-2015
LMOLFP
210 230
28 28
31103.8
1.9 5.5
32.9
This Study
109.3
This
LFPNMC
230 170
28 28
103.8
5.5 4.1
109.3
ThisStudy
Study
99.9
104
This Study
NMC
170
28
99.9
4.1
104
This Study
LMO
210
28
91.5
5.1
96.6
Table 6. Summary ofBattery
Literature Battery
Research Findings.
This Study
LMO
210
28
91.5
100
150
5.1
96.6
This Study-LMO
This Study-NCM
This Study-LFP
GREET-2015-LMO
GREET-2015-NCM
GREET-2015-LFP
Kim et al.(2016)-LMO+NCM
Ellingsen et al.(2014)-NCM
EPA(2013)-LFP
EPA(2013)-NCM
EPA(2013)-LMO
Majeau-Bettez et al.(2011)-LFP
Majeau-Bettez et al.(2011)-NCM
Notter et al.(2010)-LMO
0
50
200
250
kgCO2-eq per kWh battery
Material/component production
Battery cell production and assembly
Figure
Findings.
Figure7.7.Comparison
Comparisonamong
among Research
Research Findings.
research,
anodeactive
activematerials
materials make
make the
the largest
largest contribution,
In In
thisthis
research,
anode
contribution,far
farlarger
largerthan
thanother
other
components,
GHGemissions.
emissions. Due
Due to
to limited
limited local
components,
to toGHG
local data
data acquisition
acquisitionininthe
theChinese
Chinesemarket,
market,
uncertainty
theGHG
GHGemissions
emissions of
of anode
must
be be
considered.
Multiplying
by theby
uncertainty
of of
the
anodeactive
activematerials
materials
must
considered.
Multiplying
uncertainty factors of 0.8, 1.0 and 1.2, the GHG emissions of the three batteries show great changes.
the uncertainty factors of 0.8, 1.0 and 1.2, the GHG emissions of the three batteries show great changes.
As discussed above, there is the issue of uncertainty in the calculation of the GHG emissions.
As discussed above, there is the issue of uncertainty in the calculation of the GHG emissions.
The uncertainties arise from several sources. For example, the BatPac Model, which reflects the U.S.
The uncertainties arise from several sources. For example, the BatPac Model, which reflects the U.S.
condition, is adopted to calculate battery mass composition in China. There is a certain deviation
Sustainability 2016, 8, x FOR PEER REVIEW
Sustainability 2017, 9, 504
10 of 12
10 of 12
condition, is adopted to calculate battery mass composition in China. There is a certain deviation
between
models
establishedrespectively
respectivelyin
in U.S.
U.S. and
and China.
China. We
between
thethe
models
established
We also
alsoneglected
neglectedsome
sometiny
tinyGHG
GHG
emission
contributors
such
as
non-combustion
emissions.
Although
the
issue
of
uncertainty
issue
emission contributors such as non-combustion emissions. Although the issue of uncertainty issue
is is
not
not
quantitatively
addressed
in
this
study,
the
comparison
of
the
results
from
different
studies
in
quantitatively addressed in this study, the comparison of the results from different studies in Figure 7
Figure 7 and the parametric analysis in Figure 8 can show some general implications for the
and the parametric analysis in Figure 8 can show some general implications for the uncertainties.
uncertainties. The issue of uncertainty could be further explored in future study.
The issue of uncertainty could be further explored in future study.
LMO_China
NCM_China
LFP_China
0.0
500.0
1000.0
1500.0
1.2
2000.0
1
2500.0
3000.0
3500.0
4000.0
0.8
Figure
8. 8.Parametric
Active Materials.
Materials.
Figure
ParametricAnalysis
Analysisof
of Anode
Anode Active
5. Summary
and
Prospects
5. Summary
and
Prospects
This
study
focused
ononthe
ofLFP,
LFP,NMC,
NMC,and
andLMO
LMO
This
study
focused
theGHG
GHGemissions
emissionsduring
during the
the manufacturing
manufacturing of
batteries,
and
established
a
GHG
emissions
model
for
lithium
ion
batteries
in
the
Chinese
market
asas
batteries, and established a GHG emissions model for lithium ion batteries in the Chinese market
based
LCA
method.As
Asshown
shownininthe
thestudy
study findings,
findings, production
and
based
on on
thethe
LCA
method.
productionof
of28
28kWh
kWhofofLFP,
LFP,NMC,
NMC,
and
LMO
batteries
in China
results
in the
respective
GHG
emissions
of 3061
kgCO
2-eq,
2912
kgCO
2-eq,
LMO
batteries
in China
results
in the
respective
GHG
emissions
of 3061
kgCO
-eq,
2912
kgCO
-eq,
and
2
2
and
2705
kgCO
2
-eq,
with
LMO
batteries
emitting
the
least.
Carrying
the
28
kWh
LFP
battery
will
2705 kgCO2 -eq, with LMO batteries emitting the least. Carrying the 28 kWh LFP battery will increase
the GHGof
emissions
of car
the manufacturing
whole car manufacturing
by 30%.
the car consumes
theincrease
GHG emissions
the whole
process byprocess
30%. While
theWhile
car consumes
electricity
electricity
throughout
the
entire
use
phase
and
GHG
emissions
in
the
manufacturing
processfor
account
throughout the entire use phase and GHG emissions in the manufacturing process account
merely
for
merely
5%
of
the
whole
life
cycle,
the
impact
of
GHG
emissions
in
the
battery
manufacturing
5% of the whole life cycle, the impact of GHG emissions in the battery manufacturing process is
process is not significant on the total life cycle. By battery composition, anode active materials and
not significant on the total life cycle. By battery composition, anode active materials and wrought
wrought aluminum make the greatest contribution to the GHG emissions, while by process energy,
aluminum make the greatest contribution to the GHG emissions, while by process energy, GHG
GHG emissions from electricity consumption take up a larger share. Chiefly due to China’s higher
emissions from electricity consumption take up a larger share. Chiefly due to China’s higher GHG
GHG emission factor and production of anode active materials, GHG emissions from the
emission factor and production of anode active materials, GHG emissions from the manufacturing of
manufacturing of lithium ion batteries in China are some three times greater than those in the U.S.
lithium
batteriesof
inthe
China
areemissions
some three
times greater
than
those
in the
U.S. Fromimplemented
exploration of
Fromion
exploration
GHG
reduction
potential
of all
battery
components
thein
GHG
emissions
reduction
potential
of
all
battery
components
implemented
in
this
study,
this study, improving the electricity production structure and optimizing the productionimproving
process
theof
electricity
production
structure
and optimizing
theGHG
production
process
of anode
active materials
anode active
materials
can significantly
lower the
emissions
during
the manufacturing
of
canlithium
significantly
lower in
theChina.
GHGAdditionally,
emissions during
the manufacturing
of lithium
batteries
in China.
ion batteries
the uncertainty
in battery models
andion
data
was compared
Additionally,
theinuncertainty
battery models
and dataliterature.
was compared
andand
analyzed
the
study in
and analyzed
the study inin
combination
with relevant
Recycling
reuse ofinthe
batteries
combination
with relevant
literature.
Recycling
and reuse
the batteries
was not
discussed
in this
was not discussed
in this study,
and will
be considered
in aoffuture
study. Battery
materials
specified
study,
andstudy
will be
in this
areconsidered
disposable.in a future study. Battery materials specified in this study are disposable.
Acknowledgments:
This
study
wassponsored
sponsoredby
bythe
theNational
National Natural
Natural Science
(71403142,
Acknowledgments:
This
study
was
ScienceFoundation
FoundationofofChina
China
(71403142,
71690241,
71572093),
the
Beijing
Natural
Science
Foundation
(9162008),
and
the
State
Key
Laboratory
71690241, 71572093), the Beijing Natural Science Foundation (9162008), and the State Key Laboratoryof of
Automotive
Safety
and
Energy
(ZZ2016-024).
Automotive
Safety
and
Energy
(ZZ2016-024).
Author
Contributions:
Han
Hao,Zongwei
ZongweiLiu
Liuand
andFuquan
Fuquan Zhao
Zhao designed
designed the
and
Author
Contributions:
Han
Hao,
the whole
wholestudy;
study;Han
HanHao
Hao
and
Shuhua
Jiang
conducted
data
collection,
ZhexuanMu
Murefined
refinedthe
theanalysis
analysis
based
Shuhua
Jiang
conducted
data
collection,modeling,
modeling,and
andresults
results analysis;
analysis; Zhexuan
based
on previous
work;
Zhexuan
Mu,
Shuhua
on previous
work;
Zhexuan
Mu,
ShuhuaJiang
Jiangand
andHan
HanHao
Haowrote
wrote the
the paper.
paper.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest. The founding sponsors had no role in the design
of the study; in the collection, analyses, or interpretation of data; in the writing of the manuscript, and in the
decision to publish the results.
Sustainability 2017, 9, 504
11 of 12
References
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
China Automotive Technology Research Center; Beijing National Energy Information Technology Co., Ltd.;
Energy Saving and New Energy Automobile Yearbook Office (Eds.) 2015 Energy Saving and New Energy
Automotive Industry Yearbook; China Economic Publishing House: Beijing, China, 2015.
China Automotive Industry Association; China Automotive Technology Research Center; Toyota Auto Body
Co. (Eds.) Annual Report on the Development of China’s Automobile Industry; Social Sciences Academic Press:
Beijing, China, 2016.
Notter, D.A.; Gauch, M.; Widmer, R.; Wager, P.; Stamp, A.; Zah, R.; Althaus, H.J. Contribution of Li-ion
batteries to the environmental impact of electric vehicles. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2010, 44, 6550–6556.
[CrossRef] [PubMed]
Zackrisson, M.; Avellán, L.; Orlenius, J. Life cycle assessment of lithium-ion batteries for plug-in hybrid
electric vehicles—Critical issues. J. Clean. Prod. 2010, 18, 1519–1529. [CrossRef]
Majeau-Bettez, G.; Hawkins, T.R.; Strømman, A.H. Life cycle environmental assessment of lithium-ion and
nickel metal hydride batteries for plug-in hybrid and battery electric vehicles. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2011, 45,
4548–4554. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Ellingsen, L.A.W.; Majeau-Bettez, G.; Singh, B.; Srivastava, A.K.; Valøen, L.O.; Strømman, A.H. Life cycle
assessment of a lithium-ion battery vehicle pack. J. Ind. Ecol. 2014, 18, 113–124. [CrossRef]
Dunn, J.B.; James, C.; Gaines, L.G.; Gallagher, K.; Dai, Q.; Kelly, J.C. Material and Energy Flows in the Production
of Cathode and Anode Materials for Lithium Ion Batteries; Argonne National Laboratory (ANL): Argonne, IL,
USA, 2014.
Dunn, J.B.; Gaines, L.; Barnes, M.; Wang, M.; Sullivan, J. Material and Energy Flows in the Materials Production,
Assembly, and End-of-Life Stages of the Automotive Lithium-Ion Battery Life Cycle; Argonne National Laboratory
(ANL): Lemont, IL, USA, 2012.
Amarakoon, S.; Smith, J.; Segal, B. Application of Life-Cycle Assessment to Nanoscale Technology:
Lithium-Ion Batteries for Electric Vehicles. Available online: https://trid.trb.org/view.aspx?id=1300236
(accessed on 22 March 2017).
Kim, H.C.; Wallington, T.J.; Arsenault, R.; Bae, C.; Ahn, S.; Lee, J. Cradle-to-Gate Emissions from
a Commercial Electric Vehicle Li-Ion Battery: A Comparative Analysis. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2016, 50,
7715–7722. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Hendrickson, T.P.; Kavvada, O.; Shah, N.; Sathre, R.; Scown, C.D. Life-cycle implications and supply chain
logistics of electric vehicle battery recycling in California. Environ. Res. 2015. [CrossRef]
Wang, Q. Comparative Analysis of Cathode Materials Based on Life Cycle Assessment. Ph.D. Dissertation,
South China University of Technology, Guangzhou, China, 2012.
Lu, Q. Life Cycle Analysis and Evaluation of Electric Vehicle Battery. Ph.D. Dissertation, Jilin University,
Changchun, China, 2014.
Bo, C. Synthesis and Environmental Analysis of Lithium Ion Battery Materials Based on Life Cycle
Assessment. Ph.D. Dissertation, Beijing Institute of Technology, Beijing, China, 2015.
Zhang, J.; Lu, L.; Li, Z. Key Technologies and Fundamental Academic Issues for Traction Battery Systems.
Auto. Saf. Energy 2012, 2, 87–104.
IAI. Primary Aluminum Production. Available online: http://www.world-aluminium.org/statistics
(accessed on 20 March 2016).
Zeng, G.; Yang, J.; Song, X. Analysis of Copper Smelting Energy Consumption and Carbon Emission
Scenarios Based on the Life Cycle Perspective. China Popul. Resour. Environ. 2012, 22, 46–50.
Sullivan, J.L.; Burnham, A.; Wang, M. Energy-Consumption and Carbon-Emission Analysis of Vehicle and
Component Manufacturing; Argonne National Laboratory (ANL): Lemont, IL, USA, 2010.
Hao, H.; Geng, Y.; Hang, W. GHG Emissions from Primary Aluminum Production in China: Regional
Disparity and Policy Implications. Appl. Energy 2015, 166, 264–272. [CrossRef]
Hao, H.; Qiao, Q.; Liu, Z.; Zhao, F.; Chen, Y. Comparing the Life Cycle CO2 Emissions from Vehicle
Production in China and the US: Implications for Targeting the Reduction Opportunities. Clean. Technol.
Environ. Policy 2016. [CrossRef]
Chen, Z. Life Cycle Ecological Benefit Evaluation of Automobile Parts. Ph.D. Dissertation, Hunan University,
Changsha, China, 2014; pp. 42–48.
Sustainability 2017, 9, 504
22.
23.
24.
25.
12 of 12
National Bureau of Statistics of China. Annual Provincial Electricity Generation. Available online:
http://data.stats.gov.cn/easyquery.htm?cn=C01 (accessed on 30 March 2016).
Ma, C.; Li, S.; Ge, Q. Research on greenhouse gas emission factors of provincial electricity grid. Resou. Sci.
2014, 5, 1005–1012.
National Development and Reform Commission. Low Carbon Development and Provincial Greenhouse
Gas Inventory Preparation Training Materials. Available online: http://qhs.ndrc.gov.cn/gzdt/201403/
t20140328_604827.html (accessed on 20 March 2016).
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas
Inventories. Available online: http://www.ipcc-nggip.iges.or.jp/public/2006gl (accessed on 20 March 2016).
© 2017 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access
article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution
(CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).