LCA jmfrelse mellan nytillverkade Ni MHbatterimaterial och tervunna

LCA jämförelse mellan nytillverkade Ni. MHbatterimaterial och återvunna Bengt Steen Chalmers Tekniska Högskola Miljösystemanalys 2017 10 17

Reflection on choice/comparisons • Any choice/comparison depends on three issues: 1. What is included and considered? • The life cycle – cradle to grave • Environmental impacts on human health, ecosystem services, abiotic resources, biodiversity, access to water 2. How are trade-offs made? • The monetary value of the impacts 3. How is uncertainty adressed? • Knowledge of impacts are taken into account at an early stage • Business as usual is the core future scenario • Any data is assessed as best estimate and a measure of its distribution

Goal and scope of our study • Compare environmental performance of different recycling options of NILARs Ni. MH batteries from a live cycle perspective • Limit the study to about two person-weeks, and focus on major issues • In the long run there will be a scarcity of metal resources, and a competition of metal resources, why use of recycled material does not add any extra sustainability value but recycling as waste management does.

Method • LCA is performed according to the ISO standard 14044 for LCA • The Eco-invent 3. 3 database with allocation through system expansion was used to find emissions and use of resources • The EPS 2015 dx method was used to determine overall environmental impact value in monetary terms ( damage costs) • Monetary values are determined for human health impacts as productivity loss, for bioproductivity as market values of lost goods and services, for finite resources as cost for a sustainable alternative, for biodiversity as prevention costs • Monetary values for satisfiers of basic human needs are used as a proxy for sustainability

Implementation • An LCA model was developed, with identification of relevant unit processes and data needs • LCI data for materials and energyware was extracted from the Ecoinvent database • Some data was not directly available in the database. In those cases • new data was derived from available data of raw material used for synthesising the relevant material or • Values for similar substances and processes were used • Simulations were made with the model to compare the alternative recycling models of Nickelhütte, Chalmers and Uppsala.

Manufacturing of electrodes The LCA model Manufacturing of cells Manufacturing of pack Use Stena disassembly Nickelütte Uppsala method Chalmers method

Results from LCA of NILARS Ni. MH battery with different recycling methods Recycling process Chalmers Uppsala Nickelhütte Net impact Monetary impact value CO 2 ELU kg 84, 1 137 82, 1 104, 9 102 115 Regain at recycling Monetary impact value CO 2 ELU kg 108, 2 -21, 6 110 10, 5 90, 3 0, 22 Note: The above figures are based on the use of water power. When using European average electricity, net impact will increase to 161 ELU and 447 kg CO 2 for the Chalmers case and similar for the others.

Nilar battery life cycle including Nickelhütte recycling process for mixed active materials 2, 01 35 Electricity use in production 11 Active material_cathode 83, 7 Active material, anode 8, 16 1, 29 Conductive agent, anode 1, 27 Module casing Contact plate 19, 1 Biplates 11, 8 Cooling plates 20, 9 1 End pieces 52 Tie rods 3, 82 Cables 2, 66 Terminal plates 2, 1 Small parts 1, 25 Discharge, dismantling Al scrap to recycling -1, 58 Ni scrap to recycling -17, 7 S-steel scrap to recycling -45, 42 56 b. Co to market -11, 1 56 a. Ni to market -79, 2 -100 -50 Conducting agents cathode 0 50 100 Net environmental impact value: 102 ELU/10 cell pack Note 1: Ni resource value consitutes 25, 8 ELU of active material in the cathode Note 2: Ni resource values consitutes 40 ELU of the active materials in the anode Note 2: Mo constitutes 35 ELU in tie rods, which are not regained in recycling of steel

Nilar battery life cycle including Chalmers recycling process for mixed active materials 2, 01 Electricity use in production 35 Active material_cathode 11 Conducting agents cathode 83, 7 8, 16 Conductive agent, anode 1, 29 Module casing 1, 27 Biplates 11, 8 Cooling plates 20, 9 End pieces 52 Tie rods 3, 82 Cables 2, 66 Terminal plates 2, 1 Small parts 1, 25 Discharge, dismantling -1, 58 Al scrap to recycling -17, 7 Ni scrap to recycling -45, 42 S-steel scrap to recycling -5, 54 Co to smelter 5, 28 Leaching of Ni -78, 4 Ni. CO 3 to recycling -5, 28 Co. CO 3 to recycling -25, 9 -100 -50 REM-CO 3 to recycling 0 Net environmental impact value: 84, 1 ELU/10 cell pack Contact plate 19, 1 1 Active material, anode 50 100 Note 1: Ni resource value consitutes 25, 8 ELU of active material in the cathode Note 2: Ni resource values consitutes 40 ELU of the active materials in the anode Note 2: Mo constitutes 35 ELU in tie rods, which are not regained in recycling of steel

Nilar battery life cycle including Uppsala recycling process for mixed active materials 2, 01 35 Electricity use in production 11 Active material_cathode 83, 7 Active material, anode 8, 16 1, 29 Conductive agent, anode 1, 27 Module casing Contact plate 19, 1 Biplates 11, 8 Cooling plates 20, 9 1 End pieces 52 Tie rods 3, 82 Cables 2, 66 Terminal plates 2, 1 Small parts 1, 25 Discharge, dismantling Al scrap to recycling -1, 58 Ni scrap to recycling -17, 7 S-steel scrap to recycling -45, 42 Ni recycling -35, 5 HSA recycling -74, 8 -100 -50 Conducting agents cathode 0 50 100 Net environmental impact value: 82, 1 ELU/10 cell pack Note 1: Ni resource value consitutes 25, 8 ELU of active material in the cathode Note 2: Ni resource values consitutes 40 ELU of the active materials in the anode Note 2: Mo constitutes 35 ELU in tie rods, which are not regained in recycling of steel

Conclusions