Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

Examining different recycling processes for lithium-ion batteries

Nature Sustainability volume 2, pages 148–156 (2019)Cite this article

Subjects

Abstract

Finding scalable lithium-ion battery recycling processes is important as gigawatt hours of batteries are deployed in electric vehicles. Governing bodies have taken notice and have begun to enact recycling targets. While several battery recycling processes exist, the greenhouse gas emissions impacts and economic prospects of these processes differ, and could vary by specific battery chemistry. Here we use an attributional life-cycle analysis, and process-based cost models, to examine the greenhouse gas emissions, energy inputs and costs associated with producing and recycling lithium-ion cells with three common cathode chemistries: lithium nickel manganese cobalt oxide (NMC-622), lithium nickel cobalt aluminium oxide and lithium iron phosphate. We compare three recycling processes: pyrometallurgical and hydrometallurgical recycling processes, which reduce cells to elemental products, and direct cathode recycling, which recovers and reconditions ceramic powder cathode material for use in subsequent batteries—retaining a substantial fraction of the energy embodied in the material from their primal manufacturing process. While pyrometallurgical and hydrometallurgical processes do not significantly reduce life-cycle greenhouse gas emissions, direct cathode recycling has the potential to reduce emissions and be economically competitive. Recycling policies should incentivize battery collection and emissions reductions through energetically efficient recycling processes.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Relevant articles

Open Access articles citing this article.

Access options

Rent or buy this article

Get just this article for as long as you need it

$39.95

Learn more

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Fig. 1: Manufacturing cost and CO2e emissions for NMC cylindrical cells.
Fig. 2: Cell manufacturing emissions.
Fig. 3: Battery recycling emissions.
Fig. 4: Avoided emissions of direct cathode recycling with different cathode yield rates.
Fig. 5: Relithiation costs.

Code availability

Sample MATLAB code for the recycling model described here is available at https://github.com/rciez2125/batteryRecycling. Sample calculations for the process-based cost model of cathode manufacturing are available in the Supplementary Information files.

Data availability

The authors declare that the data used as model inputs supporting the findings of this study are available within the paper and its Supplementary Information files. Additional questions about the data supporting the findings of this study can be directed to the corresponding author.

References

  1. Global EV Outlook 2017: Two Million and Counting (International Energy Agency, Clean Energy Ministerial & Electric Vehicles Initiative, 2017).

  2. Ayre, J. GM aiming for 500,000 ‘new energy vehicle’ sales per year by 2025. Clean Technica https://cleantechnica.com/2017/07/10/gm-aiming-500000-new-energy-vehicle-sales-per-year-2025/ (2017).

  3. Randall, T. Here’s how Elon Musk gets Tesla to 500,000 cars a year by 2020. Bloomberg https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-08-10/here-s-how-elon-musk-takes-tesla-to-500-000-cars-in-five-years (2015).

  4. Field, K. Yes, Tesla recycles all of its spent batteries & wants to do more in the future. Clean Technica https://cleantechnica.com/2018/06/07/yes-tesla-recycles-all-of-its-spent-batteries-wants-to-do-more-in-the-future/ (2018).

  5. Stringer, D. & Ma, J. Where 3 million electric vehicle batteries will go when they retire. Bloomberg https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2018-06-27/where-3-million-electric-vehicle-batteries-will-go-when-they-retire (2018).

  6. Directive 2006/66/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 September 2006 on batteries and accumulators and waste batteries and accumulators and repealing Directive 91/157/EEC http://data.europa.eu/eli/dir/2006/66/oj (European Parliament & Council of the European Union, 2006)

  7. Ritchie, M. & Wu, D. China EV battery boom set to turn ugly as subsidies revised. Bloomberg https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-07-18/china-ev-battery-boom-set-to-turn-ugly-after-subsidies-revised (2018).

  8. Richa, K., Babbitt, C. W. & Gaustad, G. Eco‐efficiency analysis of a lithium‐ion battery waste hierarchy inspired by circular economy. J. Ind. Ecol. 21, 715–730 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Xu, J. et al. A review of processes and technologies for the recycling of lithium-ion secondary batteries. J. Power Sources 177, 512–527 (2008).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Hanisch, C., Haselrieder, W. & Kwade, A. in Glocalized Solutions for Sustainability in Manufacturing (eds Hesselbach, J. & Herrmann, C.) 85–89 (Springer, Berlin & Heidelberg, 2011).

  11. Wang, R.-C., Lin, Y.-C. & Wu, S.-H. A novel recovery process of metal values from the cathode active materials of the lithium-ion secondary batteries. Hydrometallurgy 99, 194–201 (2009).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Shin, S. M., Kim, N. H., Sohn, J.-S., Yang, D. H. & Kim, Y. H. Development of a metal recovery process from Li-ion battery wastes. Hydrometallurgy 79, 172–181 (2005).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Swain, B., Jeong, J., Lee, J.-C., Lee, G.-H. & Sohn, J.-S. Hydrometallurgical process for recovery of cobalt from waste cathodic active material generated during manufacturing of lithium ion batteries. J. Power Sources 167, 536–544 (2007).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Lee, C. K. & Rhee, K.-I. Reductive leaching of cathodic active materials from lithium ion battery wastes. Hydrometallurgy 68, 5–10 (2003).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Contestabile, M., Panero, S. & Scrosati, B. A laboratory-scale lithium-ion battery recycling process. J. Power Sources 92, 65–69 (2001).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Sloop, S. Giga Life Cycle: Manufacture of Cells from Recycled EV Li-ion Batteries (OnTo Technology, 2015).

  17. 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. 46, 12704–12710 (2012).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Schipper, F. et al. Review—recent advances and remaining challenges for lithium ion battery cathodes. J. Electrochem. Soc. 164, A6220–A6228 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Ciez, R. E. & Whitacre, J. F. Comparison between cylindrical and prismatic lithium-ion cell costs using a process based cost model. J. Power Sources 340, 273–281 (2017).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Ellingsen, L. A.-W., Majeau-Bettez, G. & Strømman, A. H. Comment on “The significance of Li-ion batteries in electric vehicle life-cycle energy and emissions and recycling’s role in its reduction” in Energy & Environmental Science. J. Ind. Ecol. 19, 518–519 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Placke, T., Kloepsch, R., Dühnen, S. & Winter, M. Lithium ion, lithium metal, and alternative rechargeable battery technologies: the odyssey for high energy density. J. Solid State Electrochem. 21, 1939–1964 (2017).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Hazardous Materials; Transportation of Lithium Batteries https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2014/08/06/2014-18146/hazardous-materials-transportation-of-lithium-batteries (Federal Register, 2014).

  23. Els, F. CHARTS: giant gap between future lithium supply, demand. Mining.com http://www.mining.com/charts-chasm-between-future-lithium-supply-demand-28137/ (2014).

  24. Idemoto, Y. & Matsui, T. Thermodynamic stability, crystal structure, and cathodic performance of Lix(Mn1/3Co1/3Ni1/3)O2 depend on the synthetic process and Li content. Solid State Ionics 179, 625–635 (2008).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Wild, F., Riseborough, J. & Wilson, T. Glencore buys out billionaire with $1 billion Congo mining deal. Bloomberg https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-02-13/glencore-said-to-agree-on-gertler-buyout-in-960-million-deal (2017).

  26. Advancing Sustainable Materials Management: 2013 Fact Sheet https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-09/documents/2013_advncng_smm_fs.pdf (United States Environmental Protection Agency, 2015).

  27. Gaines, L. The future of automotive lithium-ion battery recycling: charting a sustainable course. Sustain. Mater. Technol. 1–2, 2–7 (2014).

    Google Scholar 

  28. Recycling and Reuse: Batteries and Accumulators: European Union Directive https://archive.epa.gov/oswer/international/web/pdf/200806_batteries_eu_directive.pdf (United States Environmental Protection Agency, 2008).

  29. Chaurand, P. et al. Environmental impacts of steel slag reused in road construction: a crystallographic and molecular (XANES) approach. J. Hazard. Mater. 139, 537–542 (2007).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. Sullivan, J. L. & Gaines, L. A Review of Battery Life-Cycle Analysis: State of Knowledge and Critical Needs (Argonne National Laboratory, Argonne, 2010).

  31. Elshkaki, A., Graedel, T. E., Ciacci, L. & Reck, B. K. Copper demand, supply, and associated energy use to 2050. Glob. Environ. Change 39, 305–315 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Ciacci, L., Harper, E. M., Nassar, N. T., Reck, B. K. & Graedel, T. E. Metal dissipation and inefficient recycling intensify climate forcing. Environ. Sci. Technol. 50, 11394–11402 (2016).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  33. Mineral Commodity Summaries 2018 https://minerals.usgs.gov/minerals/pubs/mcs/2018/mcs2018.pdf (US Department of the Interior & US Geological Survey, 2018).

  34. Banza Lubaba Nkulu, C. et al. Sustainability of artisanal mining of cobalt in DR Congo. Nat. Sustain. 1, 495–504 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Olivetti, E. A., Ceder, G., Gaustad, G. G. & Fu, X. Lithium-ion battery supply chain considerations: analysis of potential bottlenecks in critical metals. Joule 1, 229–243 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Habib, K., Hamelin, L. & Wenzel, H. A dynamic perspective of the geopolitical supply risk of metals. J. Clean. Prod. 133, 850–858 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Nakura, K., Ariyoshi, K., Yoshizawa, H. & Ohzuku, T. Characterization of lithium insertion electrodes and its verification: prototype 18650 batteries consisting of LTO and LAMO. J. Electrochem. Soc. 162, A622–A628 (2015).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  38. Wang, Z., Benavides, P., Dunn, J. B. & Cronauer, D. C. Development of GREET Catalyst Module (Argonne National Laboratory, 2015).

  39. Cheret, D. & Santen, S. Battery recycling. US patent 7,169,206 B2 (2007).

  40. Grützke, M. et al. Extraction of lithium-ion battery electrolytes with liquid and supercritical carbon dioxide and additional solvents. RSC Adv. 5, 43209–43217 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Nowak, S. & Winter, M. The role of sub- and supercritical CO2 as “processing solvent“ for the recycling and sample preparation of lithium ion battery electrolytes. Molecules 22, 403 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Mönnighoff, X. et al. Supercritical carbon dioxide extraction of electrolyte from spent lithium ion batteries and its characterization by gas chromatography with chemical ionization. J. Power Sources 352, 56–63 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Zahid, U., An, J., Lee, U., Choi, S. P. & Han, C. Techno-economic assessment of CO2 liquefaction for ship transportation. Greenh. Gases 4, 734–749 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Dunn, J. B., Gaines, L., Barnes, M., Sullivan, J. L. & Wang, M. 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, Argonne, 2014).

  45. IPCC. Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis (eds Solomon, S. et al.) (Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, 2007).

  46. Emissions & Generation Resource Integrated Database (eGRID) https://www.epa.gov/energy/egrid (United States Environmental Protection Agency, accessed 10 June 2016).

  47. Nelson, P. A., Gallagher, K. G., Bloom, I. & Dees, D. W. Modeling the Performance and Cost of Lithium-Ion Batteries for Electric-Drive Vehicles (Argonne National Laboratory, Argonne, 2012).

  48. Althaus, H. J. et al. in Life Cycle Inventories of Chemicals (eds Althaus, H.-J. et al.) 1–10 (Swiss Centre for Lifecycle Inventories, Dübendorf, 2007).

  49. Sutter, J. in Life Cycle Inventories of Petrochemical Solvents 1–10 (Swiss Centre for Lifecycle Inventories, Dübendorf, 2007).

  50. Ong, N. S. Manufacturing cost estimation for PCB assembly: an activity-based approach. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 38, 159–172 (1995).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. La Trobe-Bateman, J. & Wild, D. Design for manufacturing: use of a spreadsheet model of manufacturability to optimize product design and development. Res. Eng. Des. 14, 107–117 (2003).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Bloch, C. & Ranganathan, R. Process-based cost modeling. IEEE Trans. Compon. Hybrids Manuf. Technol. 15, 288–294 (1992).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. Sakti, A., Michalek, J. J., Fuchs, E. R. H. & Whitacre, J. F. A techno-economic analysis and optimization of Li-ion batteries for light-duty passenger vehicle electrification. J. Power Sources 273, 966–980 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Notter, D. A. et al. Contribution of Li-ion batteries to the environmental impact of electric vehicles. Environ. Sci. Technol. 44, 6550–6556 (2010).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  55. Zackrisson, M., Avellán, L. & Orlenius, J. Life cycle assessment of lithium-ion batteries for plug-in hybrid electric vehicles—critical issues. J. Clean. Prod. 18, 1519–1529 (2010).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  56. 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. 45, 4548–4554 (2011).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  57. Lithium-Ion Batteries and Nanotechnology for Electric Vehicles: A Life Cycle Assessment https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2014-01/documents/lithium_batteries_lca.pdf (United States Environmental Protection Agency, 2012).

  58. Ellingsen, L. A.-W. et al. Life cycle assessment of a lithium-ion battery vehicle pack. J. Ind. Ecol. 18, 113–124 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  59. Kim, H. C. et al. Cradle-to-gate emissions from a commercial electric vehicle Li-ion battery: a comparative analysis. Environ. Sci. Technol. 50, 7715–7722 (2016).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors thank C. Samaras, M. Mauter and J. Michalek for discussions on life-cycle analysis and the framing of the research findings. This material is based on work supported by the National Science Foundation Graduate Research Fellowship under grant number DGE 1252522. Any opinions, findings, conclusions and recommendations expressed in this material are those of the authors(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation.

Author information

Author notes

  1. Rebecca E. Ciez

    Present address: Andlinger Center for Energy and the Environment, Princeton University, Princeton, NJ, USA

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Engineering and Public Policy, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA, USA

    Rebecca E. Ciez & J. F. Whitacre

  2. Department of Materials Science and Engineering, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA, USA

    J. F. Whitacre

  3. Wilton E. Scott Institute for Energy Innovation, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA, USA

    J. F. Whitacre

Authors
  1. Rebecca E. Ciez
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. J. F. Whitacre
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

R.E.C. designed the research with input from J.F.W. R.E.C. conducted the majority of the analysis and wrote most of the paper. J.F.W. made significant contributions to the analysis and editing of the paper.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to J. F. Whitacre.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note: Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary information

Supplementary Information

Supplementary Figures 1–32, Supplementary Tables 1–30, Supplementary References 1–19

Supplementary Dataset 1

Cathode cost model — spreadsheet showing process-based cost model calculations for cathode material manufacturing and lithiation of NMC, NCA and LFP cathodes.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Ciez, R.E., Whitacre, J.F. Examining different recycling processes for lithium-ion batteries. Nat Sustain 2, 148–156 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-019-0222-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-019-0222-5

This article is cited by

Search

Advanced search

Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing