materials

Article
Comparative Life Cycle Assessment of a Novel Al-Ion
and a Li-Ion Battery for Stationary Applications
Mario Amin Salgado Delgado 1, *, Lorenzo Usai 1 , Qiaoyan Pan 2 and Anders Hammer Strømman 1
1 Industrial Ecology Program, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, E1-Høgskoleringen 5,
7491 Trondheim, Norway; [email protected] (L.U.); [email protected] (A.H.S.)
2 ACCUREC Recycling GmbH, Bataverstraße 21, DE-47809 Krefeld, Germany; [email protected]
* Correspondence: [email protected]; Tel.: +47-967-06-674




Received: 8 August 2019; Accepted: 27 September 2019; Published: 8 October 2019


Abstract: The foreseen high penetration of fluctuant renewable energy sources, such as wind and
solar, will cause an increased need for batteries to store the energy produced and not instantaneously
consumed. Due to the high production cost and significant environmental impacts associated with
the production of lithium-ion nickel-manganese-cobalt (Li-ion NMC) batteries, several chemistries are
proposed as a potential substitute. This study aims to identify and compare the lifecycle environmental
impacts springing from a novel Al-ion battery, with the current state-of-the-art chemistry, i.e., Li-ion
NMC. The global warming potential (GWP) indicator was selected to express the results due to
its relevance to society, policy and to facilitate the comparison of our results with other research.
The cradle-to-grave process-based assessment uses two functional units: (1) per-cell manufactured
and (2) per-Wh of storage capacity. The results identified the battery’s production as the highest
carbon intensity phase, being the energy usage the main contributor to GWP. In general, the materials
and process involved in the manufacturing and recycling of the novel battery achieve a lower
environmental impact in comparison to the Li-ion technology. However, due to the Al-ion’s low
energy density, a higher amount of materials are needed to deliver equivalent performance than
a Li-ion.

Keywords: industrial ecology; life cycle assessment; aluminium-ion; lithium-ion; cradle-to-grave;

stationary battery; decentralized energy systems

1. Introduction
To mitigate climate change, modern society must face dramatic shifts in its socioeconomic
metabolism, being an energy transition at the core of this change. As an example, the International
Energy Agency forecasts that in 2040 between 8000 and 14,000 TWh of final electricity demand could be
provided by wind and solar photovoltaic (PV) sources [1]. Since wind and solar energy are intermittent,
electrochemical energy storage is emerging as an option to develop decentralized electricity generation
systems [2].
Currently, a wide spectrum of chemistries can be potentially used in stationary applications,
offering consequently, different environmental impacts associated with their intrinsic features and
lifecycle phases [3]. This is the case of sodium, magnesium or calcium-ion chemistries which are
promising technologies due to their appalling abundancy that is essential for large-scale penetration of
stationary batteries [4–6]. Moreover, Li-ion technology remains the preferred choice due to its high
energy density, decent cycle life and the possibility of operating safely at high voltages [7,8]. However,
supply risks, high production costs and considerable environmental impacts represent a major concern
for stakeholders and policymakers [9].

Materials 2019, 12, 3270; doi:10.3390/ma12193270 www.mdpi.com/journal/materials

Materials 2019, 12, 3270 2 of 14

The study presented here is part of the European ALION project, which aims to develop
a rechargeable high specific energy Aluminium-ion (Al-ion) battery for decentralized electricity
applications. In the context of sustainability, this work had the objective of performing a full and
comprehensive life cycle assessment (LCA) to frame potential benefits and pitfalls of a novel Al-ion
battery in comparison with the existing preferred Li-ion chemistry. In line with this goal, Section 2 briefly
summarizes the most relevant findings and characteristics of previous environmental assessments
on batteries for stationary applications and enhances the importance of our work as the first LCA on
Al-ion batteries. Section 3 explains the method, the system modelled, and the inventory compiled.
The results are presented and discussed in Section 4 and finally, in Section 5 the conclusions and key
recommendations are presented to ensure the sustainable development of the novel battery.

2. State of Knowledge
In recent years, the environmental impacts associated with the production, use and disposal of
batteries have been broadly assessed [10–19]. However, the research has mainly focused on mobility
applications [20]. After a deep literature review, this study found that only a few studies estimate the
environmental performance of batteries in stationary systems and that no research has been performed
to assess the environmental performance of an Al-ion battery. Hence, in this section, the state of
knowledge of LCA studies of batteries focused on the aforementioned application is briefly presented.
One of the first cradle-to-grave studies about stationary storage systems was performed by
Longo et al. [21] who estimated the potential impacts of a sodium/nickel chloride battery in a
photovoltaic system. The authors used as a functional unit one battery of the defined technology.
Their results showed that the manufacturing phase is the greatest environmental impact contributor,
accounting for more than 60% of the total impacts. The authors concluded that such impact could
decrease if the battery’s manufacturing process becomes more energy-efficient and if the energy
inputs in this phase rely on renewable sources. Later, Hiremath et al. [3] estimated the cumulative
energy demand and global warming potential (GWP) of four stationary battery technologies (Li-ion,
lead-acid, sodium-sulphur and vanadium-redox-flow), in seven different applications and modelling
three different types of power sources (German distribution grid, solar, solar-wind-mix). The study
was performed from a comparative life cycle assessment perspective and the functional unit set was
one megawatt-hour of electricity delivery. Due to lack of data, the authors decided to ignore the
end-of-life (EoL) phase. For all the analysed batteries, the results highlighted that when the power
source is other than renewable, the use phase dominates the environmental impacts. In addition,
the authors emphasized the need for deploying batteries with higher Coulombic efficiency, similar to
Li-ion’s technology. Recently, Vandepaer et al. [22] assessed the environmental performance of a novel
lithium metal polymer (LMP) battery and compared it with Li-ion battery through the LCA framework.
The cradle-to-grave assessment encompasses 15 impact categories and models two scenarios: One
where the storage capacity is 6 MWh in a centralized application; and a second with 75 kWh capacity
for a distributed grid configuration. Similar to the findings of Longo et al. [21], it was found that
the manufacturing phase has the highest carbon intensity. In terms of GWP and ozone depletion,
the Li-ion battery registered higher contributions. Finally, Vandepaer et al. concluded that when a
battery application is in centralized system configurations, the environmental impact is relatively
smaller than in distributed systems with more but smaller (energy content-wise) units. Simultaneously,
Peters and Weil [23] exanimated for the first time the potential environmental impact of an aqueous
hybrid ion battery (AHIB) under a detailed prospective LCA framework. That study compared the
AHIB with two different chemistries (lithium-ion and sodium-ion) in two scenarios: (1) a hypothetical
residential PV application and (2) a hypothetical island microgrid composed by PV and a diesel-based
power generation system. The comparison was done in a mass and energy capacity basis (i.e., kg and
kWh). Peters and Weil found that the environmental performance of the AHIB is poorer for GWP and
ozone depletion due to higher internal inefficiencies, which are important factors when the energy
source is from fossil fuels. Finally, the authors of that study enhanced the importance of the functional
Materials 2019, 12, 3270 3 of 14

unit applied. For example, on a mass basis, it was proven that AHIB has a lower impact in four out of
six of the impact categories covered.
To date, the research on the environmental impact of batteries in stationary applications has not
been deployed on a large scale. Furthermore, the environmental characterization of Al-ion technology
has never been performed. This study addresses this research gap by performing a comparative LCA
based on primary data from both laboratory and commercial scales of a novel Al-ion chemistry for
stationary applications.

3. Methods and Data

LCA is an environmental accounting and management approach that takes into account, from
a holistic perspective, the relevant flows associated with the life cycle stages of a good or service
and translates them into relevant potential environmental impacts [24–26]. This study performed
a process-based LCA to estimate the environmental characterization of the novel Al-ion battery.
To assess the environmental performance of the novel technology, Li-ion chemistry was chosen as
a reference. The assessment was carried out from a cradle-to-grave perspective using the ReCiPe
v1.1 framework [27] and partners from the ALION consortium contributed with valuable primary
data about raw materials usage, manufacturing steps, the use phase and recycling processes of the
novel battery. For the reference chemistry, in-house primary data was used. The associated upstream
processes and emissions were backed with ecoinvent 3.2 database [28]. This study presents the results
in GWP terms due to their relevance to society, policy and to facilitate the comparison of the results
with other research. However, numerical results for other seven impact categories are available in the
Supplementary Materials (SM), Section 2.

3.1. Functional Unit

The functional unit (FU) represents the reference used to measure the environmental performance
of the system under assessment and in combination with the choice of the impact categories. It is
a fundamental step of the goal and scope definition on an LCA. Furthermore, the functional unit
must ensure the comparability of the results with other similar systems [13]. This study chose to
express the results in two FUs. First, using a per-Wh of storage capacity basis, in order to capture the
relative performance of the technology as was done by Majeau-Bettez, Hawkins, and Strømman [13];
Ellingsen et al. [10]; Hiremath et al. [3]; Kim et al. [12] and Peters and Weil [23]. Second, a per-cell
basis was chosen, showing the potential benefits of the novel chemistry throughout the entire life
cycle of one cell. This type of functional unit has been recorded in similar studies such as Bauer [17];
Ellingsen et al. [10]; Peters and Weil [24] and Zackrisson, Avellán, and Orlenius [16]. It should be
mentioned that the novel cell is in a low technology readiness level (TRL) and its energy performance
is still well below compared to the state-of-the-art Li-ion chemistry. Therefore, it is considered that
the use of both FUs brings a fair and impartial comparison of the environmental performance of both
chemistries from two different perspectives.

3.2. Battery Modelling and Inventory Compilation

The inventory compilation was time and data-intensive. Each lifecycle phase assessed required
assumptions because the novel chemistry was produced on a laboratory scale and further compared
with an already established technology. Therefore, using data from Ellingsen et al. [10] and following
the guidelines provided by Piccinno and colleagues [29], it was possible to estimate the likely energy
intensity and to scale up the production of small quantities of the chemicals used for the novel
cell production. Thus, using primary data provided by ALION consortium members, the novel
technology could be modelled. Specifically, for the production phase, ALION partners provided the
bill of materials for the Al-ion 18650-cell manufacturing and data on the production pathway of the
electrolyte. Moreover, the production of the ionic liquid used as electrolyte required an extensive
literature review in order to spot the production pathway that could be used for its conversion into a life
Materials 2019, 12, 3270 4 of 14

cycle inventory. Regarding the use phase, a scenario was assumed where the cell was coupled to a PV
system. This consideration is in alignment with the research performed by our partner, the University
of Southampton, who had the task of estimating the performance of the Al-ion chemistry. Finally,
for the EoL ACCUREC designed a novel recycling process to treat spent Al-ion batteries. It should
further be mentioned that to test the recycling of Al-ion batteries, ACCUREC performed experiments
on a lab-scale. Therefore, the data used for the LCA comparison was scaled-up to an industrial process
based on ACCUREC’s own expertise. All the lifecycle phases modelled consider the electricity required
for heating and by the machinery used (modelled as a mass of steel). Furthermore, it considers the
chemicals and materials consumed. Thus, the novel battery modelled for this study has a total weight
of 29.3 g, specific energy of 9 Wh/kg and can last up to 5000 cycles at a depth of discharge of 80% across
the entire lifetime of the battery. The nominal operating voltage is of 2V and has a nominal capacity of
300 mAh. Following, the main assumptions undertaken for the three life cycle phases assessed are
presented. The detailed first- and second-tier inventories together with more specific assumptions are
available in the SM, Section 1 from Tables S1–S11.

3.2.1. Cell Manufacturing

The production phase covers the five main elements that make up a 18650-cell type. These are an
anode, cathode, cell canister, separator and electrolyte. Since most of the cells nowadays are produced
in East Asia, the South Korean electricity mix was assumed as an energy input to the cell production
phase [10]. Regarding the energy intensity, the same inputs used to model the Li-ion cell’s production
was used as a reference. However, there is a noticeable difference between the manufacturing of the
electrodes for the two battery technologies. This is, the production of a Li-ion battery requires the
preparation and the coating of the slurry onto the current collectors which is an energy-intensive
process. According to manufacturers, this stage can contribute to approximately 27% of the total
energy consumption in the assembly phase. Therefore, since the novel chemistry does not use this
process, a corresponding reduction was implemented into the compiled inventories. Section 1 of the
SM provides a more detailed description of the manufacturing process (Figure S2). Below, Figure 1
schematizes the main processes and elements comprised in the production of the Al-ion battery.

Figure 1. Production process of an Al-ion 18650 battery. The rhombuses represent the unit operations.
The grey boxes illustrate the background datasets which are based on secondary data and the white
boxes show the foreground datasets which are compiled from primary sources.

By design, the anode is the lightest component of the Al-ion cell, contributing to 9wt% of its
total weight. This electrode is made of pure aluminium 3000 series. This means that its aluminium
content is at least 97.8% [30]. The cathode represents 15wt% of the total cell’s weight and was modelled
as pyrolytic graphite and a small amount (4wt%) of binders. For the separator, ALION partners
carried out several tests to find the optimal material to act as a separator. From the different materials
Materials 2019, 12, 3270 5 of 14

tested, the polyacrylonitrile was chosen as the material that meets most of the requirements with
good mechanical properties. This component was modelled as 95% of acrylonitrile and 5% of methyl
methacrylate and shares 14wt% of the cell’s weight. The corresponded energy consumption for its
preparation and subsequent electrospinning were also considered [31]. The cell canister accounts for
29wt% of the cell’s weight, and it is made of chromium steel, like most of the 18650-cells currently
on the market. Finally, the electrolyte is the heaviest component, accounting for 34wt% of the
cell’s weight. Throughout the project, various ionic liquids were investigated for their potential
application as an electrolyte. Among those, [EMIM][TFSI]:AlCl3 was identified as the most promising
in regards to the cycle life of the battery and the reversibility of aluminium intercalation chemistry [32].
The electrolyte used is a mixture of EMIM[TFSI] and aluminium chloride (AlCl3). To model AlCl3
production, background data was used from the ecoinvent 3.5 database and for the production of
EMIM[TFSI], primary data provided by ALION partners was combined with data from previous
publications [33–35]. Furthermore, the fragmentary data required different assumptions. For example,
trifluoromethanesulfonic acid - triflic acid – (TFSA) is considered as a proxy instead of TFSI. Furthermore,
chloride was assumed as the halogen used to stimulate the anion exchange between EMI and TFSI.
Lastly, where minor data was missing throughout the synthesis of the electrolyte, this study opted to
utilize generic processes contained in ecoinvent 3.5 database. Figure 2 and Figure S1 show the material
composition for Al-ion chemistry.

Figure 2. Material composition of the Al-ion 18650 battery. Weight-wise, the electrolyte is the main
component accounting for the 34 wt % of the cell’s weigh. The housing shares 29 wt %, the cathode
15 wt %, the separator 14 wt % and the anode 9 wt %.3.2.2. Use Phase.

For this phase, we account the potential environmental impacts stemming from the extra electrical
energy needed to cover charge and discharge losses [16]. Moreover, the Coulombic efficiency of the
novel chemistry strongly depends on the charge/discharge rate applied. According to Holland et al. [36],
the Coulombic efficiency of Al-ion technology can oscillate between 85% to 100%. This study decided
to base the assumptions on the research made by the University of Southampton. Furthermore,
Lin et al. [37] pointed out that the Al-ion cell has a Coulombic efficiency of 98% and reaches 7500 cycles.
Nonetheless, the authors mentioned that such efficiency is theoretical. For this reason and due to
Materials 2019, 12, 3270 6 of 14

the slight differences in the chemical composition between chemistries, a conservative value of 95%
Coulombic efficiency and a cyclability of 5000 was used. Regarding the reference technology, a 95%
Coulombic efficiency and a cyclability of 3000 [10] was used. Finally, to calculate the impacts related to
the use phase, this study assumed that the cells are used in a stationary application where the energy
supplied is produced by a PV installation with 3 kW as peak capacity.

3.2.2. End-of-Life Phase

The last life cycle of a cradle-to-grave study is the EoL treatment of the product. For this phase,
ACCUREC designed a novel process to treat spent Al-ion batteries. Due to the controversy regarding
the allocation of impacts from the recycling process, the environmental profile obtained only covers
the energy, materials and machinery needed for the materials’ recovery. Hence, the eventual disposal
or reuse of the materials were not included within the system boundaries of this study. Figure 3
illustrates the recycling process along with its main phases. In short, the process consists of three main
operations plus one cleaning system: discharging, vacuum shredding; the low-temperature heating
process (VS+LTH); the mechanical separation; and an off-gas cleaning system. The four recycling
stages modelled for this study are explained below.

Figure 3. Flowchart of the novel Al-ion recycling process. The rhombuses represent the unit operations
and the boxes represent the materials separated.

To minimize the risk in transportation, storage and subsequent shredding treatment, the first step
within the recycling process is to ensure the full discharging of the batteries. In this stage, the cell
units are immersed in an electrically conductive solution (e.g., brine) for two weeks. Following this,
the spent batteries enter the VS + LTH process. The shredding process runs under vacuum conditions
to avoid air emissions from the electrolyte and to minimize the risk of fire. Afterwards, an LTH process,
operating at 100 ◦ C–400 ◦ C, takes place in order to separate the electrolyte and separator. The off-gas
cleaning system is an auxiliary process and primarily directed at capturing the emissions generated
during the heat treatment. The system is equipped with an adsorbent to reduce the air emissions of
particulate matter, odours and volatile organic compounds. When the adsorbent is saturated, it is sent
to a proper facility to be reactivated or be used as secondary fuel.
The next stage is to separate the rest of the materials into individual fractions. In this step, a
mechanical separation combined unit separates the coarse fraction via a first sieving process. To increase
the separation efficiency, these materials are milled and sieved again before using a magnet to attract the
magnetically susceptible material, i.e., the cell canister. In the two sieving processes, it is expected that
the fine fraction recovered is composed of the cathode material, i.e., pyrolytic graphite (PG). Due to the
presence of impurities, the PG is planned to have a second life as a reducing agent in pyrometallurgy
processes. Finally, the aluminium and the steel are sent to smelters to produce secondary metals.
The EoL process is explained more profoundly in SM Section 1.1.2 and Figure S3.
Materials 2019, 12, 3270 7 of 14

3.3. Reference Technology

Among the large variety of chemistries available for the Li-ion technology,
the (Ni0.45Co0.45Mn0.1)O2 , or NMC, chemistry was selected because of its wide use. In addition,
NTNU counts with a unique and high-resolution primary data of the production phase of this
chemistry [11,38,39]. Although the Li-ion cell’s inventory is from a traction battery, it is considered a
suitable proxy to represent a competitive technology in stationary applications. In particular, the idea
of using traction batteries in their second life as part of stationary energy storage systems [40–42] has
attracted attention. The material composition of the reference cell is steel for the cell canister, propylene
for the separator, a mix of lithium hexafluorophosphate (LiPF6) and organic solvents as the electrolyte,
coated aluminium and NMC for the cathode and coated copper for the anode. Both electrodes were
modelled with their corresponded binders’ mixtures. Thus, the reference battery modelled has a total
weight of 43 g, which is 14.1 g heavier than the novel technology. This is attributed to the higher
amount of materials used in the anode and cathode. The specific energy is assumed to be 125 Wh/kg
with a lifetime of 5000 cycles and the nominal capacity 1.5 Ah [37,38].
To model the lifecycle of the Li-ion chemistry, the manufacturing phase was assumed to require
33.4 kWh per kg of batteries produced [37] and that their assembly occurred in South Korea [10].
For the use phase, the charge/discharge efficiency of 95% was considered and that it operated in the
same PV system conditions assumed for the novel battery. The EoL stage was modelled using primary
data provided by our partner, ACCUREC, and was based on a generic recycling process currently in
use to treat spent Li-ion batteries. Similarly, to the Al-ion recycling phase model, for the Li-ion, only
the energy and materials requirements by the process were covered, and the potential environmental
benefits were left out of the system boundaries of the second life of the recycled materials. Section 1.2
of the SM provide a deeper description of the reference battery (Figure S4), its manufacturing and
EoL processes (Figures S5 and S6), and breakdowns the first two levels of the inventory compiled to
simulate its environmental performance (Tables S13–S24)

4. Results and Discussion

4.1. Cradle-to-Gate
Figure 4 presents the potential impacts, in GWP terms, due to the production of Al-ion and Li-ion
chemistries. The figure breakdowns the cells’ material composition and their absolute contribution to
the GWP indicator for both functional units. On a per-cell basis, a clear advantage is observed for the
Al-ion battery over the Li-ion.
The main benefits can be attributed to three factors: (1) The absence of copper and NMC paste
in the Al-ion battery and the use of lower carbon-intensive materials such as graphite; (2) fewer
material requirements in terms of weight; (3) the electrodes of the Al-ion cells are not coated. These
processes typically occur in dry room conditions, such as coating, calendering and stacking which
are avoided and result in a reduction of 30% of the energy intensity. Moreover, a per-energy content
approach shows that due to the low energy density of the Al-ion cell, its environmental performance is
substantially poorer. In this case, the Al-ion battery has an impact 12 times larger than the reference
cell. Hence, this shows that in an energy content basis, the impacts are inversely proportional to the
energy density of the battery. This is under an energy content approach: The higher the energy density
of the cell, the lower the environmental impacts per energy unit.
In general, the production phase model demonstrates that, regardless of the technology or the
functional unit, the assembly process (displayed in green) is the greatest contributor to greenhouse
gasses (GHG) emissions due to the high carbon-intensive electricity mix used in the process. The results
for the other seven impact categories can be found in the SM, Section 2.
Materials 2019, 12, 3270 8 of 14

Figure 4. Breakdown of 18650-cell’s material composition and their absolute contribution to the global
warming potential (GWP). Regardless of the functional unit or chemistry, the manufacturing process
is the largest contributor to the GWP. On a per-cell basis, the Al-ion cell has a superior performance
mainly because of the lack of copper in the anode. Its total contribution is about 0.7 kg of CO2 −eq , while
the Li-ion battery has a total contribution of 1.3 kg of CO2 −eq . However, when the functional unit is
based on energy content, the picture changes due to the low energy density of the Al-ion battery. Thus,
in a per-watt-hour stored capacity basis, the Al-ion cell potentially has a footprint of 2.6 kg of CO2 −eq ,
while the Li-ion battery barely contributes, with 0.25 kg of CO2 −eq .

For the use phase, our model estimates that the equivalent carbon emissions caused by the PV
system and the internal inefficiencies of the novel Al-ion battery are approximately 0.008 kg of CO2 −eq
while for the Li-ion, it is estimated to be 0.098 kg of CO2 −eq . The potential impacts of the Li-ion’s use
phase are more significant due to the substantial difference in a lifetime and because of its greater
energy density which entails greater losses. In general, the use of a PV system has high relevance to
keep the use phase with a low carbon footprint. As a demonstration, Hiremath et al. [3] found that the
use stage of batteries can dominate their life cycle impacts when other than renewable energy sources
are used.
It should be considered that these results are in function of the modelling method chosen. Indeed,
for this life cycle stage, only the cycling efficiency losses were used which due to the low energy content
of the Al-ion cell, it led to a lower carbon footprint. Thus, it is expected that in the future, as the Al-ion
energy content increases, the footprint stemming from the use phase will increase. Nevertheless, given
the high charge/discharge efficiency and its high cyclability, it can be expected that the novel technology
would be competitive with some of the current technologies used for stationary applications, including
environmental performance terms. Numerical values of the batteries’ production phase for eight
impact categories can be found in Table S25 and Figure S7.

4.1.1. Influence of the Energy Source

As technology develops and evolves, the energy intensity associated with the production and its
embodied carbon emissions is expected to decrease, leading to reduced pressure on the environment.
Considering these two aspects, the undertaken sensitivity analysis explores the influence of the energy
source on the environmental impacts embodied in the production of the batteries. The sensitivity
analysis covers two scenarios: (1) Baseline scenario: The cells’ manufacturing features the same
Materials 2019, 12, 3270 9 of 14

conditions as were modelled in this study; and (2) Clean production scenario: The assembly of both
chemistries uses 100% PV energy.
Figure 5 shows the sensitivity analysis results for the GWP impact category for both chemistries.
On a per-cell basis, the results show that the use of PV energy in the assembly process would drop
carbon emissions from 0.7 to 0.26 kg CO2 −eq for the Al-ion chemistry and from 1.3 to 0.43 kg CO2 −eq
for the Li-ion during the manufacturing phase. This means that in both scenarios, the production
of one Al-ion cell is less carbon-intensive than the Li-ion cell. However, on an energy storage basis,
the production of Li-ion cells has a significantly lower carbon footprint compared to the Al-ion
chemistry. Indeed, the clean production of 1 Wh storage capacity would fall from 2.6 to 0.96 kg CO2 −eq
in the case of the Al-ion cell, while for the reference cell, it would drop from 0.25 to only 0.09 kg CO2 −eq .

Figure 5. 18650-cell’s sensitivity analysis. The baseline scenarios are based on the current environmental
contribution of each chemistry for the corresponding functional unit. The clean production scenario
assumes that the source of the energy used in the manufacturing phase is solar photovoltaic (PV).
According to the simulation, Li-ion cells can cut 67% of their carbon footprint, while the Al-ion battery
could reduce 64% of their GWP contribution.

In short, the sensitivity analysis displays the potential benefits of using renewable energies in the
assembly stage. Furthermore, given the environmental friendliness of the energy source, the assembly
phase becomes less carbon-intensive relevant in the cell’s lifecycle, bringing the materials’ refinery and
the electrolyte synthesis as more relevant stages in carbon emissions terms.

4.1.2. Influence of the Data Resolution

Throughout the study, the energy intensity was identified as the most uncertain value. Furthermore,
the results found that the energy consumption throughout the manufacturing phase is the most
impactful factor for the environmental profile of the cells. In addition, in the literature, a wide spectrum
of energy intensities was assumed for the production phase of batteries. Thus, a sensitivity analysis was
performed regarding the energy intensity required for the manufacturing phase to test the robustness
of the results in response to the influence of the energy source and to reduce the ambiguity of the
study. Thus, the uncertainty analysis explores how the results could be affected by the differences in
the energy intensity supplied. For this analysis, three different scenarios were compared. The first
scenario undertakes the current energy intensity of the Li-ion cell production (34 kWh/kg). The second
scenario considers a 30% reduction in energy usage in relation to Li-ion production. This assumption
is based on the absence of a dry room in the manufacturing process which is the same energy intensity
used to model the novel cell production. Finally, the third scenario assumes that improvements within
Materials 2019, 12, 3270 10 of 14

the manufacturing phase exhibit a substantial reduction to 10 kWh/kg. Hence, with the three different
energy intensities assumed, the GHG impacts are framed within a reasonable spectrum.
Figure 6 shows the absolute contribution to the GWP by the two chemistries in each of the three
scenarios modelled and for both functional units. Since the energy usage alternatives were modelled
only for the batteries’ assembly, the environmental impact from the components manufacturing were
the same for all the scenarios (bars tagged as Al-/Li-ion [Materials]). The results suggest that on a
per-Wh of energy storage basis, the production of the Al-ion cells cannot compete with the reference
cells, not even in the lowest energy intensity scenario. On a per-cell basis, the picture is favourable
for the Al-ion chemistry. That is, substantial carbon savings are found for all three scenarios due to
the lower carbon footprint of its components and lower energy usage for the manufacturing of one
cell. The simulation illustrates that the impacts are directly proportional to the energy intensity of the
manufacturing process and the importance of the correlation of the energy storage capacity per cell
with a lower environmental impact.

Figure 6. 18650-cell’s uncertainty analysis. Three scenarios are modelled: the first scenario undertakes
the current energy intensity of the Li-ion cell production (34 kWh/kg). The second scenario considers a
30% reduction in energy usage in relation to Li-ion production (24 kWh/hr). The third scenario assumes
that improvements within the manufacturing phase exhibit a substantial reduction to 10 kWh/kg.
The results emphasize the importance and relevance of the cells’ manufacturing energy efficiency and
their direct correlation with the GWP contribution.4.2. Recycling Footprint

Figure 7a presents the contribution of each of the Al-ion recycling phases to the total carbon
equivalent emissions. Analogously, Figure 7b breakdowns the Li-ion’s recycling stages and their
corresponded input to the GWP indicator. Similar to the environmental profile obtained in the
production phase, the Al-ion cell has a better environmental performance on a per-cell basis while
the Li-ion surpasses the novel technology in a per-Wh of energy stored basis. For the Al-ion cell,
the breakdown of the impact shows that the main contributor to GHG emissions is the VS + LHTP stage,
which contributes to 43% of the total carbon emissions. Its significant contribution can be attributed
to the operation of a vacuum room, which is highly energy-intensive. The off-gas cleaning process
is the second most important contributor and represents 34% of the carbon emissions. Its impacts
are allocated to upstream activities related to the production of the active carbon used to filter the
Materials 2019, 12, 3270 11 of 14

organic compounds from the thermal process. For the Li-ion’s recycling process, the pyrometallurgical
operations are the major contributor causing 61% of the total emissions due to the high energy
requirements. The second most intensive stage of this chemistry is the discharging stage, which
contributes to 20% of the carbon emissions. Its carbon loads are assigned to a large amount of brine
used in the process.

Figure 7. Comparison of the GWP contribution by the Al-ion’s (a) and Li-ion’s (b) recycling processes.
Figure (a) shows the Al-ion recycling process with the total impact of 0.0107 kg of CO2 −eq in a cell
basis and 0.0395 kg of CO2 −eq in a storage capacity basis. The main contributor, in this case, is the
vacuum-shredding + LTHP. Figure (b) presents the Li-ion recycling process. This process performs
poorer in comparison with the Al-ion recycling process due to pyrometallurgical operations. In this
case, the total GWP contribution was estimated to be 0.0114 kg of CO2 −eq in a cell basis and 0.002 kg of
CO2 −eq in a storage capacity basis.

Essentially, the novel recycling process designed by ACCUREC shows that reductions of
approximately 6% can be achieved if pyrometallurgical operations are substituted for a vacuum
shredding + LHT process. Numerical values of the EoL stage for eight impact categories can be found
in Table S26 and the relative contribution of each step is depicted in Figure S7.

5. Conclusions
This study performed a comprehensive and transparent LCA to assess the environmental
characterization of the novel Al-ion cell in a 18650 format. To evaluate the environmental profile of the
novel technology, this study opted to compare its environmental performance with the state-of-the-art
of technologies in current use, i.e., a Li-ion NMC battery, using a cradle-to-grave approach. Moreover,
to provide an impartial assessment, two functional units were chosen which allowed to exanimate the
novel battery’s environmental performance from two different perspectives.
On one hand, the results point out that on a per-cell basis, the Al-ion chemistry is outstanding
over the reference technology. The main environmental advantages spring from the lack of copper and
NMC pastes, the use of materials with a lower carbon load, such as graphite, and the avoidance of
using a dry room during the manufacturing phase. On the other hand, in a per energy content basis,
the main disadvantage of the Al-ion technology was found to be its low energy density. Essentially,
on an energy content basis, the results demonstrate that the higher the energy density of the cell is,
the lower the environmental impacts per energy unit, which makes the reference technology the clear
winner for this comparison.
Analogous to the research performed by Longo et al. [21], Spanos et al. [20] and
Vandepaer et al. [22], this study found that, regardless of the functional unit and technology,
Materials 2019, 12, 3270 12 of 14

the production phase has the highest contribution to the GWP impact category. Specifically, the assembly
process contributes the most due to the high carbon intensity of the electricity mix used in the
process. In general, it was found that the assembly process during the production phase is the most
carbon-intensive stage. Ergo, a more sustainable Al-ion battery development can be achieved if the
energy consumption during the battery’s assembly relies mainly on renewable sources, as was shown
by the sensitivity analysis. Furthermore, the contribution analysis identified the electrolyte used in
the Al-ion battery as a critical component due to the considerable high amount used and its material
composition. Therefore, the authors advise exploring potential substitutes to the aluminium chloride
in order to decrease the use of high carbon-intensive materials. Furthermore, substantial carbon
emissions can be avoided in the end-of-life stage if the electrolyte is recovered and reused instead of
being disposed after been captured by active carbon. The novel Al-ion technology is still in a low
TRL. Nevertheless, through the ALION project, substantial improvements were achieved. Thus, it is
expected that its performance can be increased and eventually overcome the current performance of
modern batteries. From a mere environmental perspective, an Al-ion 18650-cell can surpass a Li-ion
battery when a density of 60 Wh/kg and 5000 cycles are achieved.
Finally, at the end of the ALION project, the novel battery was identified to have a high-power
property, which opens new opportunities to cover different applications than only energy storage. This
means that the consequential implications to assess its environmental characterization would change.
Therefore, the authors recommend exploring other applications where the intrinsic characteristics of
the novel technology can position it as a competitive option in the market.

Supplementary Materials: The following are available online at http://www.mdpi.com/1996-1944/12/19/3270/s1.

Tables S1–S24 contain the compiled first two tiers of the inventory used to assess the environmental characterization
of the novel Al-ion battery and the reference Li-ion battery (Tables S1–S24). Tables S25–S28 present the complete
numerical values resulting from the production and recycling phase for eight impact categories (Tables S25–S28).
Figure S1, 18650 Al-ion cell composition by components and materials, Figure S2, 18650 production process.
The black boxes represent background products that are further used by the foreground products (white boxes)
while the rhombuses represent unit operations, Figure S3, recycling steps designed by ACCUREC for the Li-ion
cell, Figure S4, 18650 Li-ion cell composition by components and materials, Figure S5, flowchart for the production
of the 18650 Li-ion battery cell. Figure S6, recycling steps designed by ACCUREC for the Li-ion cell, Figure S7,
production phase contribution analysis for eight impact categories of Li-ion and Al-ion 18650 cells, Figure S8,
contribution analysis for eight impact categories of the Al-ion recycling process. Furthermore, the sensitivity and
uncertainty numerical results are displayed at the end of the section.
Author Contributions: Conceptualization, M.A.S.D., L.U. and A.H.S.; methodology, M.A.S.D., L.U. and A.H.S.;
software, L.U.; validation, A.H.S. and Q.P.; formal analysis, M.A.S.D., L.U. and A.H.S.; investigation, M.A.S.D.
and L.U.; writing—original draft preparation, M.A.S.D.; writing—review and editing, M.A.S.D., L.U. and A.H.S.;
visualization, Q.P. and A.H.S.
Funding: This research was in part made possible by financing from the Norwegian University of Science and
Technology (NTNU) and the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme (grant 646286).
Acknowledgments: The authors would like to acknowledge the basic funding of the European Union’s Horizon
2020 research and innovation programme; in addition, thanks to all the ALION project consortium patterners for
the provided data used to perform the environmental assessment.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References
1. OECD/IEA. World Energy Outlook 2018, Scenarios 2018. Available online: https://www.iea.org/weo2018/
scenarios/ (accessed on 01 June 2019).
2. Baumann, M.; Peters, J.F.; Weil, M.; Grunwald, A. CO2 Footprint and Life-Cycle Costs of Electrochemical
Energy Storage for Stationary Grid Applications. Energy Technol. 2017, 5, 1071–1083. [CrossRef]
3. Hiremath, M.; Derendorf, K.; Vogt, T. Comparative life cycle assessment of battery storage systems for
stationary applications. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2015, 49, 4825–4833. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
4. Delmas, C. Sodium and Sodium-Ion Batteries: 50 Years of Research. Adv. Energy Mater. 2018, 8, 1703137.
[CrossRef]
Materials 2019, 12, 3270 13 of 14

5. Ponrouch, A.; Palacín, M.R. Post-Li batteries: Promises and challenges. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. A Math. Phys.
Eng. Sci. 2019, 377, 20180297. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
6. Zhu, X.; Mochiku, T.; Fujii, H.; Tang, K.; Hu, Y.; Huang, Z.; Luo, B.; Ozawa, K.; Wang, L. A new sodium iron
phosphate as a stable high-rate cathode material for sodium ion batteries. Nano Res. 2018, 11, 6197–6205.
[CrossRef]
7. Dunn, B.; Kamath, H.; Tarascon, J.M. Electrical Energy Storage for the Grid: A Battery of Choices. Science
2011, 334, 928–935. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
8. Palizban, O.; Kauhaniemi, K. Energy storage systems in modern grids—Matrix of technologies and
applications. J. Energy Storage 2016, 6, 248–259. [CrossRef]
9. Olivetti, E.A.; Ceder, G.; Gaustad, G.G.; Fu, X. Lithium-Ion Battery Supply Chain Considerations: Analysis
of Potential Bottlenecks in Critical Metals. Joule 2017, 1, 229–243. [CrossRef]
10. 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]
11. Ellingsen, L.A.W.; Hung, C.R.; Strømman, A.H. Identifying key assumptions and differences in life cycle
assessment studies of lithium-ion traction batteries with focus on greenhouse gas emissions. Transp. Res.
Part D Transp. Environ. 2017, 55, 82–90. [CrossRef]
12. 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]
13. 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]
14. United States Environmental Protection Agency. Application of Life-Cycle Assessment to Nanoscale Technology:
Lithium-Ion Batteries for Electric Vehicles; United States Environmental Protection Agency: Washington, DC,
USA, 2013.
15. Li, B.; Gao, X.; Li, J.; Yuan, C. Life cycle environmental impact of high-capacity lithium ion battery with
silicon nanowires anode for electric vehicles. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2014, 48, 3047–3055. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
16. 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]
17. Bauer, C. Ökobilanz von Lithium-Ionen Batterien [Life Cycle Assessment of Lithium-Ion Batteries] Paul Scherrer
Institut; PSI, Technology Assessment/GaBE: Villigen, Switzerland, 2010.
18. 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, 6550–6556. [CrossRef]
[PubMed]
19. Dunn, J.B.; Gaines, L.; Sullivan, J.; Wang, M.Q. Impact of recycling on cradle-to-gate energy consumption and
greenhouse gas emissions of automotive lithium-ion batteries. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2012, 46, 12704–12710.
[CrossRef] [PubMed]
20. Spanos, C.; Tuonrney, D.E.; Fthenakis, V. Life-cycle analysis of flow-assisted nickel zinc-, manganese dioxide-,
and valve-regulated lead-acid batteries designed for demand-charge reduction. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev.
2015, 43, 478–494. [CrossRef]
21. Longo, S.; Antonucci, V.; Cellura, M.; Ferraro, M. Life cycle assessment of storage systems: The case study of
a sodium/nickel chloride battery. J. Clean. Prod. 2014, 85, 337–346. [CrossRef]
22. Vandepaer, L.; Cloutier, J.; Amor, B. Environmental impacts of Lithium Metal Polymer and Lithium-ion
stationary batteries. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2017, 78, 46–60. [CrossRef]
23. Peters, J.F.; Weil, M. Aqueous hybrid ion batteries—An environmentally friendly alternative for stationary
energy storage? J. Power Sources 2017, 364, 258–265. [CrossRef]
24. International Organization for Standardization. ISO 14040: Environmental Management—Life Cycle
Assessment—Principles and Framework; International Organization for Standardization: Geneva, Switzerland,
2006.
25. Chaffey, N. Encyclopedia of Ecology. Ann. Bot. 2010, 4, 359–366. [CrossRef]
26. ISO. ISO 14044: Environmental Management, Life Cycle Assessment, Requirements and Guidelines; ISO: Geneve,
Switzerland, 2006; Volume 2006.
Materials 2019, 12, 3270 14 of 14

27. Goedkoop, M.; Heijungs, R.; Huijbregts, M.; Schryver, A.; Struijs, J.; Zelm, R. ReCiPE 2008: A life cycle impact
assessment method which comprises harmonised category indicators at the midpoint and the endpoint level.
2008.
28. Wernet, G.; Bauer, C.; Steubing, B.; Reinhard, J.; Moreno-Ruiz, E.; Weidema, B. Ecoinvent version 3. Int. J.
Life Cycle Assess. 2016, 21, 1218–1230. [CrossRef]
29. Piccinno, F.; Hischier, R.; Seeger, S.; Som, C. From laboratory to industrial scale: A scale-up framework for
chemical processes in life cycle assessment studies. J. Clean. Prod. 2016, 135, 1085–1097. [CrossRef]
30. Kaufman, J.G. Applications for Aluminium Alloys and Tempers. In Introduction to Aluminum Alloys and
Tempers; ASM International: Materials Park, OH, USA, 2000; pp. 93–94. ISBN 978-0-87-170689-8.
31. Johnson, J.L.; Sullivan, C.M. Lightweight Materials for Auotomotive Application. Argonne Natl. Lab. 2017,
91, 399–404.
32. Elia, G.A.; Hasa, I.; Greco, G.; Diemant, T.; Marquardt, K.; Hoeppner, K.; Behm, R.J.; Hoell, A.; Passerini, S.;
Hahn, R. Insights into the reversibility of aluminum graphite batteries. J. Mater. Chem. A 2017, 5, 9682–9690.
[CrossRef]
33. Reuss, G.; Disteldorf, W.; Gamer, A.O.; Hilt, A. Fluorine Compounds, Organic. In Ulmann’s Encyclopedia of
Industrial Chemistry; Wiley-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA: Weinheim, Germany, 2012.
34. Ebel, K.; Koehler, H.; Gamer, A.O.; Jäckh, R. Imidazole and Derivatives. In Ulman’s Encyclopedia of Industrial
Chemistry; Wiley-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA: Weinheim, Germany, 2000.
35. Howells, R.D.; Mc Cown, J.D. Trifluoromethanesulfonic Acid and Derivatives. Chem. Rev. 1977, 77, 69–92.
[CrossRef]
36. Ellingsen, L.A.-W.; Holland, A.; Drillet, J.F.; Peters, W.; Eckert, M.; Concepcion, C.; Ruiz, O.; Colin, J.F.;
Knipping, E.; Pan, Q.; et al. Environmental screening of electrode materials for a rechargeable aluminum
battery with an AlCl3/EMIMCl electrolyte. Materials (Basel) 2018, 11, 936. [CrossRef]
37. Cohn, G.; Ma, L.; Archer, L.A. A novel non-aqueous aluminum sulfur battery. J. Power Sources 2015,
283, 416–422. [CrossRef]
38. Grenland Energy AS; Nesttund, Norway. Personal communication, 2016.
39. Miljøbil Grenland AS; Nesttund, Norway. Personal communication, 2012.
40. Casals, L.C.; García, B.A.; Canal, C. Second life batteries lifespan: Rest of useful life and environmental
analysis. J. Environ. Manag. 2019, 232, 354–363. [CrossRef]
41. Casals, L.C.; García, B.A.; Aguesse, F.A. Iturrondobeitia, Second life of electric vehicle batteries: Relation
between materials degradation and environmental impact. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 2017, 22, 82–89. [CrossRef]
42. Heymans, C.; Walker, S.B.; Young, S.B.; Fowler, M. Economic analysis of second use electric vehicle batteries
for residential energy storage and load-levelling. Energy Policy 2014, 71, 22–30. [CrossRef]

© 2019 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/).