Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting 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.

  • Comment
  • Published:

Best practices for life cycle assessment of batteries

Life cycle assessment (LCA) is a prominent methodology for evaluating potential environmental impacts of products throughout their entire lifespan. However, LCA studies often lack transparency and comparability, limiting their significance. Here, recommendations for best practices for LCA are provided, exemplified by its application to batteries.

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

Access options

Buy this article

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

Fig. 1: Schematic representation of the life cycle assessment procedure for batteries.


  1. Castelvecchi, D. Nature 596, 336–339 (2021).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Pacañot, V. D. J. Nat. Rev. Earth Environ. 3, 224 (2022).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Peters, J. F., Baumann, M., Zimmermann, B., Braun, J. & Weil, M. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 67, 491–506 (2017).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Porzio, J. & Scown, C. D. Adv. Energy Mater. 11, 2100771 (2021).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Pellow, M. A., Ambrose, H., Mulvaney, D., Betita, R. & Shaw, S. Sustain. Mater. Technol. 23, e00120 (2020).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. European Commission. Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning batteries and waste batteries, repealing Directive 2006/66/EC and amending Regulation (EU) No 2019/1020. COM/2020/798 final (European Commission, 2020).

  7. Knehr, K. W., Kubal, J. J., Nelson, P. A. & Ahmed, S. Battery Performance and Cost Modeling for Electric-Drive Vehicles: A Manual for BatPaC v5.0. Report No. ANL/CSE-22/1 (Argonne National Laboratory, 2022);

  8. Peters, J. F., Baumann, M., Binder, J. R. & Weil, M. Sustain. Energy Fuels 5, 6414–6429 (2021).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Sutherland, B. R. Joule 4, 1630–1632 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Preger, Y. et al. J. Electrochem. Soc. 167, 120532 (2020).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. dos Reis, G., Strange, C., Yadav, M. & Li, S. Energy AI 5, 100081 (2021).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Pehl, M. et al. Nat. Energy 2, 939–945 (2017).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Jordaan, S. M., Combs, C. & Guenther, E. Adv. Appl. Energy 3, 100058 (2021).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Dai, Q. et al. EverBatt: A Closed-loop Battery Recycling Cost and Environmental Impacts Model (Argonne National Laboratory, 2019).

  15. European Commission. Commission Recommendation (EU) 2021/2279 of 15 December 2021 on the use of the Environmental Footprint methods to measure and communicate the life cycle environmental performance of products and organisations (European Commission, 2021);

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations


Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jens F. Peters.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The author declares no competing interests.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Peters, J.F. Best practices for life cycle assessment of batteries. Nat Sustain 6, 614–616 (2023).

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI:


Quick links

Nature Briefing Anthropocene

Sign up for the Nature Briefing: Anthropocene newsletter — what matters in anthropocene research, free to your inbox weekly.

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