Emerging Battery Technologies To Boost The Clean Energy Transition

The Materials Research Society Series
Stefano Passerini · Linda Barelli ·

Manuel Baumann · Jens F. Peters ·
Marcel Weil Editors
Emerging Battery
Technologies
to Boost the Clean
Energy Transition
Cost, Sustainability, and Performance
Analysis
The Materials Research Society Series covers the multidisciplinary field of materials
research and technology, publishing across chemistry, physics, biology, and engi-
neering. The Series focuses on premium textbooks, professional books, mono-
graphs, references, and other works that serve the broad materials science and
engineering community worldwide. Connecting the principles of structure, proper-
ties, processing, and performance and employing tools of characterization, compu-
tation, and fabrication the Series addresses established, novel, and emerging topics.
Stefano Passerini • Linda Barelli
Manuel Baumann • Jens F. Peters • Marcel Weil
Editors
Emerging Battery
Technologies to Boost
the Clean Energy Transition
Cost, Sustainability, and Performance
Analysis
Editors
Stefano Passerini Linda Barelli
Sapienza University of Rome University of Perugia
Rome, Italy Perugia, Italy
Manuel Baumann Jens F. Peters

Karlsruhe Institute of Technology University of Alcalá
Karlsruhe, Germany Alcalá de Henares, Spain
Marcel Weil
Karlsruhe Institute of Technology
Karlsruhe, Germany
ISSN 2730-7360 ISSN 2730-7379 (electronic)

ISBN 978-3-031-48358-5 ISBN 978-3-031-48359-2 (eBook)
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-48359-2
© The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s) 2024. This is an open access publication.
Open Access This book is licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 Inter-
national License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits use, sharing, adaptation,
distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the
original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license and indicate if changes
were made.
The images or other third party material in this book are included in the book's Creative Commons license,
unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the book's Creative
Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted
use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder.
The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication
does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant
protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use.
The publisher, the authors, and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book
are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the authors or the
editors give a warranty, expressed or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any
errors or omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional
claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
This Springer imprint is published by the registered company Springer Nature Switzerland AG
The registered company address is: Gewerbestrasse 11, 6330 Cham, Switzerland
Paper in this product is recyclable.

Editors’ Foreword
Batteries are a crucial element for the world’s future energy systems built upon
renewable energy sources of strongly intermittent nature such as solar and wind.
While the market for lithium-ion batteries, the currently dominating technology,
keeps growing at stunning pace and technological boundaries are being pushed
further, also concerns about the corresponding demand for raw materials and
associated environmental and societal impacts are becoming stronger. This has led
to an increase of research activities in the field of recycling, material demand and
sustainability of lithium-ion batteries, but also to the search and development of new
battery technologies based on more abundant, less toxic and broadly available
materials. To this regard, technologies based on materials such as sodium, magne-
sium or aluminium could play a crucial role since they are expected to offer
advantages in terms of performance, costs and sustainability. However, these sys-
tems are still in an early stage of development, while many sustainability problems
do not arise until a technology is broadly implemented and creates market forces
strong enough to trigger changes in the industrial landscape, global resource and
material streams and corresponding mining and waste handling activities. Here, the
principal challenge is to identify promising technologies in an early research stage,
extrapolate their possible future deployment at the large scale and thereby assess
potential sustainability hotspots in a prospective, foresight-oriented view, anticipat-
ing recycling and circular economy challenges. This requires a combination of
different perspectives including electrochemistry and material science, energy sys-
tem modelling, market projections and material flow analysis, system analysis and
environmental assessments, as well as societal expectations regarding technology
and sustainability.
The present book analyses the most relevant technological developments in the
field of batteries, taking a prospective and interdisciplinary view with a broad
sustainability angle, including environmental, societal and economic aspects. By
assuming a broad introduction of the considered emerging technologies in the
markets, potential environmental, societal and economic implications are anticipated
from a system and technology assessment perspective, providing a glimpse on the
v
vi Editors’ Foreword
energy storage demand answered by future batteries systems. As such, the book will
be relevant to all scholars working on or interested in the development or the
assessment of new battery technologies or other energy storage technologies and
their integration in the power system or in on-board applications.
Rome, Italy Stefano Passerini

Perugia, Italy Linda Barelli
Karlsruhe, Germany Manuel Baumann
Alcalá de Henares, Spain Jens F. Peters
Karlsruhe, Germany Marcel Weil
Overview of the Book
Rechargeable batteries are everywhere, from our mobile phone and its wireless
earphones, our cars, trucks, and buses up to large battery installations replacing
conventional power plants for guaranteeing stability of the electricity grid. However,
the sustainability of this booming market is repeatedly being questioned, with the
energy-intensive cell manufacturing, resource demand and shortages, or limited
recyclability just being some of the keywords frequently heard in this context.
Moreover, also limitations of current technologies are remarked in addressing
seasonal energy storage needs. New battery technologies are being developed
aiming at solving at least some of these issues by using earth-abundant materials,
applying design-for-recycling principles, or pushing performance and economic
boundaries far beyond the current state of the art of current lithium-ion batteries.
But can these expectations be ever fulfilled? This book tries to give a first answer on
this critical question by combining the perspectives of technology developers with
those of system analysts, presenting emerging battery technologies that could con-
tribute to short- and long-term storage in different application areas. Moreover,
prospective analyses of the potential sustainability challenges and opportunities of
these emerging technologies in a future decarbonized economy are provided. In this
way, the reader has the opportunity to gather knowledge not only at the technology
level, but also on a systemic scale, analyzing the whole sector from both a micro- and
a macro-scale perspective.
vii
Acknowledgments
The editors want to thank all the authors that supported this project from the very
beginning with their expertise and their valuable time. In addition, the editors
acknowledge the financial support from the Institute of Technology Assessment
(ITAS) of the Karlsruhe Institute of Technology, in particular the Helmholtz Pro-
gram Energy System Design and Materials and Technologies for the Energy Tran-
sition, the EU-Project Storage Research Infrastructure Eco-System1 and the
European Energy Research Alliance Joint Programme for Energy Storage.2
1
https://www.storiesproject.eu/
2
https://www.eera-energystorage.eu/
ix
Contents
Part I Batteries for the Clean Energy Transition

1 Mobility and Future Trends . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Seyed Mahdi Miraftabzadeh, Michela Longo, and Federica Foiadelli
2 Principles of a Circular Economy for Batteries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Christoph Helbig and Martin Hillenbrand
Part II System Perspective for a Clean Energy Transition

3 Projected Global Demand for Energy Storage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
Max Schönfisch, Amrita Dasgupta, and Brent Wanner
4 Overview of Energy Storage Technologies Besides Batteries . . . . . 53
Eva Schischke, Anna Grevé, Ulrike Ehrenstein, and Christian
Doetsch
5 Batteries: Advantages and Importance in the Energy Transition . . 69
Cristian Giovanni Colombo, Michela Longo, and Dario Zaninelli
Part III Battery Markets

6 Battery Market Segmentation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85
Stefan Wolf and Javier Olarte
7 Future Battery Market . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103
Stefan Wolf and Michael Lüken
Part IV Economics and Materials of Present Batteries

8 Performance and Cost . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 121
Johannes Büngeler and Bernhard Riegel
xi
xii Contents
9 Raw Materials and Recycling of Lithium-Ion Batteries . . . . . . . . . 143

Shannon Helen Davies, Paul Christensen, Thomas Holberg,
Joao Avelar, and Oliver Heidrich
Part V Emerging Battery Chemistries

10 Closed Battery Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 173
Akiko Tsurumaki, Sergio Brutti, Giorgia Greco,
and Maria Assunta Navarra
11 Open Battery Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 213
Eduardo Sanchez Diéz, Federico Poli, and Francesca Soavi
Part VI Prospective Assessments of Emerging Batteries

12 Methodological Challenges of Prospective Assessments . . . . . . . . . . 225
Felipe Cerdas, Joris Baars, Abdur-Rahman Ali,
and Nicolas von Drachenfels
13 Life Cycle Assessment of Emerging Battery Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . 243
Brian Tarroja, Oladele Ogunseitan, and Alissa Kendall
14 Techno-economics Analysis on Sodium-Ion Batteries:
Overview and Prospective . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 259
Marco Ferraro and Giovanni Tumminia
15 Techno-economics of Open Battery Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 267
Christine Minke
16 Social Implications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 279
Viera Pechancová, Petr Sáha, and Drahomíra Pavelková
17 Social Life Cycle Assessment of Batteries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 291
Maurizio Cellura, Anna Irene De Luca, Nathalie Iofrida,
and Marina Mistretta
18 Multicriteria Decision Analysis for Sustainability Assessment
for Emerging Batteries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 307
Laura Mesa Estrada, Martina Haase, Manuel Baumann,
and Tim Müller
Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 335
Contributors
Abdur-Rahman Ali Chair of Sustainable Manufacturing & Life Cycle Engineer-

ing, Institute of Machine Tools and Production Technology (IWF), Technische
Universität Braunschweig, Braunschweig, Germany
Fraunhofer Institute for Surface Engineering and Thin Films IST, Braunschweig,
Germany
Joao Avelar TES – Sustainable Technology Solutions, TES, Recklinghausen,
Germany
Joris Baars Fraunhofer Institute for Surface Engineering and Thin Films IST,
Braunschweig, Germany
Manuel Baumann Karlsruhe Institute of Technology – Institute for Technology
Assessment and System Analyses (ITAS), Karlsruhe, Germany
Sergio Brutti Department of Chemistry, Sapienza University of Rome, Rome, Italy
Johannes Büngeler HOPPECKE Batterien GmbH & Co. KG, Brilon, Germany
Maurizio Cellura University of Palermo, Palermo, Italy
Felipe Cerdas Chair of Sustainable Manufacturing & Life Cycle Engineering,
Institute of Machine Tools and Production Technology (IWF), Technische
Fraunhofer Institute for Surface Engineering and Thin Films IST, Braunschweig,
Germany
Paul Christensen School of Engineering, Newcastle University, Newcastle, UK
Cristian Giovanni Colombo Department of Energy, Politecnico di Milano, Milan,
Italy
xiii
xiv Contributors
Amrita Dasgupta International Energy Agency (IEA), Paris, France

Shannon Helen Davies Tyndall Centre of Climate Change Research, School of
Engineering, Newcastle University, Newcastle, UK
Eduardo Sanchez Diéz Centre for Cooperative Research on Alternative Energies
(CIC EnergiGUNE), Basque Research and Technology Alliance (BRTA), Alava
Technology Park, Vitoria-Gasteiz, Spain
Christian Doetsch Fraunhofer Institute for Environmental, Safety and Energy
Technology UMSICHT, Oberhausen, Germany
Fraunhofer UMSICHT, Oberhausen, Germany
Nicolas von Drachenfels Battery Lab Factory Braunschweig (BLB), Technische
Ulrike Ehrenstein Fraunhofer Institute for Environmental, Safety and Energy
Technology UMSICHT, Oberhausen, Germany
Laura Mesa Estrada Karlsruhe Institute of Technology – Institute for Technology
Marco Ferraro CNR-Istituto di Tecnologie Avanzate per L’Energia “Nicola
Giordano” (ITAE), Palermo, Italy
Federica Foiadelli Department of Energy, Politecnico di Milano, Milan, Italy
Giorgia Greco Department of Chemistry, Sapienza University of Rome, Rome,
Italy
Anna Grevé Fraunhofer Institute for Environmental, Safety and Energy Technol-
ogy UMSICHT, Oberhausen, Germany
Martina Haase Karlsruhe Institute of Technology – Institute for Technology
Oliver Heidrich Tyndall Centre of Climate Change Research, School of Engineer-
ing, Newcastle University, Newcastle, UK
Christoph Helbig University of Bayreuth, Bavarian Center for Battery Technology
(BayBatt), Bayreuth, Germany
Martin Hillenbrand University of Bayreuth, Bavarian Center for Battery Tech-
nology (BayBatt), Bayreuth, Germany
Thomas Holberg TES – Sustainable Technology Solutions, TES, Recklinghausen,
Germany
Nathalie Iofrida Department of Agriculture, University Mediterranea of Reggio
Calabria, Reggio Calabria, Italy
Alissa Kendall University of California, Davis, CA, USA
Contributors xv
Michela Longo Department of Energy, Politecnico di Milano, Milan, Italy

Anna Irene De Luca Department of Agriculture, University Mediterranea of
Reggio Calabria, Reggio Calabria, Italy
Michael Lüken New Vision University (NVU), School of Politics and Diplomacy,
Climate and Sustainability Governance Research, Tbilisi, Georgia
Christine Minke Chair of Circular Economy Systems, Clausthal University of
Technology, Clausthal-Zellerfeld, Germany
Seyed Mahdi Miraftabzadeh Department of Energy, Politecnico di Milano,
Milan, Italy
Marina Mistretta Department of Information, Infrastructure and Sustainable
Energy, University Mediterranea of Reggio Calabria, Reggio Calabria, Italy
Tim Müller Karlsruhe Institute of Technology – Institute for Thermal Energy
Technology and Safety (ITES), Karlsruhe, Germany
Maria Assunta Navarra Department of Chemistry, Sapienza University of Rome,
Rome, Italy
Oladele Ogunseitan University of California, Irvine, CA, USA
Javier Olarte CIC energiGUNE, Parque Tecnológico de Álava, Albert Einstein,
Vitoria-Gasteiz, Álava, Spain
Drahomíra Pavelková Faculty of Management and Economics, Tomas Bata Uni-
versity in Zlín, Zlín, Czech Republic
Viera Pechancová University Institute, Tomas Bata University in Zlín, Zlín, Czech
Republic
Federico Poli Department of Chemistry “Giacomo Ciamician”, Alma Mater
Studiorum Universitá di Bologna, Bologna, Italy
ENERCube, Centro Ricerche Energia, Ambiente e Mare, Centro Interdipartimentale
per la Ricerca Industriale Fonti Rinnovabili, Ambiente, Mare ed Energia (CIRI
-FRAME), – Alma Mater Studiorum University of Bologna, Marina di Ravenna,
RA, Italy
BETTERY Srl, Massafra, Italy
National Reference Center for Electrochemical Energy Storage (GISEL) – INSTM,
Florence, Italy
Bernhard Riegel HOPPECKE Batterien GmbH & Co. KG, Brilon, Germany
Petr Sáha University Institute, Tomas Bata University in Zlín, Zlín, Czech
Republic
Eva Schischke Fraunhofer Institute for Environmental, Safety and Energy Tech-
nology UMSICHT, Oberhausen, Germany
xvi Contributors
Max Schönfisch International Energy Agency (IEA), Paris, France

Francesca Soavi Department of Chemistry “Giacomo Ciamician”, Alma Mater
Studiorum Universitá di Bologna, Bologna, Italy
ENERCube, Centro Ricerche Energia, Ambiente e Mare, Centro Interdipartimentale
per la Ricerca Industriale Fonti Rinnovabili, Ambiente, Mare ed Energia (CIRI
-FRAME), – Alma Mater Studiorum University of Bologna, Marina di Ravenna,
RA, Italy
National Reference Center for Electrochemical Energy Storage (GISEL) – INSTM,
Florence, Italy
Brian Tarroja University of California, Irvine, CA, USA
Akiko Tsurumaki Department of Chemistry, Sapienza University of Rome, Rome,
Italy
Giovanni Tumminia CNR-Istituto di Tecnologie Avanzate per L’Energia “Nicola
Giordano” (ITAE), Palermo, Italy
Brent Wanner International Energy Agency (IEA), Paris, France
Stefan Wolf VDI/VDE Innovation + Technik GmbH, Berlin, Germany
Dario Zaninelli Department of Energy, Politecnico di Milano, Milan, Italy
Part I
Batteries for the Clean Energy Transition
Preface
Accelerated global warming evidences the need for a drastic change of our present
society towards a world economy operating within the planetary boundaries. This
implies, among others, a rapid and profound decarbonization with all activities
ultimately based on renewable energies. To overcome the intrinsic variable nature
of renewable energy sources, the integration of energy storage devices, particularly
batteries, is considered as a key enabler, allowing to store electricity for use on
demand in areas that have traditionally been run on fossil energy. These include a
wide set of grid-connected and mobility services and, possibly, new fields such as
drones and robotics.
This chapter prepares the ground for the subsequent chapters of the book by
introducing the general concepts and challenges related with these transitions.
Specifically, Chapter 1 picks the mobility sector as one of the sectors that is
undergoing fundamental changes and elaborates on the specific trends to be expected
in near future and the role that batteries play for these. This includes not only
electrification of vehicles but also aspects of intelligent vehicles, interconnections,
and charging infrastructure. Chapter 2 then takes a circular economy perspective by
introducing the key challenges and opportunities related with the transition toward a
closed loop economy. It tackles the limitations of the present linear economy model
and introduces the “R”-imperatives of the circular economy and then applies these to
the emerging battery recycling sector to highlight the most important bottlenecks for
a circular battery economy.
Chapter 1
Mobility and Future Trends
Seyed Mahdi Miraftabzadeh, Michela Longo, and Federica Foiadelli
Contents
1.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.2 Toward the Electrification of Mobility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
1.3 E-Mobility and Future Trends . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
1.4 Electromobility Charging Infrastructure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
1.5 5G Application in Mobility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
1.6 Future Trends . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
1.1 Introduction
The world is rapidly changing, and the transportation and mobility industry is no
exception. Mobility, a paramount part of modern society, helps people to access
jobs, education, healthcare, and other destinations. There has been a significant shift
in thinking about mobility, with a growing emphasis on sustainability and the need
to reduce the environmental consequence of transportation. Mobility is an essential
aspect of modern society, encompassing everything from personal transportation to
public transit, logistics, and infrastructure. With the rapid advancements in technol-
ogy, mobility is undergoing a significant transformation, with new technologies and
services emerging that have the potential to revolutionize the way we move [1–
3]. Mobility has seen a surge in development over the past few decades, and it is
worthwhile to follow the latest trends in recent years.
S. M. Miraftabzadeh · M. Longo (✉) · F. Foiadelli

Department of Energy, Politecnico di Milano, Milan, Italy
e-mail: [email protected]
© The Author(s) 2024 3

S. Passerini et al. (eds.), Emerging Battery Technologies to Boost
the Clean Energy Transition, The Materials Research Society Series,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-48359-2_1
4 S. M. Miraftabzadeh et al.
One of the most significant development and trends in mobility is the transition
toward electric vehicles (EVs) from internal combustion engine vehicles. Electric
vehicles are powered by batteries rather than fossil fuels, and they produce zero
emissions while in operation [1, 4, 5]. Thus, EVs are more sustainable options
compared to traditional fuel-powered vehicles. Additionally, the cost reduction of
batteries and advancements in charging infrastructure make EVs a more reasonable
choice for all people.
Furthermore, another trend in mobility is the rise of ride-sharing services like
Uber and Lyft, which allow individuals to hail a ride from their smartphones and pay
for it through the app, making transportation more accessible and convenient for
many people, especially in urban areas where public transport may not be as well-
developed [1, 6]. However, the convenience of ride-sharing comes with a cost, as
these services have been criticized for exacerbating traffic congestion and air
pollution. Also, the rise of ride-sharing has led to a decrease in public transportation
and personal car ownership, which can negatively impact the environment and the
economy [7]. Additionally, the employment status of ride-sharing drivers has also
been a topic of debate, as some argue that they should be classified as employees
rather than independent contractors. Despite these challenges, ride-sharing continues
to grow in popularity and is expected to impact the future of transportation
significantly.
The remainder of this chapter is organized as follows: toward the electrification of
mobility is presented in Sect. 1.2. Section 1.3 presents the e-mobility and future
trends. Electromobility charging infrastructure is given in Sect. 1.4. Section 1.5
discusses the importance of 5G technology in mobility and its applications. Finally,
the future trends in mobility are presented in Sect. 1.6.
1.2 Toward the Electrification of Mobility
Electrification will play an essential role in the modification of the transportation and
mobility industry and has offered major opportunities in recent years, including the
environmental impacts and CO2 emission reductions of transportation [1, 4]. In
general, mobility electrification refers to the use of electric power for transportation,
such as electric vehicles, electric bikes, and electric scooters. The shift to e-mobility
has been increasing in recent years; however, several factors, as presented in
Fig. 1.1, enhance such a transition.
Several factors reinforce mobility electrification as follows [7–9]:
Government policies and incentives: Many countries have implemented poli-
cies and incentives to encourage the adoption of electric vehicles, such as tax breaks,
grants, and subsidies.
Advancements in technology: The new development and improvements in
battery technology have directed to cost reduction of batteries. Also, the introduction
of new modules of fast and ultrafast charging has surpassed the so-called “range
1 Mobility and Future Trends 5
Fig. 1.1 Factors driving mobility electrification
anxiety” issue of new e-mobility customers. Thus, electric vehicles are a more
reasonable and affordable option for a wider range of customers.
Growing consumer demand: The transportation sector is one of the main
responsible actors for climate emissions. As the concerns about climate change
have grown, more people have become aware of the negative environmental impact
of transportation as well. Therefore, more consumers have been choosing e-mobility,
particularly electric vehicles, which are considered a sustainable alternative com-
pared to traditional ones.
Increase in charging infrastructure: Governments and private companies are
investing in the development and expansion of charging stations, both in residential
and public spots, to sustain the growth of e-mobility. These investments resulted in
finding more charging stations in cities and on roads in many countries.
Government and industry entities will persist in working together to promote
further mobility electrifications in various areas. The availability of charging infra-
structures requires to be expanded to provide more convenience for consumers to
charge their EVs outside their homes as well. The improvement in the range and
performance of electric vehicles reduces consumer concerns about long-distance
travel with electric vehicles. The development of a thorough strategy for end-of-life
battery management minimizes the environmental impact of EV batteries. Finally,
customers’ concerns regarding the cost, recent advances in electric vehicle perfor-
mance, and sustainability of e-mobility need to be constantly updated.
1.3 E-Mobility and Future Trends
E-mobility refers to any means of transportation (electric vehicles, electric bikes,

electric scooters) that work by electric power. E-mobility is considered a sustainable
option compared to conventional diesel and gasoline vehicles since it produces no
emissions while in operation and can be powered by renewable energy sources
(RESs) such as wind and solar energy, which significantly reduce the carbon
footprint of transportation.
E-mobility is a promising solution for decreasing harmful pollutants and green-

house gas emissions from transportation. However, maximizing the environmental
benefits of e-mobility depends on the source of electric energy used to charge the
vehicles, the manufacturing process of EVs, and the disposal of the battery at the end
of its life span. Additionally, more strategies are required to achieve zero-emission
transportation than only the transition to e-mobility, including sustainable urban
planning, bike-sharing, and expanding public transportation systems to decrease the
overall dependence on personal motorcars.
One of the main trends in e-mobility is the increasing adoption of electric vehicles
since battery technology has advanced; the cost of batteries decreased from $1000
per kWh in 2010 to $227 per kWh in 2016, and it is predicted that it will be lower
than $100 per kWh by 2030 [10]. As a result of the reduction in battery costs, the
number of electric vehicles on the roads has significantly increased. Many countries,
such as European countries, have set ambitious targets for replacing traditional cars
with electric versions in the coming years. Another trend in e-mobility is the
development of charging infrastructure. As more electric vehicles are in operation,
it becomes increasingly necessary to have a reliable and convenient charging
infrastructure. Many governmental and private companies are investing in develop-
ing charging stations, both in residential and public, to satisfy future needs of
charging e-mobilities ubiquitously.
Further development in e-mobility technology is expected to emerge in the near
future, as it is summarized in Fig. 1.2. Currently, EVs have a limited driving range;
however, since there are many advancements in battery technology and capacity,
EVs are expected to have a more extended driving range. Ultrafast and wireless
charging are other important predictions in e-mobility technology to provide more
convenience for drivers to charge their vehicles on the go or without physical
connections [11]. Smart charging technology allows scheduling the electric vehicles
charging smartly, considering the electricity demands and prices or the electric grid
pressure in peak hours. Another interesting aspect of the future of e-mobility is
vehicle-to-everything (V2X) solutions that enable EVs to transmit their surplus
Fig. 1.2 Expected future

trends in e-mobility
energy to electric grids, houses, buildings, or any other energy consumption desti-
nations [12, 13]. Finally, thanks to advanced artificial intelligence, autonomous
electric vehicles will not only increase the efficiency of mobility but also reduce
greenhouse gas emissions.
The future of e-mobility includes using electric vehicles and steady technological
advancements to support them. As the demand for electric vehicles grows, the
development of charging infrastructure will become increasingly important. In the
future, it is expected to see more convenient and efficient charging options such as
wireless charging, ultrafast charging stations, and even faster home charging sys-
tems. Furthermore, electric vehicles will be integrated with autonomous and
connected vehicle technologies, allowing for more seamless integration into smart
cities and a more efficient transportation system with zero carbon emissions.
1.4 Electromobility Charging Infrastructure
The charging infrastructure for e-mobility is defined as the charging stations and
equipment required to charge electric vehicles, including both home charging and
public charging stations. The accessibility and availability of charging infrastructure
are the key factors in speeding up the transition to e-mobility. Table 1.1 presents the
different current types of charging infrastructure [4, 14, 15]. Level 1 charging is the
slowest and safest type of charging, usually used for overnight charging at home.
Level 2 charging charges an EV in several hours and is widely operated in public
charging stations. Finally, DC fast charging harnesses high power in order to
recharge an electric vehicle (EV) in a few minutes. This type requires a specific
protection system for monitoring and communication between EV charging equip-
ment and the vehicle.
There are several challenges and limitations associated with the expansion of
charging infrastructure:
• High costs: The installation and maintenance of charging stations can be expen-
sive, and governments and private companies may solely be keen to invest in
them if they guarantee adequate demand. Therefore, identification of best
Table 1.1 Different types of charging infrastructure

Typical
power EV miles of
Type Voltage (volt) (kW) range per hour Setting
Level 1 120 AC 1.2–1.4 3–4 miles Standard 120-volt household outlet
Level 2 208–240 AC 3.3–6.6 10–20 miles Often used at public charging stations
and at home
DC fast 400–1000 DC 50 or 150–1000 miles Typically located along highways and
charging more in urban areas to support long-
distance travel
locations for charging stations and choosing the best charging infrastructure type
are necessary to address this concern.
• Limited accessibility: In some locations, mainly remote regions or rural, it can be
challenging to install charging stations due to a lack of available electricity or
other infrastructure.
• Charging station compatibility: There is no universal standard for EV charging;
for example, the EV plug-in type or charging connector differs across geogra-
phies and models. Thus, not all charging stations are compatible with all EVs in
operation, which can cause inconveniences and confusion for customers.
Governmental and industrial organizations have strong cooperation to overcome
these challenges by developing comprehensive solutions and actions. For instance,
many countries focus on standardizing charging equipment to ensure compatibility
with all EVs. Also, many funds are offered to research and development divisions so
as to improve charging station technology and reduce the costs of creation, instal-
lation, and maintenance.
1.5 5G Application in Mobility
5G, the fifth and newest generation of mobile technology, has the potential to
significantly impact various aspects of society, particularly in terms of mobility
[16–20]. Some of the key applications of 5G in mobility include the following:
• Connected vehicles: 5G networks offer faster and more reliable connectivity
compared to previous versions, making it possible for vehicles to communicate
with each other and with infrastructure in real time. Consequently, it can improve
traffic flow, reduce congestion, and make it possible for vehicles to drive
themselves.
• Remote driving: 5G networks have low latency, high bandwidth, and ultra-
reliability, which enables the remote control of vehicles and equipment in real
time; thus, using 5G enables remote driving and operation of vehicles in danger-
ous or difficult environments.
• Intelligent transportation systems: 5G networks can enable the real-time collec-
tion and analysis of data from traffic cameras, sensors, and other sources,
allowing for the optimization of traffic flow and the reduction of congestion.
• Automated transportation: The high-speed, low-latency connectivity of 5G net-
works can support the communication and connectivity needed to operate auto-
mated transportation systems, such as drones, self-driving cars, and autonomous
buses.
• Enhanced safety: 5G networks can enable communication between vehicles,
infrastructure, and passengers to improve the overall safety of transportation by
allowing real-time data exchange and providing faster response times and more
accurate information necessary for safety issues.
• In-vehicle experiences: 5G networks enable faster and more dependable connec-

tivity inside vehicles, promoting new services such as infotainment, online
shopping, and streaming high-definition videos. Additionally, 5G networks can
provide passengers with high-speed Internet access, allowing them to work or
entertain themselves during their journey.
5G networks have the potential to revolutionize mobility by making transporta-
tion safer, more efficient, and more convenient. The technology promotes the
development of new applications such as connected and automated vehicles, intel-
ligent transportation systems, and enhanced in-vehicle experiences, which can help
reduce congestion and improve traffic flow and overall mobility ventures.
1.6 Future Trends
It is likely to see the continued development and expansion of electric vehicles and
ride-sharing services in the future. Besides, various other trends are expected to
shape the future of mobility, which are listed below.
• Autonomous vehicles: Self-driving vehicles have the great potential to diminish
traffic congestion and accident while additionally making transportation more
reliable and accessible to people who are incapable of driving, such as the
disabled or elderly. Many scientists and companies are actively working on
developing autonomous vehicles, such as Tesla, Uber, and Waymo.
• Connected vehicles: The advances on the Internet of things and communication
technologies, such as 5G, connect vehicles through their sensors and communi-
cation devices [16]. The connected vehicles communicate with other vehicles and
infrastructures, including traffic lights and road signs, to relieve traffic congestion
and enhance the mobility flow.
• Micromobility: Micromobilities, lightweight vehicles such as electric scooters
and bikes, are created for short trips and are becoming increasingly widespread in
urban areas to save time and traffic. Furthermore, they are convenient options that
not only reduce traffic congestion but also minimize the negative environmental
impact of traditional transportation.
• MaaS (mobility as a service): MaaS is an emerging concept that enables the
provisioning of transport services with a single access point for all different types
of mobility, including public transportation, bike- and car-sharing, taxis, ride-
hailing, and more [21, 22]. Many mobility companies leverage joint digital
channels or applications, enabling people to plan and book rides to discourage
private vehicle ownership. One of the interesting ideas of MaaS is that users pay a
monthly fee to access transportation services rather than pay for each means of
mobility separately. Implementing the MaaS concept or eMaaS reduces traffic
congestion and lowers pollution.
• Hyperloop: Hyperloop is a high-speed ground transportation system that uses
magnetic levitation technology to move passengers and cargo at speeds up to
1130 km per hour. This system includes connected mobility hubs worldwide
through a network of tubes that pods can move in a vacuum at ultrahigh speeds.
This concept still needs to be developed because of the limitation of nowadays
technology and safety issues. Hyperloop can solve the problem of long-distance
travel.
The future of mobility is likely characterized by a shift toward more sustainable
and efficient forms of transportation, such as electric vehicles, and micromobility
options, such as bicycles and e-scooters. Integrating autonomous vehicles and
connected vehicle technologies is also expected to play a key role in shaping the
future of mobility. The concept of mobility as a service (MaaS) is also gaining
popularity, where transportation is seen as a service and not just a product, allowing
for a more seamless, integrated, and convenient user experience. Hyperloop tech-
nology, which uses high-speed trains in vacuum-sealed tubes, is also being
researched and developed as a new transportation mode. The 5G networks will
also play a vital role in the future of mobility by enabling new services such as
automated transportation and in-vehicle connectivity. On the other hand, as ride-
sharing services become more prevalent, they are likely to significantly impact the
way we move around cities, reducing the need for personal car ownership and
changing the way we think about transportation. These technological and transpor-
tation advancements will significantly help reduce traffic congestion and air pollu-
tion and increase accessibility.
References
1. Paiva S, Ahad MA, Tripathi G, Feroz N, Casalino G (2021) Enabling technologies for urban
smart mobility: recent trends, opportunities and challenges. Sensors 21:1–45
2. Miraftabzadeh SM, Longo M, Foiadelli F (2021) Machine learning models in smart cities–data-
driven perspective. In: Internet of energy for smart cities. CRC Press, pp 203–226
3. Brenna M, Foiadelli F, Kaleybar HJ (2020) The evolution of railway power supply systems
toward smart microgrids: the concept of the energy hub and integration of distributed energy
resources. IEEE Electr Mag 8:12–23
4. Chen T, Zhang XP, Wang J, Li J, Wu C, Hu M, Bian H (2020) A review on electric vehicle
charging infrastructure development in the UK. J Mod Power Syst Clean Energy 8:193–205
5. Foiadelli F, Longo M, Miraftabzadeh S (2018) Energy consumption prediction of electric
vehicles based on big data approach. Proceedings – 2018 IEEE International Conference on
Environment and Electrical Engineering and 2018 IEEE Industrial and Commercial Power
Systems Europe, EEEIC/I and CPS Europe. https://doi.org/10.1109/EEEIC.2018.8494573
6. Schlüter J, Weyer J (2019) Car sharing as a means to raise acceptance of electric vehicles: an
empirical study on regime change in automobility. Transp Res Part F Traffic Psychol Behav 60:
185–201
7. Sprei F (2018) Disrupting mobility. Energy Res Soc Sci 37:238–242
8. Pereirinha PG, González M, Carrilero I, Anseán D, Alonso J, Viera JC (2018) Main trends and
challenges in road transportation electrification. Transp Res Proc 33:235–242
9. Adib A, Afridi KK, Amirabadi M et al (2019) E-mobility—advancements and challenges. IEEE
Access 7:165226–165240
10. Bloomberg NEF (2020) Electric vehicle outlook https://about.bnef.com/electric-vehicle-

outlook-2020/
11. Colombo CG, Miraftabzadeh SM, Saldarini A, Longo M, Brenna M, Yaici W (2022) Literature
review on wireless charging technologies: future trend for electric vehicle? 2022 Second
International Conference on Sustainable Mobility Applications, Renewables and Technology
(SMART), pp 1–5
12. Wang J, Shao Y, Ge Y, Yu R (2019) A survey of vehicle to everything (V2X) testing. Sensors
19:334
13. Hasan M, Mohan S, Shimizu T, Lu H (2020) Securing vehicle-to-everything (V2X) commu-
nication platforms. IEEE Trans Intell Veh 5:693–713
14. Das HS, Rahman MM, Li S, Tan CW (2020) Electric vehicles standards, charging infrastruc-
ture, and impact on grid integration: a technological review. Renew Sust Energ Rev 120:
109618. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2019.109618
15. di Martino A (2022) Strategies for the modelisation of electric vehicle energy consumption: a
review. Energies 15(21):8115
16. Siddiqui MUA, Qamar F, Tayyab M, Hindia MHDN, Nguyen QN, Hassan R (2022) Mobility
management issues and solutions in 5G-and-beyond networks: a comprehensive review. Elec-
tronics (Switzerland) 11. https://doi.org/10.3390/electronics11091366
17. Guevara L, Cheein FA (2020) The role of 5G technologies: challenges in smart cities and
intelligent transportation systems. Sustainability (Switzerland) 12. https://doi.org/10.3390/
su12166469
18. Siriwardhana Y, Porambage P, Liyanage M, Ylianttila M (2021) A survey on mobile aug-
mented reality with 5G Mobile edge computing: architectures, applications, and technical
aspects. IEEE Commun Surv Tutor 23:1160–1192
19. Navarro-Ortiz J, Romero-Diaz P, Sendra S, Ameigeiras P, Ramos-Munoz JJ, Lopez-Soler JM
(2020) A survey on 5G usage scenarios and traffic models. IEEE Commun Surv Tutor 22:905–
929
20. Miraftabzadeh SM, Longo M, Foiadelli F, Pasetti M, Igual R (2021) Advances in the applica-
tion of machine learning techniques for power system analytics: a survey. Energies (Basel) 14.
https://doi.org/10.3390/en14164776
21. Pangbourne K, Mladenović MN, Stead D, Milakis D (2020) Questioning mobility as a service:
unanticipated implications for society and governance. Transp Res Part A Policy Pract 131:35–
49
22. Wong YZ, Hensher DA, Mulley C (2020) Mobility as a service (MaaS): charting a future
context. Transp Res Part A Policy Pract 131:5–19
Open Access This chapter is licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0
International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits use, sharing,
adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate
credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license and
indicate if changes were made.
The images or other third party material in this chapter are included in the chapter’s Creative
Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not
included in the chapter’s Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by
statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from
the copyright holder.
Chapter 2
Principles of a Circular Economy
for Batteries
Christoph Helbig and Martin Hillenbrand
Contents
2.1 Definition of Circular Economy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
2.2 R-Imperatives of the Circular Economy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
2.3 Battery Material Flows . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
2.4 Battery Design for Circularity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
2.5 Circular Economy in the EU Battery Regulation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
2.6 Outlook . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
2.1 Definition of Circular Economy
The rapidly growing market for batteries in mobility and stationary applications
leads to increasing amounts of battery material demand and returned waste batteries
[45]. Battery materials like cathodes, anodes, the separator and electrolyte, connec-
tors, casing and housing, safety equipment, and the battery management system
cause environmental impacts in their supply chain, in the mining, processing, and
fabrication stage [32]. These environmental impacts cause concern, not only because
of the greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions related to resource extraction and processing
[22] but also exposure to toxic substances, air pollution, water depletion, and land
use [12]. One strategy to reduce these material-related impacts is to use products
longer and use more recycled materials in their production—subsumed under the
label of circular economy measures [42]. Other strategies include improving
C. Helbig (✉) · M. Hillenbrand

University of Bayreuth, Bavarian Center for Battery Technology (BayBatt), Bayreuth, Germany

14 C. Helbig and M. Hillenbrand
batteries’ energy and power density, extending their cycle stability, reducing fabri-
cation waste, and reducing battery production’s energy and carbon intensity. Such
strategies, however, are not the focus of this chapter.
The circular economy is a concept to keep materials in the loop. It is an alternative
to a conventional, linear economy in which resources are used in production and
consumption to provide utility to people and society. In contrast, the circular
economy generates less to no waste, minimizing the need for final disposal and
raw material extraction from the lithosphere [2]. In the circular economy, materials
are still used in production and consumption, but their wastes are used again for the
same or different purposes. This cycling, or at least cascading, minimizes the amount
of material extracted from the lithosphere. Ideally, mining and quarrying would be
limited to what is required to expand in-use stocks and replace unavoidable irrevers-
ible material losses [39]. The expansion of in-use stocks has been the norm for most
material systems in the past century [25], and it is likewise crucial for modern
technologies, like batteries [45], that have not yet reached some level of demand
saturation [44].
Cyclical ecosystems formed by the circular economy are considered more sus-
tainable than linear ecosystems because they reduce resource consumption and
environmental impacts and provide an economic benefit. The reduction of primary
material requirements comes from the increased use of materials recovered from
waste, replacing materials mined or quarried from the lithosphere. Recycling gen-
erally reduces energy requirements, carbon footprints, and other environmental
impacts. Of course, there is a risk for a circular economy rebound, nullifying the
environmental savings [47]. For very high recycling rates, high energy requirements
for collection, sorting, and processing can also reduce secondary production’s
environmental and cost benefits [41]. Implementing a circular economy reduces
the negative environmental impacts of material extraction and expansion and
increases raw mYaterial supply security. Therefore, the circular economy addresses
resource scarcity concerns and reduces environmental impacts. In addition, it is also
expected to provide economic benefits due to the value generation of material
recovery, savings from extraction reduction, and avoidance of disposal [28].
Various definitions for the circular economy exist [24]. The interdisciplinary
nature of the challenge can partially explain this. Closing the material loops is not
just about understanding the material flows in society or developing recycling
processes and long-living products designed for recycling. It also includes policy
aspects of providing the proper legislative framework to foster the use of materials
recovered from waste, installing take-back schemes, and many other material effi-
ciency measures. Sociological aspects of understanding how behavior changes
contribute to the use of fewer products, the use of more sustainable products, and
the most efficient use of waste management systems also play their role in
establishing a circular economy. An actual circular economy can be implemented
by combining the micro-, meso-, and macro-systems perspectives [24].
The overall status of the implementation of the circular economy can be measured
with two simple metrics: first, a perfect circularity would be achieved if recovered
end-of-life material outputs met all material demand, and second, in an ideal circular
2 Principles of a Circular Economy for Batteries 15
economy, this would be happening without material quality losses, meaning that no
extra energy would be required to recover materials [6]. Of course, this ideal is not
practically achievable because of numerous material, metallurgical, and product
design challenges [39]. Every loop in the circle creates dissipation and entropy,
attributed to losses in quality (mixing, downgrading) and quantity (material losses,
by-products) [20], making a fully closed loop impossible. Nevertheless, for the
various reasons outlined above, it is desirable to close the loop as far as possible
[6]. In addition, the technical, economic, and sociological challenges to closing
material cycles of different materials, like base metals, specialty metals, plastics,
pulp and paper, or construction minerals, are fundamentally different.
Batteries are an exciting sector for establishing a circular economy because they
represent a rapidly growing market, with significant material demand, in parts, even
Critical Raw Materials [19]. The battery sector is currently subject to technological
changes, and the realization of circular economy benefits within this technological
change would foster the transition to low-carbon technologies.
2.2 R-Imperatives of the Circular Economy
Many measures to install a circular economy are subsumed under so-called R-imper-
atives. Starting with short lists of just three “3Rs” like “reduce, reuse, recycle” and
“recycle, remanufacture, reuse,” the lists have gotten longer [24]. One list even
consists of ten R-imperatives: refuse, reduce, resell/reuse, repair, refurbish, reman-
ufacture, repurpose, recycle materials, recover energy, and re-mine [38]. Probably,
talented wordsmiths will be able to extend these lists almost indefinitely. According
to Walter R. Stahel, the R-imperatives in the concept of circular economy replace
production with sufficiency: “reuse what you can, recycle what cannot be reused,
repair what is broken, remanufacture what cannot be repaired” ([42], p. 435). In the
Waste Hierarchy, a concept from the Waste Framework Directive of the European
Union, waste prevention comes before preparation for reuse, recycling, recovery,
and disposal [11]. Therefore, the R-imperatives can be hierarchical. Each R-imper-
ative’s potential for the circular economy depends on the maturity of a technology,
its industrial sector, and inherent material properties.
Even the longer lists of R-imperatives follow three basic ideas to change the
material cycles, corresponding to the three Rs of reducing, reusing, and recycling:
1. Narrowing material cycles (use less material overall).
2. Slowing material cycles (keep materials in use for longer).
3. Closing material cycles (keep materials in the loop).
Distinguishing between R-imperatives at different stages of material cycles
ensures that various actors are addressed. Material cycles can be narrowed, slowed,
and closed by bringing together consumers, producers, legislation, and the waste
management sector. Figure 2.1 shows a product’s different life cycle stages, from
Fig. 2.1 Schematic visualization of the ten R-imperatives, refuse, rethink, reduce, reuse, repair,
refurbish, remanufacture, repurpose, recycle, and recover, and their corresponding impact on
narrowing, slowing, and closing the material cycles
extraction to waste management, and ten corresponding R-imperatives along these

stages.
Narrowing material cycles means that, overall, less material is used. Refusing to
use a product is the first option to use less. An example is the “flygskam” initiative to
reduce the need for air transport [5]. Rethinking a product in a circular economy
means providing the same service with a wholly changed product design that is
much less resource intensive. An example is film photography, which has been
largely replaced with digital photography, making the production of photographic
films obsolete, resulting in significantly lower demand for film development, reduc-
ing silver losses [8]. Reducing material use can be achieved by making products
smaller and lighter or making the production process more efficient. For example,
reducing floor space in private households reduces the construction material require-
ments and the energy demand for heating and cooling the building [35].
Slowing material cycles is achieved by implementing measures to prevent a
product from becoming end-of-life waste. Reusing products means despite the
will to dispose of a product by one consumer, the product in its current state still
has value for another consumer and can still be used by someone else [4]. The used
clothing market is the most prominent example. Repairing products extends their
usage by investing just a minimal maintenance effort, much smaller than what would
be needed for a replacement. Repair is common practice for valuable, intensively
used mechanical products like cars, machines, and infrastructure [40]. Refurbishing
goes a bit further than repairing as you don’t just want to reestablish functionality,
but you might also invest in modernization. Apartments and houses are typically
refurbished [37]. Remanufacturing means that parts of a product are used in a new
product. The market for classic cars has a lot of experience with remanufacturing,
and modular desktop PCs allow the reuse of individual components
[15]. Repurposing extends the material life by changing the purpose of the product.
Batteries of electric vehicles can still be used in stationary applications if their

capacity is not satisfactory for mobility applications anymore [13].
If the product and its components are unsuitable for these lifetime-extending
measures, its materials can still be valuable. Recycling means obtaining materials
that can be used as inputs for new products. Although that is desirable, recycled
materials do not necessarily have to be of the same quality. Even downcycling
counts as recycling [20]. Metals are materials where quality is generally maintained,
and low loss rates result in relatively high recycling rates [14]. Some materials may
be hard to recycle but provide a heating value. In these cases, thermal recovery is the
last option in the Waste Hierarchy. An example of recovery is mixed waste plastics
replacing fuels for energy recovery [18].
2.3 Battery Material Flows
Annual growth rates of the battery industry were about 30% in the past decade and
are expected to be about 20% in the next two decades [36]. Until 2010, most global
electrochemical storage capacity was in lead-acid batteries (LAB), with about
300 GWh of new electrochemical energy storage installed yearly, used chiefly as
vehicle starter batteries [36]. LABs are positive examples of the circular economy
being a mature market with established take-back schemes and recycling facilities.
LABs are the main reason lead achieves relatively high circularity values compared
to other base metals [21].
Since 2010, however, the focus has shifted to lithium-ion batteries (LIBs).
Initially, LIBs were chiefly used in portable electronic devices; now, LIBs for
electric vehicles dominate the market [36]. With this rapid market growth, concerns
about resource availability and the environmental impact of LIB production have
become increasingly important in recent years [19, 32].
For LIBs, the challenge of installing a functional circular economy is more
prominent than for LABs. LIBs have vastly different sizes, shapes, types, and
material compositions, affecting waste separability and the metallurgy of the
recycling process. Battery cells for LIB consist of aluminum and copper foil current
collectors, cathode and anode active materials, carbon binders, the electrolyte, and a
porous separator. The cell, housing cover, and connection interface form the battery
module. On the pack level, you can add a management controller, cooling system,
frame and crash structure, and a battery pack housing cover [26, 33].
Technologically, there have been an extensive debate and a lot of development in
terms of the cathode active materials, with the most prominent options for battery
electric vehicles being nickel-cobalt-aluminum, nickel-manganese-cobalt (with var-
ious stoichiometric combinations of transition metals, from NMC111 to NMC811)
[27], and iron-phosphate active materials. LIBs can also contain various critical
materials, for which the establishment of material cycles is even more important and
challenging [3, 26, 46].
Fig. 2.2 Minimum and maximum estimations for the material demand of Li, Ni, Co, Mn, Cu, and
graphite for batteries for 2020 and 2040 in scenarios of Xu et al. [45], Marscheider-Weidemann
et al. (DERA 2021), and Dunn et al. [7] in kilotons (kt). The base year for material demand in
Marscheider-Weidemann et al. [30] is 2018, not 2020, as no 2020 values were provided in the
source. Furthermore, only one data point is specified for 2020
In the future, new battery technologies are expected to make additional raw
materials and materials necessary, for example, sodium, calcium, or aluminum
[1]. Some of these developments are explicitly undertaken to reduce the dependence
on Critical Raw Materials, like cobalt, or other expensive metals, like nickel. It is
crucial to close material loops to meet future material demands and reduce the
environmental impact of battery production, especially for expensive, scarce, or
environmentally harmful materials [32].
In the meantime, material demand and end-of-life material flow for lithium,
cobalt, and nickel are expected to continue to increase [45]. Figure 2.2 shows the
range of estimations of current and future material demand for lithium, nickel,
cobalt, manganese, copper, and graphite in recent battery material flow studies.
This ever-increasing material demand causes an issue in implementing the circular
economy. The International Energy Agency estimates that by 2040, recycled copper,
lithium, nickel, and cobalt from spent batteries could reduce the combined primary
supply requirements for these minerals by around 10% [23]. The main reason is that
you can only recycle what you have used in the past because of the time lag of the
product’s lifetime. From a resource savings perspective, product lifetimes should be
extended to reduce the demand for new batteries, but the market has grown signif-
icantly when a battery becomes waste. Therefore, even with high end-of-life
recycling rates for battery materials, the recycled content in batteries will remain
low until some saturation level has been achieved and the in-use stock is not
multiplying anymore. Such saturation is not expected to happen before the
mid-century simply because of the massive demand for electrification in mobility

and stationary storage applications.
2.4 Battery Design for Circularity
In the broad definition of the circular economy, more sustainable material cycles for
batteries are not only a question of recycling. The goal is a holistic implementation of
circular economy measures to reduce overall resource requirements and material-
related environmental impacts. So how can the material cycles for batteries be
narrowed, slowed, and closed comprehensively?
Narrowing material cycles in a rapidly growing market is a challenging task.
However, significant efforts have already been made to reduce, for example, the
required housing. Cell-to-pack technologies, for example, for LFP, have eliminated
the module component and increased the battery’s energy density, effectively
reducing the amount of steel, aluminum, or plastic packaging that is not an active
material in the battery. At its core, this is a “reduce” strategy, although here, it is
chiefly used to increase the capacity of the vehicle battery. Circular economy
strategies narrowing the material cycles are chiefly used for their Critical Raw
Materials content, particularly for the partial or complete substitution of cobalt in
batteries due to its high cost and conflict potential [3].
Battery material cycles can be slowed by prolonging battery life by designing
cells that last for a long time and many charging cycles. Significant improvements
have been made in terms of the aging stability of batteries, so it is now conceivable
that an electric vehicle can drive on the same battery for 20 years and one million
miles [16]. At the same time, electrolytes have been developed to allow faster
charging without compromising cycle stability [29]. Batteries can also be leased to
vehicle owners and afterward be used in less demanding applications, a strategy
which can be identified as reuse, remanufacture, or repurpose strategy, depending on
the amount of processing required and nature of the alternative use [3].
Battery material cycles can be closed by recycling the battery components
[10]. Generally, one can distinguish many pyrometallurgical and hydrometallurgical
processes and direct recycling routes [26]. The recoverability of contained Co, Ni,
Li, Mn, Al, Cu, C, Fe, electrolytes, and plastics depends on the chosen process. Pack,
module, and cell design also significantly impact battery dismantling and repair,
remanufacture, and recycling options [43].
In general, the pyrometallurgical processes are more versatile regarding the
battery chemistries and geometries. They have a high recycling capacity, require
no sorting or pretreatment, and enable high recovery of valuable metals (Co, Ni, Cu).
They are established and well-understood processes with industrial know-how
[17]. On the downside, certain materials (graphite, plastics, and electrolyte) are
burned and thus lost. The obtained products are often low purity and downcycled
(e.g., Li and Al) or need further hydrometallurgical refinement. The
pyrometallurgical process is expensive because of its high energy consumption and

the need for off-gas treatment to remove toxins [17, 26].
Hydrometallurgical processes have high recovery rates, high purity of the prod-
ucts, low energy consumption, and low GHG emissions [17]. They have low
recycling capacities. The batteries must be crushed to meet the purity and
pretreatment requirements, which leads to safety problems. In addition, efficient
methods for electrolyte deposition still need to be demonstrated industrially. The
complex processes, the needed treatment of the final effluent (neutralization), the
treatment of the contaminated wastewater, and other aspects of the process (e.g.,
solvents) lead to high operating costs [26].
Disassembly and pretreatments are always the first steps. In the case of the
pyrometallurgical processes, the second step is directly smelting the pretreated
LIBs. In addition, the alloy and the slag can be further refined by leaching, selec-
tively precipitation, and solvent extraction. Alternatively, the disassembled and
pretreated material can be converted into the so-called black mass through further
mechanical treatment, which includes crushing, electrolyte separation, and mechan-
ical separation. Afterward, the black mass can be processed through hydrometallur-
gical or direct recycling route. In the hydrometallurgical route, leaching, selective
precipitation, and solvent extraction are used to recover the contained materials. In
the direct recycling route, separating, regenerating, and producing new cathode
active material are the goals [26]. While the direct recycling route provides the
opportunity to obtain higher quality recyclates, it is not as mature as the pyromet-
allurgical or hydrometallurgical routes. Figure 2.3 shows the main process routes,
advantages, and disadvantages for pyrometallurgical, hydrometallurgical, and direct
recycling routes. For a more detailed description of the most important recycling
processes and the corresponding efficiencies, the reader is referred to Chap. 4.3 of
this book or to the work of Ekberg and Petranikova [9].
Mohr et al. [32] show that recycling could reduce the environmental impacts of
lithium-ion battery production, both in the case of pyrometallurgical and hydromet-
allurgical processes. They highlight that the savings depend on the cell chemistry,
particularly the cathode active material, and the environmental impact category, like
abiotic depletion or global warming potential. Additionally, it is not always the
process with maximum recycling depth that provides the most considerable envi-
ronmental savings, which will become even more critical if the share of expensive
materials in the battery decreases [32].
2.5 Circular Economy in the EU Battery Regulation
The European Commission adopted a new Battery Regulation with severe implica-
tions for the circular economy of batteries [31]. Among other things, the regulation
also addresses various issues concerning the material cycles of batteries.
The Battery Regulation is meant to narrow material cycles if successful. It enables
and guides the rise of batteries in electric vehicles and stationary applications, where
Fig. 2.3 Summary of pyrometallurgical, hydrometallurgical, and direct recycling routes for battery
materials and their respective main advantages and disadvantages. (Adapted from Latini et al. [26]
and Harper et al. [17])
they serve as electrochemical energy storage enabling the reliable use of renewable
energy and thus replacing, at least in part, fossil fuels, which are by design not
circular. Several articles of the regulation are relevant to the circular economy. The
previously mentioned slowing and closing of material cycles are taken up, but the
narrowing of material cycles is not considered.
Articles 9 to 11, 73, and 74 have an impact on slowing the material cycles.
Articles 9 and 10 describe performance and durability requirements for batteries.
Article 11 mandates the removability and replaceability of portable batteries in
appliances, ensuring that the appliance stays in use in case batteries have a shorter
lifetime than the appliance itself. Article 73 supports the repurposing and
remanufacturing of batteries. Article 74 mandates producers to provide information
on the dismantling and removal of batteries to support repair, remanufacture,
preparation for reuse, treatment, and recycling.
Articles 8, 59, 69, and 71 close the material cycles. Article 8 mandates that the
cobalt, lead, lithium, and nickel present in new EV batteries fulfill the requirements
for minimum shares of material recovered from waste for each of the metals present.
As proposed, these minimum shares will be implemented in 2030 and raised in 2035.
Article 59 sets targets for producers and article 69 for member states for minimum
collection targets for waste of portable batteries. The proposed targets are gradually
raised until 2030 when a 73% minimum collection rate shall be reached. Article
71, in combination with Annex XII, sets targets for recycling processes regarding
their minimum recycling efficiencies based on the average weight of batteries, and
levels of materials recovery, for cobalt, copper, lead, lithium, and nickel, respec-
tively. By 2030, according to the proposal, an 80% recycling efficiency for lead-acid
batteries and 70% for lithium-ion batteries shall be reached, enabling by 2031
a recovery of 95% for cobalt, copper, lead, and nickel and 80% for lithium.
The regulation is supported by various initiatives, such as the European Battery
Alliance, and financial aid packages to support research and innovation along the
entire battery value chain. But those benefits also come with risks, such as higher
compliance costs, hindering innovation, technology adaptation, and
competitiveness [31].
If implemented as the battery regulation proposal foresees, the contribution of
recycling to meeting the raw material demand of battery production in Europe could
be more than 40% for cobalt and more than 15% for lithium, nickel, and copper by
2040. Those numbers are based on a recycling volume of 150 to 300 kilotons of
lithium-ion batteries and battery components per year in 2030 and 600 to 2500
kilotons in 2040 [34].
The Battery Regulation also proposes a battery passport with information on
repair, disassembly, and, importantly, the carbon footprint of the battery from raw
material extraction to the end-of-life phase, without the use phase. Such a mandatory
carbon footprint, and in the future also carbon footprint classes and a threshold for
marketing batteries in the European Union, supports the goal to reduce the overall
environmental footprint of battery production. Therefore, the overall goal of the
circular economy, avoiding unintended harmful environmental impact, is just as
much tackled with the battery regulation proposal as the various mentioned
R-imperative actions.
2.6 Outlook
In a way, batteries are already a contribution to the circular economy because they
allow using reversible electrochemical processes for energy storage and, thereby,
replacing single-use fossil fuels. However, the circular economy of batteries will be
incomplete unless batteries are recycled after their product lifetime. Linear material
flows for fossil fuels would only be replaced by take-make-waste processes for
lithium, nickel, cobalt, natural graphite, and other battery materials. The battery
regulation proposal is a cornerstone to prevent such linear material flows.
One should never forget that recycling alone cannot meet the material demand for
building up the in-use stock in a growing market. Securing Critical Raw Materials
supply is equally important to allow batteries to fulfill their purpose in the required
transitions in the energy sector for global net zero carbon emissions. The R-strategies
and recycling technologies mentioned above are necessary to reduce the total
material demand for batteries, but they will not eliminate the demand. They are
necessary but not a silver bullet. Therefore, the circular economy of batteries needs
to be accompanied with material research and embedded in a more general sustain-
ability strategy.
References
1. Amici J, Asinari P, Ayerbe E et al (2022) A roadmap for transforming research to invent the
batteries of the future designed within the European Large Scale Research Initiative BATTERY
2030+. Adv Energy Mater 12:2102785. https://doi.org/10.1002/aenm.202102785
2. Andersen MS (2007) An introductory note on the environmental economics of the circular
economy. Sustain Sci 2:133–140. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-006-0013-6
3. Baars J, Domenech T, Bleischwitz R et al (2021) Circular economy strategies for electric
vehicle batteries reduce reliance on raw materials. Nat Sustain 4:71–79. https://doi.org/10.1038/
s41893-020-00607-0
4. Boldoczki S, Thorenz A, Tuma A (2021) Does increased circularity lead to environmental
sustainability?: the case of washing machine reuse in Germany. J Ind Ecol 25:864–876. https://
doi.org/10.1111/jiec.13104
5. Chiambaretto P, Mayenc E, Chappert H et al (2021) Where does flygskam come from? The role
of citizens’ lack of knowledge of the environmental impact of air transport in explaining the
development of flight shame. J Air Transp Manag 93:102049. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jairtraman.2021.102049
6. Cullen JM (2017) Circular economy: theoretical benchmark or perpetual motion machine? J Ind
Ecol 21:483–486. https://doi.org/10.1111/jiec.12599
7. Dunn J, Slattery M, Kendall A et al (2021) Circularity of lithium-ion battery materials in electric
vehicles. Environ Sci Technol 55:5189–5198. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.0c07030
8. Eckelman MJ, Graedel TE (2007) Silver emissions and their environmental impacts: a
multilevel assessment. Environ Sci Technol 41:6283–6289. https://doi.org/10.1021/es062970d
9. Ekberg C, Petranikova M (2015) Chapter 7: Lithium batteries recycling. In: Chagnes A,
Światowska J (eds) Lithium process chemistry. Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp 233–267
10. Gaines L, Richa K, Spangenberger J (2018) Key issues for Li-ion battery recycling. MRS
Energy Sustain 5:12. https://doi.org/10.1557/mre.2018.13
11. Gharfalkar M, Court R, Campbell C et al (2015) Analysis of waste hierarchy in the European
waste directive 2008/98/EC. Waste Manag 39:305–313. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.
2015.02.007
12. Giljum S, Maus V, Kuschnig N et al (2022) A pantropical assessment of deforestation caused by
industrial mining. Proc Natl Acad Sci 119:e2118273119. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.
2118273119
13. Glöser-Chahoud S, Huster S, Rosenberg S et al (2021) Industrial disassembling as a key enabler
of circular economy solutions for obsolete electric vehicle battery systems. Resour Conserv
Recycl 174:105735. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2021.105735
14. Graedel TE, Allwood J, Birat J-P et al (2011) What do we know about metal recycling rates? J
Ind Ecol 15:355–366. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1530-9290.2011.00342.x
15. Gurita N, Fröhling M, Bongaerts J (2018) Assessing potentials for mobile/smartphone reuse/
remanufacture and recycling in Germany for a closed loop of secondary precious and critical
metals. J Remanuf 8:1–22. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13243-018-0042-1
16. Harlow JE, Ma X, Li J et al (2019) A wide range of testing results on an excellent lithium-ion
cell chemistry to be used as benchmarks for new battery technologies. J Electrochem Soc 166:
A3031. https://doi.org/10.1149/2.0981913jes
17. Harper G, Sommerville R, Kendrick E et al (2019) Recycling lithium-ion batteries from electric
vehicles. Nature 575:75–86. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-019-1682-5
18. Haupt M, Vadenbo C, Hellweg S (2017) Do we have the right performance indicators for the
circular economy?: insight into the Swiss waste management system. J Ind Ecol 21:615–627.
https://doi.org/10.1111/jiec.12506
19. Helbig C, Bradshaw AM, Wietschel L et al (2018) Supply risks associated with lithium-ion
battery materials. J Clean Prod 172:274–286. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.10.122
20. Helbig C, Huether J, Joachimsthaler C et al (2022) A terminology for downcycling. J Ind Ecol
26:1164–1174. https://doi.org/10.1111/jiec.13289
21. Helbig C, Kondo Y, Nakamura S (2022) Simultaneously tracing the fate of seven metals at a
global level with MaTrace-multi. J Ind Ecol 26:923–936. https://doi.org/10.1111/jiec.13219
22. Hertwich EG, Ali S, Ciacci L et al (2019) Material efficiency strategies to reducing greenhouse
gas emissions associated with buildings, vehicles, and electronics—a review. Environ Res Lett
14:043004. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/ab0fe3
23. IEA (2022) The role of critical minerals in clean energy transitions. International Energy
Agency
24. Kirchherr J, Reike D, Hekkert M (2017) Conceptualizing the circular economy: an analysis of
114 definitions. Resour Conserv Recycl 127:221–232. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.
2017.09.005
25. Krausmann F, Wiedenhofer D, Lauk C et al (2017) Global socioeconomic material stocks rise
23-fold over the 20th century and require half of annual resource use. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A
114:1880–1885. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1613773114
26. Latini D, Vaccari M, Lagnoni M et al (2022) A comprehensive review and classification of unit
operations with assessment of outputs quality in lithium-ion battery recycling. J Power Sources
546:231979. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpowsour.2022.231979
27. Li W, Lee S, Manthiram A (2020) High-nickel NMA: a cobalt-free alternative to NMC and
NCA cathodes for lithium-ion batteries. Adv Mater 32:2002718. https://doi.org/10.1002/adma.
202002718
28. Lieder M, Rashid A (2016) Towards circular economy implementation: a comprehensive
review in context of manufacturing industry. J Clean Prod 115:36–51. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.jclepro.2015.12.042
29. Logan ER, Dahn JR (2020) Electrolyte design for fast-charging Li-Ion batteries. Trends Chem
2:354–366. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trechm.2020.01.011
30. Marscheider-Weidemann F, Langkau S, Eberling E et al (2021) Rohstoffe für
Zukunftstechnologien 2021: “Auftragsstudie,” Datenstand: Mai 2021, Aktualisierung im
August 2021. Deutsche Rohstoffagentur (DERA) in der Bundesanstalt für Geowissenschaften
und Rohstoffe (BGR), Berlin
31. Melin HE, Rajaeifar MA, Ku AY et al (2021) Global implications of the EU battery regulation.
Science 373:384–387. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.abh1416
32. Mohr M, Peters JF, Baumann M, Weil M (2020) Toward a cell-chemistry specific life cycle
assessment of lithium-ion battery recycling processes. J Ind Ecol 24:1310–1322. https://doi.org/
10.1111/jiec.13021
33. Morse I (2021) A dead battery dilemma. Science 372:780–783. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.
372.6544.780
34. Neef C, Schmaltz T, Thielmann A (2021) Recycling von Lithium-Ionen-Batterien: Chancen
und Herausforderungen für den Maschinen- und Anlagenbau. Fraunhofer ISI
35. Pauliuk S, Heeren N, Berrill P et al (2021) Global scenarios of resource and emission savings
from material efficiency in residential buildings and cars. Nat Commun 12:5097. https://doi.org/
10.1038/s41467-021-25300-4
36. Pillot C (2022) The rechargeable battery market and main trends 2011–2020
37. Power A (2008) Does demolition or refurbishment of old and inefficient homes help to increase
our environmental, social and economic viability? Energy Policy 36:4487–4501. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.enpol.2008.09.022
38. Reike D, Vermeulen WJV, Witjes S (2018) The circular economy: new or refurbished as CE
3.0? — exploring controversies in the conceptualization of the circular economy through a
focus on history and resource value retention options. Resour Conserv Recycl 135:246–264.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2017.08.027
39. Reuter MA, van Schaik A, Gutzmer J et al (2019) Challenges of the circular economy: a
material, metallurgical, and product design perspective. Annu Rev Mater Res 49:253–274.
https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-matsci-070218-010057
40. Rogers HA, Deutz P, Ramos TB (2021) Repairing the circular economy: public perception and
participant profile of the repair economy in Hull, UK. Resour Conserv Recycl 168:105447.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2021.105447
41. Schäfer P (2021) Recycling – ein Mittel zu welchem Zweck?: Modellbasierte Ermittlung der
energetischen Aufwände des Metallrecyclings für einen empirischen Vergleich mit der
Primärgewinnung. Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden, Wiesbaden
42. Stahel WR (2016) The circular economy. Nature 531:435–438. https://doi.org/10.1038/
531435a
43. Thompson DL, Hartley JM, Lambert SM et al (2020) The importance of design in lithium ion
battery recycling – a critical review. Green Chem 22:7585–7603. https://doi.org/10.1039/
D0GC02745F
44. Watari T, Nansai K, Nakajima K (2021) Contraction and convergence of in-use metal stocks to
meet climate goals. Glob Environ Chang 69:102284. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2021.
102284
45. Xu C, Dai Q, Gaines L et al (2020) Future material demand for automotive lithium-based
batteries. Commun Mater 1:99. https://doi.org/10.1038/s43246-020-00095-x
46. Zeng A, Chen W, Rasmussen KD et al (2022) Battery technology and recycling alone will not
save the electric mobility transition from future cobalt shortages. Nat Commun 13:1341. https://
doi.org/10.1038/s41467-022-29022-z
47. Zink T, Geyer R (2017) Circular economy rebound. J Ind Ecol 21:593–602. https://doi.org/10.
1111/jiec.12545
Part II
System Perspective for a Clean Energy
Transition
Preface
This chapter provides an overview on the key role of batteries for the clean energy
transition. First, recent projections for the development of global and European
demand for battery storage out to 2050 are presented and discussed in Chapter 3,
with separate insights for the power system and the mobility sector.
The impact of the projected rise in battery production is analyzed also with
reference to the battery cost reduction's trend and, on the other hand, to the
consequent strong increase in demand for critical minerals. Increasing the supply
of these critical minerals in lockstep with demand is essential in order for battery
costs to continue to decline.
Chapter 4 then provides a review of energy storage technologies, going beyond
batteries. It compares and discusses the most relevant storage technologies, such as
power-to-x or pumped hydro, and highlights their main features and performance
characteristics, including their ecological footprint. Chapter 5 picks up on this and
highlights the specific advantages of batteries, whose specific performance and
technical characteristics make them a specifically promising technology for a wide
set of applications. Focus is placed on applications related to both grid-connected
and mobility services. For the former, this includes bulk energy services, transmis-
sion, and distribution network support and capacity firming coupled to highly
variable RES plants. With regard to transport applications, electric mobility, and
perspectives relative to electric vehicles (EVs), interaction with the electric infra-
structure is presented and discussed.
Chapter 3
Projected Global Demand for Energy
Storage
Max Schönfisch, Amrita Dasgupta, and Brent Wanner
Contents
3.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
3.2 Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
3.3 Development of Demand for Battery Energy Storage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
3.4 Drivers of Demand for Battery Energy Storage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
3.5 Resource Demand for Batteries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
3.6 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
3.1 Introduction
Long-term projections of the development of the global energy system foresee a

dramatic increase in the relevance of battery storage for the energy system. This is
driven primarily by the proliferation of electric vehicles and a growing demand for
electricity storage, connected to rising shares of variable renewables in the electricity
supply mix.
At the same time, electric vehicles are projected to continue to make strong
inroads in the transport sector, leading to a dramatic increase in battery production
geared toward the automotive sector.
Across scenarios, major outlooks published recently foresee a rapid global
expansion of variable wind and solar PV-based electricity generation, as well as a
rising share of electricity in total final energy consumption (see, e.g., [7, 9, 12, 26–
M. Schönfisch (✉) · A. Dasgupta · B. Wanner

International Energy Agency (IEA), Paris, France
e-mail: max.schoenfi[email protected]

30 M. Schönfisch et al.
28, 30]). The integration of these rising volumes of variable electricity requires key
enabling technologies such as battery storage to grow as well.
This chapter provides a detailed look at recent projections for the development of
global and European demand for battery storage out to 2050 and analyzes the
underlying drivers. It draws primarily on the International Energy Agency (IEA)‘s
World Energy Outlook (WEO) 2022 [26], to which the three authors contributed.
The WEO 2022s long-term projections of the development of the global energy
system foresee a dramatic increase in the relevance of battery storage for the energy
system. As a result of falling costs and supportive policies, electric vehicles become
the dominant technology in the light-duty vehicle segment in all scenarios in 2050,
contributing to a massive increase in the demand for automotive batteries. In the
electricity sector, battery energy storage systems emerge as one of the key solutions
to provide flexibility to a power system that sees sharply rising flexibility needs,
driven by the fast-rising share of variable renewables in the electricity mix. Batteries
are also increasingly tapped to provide firm capacity as traditional generators, such
as coal- or gas-fired plants, are retired.
As a result of the growing demand for batteries, the demand for critical minerals
used in battery production, such as lithium, cobalt, nickel, graphite, copper, or
manganese, is expected to increase substantially as well.
3.2 Methodology
The projections and findings on the prospects for and drivers of growth of battery
energy storage technologies presented below are primarily the results of analyses
performed for the IEA WEO 2022 [26] and related IEA publications.
The IEA WEO 2022 explores the potential development of global energy demand
and supply until 2050 using a scenario-based approach. It does so through three
scenarios. It should be noted that these scenarios do not represent predictions but
rather analyze in detail possible versions of how the energy system might develop
given different policy targets and assumptions on their implementation ([26],
p. 105).
The first two scenarios, the Stated Policies Scenario (STEPS) and the Announced
Pledges Scenario (APS), are descriptive. The third scenario, the Net Zero Emissions
by 2050 Scenario (NZE Scenario), is prescriptive:
• STEPS describes the development of the energy system considering only the
current policy setting, based on a country- and sector-specific appraisal of policies
that are in place or have been announced as of late 2022.
• APS assumes that all climate commitments, including nationally determined
contributions (NDCs) and country-level net zero targets that have been
announced as of late 2022, are achieved in full and on time (even though
supporting policies may not yet have been put into place), representing a more
aggressive emission-reduction pathway than STEPS.
3 Projected Global Demand for Energy Storage 31
• The NZE Scenario describes a cost-effective pathway for the global energy
system to reach net zero emissions by 2050, maintaining at least a 50% proba-
bility of keeping the global temperature rise below 1.5 degrees Celsius until 2050
while achieving universal access to modern energy services (primarily electricity
and clean cooking) by 2030 ([15], p. 48, [26], p. 463).
The scenario projections are derived using a bottom-up, partial-optimization
model of the global energy system, called the Global Energy and Climate Model
(GEC-M), modeling energy demand, transformation, and supply in high detail for
26 regions (11 countries and 15 country groupings). A comprehensive description of
the model, the key assumptions, and data sources used can be found in the docu-
mentation [21]. Of particular relevance to the representation of battery energy
storage in the model are the power and transport sector modules of the GEC-M.
The technology-rich power sector module combines an investment model with a
high-resolution dispatch model to simulate the evolution of the regional power
systems, ensuring that there is sufficient generating capacity to cover peak demand
plus a reserve margin, as well as sufficient production to meet the annual demand of
all end uses, including grid losses ([21], p. 45). The transport sector module consists
of dedicated, regional bottom-up models for aviation, maritime, rail, and road
transport. The road transport model projects the evolution of the regional vehicle
fleets and their fuel consumption based on, among other things, activity drivers such
as historical trends, GDP and population, vehicle scrappage functions, and cost-
competitiveness assessments of different drivetrain technologies ([21], p. 32).
3.3 Development of Demand for Battery Energy Storage
The electricity1 and transport sectors are the key users of battery energy storage
systems. In both sectors, demand for battery energy storage systems surges in all
three scenarios of the IEA WEO 2022. In the electricity sector, batteries play an
increasingly important role as behind-the-meter and utility-scale energy storage
systems that are easy to scale, site, and contribute to system reliability and flexibility.
In the transport sector, the increasing electrification of road transport through plug-in
hybrids and, most importantly, battery electric vehicles leads to a massive rise in
battery demand.
1
In the context of this chapter, we define “electricity sector” as encompassing the production and all
stationary end uses of electricity.
Fig. 3.1 Storage technologies and potential power system applications based on discharge
times. Note: T and D deferral = transmission and distribution investment deferral. (Source: IEA
[22], p. 64)
3.3.1 Electricity Sector
Energy storage, in particular battery energy storage, is projected to play an increas-

ingly important role in the electricity sector. Storage technologies provide vital
system services, ranging from short- to long-term balancing, the provision of
operating reserves and ancillary services like voltage control or black start capabil-
ity, to the management of congestion in the electricity grid. Currently, pumped
storage hydro is the most widely deployed storage technology, accounting for
90% of total storage capacity ([22], p. 64), and there is significant additional
potential in certain regions. Other emerging options include compressed air and
gravity storage for the short-term and hydrogen as an option for long-term storage
(IEA, [24]). An overview of several established and emerging storage technologies,
as well as their typical capacities and applications, is provided in Fig. 3.1. It shows
that, depending on the volume of the battery, battery energy storage systems can
dispatch on timescales ranging from seconds to days, over a broad range of capac-
ities. In contrast to other technologies with more specific use cases, batteries are able
to provide a broad range of services to the electricity system. Accordingly, battery
energy storage systems are the fastest growing storage technology today, and their
deployment is projected to increase rapidly in all three scenarios.
Battery storage systems can be distinguished between two classes: utility-scale
battery energy storage systems and behind-the-meter battery energy storage systems.
Utility-scale battery energy storage systems are directly connected to the distribution
or transmission systems. They typically offer much higher capacities and greater
storage volumes than behind-the-meter systems. They are relatively compact and
highly modular, which allows for scalable battery storage systems to be deployed
rapidly in almost any location, an advantage compared to traditional large-scale
electricity storage solutions such as pumped hydro. In addition to energy storage,
which allows operators to engage in energy arbitrage, helping balance the power
system and more cost-effectively match demand and supply, they provide important
flexibility services to the system. They can be tapped to provide operating reserves
and important ancillary services such as frequency control or helping with the
restoration of grid operations after a blackout. Due to their scalability and modular-
ity, they are also promising solutions for the provision of localized flexibility in
distribution or transmission systems, helping to address bottlenecks and reducing the
need for costly investments into new transmission and distribution infrastructure
[5, 24]. Furthermore, there are more and more cases of batteries being colocated with
variable renewables in order to “firm up” the latter’s electricity production, for
example, in Germany or India, where pairing renewables with storage is rewarded
through dedicated support mechanisms. Also, where eligible, batteries are increas-
ingly tapped to provide firm capacity in capacity markets ([25], p. 55).
Behind-the-meter battery energy storage systems are connected to the distribution
grid behind the utility meter of an individual electricity consumer, typically a
household or a small business. Behind-the-meter battery energy storage systems
are usually paired with a distributed energy resource, in most cases rooftop solar
PV. Behind-the-meter batteries enable consumers to lower electricity bills by max-
imizing the consumption of self-generated electricity and enabling them to engage in
energy arbitrage, i.e., shifting consumption from high to low price periods. The
overall magnitude of savings is highly dependent on the level and structure of
electricity tariffs and the remuneration consumers receive for feeding electricity
into the grid. Variable or time-of-use electricity and feed-in tariffs offer greater
potentials for savings using behind-the-meter battery energy storage systems than
fixed rates. Another common motivation for the installation of behind-the-meter
battery energy storage systems is to improve resilience against interruptions in the
power supply from the grid, where behind-the-meter battery storage systems coupled
with a distributed energy resource increasingly compete with traditional solutions
such as diesel generators [6].
Across all scenarios in the WEO 2022, utility-scale systems account for the
majority of battery storage deployment, though the development of both utility-
scale and behind-the-meter storage are heavily dependent on the prevailing regula-
tions. In many jurisdictions, net metering2 regulations that underpin the growth of
rooftop solar ([14], p. 36) are holding back investments into behind-the-meter
electricity storage. Stronger growth in behind-the-meter systems can be expected
should regulation change in ways that encourage self-consumption, such as time-of-
use tariffs, and introduce a time-dependent, market-based remuneration for electric-
ity fed into the grid by small-scale generators. However, that growth would not
necessarily come on top of the projected growth of utility-scale systems, since
(aggregated) behind-the-meter storage can, with the right regulation and the appro-
priate control technology, provide some of the flexibility to the system that would
otherwise be provided by utility-scale batteries.
2
Net metering is a billing mechanism that allows consumers to credit self-generated against
consumed electricity irrespective of when that electricity was generated.
3.3.1.1 Development of Stationary Battery Energy Storage
In recent years, the pace of installations of battery storage systems has picked up
significantly. In 2021 alone, more than 9 GW were installed globally, a nearly 90%
increase on 2020. At the end of the year 2022, total global installed stationary battery
storage capacity stood at more than 27 GW ([26], p. 311). The speed of the increase
has been substantial: just 10 years ago, the global installed battery energy storage
was less than 1 GW in total.
Moving forward, battery storage capacity is projected to grow massively in all
three scenarios (see Fig. 3.2). In the STEPS, installed global, grid-connected battery
storage capacity increases tenfold until 2030, rising from 27 GW in 2021 to 270 GW.
Deployments accelerate further after 2030, with the global installed capacity
reaching nearly 1300 GW in 2050. Accounting for all announced pledges and
policies leads battery storage capacity to grow to 425 GW in 2030 and close to
2300 GW in 2050, a near doubling compared to the STEPS. The pace of deploy-
ments is even faster in the NZE Scenario, where installed capacity reaches about
780 GW in 2030 and nearly 3900 GW by 2050, as the electricity sector is the first to
be fully decarbonized, by 2035 in advanced economies and by 2040 in emerging
market and developing economies.
In the European Union, total installed battery storage capacity rises from nearly
5 GW today to 14 GW in 2030 and almost 120 GW in 2050 in the STEPS, which
achieves the agreed objectives, including reaching 32% of renewable energy by
2030, and fulfills all the National Energy and Climate Plans and major policies as of
late 2022. In the APS, which reflects discussions on higher ambitions for renewable
energy, including the goal to reach a 40% share in gross energy consumption by
2030 within the Fit for 55 package [11] and the G7 commitment to achieve
predominantly decarbonized electricity by 2035 [8], battery storage capacity
increases to 50 GW by 2030 and more than 200 GW in 2050. In the NZE Scenario,
which requires similar emissions reductions by 2030 and 2035, higher energy
efficiency and a more responsive demand side require slightly less battery capacity
deployments, with installed capacity reaching 180 GW in 2050 [26].
3.3.2 Transport Sector
Despite the massive growth projected in all scenarios of the WEO 2022, stationary
battery energy storage capacity in the electricity sector is—depending on the
scenario—only equivalent to 7–10% of the combined storage capacity of electric
vehicle batteries. This makes the transport sector the by far biggest user of batteries.
3
4500
4000
3500
3000
2500
2000
Projected Global Demand for Energy Storage
Installed capacity (GW)

1500
1000
500
0
2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050
STEPS APS NZE
Fig. 3.2 Global installed stationary battery energy storage capacity by scenario, 2020–2050. (Source: IEA) [26]
35
3.3.2.1 Deployment of Battery Electric Vehicles
In the sector, the vast majority of batteries are used in electric and plug-in hybrid
electric vehicles.
Electric vehicles are projected to make up increasing shares of newly registered
vehicles across all types of road vehicles (passenger/commercial light-duty vehicles,
medium and heavy-duty vehicles, buses and two-/three-wheelers) in all three
scenarios.
In 2021, demand for automotive lithium-ion batteries was 340 GWh per year,
doubling from 2020 ([26], p. 167), with global electric vehicle sales reaching a
record-breaking 6.6 million ([20], p. 4), bringing the global electric vehicle fleet
(excluding two-/three-wheelers) to 18 million ([20], p. 99). Nearly 9% of all new
passenger vehicles sold were fully electric. China led the world in sales, followed by
Europe and the USA [23].
In the STEPS, which considers only policies already in force as of late 2022, the
global electric vehicle fleet (excluding two-/three-wheelers) grows to 200 million
vehicles by 2030, representing over 20% of all road vehicle sales ([20], p. 99). In the
APS, which assumes that all existing targets are met in full and on time, electric
vehicle adoption is more rapid, with their share in total sales growing to over 35% in
2030 and total stock reaching 270 million vehicles in the same year ([20], p. 99). In
the NZE Scenario, electric vehicle uptake proceeds even faster, and globally, 60% of
all new vehicles sold in 2030 are fully electric, with the number of electric vehicles
growing to 350 million ([20], p. 99).
The bulk of the growth comes from the light-duty vehicle segment, most notably
passenger electric vehicles. In 2021, electric light-duty vehicles accounted for 95%
of the global electric vehicle fleet (excluding two-/three-wheelers), and they con-
tinue to maintain this share through 2030 in the STEPS. Electric light-duty vehicle
sales grow more rapidly in the APS, reaching a share of 35% of total light-duty
vehicle sales by 2030. In the NZE Scenario, more than 60% of all light-duty vehicles
sold in the same year are electric ([20], pp. 99–100). The rapid expansion of electric
vehicle sales is projected to continue after 2030. In the APS, electric vehicles reach a
two-thirds share in total new light-duty vehicle sales by 2040. Slow turnover in the
vehicle stock means, however, that even in this scenario, the share of electric
vehicles in the global light-duty vehicle fleet will exceed two-thirds only by 2050
([26], p. 275).
Electrification is projected to proceed more slowly in the medium and heavy-duty
vehicle segment. While electric trucks are well suited for roles like urban delivery,
with relatively short driving distances and the possibility of overnight charging,
larger batteries and a high-power charging infrastructure are required to enable long-
distance electric trucking. In the STEPS, electric trucks reach a sales share of under
10% in 2030, while in the APS and NZE Scenario, they account for 10% and 25% of
sales, respectively ([20], pp. 100–101).
Electric buses are the second most common type of electric vehicle in use today
(excluding two-/three-wheelers). Their share in the bus stock is projected to
increase to 11% by 2030 in the STEPS, 15% in the APS, and 25% in the NZE
Scenario ([20], p. 100).
Although excluded from the total number of electric vehicles presented above,
electric two-/three-wheelers are the most common type of electric vehicle today and
are projected to remain so through 2030. In many regions, they are already cost-
competitive with internal combustion engine two-/three-wheelers on a total cost of
ownership basis and projected to see strong growth in Asia in particular. Electric
two-/three-wheelers account for over 25% of the stock in 2030 in the STEPS, up
from around 6% in 2021. In the APS, 35% of the total stock is electric, while in the
NZE Scenario, that share is even higher ([20], p. 101).
The electrification of road transport is proceeding at different speeds across the
world. In terms of the distribution of sales, advanced economies and China act as
trailblazers, with battery electric vehicles accounting for more than 50% of the cars
sold by 2030 in China, the European Union and the USA ([26], p. 274). In Europe,
supportive policies ensure that it remains one of the key electric vehicle markets: in
the STEPS, light-duty electric vehicles account for 35% of all light-duty vehicle
sales in 2030. In the APS, assuming additional policy pledges are implemented, this
share rises to over 50%. The 2030 sales shares are 50% for buses and 7% for trucks
in 2030 in the STEPS and 55% for buses and 20% for trucks in the APS ([20],
p. 104).
The impact on the demand for automotive batteries is substantial. In the NZE
Scenario, which sees the strongest growth of electric vehicles to 2030, demand
grows 16-fold, from 340 GWh per year in 2021 to more than 5500 GWh per year
in 2030 ([26], p. 167).
3.4 Drivers of Demand for Battery Energy Storage
As shown above, demand for batteries is projected to increase substantially until

2050 in all scenarios both in the transport and in the electricity sector.3
In the transport sector, this is driven by the rising adoption of electric vehicles,
which, thanks to falling costs and supportive government policies, are becoming an
increasingly attractive choice compared to conventional internal combustion engine
vehicles. and supportive government policies.
In the electricity sector, the adoption of batteries is driven mainly by the rising
demand for flexibility, adequacy, and energy balancing that accompanies the rise in
the share of variable renewables in decarbonizing power systems.
Rising demand for batteries in both sectors can create a virtuous cycle of falling
costs through technological improvements, learning, and improved economies of
3
It should be noted that the faster scale-up projected for the APS and NZE Scenario (compared to
the STEPS) will require policy and regulatory frameworks to evolve in a manner that reflects the
contribution that battery energy storage systems are able to make to the system.
scale, which in turn accelerates deployment, although raw materials costs are likely
to play an increasingly significant role ([25], p. 55).
3.4.1 Electricity Sector
In the electricity sector, clean energy transitions change the nature of power sys-
tems. Maintaining capacity adequacy—the ability to match demand and supply at all
times with a high degree of reliability—is central to energy security, calling for
contributions without adding to overall emissions. Rising flexibility needs, linked
primarily to the fast-rising share of variable renewables in the electricity mix, bolster
the value of dispatchable technologies, particularly low emissions options. Growing
demand for solutions that provide power system flexibility and capacity adequacy is
the main driver underpinning the rapid increase in battery energy storage capacity
projected in the WEO 2022, as falling costs for battery storage improve their
economics compared with competing sources of flexibility and adequacy.
3.4.1.1 Rising Electricity System Flexibility Needs
Electricity system flexibility needs are projected to increase significantly compared

to today in all scenarios modeled for the WEO 2022. Rising flexibility requirements
follow from the increase in variable wind and solar PV-based electricity generation
in markets around the world. Furthermore, the electrification of additional end uses,
such as electric heating, electric vehicles, or certain industrial processes, raises peak
demand, as well as the hourly, daily, and seasonal variability of electricity demand
([26], p. 307).
At the same time, the retirement of a large part of the existing fleet of conven-
tional coal- and gas-fired power plants will increase the demand for alternative
sources of flexibility and firm capacity ([23], pp. 308). Battery energy storage
systems play an increasingly important role in the provision of system flexibility
(the ability of the system to respond to fluctuations in supply and demand) and
capacity adequacy (maintaining available electricity supply to meet demand in all
hours of the year). Additionally, battery energy storage is projected to become
increasingly relevant as a component in renewables-based off-grid electricity sup-
plies, supplanting fossil fuel-based generators.
Battery energy storage systems are highly responsive and able to charge or
discharge quickly. The energy-to-power ratios of stationary battery energy storage
systems, typically ranging from below 1 to 8 hours of storage at full capacity ([26],
p. 312), make them well suited to providing flexibility over timescales measured
from minutes and hours to a few days [24]. The change in net load from one hour to
the next is thus a helpful indicator for flexibility needs that can be usefully served by
batteries.
50%
Share of batteries in total
India STEPS
dispatchable capacity
2050
40%
2030
United 2021
30%
States
20% APS
European Union 2050
10% 2030
China
2021
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80%

Share of wind and solar PV
Fig. 3.3 Share of batteries in total dispatchable capacity and share of variable renewables in total
electricity generation for the European Union, China, India, and the USA, 2021–2050. (Source: IEA
[26], p. 311)
The rising contribution by variable wind and PV increases the variability of the
net load.4 In the STEPS, the share in the global electricity mix of wind and solar PV
together doubles from 10% in 2021 to 20% in 2030 and rises above 40% until 2050.
In the APS, it increases to 30% by 2030 and reaches nearly 60% in 2050. In the NZE
Scenario, it increases to nearly 70% by 2050. As a result, global flexibility needs5
triple until 2050 in the STEPS, rise more than 3.5-fold in the APS, and quadruple in
the NZE Scenario. However, there is significant regional variation: systems which
today have relatively small shares of wind and solar PV see a much stronger relative
increase in flexibility demand. In India, for example, flexibility requirements rise
sixfold until 2050 in the APS, whereas in the European Union—where the combined
share of wind and solar PV in the electricity mix was already 18% in 2021—they
double over the same time period ([26], pp. 214, 299).
The relationship between the rising share of variable renewables in the electricity
mix (and thus increasing flexibility demand in the electricity system) and the
increase of stationary battery energy storage capacity (as a share of total dispatchable
capacity) is illustrated in Fig. 3.3. It shows that across the four regions displayed,
battery capacity rises in tandem with the share of variable renewables in the
electricity mix. There are, however, differences between regions and scenarios. In
the APS, battery storage capacity rises faster relative to the share of renewables in the
system than in the STEPS, since renewables are deployed faster and alternative
sources of flexibility, such as coal-fired power plants, retired earlier. Regional
4
The net load is the load that remains after deducting the production of wind and solar PV from
electricity demand.
5
In the WEO 2022, flexibility needs are measured by the hour-to-hour ramping requirements after
removing hourly wind and solar PV production from hourly electricity demand, divided by the
average hourly demand for the year ([26], p. 308).
differences are also the result of the relative share of solar PV and wind in the
respective electricity system, as solar in particular is increasingly paired with
batteries. Battery deployment thus tends to be larger in places with high proportions
of solar PV compared to wind power, like the USA or India, than in regions where
wind power predominates, like China or the European Union ([26], p. 312).
3.4.1.2 Contribution to System Adequacy
In addition to providing flexibility, battery energy storage systems also play an

increasingly important role in meeting the adequacy needs of the electricity system.
In the APS, for example, battery storage is the primary replacement, in terms of
system adequacy, for coal, which is mostly phased out globally until 2050. Battery
energy storage accounts for nearly 45% of the replacement capacity, followed by
dispatchable renewables, most notably hydropower (15%); solar PV and wind
(slightly below 15%); nuclear, fossil fuels with carbon capture utilization and storage
(CCUS), hydrogen, and ammonia (7–8% each); and new natural gas-fired capacity
(4%) ([19], p. 82).
However, the speed of the shift to batteries as a system adequacy resource varies.
Advanced economies, which see the rapid phasing down of their remaining coal
fleets in the 2030s, see a surge in investments into battery energy storage systems for
system adequacy at around the same time, with emerging market and developing
economies following suit in the 2040s, coinciding with a major drop in coal capacity
there ([19], p. 82).
3.4.1.3 Falling Costs
Innovations in battery chemistry, learning effects, and economies of scale are

another key driver of rising deployment, since they continue to drive down the
cost of battery packs and components that comprise the balance of system of utility-
scale battery energy storage systems, making them increasingly cost-competitive
with alternative flexibility options. Spillover effects from the electric vehicle indus-
try play an important role in decreasing the cost of battery packs available for
stationary applications ([26], p. 311). “Second-life” electric vehicle batteries are
projected to play an increasingly important role, providing an option to cheaply
expand stationary battery energy storage [24].
Due to increasing economies of scale and continuous innovation along the supply
chain, costs for lithium-ion batteries have already declined by nearly 90% between
2010 and 2021 ([26], p. 167). The average installed cost of battery energy storage
systems designed to provide maximum power output over a 4-hour period is
projected to decline further, from a global average of around USD 285/kWh in
2021 to USD 185/kWh in the STEPS and APS and USD 180/kWh in the NZE
Scenario by 2030. Until 2050, costs are projected to drop to around USD 135/kWh
in all scenarios ([26], p. 473), with costs in the STEPS slightly above this value and
costs in the APS and NZE Scenario slightly below. This makes renewables, in
particular solar PV, combined with utility-scale battery energy storage one of the
most cost-competitive solutions to provide dispatchable capacity in many markets in
2050, with the levelized cost of electricity falling below that of new combined-cycle
gas turbines ([26], p. 406).
It should be noted, however, that as innovation and learning make batteries
cheaper and cheaper to produce, the relative contribution of mineral resource prices
to the cost of battery packs increases. In 2022, sharp increases in the prices of key
minerals like lithium, cobalt, nickel, graphite, copper, or manganese contributed to a
7% increase in the average price of lithium-ion battery packs, despite an ongoing
shift to lower cost chemistries that require lower volumes of certain critical minerals
[4]. The projected future cost declines presented above are thus contingent on prices
of important minerals returning closer to their historical averages.
3.4.1.4 Policy Frameworks and Regulation
However, while batteries are certain to continue to grow, to get on track for the high
levels of deployment seen in the APS and the NZE Scenario, the two more ambitious
scenarios of the World Energy Outlook 2022, policies and regulatory frameworks
need to evolve.
In the electricity sector, governments should consider energy storage, alongside
other flexibility options such as demand response, power plant retrofits, or smart
grids, as part of their long-term strategic plans, aligned with wind and solar PV
capacity as well as grid capacity expansion plans. Business cases for grid-scale
storage can be complex and may not be viable under legacy market and regulatory
conditions. In liberalized electricity markets, measures to increase incentives for the
deployment of flexibility that is able to rapidly respond to fluctuations in supply and
demand could help improve the business case for grid-scale storage. These include
decreasing the settlement period and bringing market gate closure closer to real time,
as well as updating market rules and specifications to make it easier for storage to
provide ancillary services. The business case for storage improves greatly with value
stacking, i.e., allowing it to maximize revenue by bidding into different markets.
Regulatory frameworks should continue to be updated to level the playing field for
different flexibility options, which would help to build a stronger economic case for
energy storage in many markets. Transmission and distribution investment deferral
(using storage to improve the utilization of, and manage bottlenecks in, the power
grid), for example, is another potential high-value application for storage, since it
can reduce the need for costly grid upgrades. To capture the greatest benefit, storage
should be considered, along with other non-wire alternatives, in the transmission and
distribution planning process. A key issue is ownership: in many markets, storage is
considered a generation asset, and system operators (transmission as well as distri-
bution) are not allowed to own storage assets. One solution is to allow them to
procure storage services from third parties. However, regulatory frameworks need to
be updated carefully to minimize the risk of storage assets receiving regulated

payments and undercutting the competitive power market [24].
Behind-the-meter battery energy storage is facing challenges on its own. In many
jurisdictions, legacy electricity tariff structures do not reward the deployment of
behind-the-meter battery storage, which continues to fall behind grid-scale battery
energy storage in the projections of the World Energy Outlook 2022. Regulatory
changes, such as changes to tariff structures that reward shifting consumption with
the help of batteries, could greatly enhance the prospects for behind-the-meter
battery energy storage.
3.4.2 Transport Sector
In the transport sector, a combination of falling electric vehicle costs, government

subsidies and support for the development of a charging infrastructure, as well as
standards favoring electric and other zero emission vehicles is projected to lead to a
massive increase in the global electric vehicle fleet.
3.4.2.1 Improving Economics of Electric Vehicles
Falling costs, most importantly for the battery packs, driven by ongoing innovation
and improving economies of scale, ensure that electric vehicles become the cost-
effective choice for most types of road transport after 2030 in all scenarios, espe-
cially in the light-duty vehicle segment. In many emerging market and developing
economies, electric two-/three-wheelers are, depending on use, already cheaper
than internal combustion engine alternatives on a total cost of ownership basis, and
this is projected to become the case for most models by 2025 ([17], p. 76; [18],
p. 122). The rising attractiveness of electric vehicles to consumers is reflected in the
model range. In 2021, around 450 different models of electric vehicles were avail-
able on the market, 5 times more than in 2015 ([20], p. 4).
3.4.2.2 Subsidies and Infrastructure Build-Out
Countries are increasingly looking to boost the uptake of electric vehicles to address
concerns around CO2 emissions and local air pollution. Building on the improving
competitiveness of electric vehicles, governments across the world are seeking to
accelerate the adoption of electric vehicles through subsidies. Direct per vehicle
subsidies like cash bonuses or tax rebates lower the cost of electric vehicles, making
them more attractive compared to internal combustion engine vehicles.
Other ways to subsidize electric vehicles include exemptions from tolls and
charges, as well as the provision of free or subsidized public charging. Increasing
investments in charging infrastructure is necessary to make electric vehicle use more
practical and alleviate the problem of range anxiety among current and future electric
vehicle users, as well as to make electric long-distance trucking more practical ([23],
pp. 275). Furthermore, initial public investments in charging infrastructure are
essential to overcome the “chicken-and-egg problem” of providing enough chargers
to make electric vehicles more attractive and practical to use while at the same time
sustaining an infrastructure that is unlikely to be profitable initially due to the low
number of users.
Total expenditures by governments in support of electric vehicles almost doubled
in 2021. Some countries, including in the European Union, India, and Japan, have
introduced or expanded subsidies, while some markets, such as China, Korea, and
the UK, have used the opportunity provided by falling electric vehicle costs to
reduce per vehicle subsidies, recognizing the narrowing cost gap between electric
and conventional internal combustion engine-powered vehicles ([20], p. 59).
3.4.2.3 Standards and Targets
Standards and targets are projected to play a major role accelerating the adoption of
electric vehicles. As of mid-2022, 36 countries and several US states have commit-
ted to ending sales of internal combustion engine-powered cars and, in some cases,
light trucks, by a certain year ([26], p. 273). With the “Fit for 55” package, the
European Union has pledged to ensure that all new cars and vans registered in the
block will have to be zero emission by 2035. In an intermediate step, new vehicles
will have to comply with CO2 standards that will require emissions drop by 55%
until 2030 for cars and 50% for vans (from a limit of 95 g/km for cars and 147 g/km
for vans in 2021) [10]. Globally, 25% of the present light-duty vehicle market is
covered by pledges or targets to bring the share of zero emission vehicles to 100% by
2035 ([20], p. 57) (Table 3.1).
Table 3.1 Selected targets to end sales of new internal combustion engine-powered vehicles, by
country or state
Year Country/state Type of vehicle
2025 Norway LDVs
2030 Austria, Slovenia, Washington (USA) LDVs
Denmark, Iceland, Ireland, Netherlands, Singapore Passenger cars
2035 European Union, Cape Verde, Canada, Chile, UK LDVs
California, Massachusetts, and New York (USA) Passenger cars
2050 Costa Rica, New Zealand, Connecticut, Maryland Passenger cars
New Jersey, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont (USA)
Source: IEA ([26], p. 273)
Notes: LDVs, light-duty vehicles (passenger cars and light trucks). This table covers countries and
states with legislation, a target, or stated ambition in place to phase out the sales of internal
combustion engine light-duty vehicles
Major automakers are responding by turning increasingly to electric vehicles—

not only to respond to regulation but also to maintain or capture market share and
retain or gain a competitive edge [20]. A general overview of the electrification plans
of different automakers is provided in the IEA Global Electric Vehicle Outlook 2022
([20], p. 32).
While electric vehicle sales are projected to continue to grow strongly in all
scenarios, a slow turnover in the vehicle stock means that the process of electrifying
significant portions of the global vehicle fleet will take time and not be completed
until after 2050 in the STEPS and APS. The NZE Scenario therefore assumes an end
of new internal combustion engine vehicle sales globally by no later than 2035. This
will require significant efforts to step up electric vehicle and battery production ([26],
p. 276).
3.5 Resource Demand for Batteries
Clean energy technologies, including batteries, require far larger volumes of critical
minerals than fossil fuel-based technologies. Copper is a key component of most
technologies that produce or consume electricity; silver and silicon are needed for
solar PV; rare earth elements are an important component of most wind turbine
motors and electric motors, while lithium, nickel, cobalt, manganese, and graphite
are crucial minerals for the production of lithium-ion batteries ([16], p. 5), the
dominant battery chemistry for electric vehicles and utility-scale energy storage
applications, both today and under the projections of the World Energy Outlook
2022 ([26], p. 217).
The energy sector is becoming a substantial consumer of critical minerals as the
accelerating transition to a clean energy system is expected to significantly raise
demand. For the majority of minerals, the energy industry only made up a minor
portion of total demand until the middle of the 2010s.
The energy sector’s share is projected to increase significantly over the next two
decades: electric vehicles and stationary battery energy storage systems have already
outclassed consumer electronics as the largest consumer of lithium and are projected
to overtake stainless steel production as the largest consumer of nickel by 2040 ([16],
p. 5).
Lithium-ion batteries have emerged as the dominant battery technology in both
electric vehicles and stationary battery energy storage applications. They are far
more energy dense than competing solutions such as lead acid or nickel cadmium
batteries. The production of lithium-ion batteries is mineral-intensive. A battery pack
is made up of modules which are composed of individual cells. Cells account for
around 70–85% of the weight of the total weight of a battery pack. They contain
several minerals, mainly lithium, nickel, cobalt, and manganese (in the cathode),
graphite (in the anode), copper (in the current collector), as well aluminum, steel, and
microelectronics (for other components of the modules and pack) ([16], p. 90).
3.5.1 Dominant Lithium-Ion Battery Chemistries
Lithium-ion batteries are often categorized and commonly referred to by the chem-
istry of their cathodes. The choice of chemistry determines a battery’s energy density
and longevity, which varies significantly between chemistries, and is a key deter-
mining factor for the type and amount of minerals required. The most commonly
used cathode chemistries for lithium-ion batteries are lithium cobalt oxide (LCO),
lithium manganese oxide (LMO), lithium iron phosphate (LFP), lithium nickel
cobalt aluminum oxide (NCA), and lithium nickel manganese cobalt oxide (NMC)
([16, 32], p. 90; [29]).
Of the types mentioned above, LCO batteries have the greatest energy density and
a relatively high specific energy (150–190 Wh/kg). The primary choice for consumer
electronics is a mature technology, with the disadvantage, however, of a comparably
short life cycle (500–1000 full cycles). This, coupled with an inherent thermal
instability, means they are generally not employed in electric vehicles or as station-
ary electricity storage solutions ([16], p. 90).
The LMO battery has a high specific power, a longer life cycle (1000–-
1500 cycles), and much better thermal stability than LCO. Being cobalt-free is
often considered as a key advantage of this chemistry. However, it has a notably
lower energy density, in the range of 100–140 Wh/kg. Presently, it finds use in the
production of electric bikes and some commercial vehicles ([16], p. 90).
LFP batteries offer high thermal stability and a longer life cycle (more than 2000
full cycles) ([16], pp. 90). Its lower energy density and specific energy (90–140 Wh/
kg) mean that the technology has been thus far favored for large-scale stationary
energy storage applications and heavy-duty vehicles, where the size and weight of a
battery are secondary considerations over safety and durability, rather than passenger
electric vehicles or behind-the-meter home storage systems [24]. Nevertheless,
owing to several social, geopolitical, and resource constraint concerns, LFP batte-
ries, which do not require nickel, manganese, or cobalt, are today witnessing a
massive resurgence in R&D spending to improve their energy density and make
them suitable for passenger EVs. These efforts were spearheaded by automakers in
China, where in the past year, both domestic and international OEMs like Tesla
Motors and Volkswagen have focused on producing LFP-based entry-level EV
models.
The NCA battery has the highest specific energy range (200–250 Wh/kg) in the
current class of technologies as well as high specific power, combined with a lifetime
of 1000 to 1500 full cycles. NCA is the technology preferred by manufacturers like
Tesla and has immense potential for use in power systems in backup and load
shifting applications. However, they are more expensive than other chemistries
([16], p. 91).
NMC batteries have longer life cycle (1000–2000 cycles) compared to NCA, but
a lower energy density (140–200 Wh/kg). They have dominated the BEV and PHEV
markets since its commercialization in the early 2000s. While NCA batteries have
higher specific energy to their name, NMC batteries possess longer lifetimes, which
makes them the favored choice for PHEVs. Manufacturers producing both BEVs
and PHEVs, such as General Motors, are known to use NMC variants of lithium-ion
batteries ([16], p. 91).
Advancement in lithium-ion battery technology involves more than just the
challenge of improving energy density, durability, safety, and cost. It also includes
the effort to do so while minimizing the environmental, social, and political costs of
acquiring their constituent materials. Owing to price spikes and concerns over ethical
mining practices in the 2010s, EV producers have been working to reduce the
amount of cobalt in batteries over the past several years—this implies, in many
cases, an increase in the quantity of nickel. NCA batteries transitioned to NCA+, a
nickel-rich variant of NCA, and NMC 111 batteries have moved increasingly toward
NMC 532, NMC 622, and NMC 811 and could move to even more nickel-rich
chemistries. This trend of moving away from cobalt could therefore have major
implications for the requirement for nickel, which also has a highly concentrated
supply chain today ([16], p. 91).
Anodes must complement cathode chemistries. Anode materials are selected for
their charge collection capability. Graphite is currently the dominant choice for the
anode in most lithium-ion batteries, although certain manufacturers also use lithium
titanate instead of graphite. Efforts to replace some or most atoms of carbon in the
graphite anode with silicon atoms are underway (e.g., Tesla, Porsche) and are
expected to drastically improve the energy density of the cells. However, silicon
anodes swell during charging, causing its surface to crack and performance to drop.
Another alternative to the graphite anode is pure lithium metal, which also has far
greater charge collection capability than graphite. But this anode cannot be used with
liquid electrolyte batteries due to undesirable chemical interactions between the
electrolyte and the metal anode, which drastically reduces the lifetime of the cell.
The use of a lithium metal anode may increase significantly with the advent of
all-solid state batteries (ASSBs) ([16], p. 92).
The future technology mix will have a significant impact on the amount of
specific mineral resources required for the production of batteries. As shown in
Fig. 3.4, different battery chemistries require different minerals in varying quantities.
Different assumptions about the evolution of the technology mix can thus have a
substantial effect on the amounts of certain minerals consumed for battery
production.
Nickel manganese cobalt oxide (NMC) batteries, for instance, usually require
roughly eight times more cobalt but only half as much nickel than nickel cobalt
aluminum oxide (NCA) batteries. While nickel, cobalt, and manganese are needed
for lithium iron phosphate (LFP) batteries, approximately 50% more copper is
required compared to NMC batteries ([16], p. 88).
Further uncertainty is introduced by the potential for disruptive leaps in battery
technology. As we reach the physical limits of density and life cycle improvements
with current technology and materials, notable cost reductions can only be achieved
by the disruption of the current technology—for example, in the form of ASSBs with
NCA
Copper
NCA+
Lithium
NMC 333
Nickel
NMC 532
NMC 622 Manganese
NMC 811 Cobalt
LFP Graphite
LMO
50 100 150 200 250
kg
Fig. 3.4 Critical minerals required for the production of a 75-kWh automotive lithium-ion battery
using selected cathode chemistries. (Source: Adapted from Ref. [16], p. 89), based on Refs. [1–3,
13, 31]
lithium anodes or through the increased used of silicon in graphite anodes for
existing liquid electrolyte chemistries, or through all together new chemistries
such as sodium-ion batteries. Therefore, a continued cost decline at the pace
observed during the past decade cannot be taken for granted without a further
acceleration in technology innovation, and this will be accompanied by changes in
mineral demand projections.
3.5.2 Mineral Resource Requirements for the Production

of Batteries
While mineral resource requirements for battery production were not quantified for
the STEPS, APS, or the NZE Scenario presented in the WEO 2022, the IEA
published detailed minerals demand projections in a preceding report. They are
based on the IEA Sustainable Development Scenario (SDS) which describes a global
pathway for the energy system that achieves the goal of the Paris Agreement, in
addition to meeting the United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goals.
In the SDS, the transport sector sees battery demand from EVs grow by nearly
40 times between 2020 (160 GWh) and 2040 (6200 GWh). The base case chemistry
assumptions project a shift away from cobalt-rich chemistries. This is achieved in
both NCA batteries and NMC variants, where the ratio of nickel and manganese is
increased in the transition from NMC 111 to NMC 532, NMC 622, and ultimately
NMC 811 ([16], p. 97). While most heavy trucks are reliant on LFP batteries in the
medium term, the base case also sees growth in the market share of LFP for cars due
to its increasing use in China. The base case also sees ASSBs becoming commer-
cially available by around 2030 and requiring another 5 years for manufacturing
capacity to build up. Even in 2040, ASSBs remain more expensive than liquid
electrolyte lithium-ion batteries and are therefore limited to premium vehicles and
advanced economies. In the longer term, heavy trucks operating long haul are likely
to use ASSBs as soon as they become available because of the great benefits of
energy density improvement in these applications. They would enable increased
payload, greater operating range, and shorter charging times ([16], p. 96).
For the anode, natural graphite is expected to continue to account for the majority
of market share. Even as artificial graphite starts to replace natural graphite for
reasons of improved purity and hence energy density, a small number of manufac-
turers choose lithium titanate (LTO) instead of graphite for heavier vehicles due to its
fast-charging advantages. The dominance of graphite declines very slightly over the
years to make way for nanocomposite graphite doped with silicon and for lithium
metal that emerges with the advent of ASSBs ([16], p. 96).
Overall annual demand for minerals under the base case chemistry assumptions
grows by 30 times between 2020 and 2040, from 400 kt to 11,800 kt. Nickel demand
grows by 41 times to 3300 kt, while cobalt increases by only 21 times, as cathode
chemistries shift away from NMC 111 toward lower-cobalt chemistries (NMC
622 and NMC 811). Lithium demand grows by 43 times, while copper grows
28 times. Graphite demand grows 25 times from 140 kt in 2020 to over 3500 kt in
2040. Silicon registers the largest relative growth, up over 460 times, as graphite
anodes doped with silicon grow from a 1% share in 2020 to 15% in 2040 ([16],
p. 97).
In the electricity sector, battery storage grows by 11 times between 2020
(37 GWh) and 2040 (420 GWh). In the base case chemistry assumptions, safe and
cheap LFP batteries for utility-scale storage are expected to dominate the overall
battery storage market. The remaining demand is covered by the more expensive, but
energy dense, NMC 111 and NMC 532 used predominantly for home energy
storage. The NMC variants transition toward NMC 622 and NMC 811 in a similar
way to the market for EV batteries, albeit with a delay owing to the time needed for
transfer of technology and sufficient reduction in prices. Vanadium flow batteries
(VFBs) first become commercially suitable in 2030 with a small share, growing
modestly to capture a wider market for storage applications in large renewables
projects.
Overall demand for minerals in the base case grows by 33 times between 2020
and 2040, from 26 kt to nearly 850 kt. Overall mineral demand outpaces battery
demand growth, as the market share for LFP batteries is displaced by more mineral-
intensive NMC chemistries. The largest relative growth is seen in nickel, which
grows more than 140 times from 0.4 kt in 2020 to 57 kt in 2040. Cobalt demand
increases by 70 times while manganese demand increases by 58 times.
The base case projections are founded on a set of assumptions, which, when
altered due to reasons of technology advancements, could result in scenarios that
produce very different results.
The base case for electric vehicle batteries, for example, assumes an ongoing shift
away from cobalt toward nickel-rich cathode chemistries. Growing concerns around
nickel supplies, for example, due to price spikes triggered by delays to and cost
overruns at planned nickel mining projects, could conceivably slow the shift toward
nickel-rich chemistries. The impact on minerals volumes could be substantial:
compared to the base case, a delayed shift could result in a nearly 50% higher
demand for cobalt and manganese for electric vehicle batteries by 2040. Similarly, a
much more rapid shift toward ASSBs could result in higher lithium demand than in
the base case but would also reduce the demand for graphite and silicon ([16], p. 99).
The base case for energy storage systems is built on the assumption that utility-
scale storage forms a major proportion of the demand, wherein cost (and not space)
is the primary concern for the technology selection. However, several alternative
scenarios could change the base case projections. For instance, more rapid adoption
of wall-mounted home energy storage would make size and thus energy density a
prime concern, thereby pushing up the market share of NMC batteries such as those
already used by the Tesla Powerwall. Conversely, if the technology for flow
batteries, which have the advantage of virtually unlimited energy capacity and
very long lifetimes, reaches a stage of widespread commercialization earlier than
expected, then utility-scale storage technology could shift away from LFP batteries
toward VFBs ([16], p. 105).
The mineral demand projections presented in this section show that the prolifer-
ation of batteries in the electricity and transport sectors will lead to a significant
increase in the demand for various critical minerals essential for battery production.
Scaling up the production of these minerals in a sustainable manner is critical to
achieving the deployment rates and cost reductions projected in the scenarios
presented above. Today already, raw material prices account for 50–70% of total
battery costs. A doubling of lithium or nickel prices, for example, would lead to 6%
increase in battery costs ([16], p. 107). It is important to note that in addition to
primary production (mining), battery recycling has the potential to be a significant
source of secondary supply of the critical minerals needed for future battery demand.
IEA analysis suggests that the recycling and reuse of batteries from electric vehicles
and stationary storage could reduce primary mineral supply requirements by more
than 10% by 2040 ([16], p. 187). Targeted policies, including minimum recycled
content requirements, tradable recycling credits, and virgin material taxes, all have
potential to incentivize recycling and drive growth of secondary supplies. Interna-
tional coordination will be crucial because of the global nature of the battery and
critical minerals markets [24].
3.6 Conclusion
Long-term projections of the development of the global energy system foresee a

dramatic increase in the relevance of battery storage for the energy system. This is
driven primarily by the proliferation of electric vehicles and a growing demand for
electricity storage, connected to rising share of variable renewables in the electricity
supply mix.
The IEA WEO 2022 projects electric vehicles to become the dominant technol-
ogy in the light-duty vehicle segment in all scenarios in 2050, contributing to a
massive increase in the demand for batteries. In the electricity sector, battery energy
storage systems emerge as one of the key solutions to provide flexibility to a power
system that sees sharply rising flexibility needs, driven by the fast-rising share of
variable renewables in the electricity mix. Batteries are also increasingly tapped to
provide firm capacity as traditional generators, such as coal- or gas-fired plants, are
retired.
The ongoing decline in the cost of battery packs is crucial to this. It enables
electric vehicles to compete on cost with their internal combustion engine counter-
parts in more and more use cases. Policies and targets play an important role as well.
Zero emission vehicle sales targets, such as the European Union’s commitment to
100% zero emission vehicles in sales by 2035, provide guidance to carmakers, many
of whom are responding by expanding the model range and setting their own
fleetwide electrification targets. Direct and indirect electric vehicle subsidies, as
well as investments into charging infrastructure, are boosting the competitiveness
of electric vehicles and their practicality of use.
On the stationary battery energy storage side, falling costs, driven mainly by the
battery pack, which benefits from spillover effects from the EV industry, but also
ongoing learning and economies of scale on the rest of the balance of system, are
increasingly making battery energy storage a cost-competitive choice for the provi-
sion of flexibility and secure capacity.
The projected rise in battery production leads to a strong increase in demand for
critical minerals like lithium, cobalt, nickel, graphite, copper, or manganese. Increas-
ing the supply of these critical minerals in lockstep with demand is essential in order
for battery costs to continue to decline.
References
1. Argonne National Laboratory (2020a) BatPaC Model Software. Available at: https://www.anl.
gov/cse/batpac-model-software. Accessed 6 Feb 2023
2. Argonne National Laboratory (2020b) GREET model. Available at: https://greet.es.anl.gov/.
Accessed 6 Feb 2023
3. Ballinger B et al (2019) The vulnerability of electric vehicle deployment to critical mineral
supply. Appl Energy 255:113844. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.APENERGY.2019.113844
4. Bloomberg NEF (2022) Lithium-ion battery pack prices rise for first time to an average of $151/
kWh. Available at: https://about.bnef.com/blog/lithium-ion-battery-pack-prices-rise-for-first-
time-to-an-average-of-151-kwh/. Accessed 1 Feb 2023
5. Bowen T, Chernyakhovskiy I, Denholm P (2019) Grid-scale battery storage: frequently asked
questions. Available at: https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy19osti/74426.pdf
6. Bowen T, Gokhale-Welch C (2021) Behind-the-meter energy storage: frequently asked ques-
tions. Available at: https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy21osti/79393.pdf
7. BP (2022) BP energy outlook 2022. Available at: https://www.bp.com/en/global/corporate/

energy-economics/energy-outlook. Accessed 22 Nov 2022
8. Bundesregierung (2022) G7 Climate, Energy and Environment Ministers’ Communiqué.
Available at: https://www.bundesregierung.de/resource/blob/974430/2044350/84e380088170
c69e6b6ad45dbd133ef8/2022-05-27-1-climate-ministers-communique-data.pdf. Accessed
28 Feb 2023
9. EIA (2021) International Energy Outlook 2021. Available at: https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/ieo/
10. European Council (2022a) Fit for 55: why the EU is toughening CO2 emission standards for
cars and vans – Consilium. Available at: https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/infographics/fit-
for-55-emissions-cars-and-vans/. Accessed: 24 Nov 2022
11. European Council (2022b) Fit for 55. Available at: https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/
policies/green-deal/fit-for-55-the-eu-plan-for-a-green-transition/#package. Accessed
1 Feb 2023
12. ExxonMobil (2022) ExxonMobil Outlook for Energy 2022. Available at: https://corporate.
exxonmobil.com/energy-and-innovation/outlook-for-energy. Accessed: 22 Nov 2022
13. Fishman T et al (2018) Implications of emerging vehicle technologies on rare earth supply and
demand in the United States. Resources 7(1):9. https://doi.org/10.3390/RESOURCES7010009
14. IEA (2020) Renewables 2020. Paris. Available at: https://www.iea.org/reports/
renewables-2020
15. IEA (2021a) Net Zero by 2050: A Roadmap for the Global Energy Sector. International Energy
Agency, Paris. Available at: https://www.iea.org/reports/net-zero-by-2050
16. IEA (2021b) The Role of Critical Minerals in Clean Energy Transitions. Paris. https://doi.org/
10.1787/f262b91c-en
17. IEA (2022a) Africa Energy Outlook 2022. Paris. Available at: https://www.iea.org/reports/
africa-energy-outlook-2022
18. IEA (2022b) An Energy Sector Roadmap to Net Zero Emissions in Indonesia. Paris.
Available at: https://www.iea.org/reports/an-energy-sector-roadmap-to-net-zero-emissions-in-
indonesia
19. IEA (2022c) Coal in Net Zero Transitions. Paris. Available at: https://www.iea.org/reports/coal-
in-net-zero-transitions
20. IEA (2022d) Global Electric Vehicle Outlook 2022. Paris. Available at: https://www.iea.org/
reports/global-ev-outlook-20022
21. IEA (2022e) Global Energy and Climate Model. Paris. Available at: https://www.iea.org/
reports/global-energy-and-climate-model
22. IEA (2022f) Steering Electricity Markets Towards a Rapid Decarbonisation. OECD Publishing,
Paris. https://doi.org/10.1787/d2f0068c-en
23. IEA (2022g) Tracking clean energy progress: electric vehicles. Paris. Available at: https://www.
iea.org/reports/electric-vehicles
24. IEA (2022h) Tracking clean energy progress: grid-scale storage. Paris. Available at: https://
www.iea.org/reports/grid-scale-storage
25. IEA (2022i) World Energy Investment. Paris. Available at: https://www.iea.org/reports/world-
energy-investment-2022
26. IEA (2022j) World Energy Outlook 2022. Paris doi:https://doi.org/10.1787/3a469970-en
27. IPCC (2022) Climate change 2022: mitigation of climate change (IPCC AR 6 Working Group
III Report). Geneva. Available at: https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg3/
28. IRENA (2022) World Energy Transitions Outlook 2022. Abu Dhabi and Bonn. Available at:
https://www.irena.org/publications/2021/Jun/World-Energy-Transitions-Outlook. Accessed:
22 Nov 2022
29. Liu W, Placke T, Chau KT (2022) Overview of batteries and battery management for electric
vehicles. Energy Rep 8:4058–4084. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egyr.2022.03.016
30. Shell (2022) Shell scenarios. Available at: https://www.shell.com/energy-and-innovation/the-

energy-future/scenarios. Accessed: 22 Nov 2022
31. Watari T et al (2019) Total material requirement for the global energy transition to 2050: a focus
on transport and electricity. Resour Conserv Recycl 148:91–103. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.
RESCONREC.2019.05.015
32. Zubi G et al (2018) The lithium-ion battery: State of the art and future perspectives’. Renew Sust
Energ Rev 89(April 2017):292–308. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2018.03.002
Chapter 4
Overview of Energy Storage Technologies
Besides Batteries
Eva Schischke, Anna Grevé, Ulrike Ehrenstein, and Christian Doetsch
Contents
4.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
4.2 Mechanical Energy Storage: Pumped Hydroelectric Storage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56
4.3 Mechanical Energy Storage: Compressed Air Energy Storage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57
4.4 Mechanical Energy Storage: Flywheel Storage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59
4.5 Electrochemical Energy Storage: Redox-Flow Batteries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61
4.6 Thermal Energy Storage: Power-to-Heat . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62
4.7 Chemical Energy Storage: Power-to-Gas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64
4.8 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66
4.1 Introduction
Energy storage systems are grouped by their types of energy storage media into
mechanical, electrical, electrochemical, chemical, and thermal energy storage sys-
tems. Mechanical storage systems consist mainly of pumped hydro storage, air
energy storage, and flywheel storage systems.
E. Schischke · A. Grevé · U. Ehrenstein

Fraunhofer Institute for Environmental, Safety and Energy Technology UMSICHT,
Oberhausen, Germany
C. Doetsch (✉)
Fraunhofer Institute for Environmental, Safety and Energy Technology UMSICHT,
Oberhausen, Germany
Fraunhofer UMSICHT, Oberhausen, Germany

54 E. Schischke et al.
Electrical storage systems store electricity directly in supercapacitors and

superconducting magnetic energy storages. Electrochemical storages are commonly
referred to as batteries and include lead-acid, Li-Ion, Na-S, as well as redox-flow
batteries. Chemical and thermal energy storage systems include, for example,
hydrogen, synthetic fuels, and warm water. In addition to the other energy storage
systems, they are also essential elements for the energy transition by enabling sector
coupling.
The central point for establishing the concept of sector coupling and additionally
the concept of power-to-X is the importance of renewably produced electricity for
the energy transition and the need to integrate this electricity into the various
economic sectors. Power-to-X technologies are technologies that enable this inte-
gration and include besides energy storage also material utilization paths. They can
be grouped by their concepts into, e.g., power-to-power, power-to-gas, power-to-
liquid, or power-to-heat [5].
Regarding the energy storage technologies focused on here, Fig. 4.1 shows the
different energy storage technologies sorted by energy storage capacity and storage
duration. Storage systems with high capacity and high storage duration are called
long-term energy storage and can be used as seasonal storage or for sector coupling
with the heating and mobility sector. In contrast, technologies with lower capacity
and short storage duration are called short-term storage and are generally used for
short-term balancing applications.
Fig. 4.1 Overview over different types of energy storage system sorted by storage capacity and
discharge time
4 Overview of Energy Storage Technologies Besides Batteries 55
Electric, mechanical, and electrochemical energy storage applications generally

refer to power-to-power applications which remain within the power sector in their
function. These can be grouped according to the corresponding segment of the
energy system. Figure 4.2 shows an overview of these applications. Depending on
the type of application, different storage technologies are better suited to provide the
required services.
Power-to-X concepts that connect the power sector with another sector, e.g., the
heat, industry, or the transport sector, are referred to as sector coupling. Sector
coupling is an important element of the energy transition, as it can make decisive
contributions to defossilization in the various sectors [35].
The ecological footprint of energy storage technologies includes a variety of
aspects. From a cradle-to-grave perspective, there are different life cycle stages.
Firstly is the production stage that includes both the production including all
necessary materials and the construction including the transport processes as well
as the energy and water and the resulting emissions and waste. Secondly are
replacement measures and additional emissions that are caused by the energy storage
system itself requiring energy during its operation. In addition, there is an energy
loss associated with storing energy due to nonideal efficiencies <100 % of the
storage operation. At “end-of-life,” the focus is on dismantling, separating, and
Fig. 4.2 Overview of power-to-power energy storage applications sorted by the corresponding
segment of the energy system
disposing of the materials and recycling, including the energy consumption and
emissions required for this [14]. Especially the emissions of the respective process
chains as a whole are crucially dependent on the emissions of the upstream energy
system (fossil or renewable) and the round-trip efficiency of the energy storage
system. With a primarily emission-free energy mix, technical aspects such as service
life, capacity, and efficiency become the decisive influencing factors [22].
4.2 Mechanical Energy Storage: Pumped Hydroelectric

Storage
4.2.1 Operating Principle
Pumped hydroelectric storage (PHES) is one of the most common large-scale

storage systems and uses the potential energy of water. In periods of surplus of
electricity, water is pumped into a higher reservoir (upper basin). In demand times,
this process is reversed, and the potential energy is transformed into electrical power
by a generator within a short reaction time [20].
The energy density depends on the height difference between upper and lower
reservoir and ranges between 70 and 600 meters, which corresponds to energy
densities of 200–1600 Wh/m3 [21].
There are two different design principles: the tandem design and the use of pump
turbines. In the tandem design, pumps and turbines are designed as independent
units, whereas pump turbines can function both as pumps and turbines. Pumped
storage power plants are characterized above all by high storage capacities and rapid
operational readiness.
More than 96 % of installed storage capacity worldwide consists of pumped
hydro storage systems. Table 4.1 shows the installed rated power and capacity of
pumped hydro in the world since 1990.
With a storage duration ranging from a couple of hours up to several days and
reaction times within seconds, pumped hydro storage systems are used for bulk
energy services as well as ancillary services.
Table 4.1 Worldwide installed rated power and rated capacity of pumped hydro storage systems
[8]
Year Installed rated power in MW Installed rated capacity in MWh
2020 181.041 601.684
2010 133.348 448.477
2000 106.841 396.301
1990 84.989 330.191
4.2.2 Ecological Footprint
Of all energy storage systems, pumped hydro storage systems have the longest
service life of 50–150 years [2]. Due to their design, they show neither a degradation
of the high round-trip efficiency nor the capacity. Because of their low volumetric
energy density, however, pumped storage power plants require large areas for
storage lakes and a sufficiently high gradient between the upper and lower reservoirs.
In practical terms, this means that PHES are primarily implemented in areas with
natural height differences.
The main materials in the construction of PHES are concrete1 and steel. Although
these materials have significant CO2 emissions during production, these are put into
perspective by their long service life. The required materials are available world-
wide, so they do not have any criticality worth mentioning. The operation and
commissioning, which mainly consists of damming rivers or connecting existing
lakes, can lead to many negative consequences for the local ecosystems. In partic-
ular, the constantly changing water levels can be negative for flora and fauna, but
also for possible tourist use. Even if pumps, pipes, or turbines are hardly visible in
modern designs such as cavern power plants, the intervention in nature is often
viewed with skepticism or completely rejected by those affected. Therefore, “since
the 1970s, especially in European countries, this has led to a continuously decreasing
acceptance of these energy storage devices among the population” [1].
Decommissioning, dismantling, and recycling play a subordinate role with PHES
because of the particularly long service life. At the same time, hardly any materials
that are critical for disposal are installed here.
4.3 Mechanical Energy Storage: Compressed Air Energy

Storage
Compressed air energy storage is based on the compression of air and storage in
geological underground voids (e.g., salt caverns) at pressures of around 100 bar.
When discharging, the compressed air is released and expanded to drive a gas
turbine to generate electricity. As air cools down during expansion, it has to be
heated while releasing. Here, a distinction is made between diabatic and adiabatic
compressed air energy storage.
When discharging a diabatic compressed air energy storage (D-CAES), the
released air is heated via combustion using natural gas or fuel. Therefore, a
1
The production of steel requires sand as raw material, which has become a scarce resource.
However, it is not part of the 2020 EU Critical Raw Materials List, which has been the basis for
the evaluation of critical materials in this chapter.
Table 4.2 Worldwide installed rated power and rated capacity of compressed air energy storage
systems [8]
Installed rated Installed rated
Year power in MW capacity in MWh
2020 1.614 40.087
2010 400 2.860
2000 400 2.860
1990 (While [8] doesn’t mention any installed CAES 290 560
before 1990. The CAES plant in Huntorf, Germany, was
built in 1978 and is included in this table, based on data
from Ref. [30])
D-CAES system is a hybrid system composed of a natural gas fired open cycle
turbine and an electrical storage system.
In an adiabatic compressed air energy storage (A-CAES), the heat produced
during the compression cycle is stored using thermal energy storage (TES). During
discharging, the stored thermal energy is used to heat the released air. The compres-
sor discharge temperature can reach more than 600 °C. The hot air is sent to a TES
which is designed for the applied internal pressure and which is sufficiently insulated
to minimize heat losses. The TES can be made of ceramic, concrete, or natural rock
materials. In this setup, no additional combustion cycle is required.
Two large-scale D-CAES were installed in 1978 and 1991 in Huntorf, Germany,
and McIntosh, USA, respectively. They were used for energy time-shift and spin-
ning reserve for a generally conventional energy system. Since diabatic storage
systems still depend on fossil fuels, research has been focusing on A-CAES since
then. First commercial A-CAES have been commissioned in 2020 in China and the
USA, to support the increased integration of renewable generation in these systems.
Table 4.2 provides an overview of the worldwide installed rated power and capacity
of compressed air energy storage systems.
CAES have the second highest service life of 30–50 years for the machines and even
longer for the cavern. Also, they show neither degradation of the medium nor the
capacity. Because of their low volumetric energy density, however, compressed air
storage power plants require large, pressure-resistant, mostly underground volumes
for storing the compressed air. These caverns are mostly salt caverns that are
specifically created by leaching. Other types of storage volumes have not yet been
implemented for cost reasons. Therefore, only areas where salt caverns exist or can
be created have been considered for CAES.
The use of materials (steel, concrete) is significantly lower for CAES compared to
PHES and focuses primarily on the machine house with the compressors and
turbines.2 In contrast to PHES, the CO2 emissions in the production of the compo-
nents for a CAES are rather low. However, it must be noted that when the salt cavern
is drained, extremely high salt loads have to be disposed of by rinsing with warm
water. This can cause further emissions during construction through long pipelines
or affect flora and fauna through discharge into rivers.
During operation, the CO2 emissions that result from the additional firing of
natural gas for D-CAES systems are dominant. It can be assumed that approx. 98 %
of the total CO2 emissions occur during operation [24]. Modern concepts with heat
storage (A-CAES) do not require additional natural gas and are therefore signifi-
cantly more attractive from an emissions point of view. Both types of construction
require little space, as most of the system is underground. For this reason, CAES are
hardly viewed with skepticism or rejected by those affected, except during in the
leaching and construction phase.
Decommissioning, dismantling, and recycling play a subordinate role with CAES
due to the particularly long service life. At the same time, hardly any materials that
are critical for disposal are used.
4.4 Mechanical Energy Storage: Flywheel Storage
Flywheels store electrical energy in the form of rotational energy. The flywheel is set
in motion, or its speed is increased with the aid of an electric motor, thus storing
energy. The amount of energy that can be stored depends on the rotational speed,
since this is proportional to the mass moment of inertia and the square of the angular
velocity. If required, the kinetic energy is converted back into electrical energy via a
generator. Since the speed of the wheel changes both when energy is stored and
when it is discharged, a frequency converter is required to adapt the voltage
generated to the grid frequency [20, 26].
Under optimum operating conditions, flywheels can achieve an efficiency of up to
95 %. To keep the relatively high rest losses (approx. 20 % per hour), which are
mainly caused by friction on the bearings and on the flywheel itself, as low as
possible, the flywheels usually run in vacuum chambers. Furthermore, magnetic
bearings with superconductors are used, which significantly reduce losses compared
to roller bearings or plain bearings [11].
Flywheels show fast discharge times (within seconds) with high power densities
of up to 10,000 W/kg [20].
2
For PHES, the use of materials for the machine house is small in comparison with the required
materials for building the reservoirs.
Table 4.3 Worldwide installed rated power and rated capacity of flywheel energy storage systems
[8]
2020 972 97
2010 865 0.2
2000 0 0
Flywheel energy storage systems are mainly used for short-term storage applica-
tion lasting from milliseconds up to minutes such as power quality services [1]. This
can also be seen in Table 4.3, where the installed rated power of flywheel energy
storage systems is significantly higher than the installed rated capacity.
Compared to battery storage systems, flywheel storage systems have a long service
life of more than 20 years in most cases. Also, due to their design, they show neither
a degradation in round-trip efficiency nor in capacity. However, self-discharge,
which mainly results from air and bearing friction, must be considered in the
emissions balance.
Since flywheels—in contrast to PHES and CAES—do not store the energy in the
medium of water or air, but in a rotating mass, the use of materials is relevant. The
materials used are primarily fiber-reinforced composite materials (e.g., CFRP) or
steel. The materials are to be classified as not very critical in terms of procurement,
but steel production brings increased CO2 emissions into the balance, whereas
recycling of composite materials is very difficult if not impossible. In terms of
safety, flywheels must be secured against bursting, since the usually very fast
rotating masses have a high-risk potential. This is often taken into account by
building a containment for the flywheel or sinking the flywheels in the ground.
Therefore, acceptance problems with this technology are not to be expected [1].
During operation, fundamental losses occur due to self-discharge. With slowly
rotating steel flywheels, these tend to be higher than with composite flywheels, but
even there they are not negligible compared to other storage technologies. Therefore,
the mode of operation (average storage period) is of great relevance, i.e., the losses
are higher with longer storage periods, so that in this case the CO2 emissions—
assuming a fossil energy mix—are much higher during operation than during
production [24].
Decommissioning, dismantling, and recycling play less of a role with flywheels
than with battery storage due to their long service life. At the same time, hardly any
materials that are critical for disposal are installed. With composite flywheels, the
materials still are a challenge to dispose of, and, unlike steel, they cannot yet be
recycled.
4.5 Electrochemical Energy Storage: Redox-Flow Batteries
Flow batteries are rechargeable batteries which use two different electrolytes—one
with a positive charge and one with a negative charge—as storage medium. The
most used electrolyte systems are vanadium-vanadium or the iron-chromium. One of
the biggest advantages of this technology is the decoupling between power and
energy ratings, as tank volume and stack size (active surface area) can be scaled
independently.
The electrolytes are stored in external tanks and only pumped through the battery
cell for charging and discharging in two separate hydraulic circuits. When operating,
oxidation and reduction processes take place at the anode and cathode, which
convert the electrical energy into chemical energy during charging and back into
electrical energy during discharging. The two half-cells are separated by an
ion-selective membrane. As the anolyte and catholyte are stored in separate tanks,
the self-discharge rate of flow batteries is nearly zero. Additionally, as the battery
electrodes do not actively participate in the chemical reactions, flow batteries are
deep discharge proof [12].
Redox-flow batteries have been continually under development and have become
more commonly used since 2010 as can be seen in Table 4.4. Applications range
from small scale behind-the-meter applications in private households to providing
bulk energy and ancillary services. The most common type of redox-flow battery is
vanadium redox-flow batteries [1].
The advantage of redox-flow batteries in comparison with Li-Ion batteries is the
separation of storage power and storage capacity, which can therefore be chosen
individually to fit the application.
In terms of ecological assessment, redox-flow batteries differ from conventional

batteries in many respects. The crucial point here is that the energy is usually stored
in two liquids, which are stored in conventional containers, mostly made of plastic.
The decisive advantage in the design is that the capacity can be precisely adapted to
Table 4.4 Worldwide installed rated power and rated capacity of redox-flow battery storage
systems [8]
2020 319 1.236
2010 9 19
2000 3 0.8
the application, regardless of the output, so that there is no unnecessary material

consumption due to oversizing in output or capacity.
It is advantageous that the materials mostly used (plastic, aluminum) have no or
rather low criticality (vanadium), since there are many new exploration projects at an
advanced stage worldwide [9, 28, 33]. Nevertheless, it must be considered that the
storage medium—in contrast to, for example, pumped storage power plants—is an
expensive recyclable material and that vanadium, the electrolyte most used, requires
safe containment, since it is a heavy metal that must not be released into the
environment. At the same time, however, these mostly double-walled storage con-
tainers offer safety advantages compared to some lithium-ion batteries, which have
risky materials (e.g., cobalt in NMC cells) finely distributed in each cell due to their
design. Likewise, the mostly water-based electrolytes do not pose any fire hazards, in
contrast to lithium-ion batteries.
During operation—if neither storage nor withdrawal occurs—only a small
amount of self-discharge occurs. When storing and withdrawing, however,
the pumps that pump the anolyte and catholyte through the cells of the stack are
the main consumers of energy, which is equivalent to self-discharging. As a result,
the round-trip efficiency of vanadium redox-flow batteries at around 70 % is also
significantly lower than that of other battery types. Therefore, the mode of operation
is of great relevance, i. e., the losses are lower with longer storage periods, but
significantly higher with frequent charging and discharging. In this case, the CO2
emissions—assuming a fossil energy mix—are much higher during operation than
with more efficient storage systems. This aspect does not apply to a primarily
renewable energy mix.
From an ecological point of view, the greatest advantage is that the storage fluids
are usually of a single type, uncontaminated, and in liquid form. They can be easily
regenerated during operation and simply pumped out at the end of their life and
recycled with almost no material loss (related to vanadium). From a purely economic
point of view, the value of the electrolyte is an advantage here since recycling is
more worthwhile [3]. At the same time, recycling has a positive effect on the
criticality of vanadium since the vanadium can be recovered and used in new
VRFBs. The aging of the storage media and the associated degradation are also
significantly lower than with conventional batteries. A service life of up to 20 years
is assumed, which puts the production emissions into perspective [15].
4.6 Thermal Energy Storage: Power-to-Heat
Power-to-heat applications use electric power to generate or redistribute heat. Con-

sequently, they serve to couple these two sectors. The heat is generated, for example,
in electrode boilers, in electric boilers, or by using heat pumps.
In electrode boilers, the operating principle of direct resistance heating [16]

comes into effect, where the flow of the electric current through the medium to be
heated leads to heat generation. The electric boiler works according to the operating
principle of electrical resistance heating, in which a current-conducting heating
element heats up and then transfers this heat to the surrounding medium that can
be stored. Both boilers are also suitable for steam generation. Both processes are
established technologies and are structurally simple and low maintenance storage
solutions that can be implemented in different scales. They are therefore suitable for
household, commercial, or industrial applications. Electrode boilers in large-scale
applications are mainly used in combination with heat networks or to produce
superheated steam [18].
In heat pumps, electricity is used to transfer heat from a heat reservoir to a
location to be heated using a carrier medium. The transfer occurs in a circular
process in which the carrier medium is compressed, liquefied, expanded, and
evaporated. During evaporation, it absorbs the heat energy, which it then releases
to the location or medium to be heated during condensation. Overall, the transported
heat is raised to a higher temperature level in the circular process [27]. Heat pumps
make use of ambient heat. The amount of electrical energy required for the circular
process is thus less than the amount of energy yielded by the process. The thermal
efficiency of heat pumps is therefore very high but varies greatly depending on the
type of system and ambient conditions. There is a large number of different types of
heat pumps, which differ in terms of process (compression/evaporation or use of
other physical principles) and heat sources (e.g., groundwater, ambient air, waste
heat) [6].
If the heat pump is combined with a heat storage system, a higher-value utiliza-
tion concept is created for the energy transition: by storing the heat from power-to-
heat processes, the technologies contribute both to meeting the heat-side demands
and to integrating renewable electricity into the energy system in the best possible
way and providing required flexibilities. In this way, they couple the electricity
sector with the heating sector in a beneficial way to the energy transition.
The electricity-based generation of cold by refrigerators (power-to-cold) also
belongs to the field of thermal technologies and is also combined with suitable
storage solutions [32]. However, electricity-based thermal utilization without inter-
mediate storage is also conceivable, for example, for the provision of space heating
by resistance heaters or process heat in industry. Such technologies fulfill a “power-
to” purpose if they contribute to the electrification of processes that were previously
operated differently.
Power-to-heat systems must be considered separately ecologically for energy con-

version unit and thermal energy storage. The thermal storage tanks, which are mostly
designed as simple hot water tanks with insulation, have a very long service life and
contain no risk materials. The service life of heat pumps is in the range of
10–15 years.
When looking at the materials used, the focus is primarily on heat pumps, as they
often have critical refrigerants—the other materials are to be regarded uncritical
(standard metals). The refrigerants primarily used to date are fluorinated or partially
halogenated refrigerants, the use of which is restricted by the EU regulation (EU 517/
2014, F-Gas Regulation) [1]. At the same time, these PFAS (perfluorinated alkyl
substances) are very much part of the ecological debate because they are considered
persistent and potentially toxic. Therefore, the development goes in the direction of
natural refrigerants such as propane. Here, however, the potential flammability and
explosiveness of the refrigerant must be considered. This is probably the only aspect
that can lead to a slightly reduced acceptance of the power-to-heat technology.
During operation, there are practically no losses. The thermal storage—
depending on the storage period—has a low level of self-discharge through heat
losses to the outside. Due to their high efficiency, heat pumps have significantly
reduced CO2 emissions compared to natural gas and even electric boilers. Also, no
degradation in conversion efficiency or storage efficiency or capacity is to be
expected.
Decommissioning, dismantling, and recycling play only a minor role in power-to-
heat systems, especially in the storage tanks, due to their long service life. Only the
refrigerants of the heat pumps must be disposed of safely.
4.7 Chemical Energy Storage: Power-to-Gas

Power-to-gas technologies are associated with material conversion processes. Var-

ious chemical reactions can be triggered using electric current. Gaseous products are
obtained, for example, from various electrolysis processes, from the electric arc
process, microwave plasma activation, or single-stage electrosynthesis using CO2
[10]. Via the electrolysis of water, hydrogen and oxygen are obtained as products.
The associated electrolysis processes differ in flexibility and degree of efficiency and
in their technology readiness levels. Most developed and market-ready is the alka-
line electrolysis (AEL), followed by the proton exchange membrane electrolysis
(PEM) and—with a larger distance—the electrolysis using a solid oxide electrolysis
cell (SOEC) operating at high temperatures. In an electrolyser, water is split by
means of the electric current applied to electrodes which are surrounded by an
electrolyte and separated by a semipermeable diaphragma into the anode and the
cathode compartment, so that hydrogen and oxygen can be collected separately.
AEL uses an alkaline electrolyte and an ionic conductive membrane as diaphragma,
while PEM uses solid electrode membrane assemblies to realize the necessary
separation. The SOEC also operates with a solid electrolyte as diaphragma. Here,
water steam is used instead of liquid water due to the high operating
temperatures [29].
Via co-electrolysis, syngas (hydrogen, carbon monoxide) can be produced from
the reactants water and carbon dioxide [4]. The electric arc process produces ethyne
and hydrogen from methane [17]. Microwave plasma activation decomposes carbon
dioxide to carbon monoxide and oxygen [25]. Electrosynthesis can be used to
produce alkenes, especially ethene, from carbon dioxide and water [34]. In addition
to these direct power-to-gas products, further indirectly electricity-based gaseous
products can be synthesized. Via the hydrogen path, methane is, for example,
obtained as an indirect power-to-gas product by means of chemical or biological
methanation [13]. The electric arc process and the chemical methanation operate at
high technology readiness level (TRL), the co-electrolysis and the biological metha-
nation at medium TRL and the electrosynthesis and the microwave plasma activation
at low TRL.
The gases produced by power-to-gas processes contribute to sector coupling,
since they can be used in a material or energetic way in different sectors, and their
storability enables sector-specific requirements to be decoupled from electricity
production over time. The power-to-gas products hydrogen and methane are partic-
ularly important for the energy storage system, as they can be converted back into
electricity in combined heat and power (CHP) systems or fuel cells and thus used
energetically.
Up to now, the service life of electrolysers has been in the single-digit range,
depending on the type of electrolysers (AEL or PEM) and operating parameters.
And—comparable to battery storage—there is a degradation in efficiency.
The materials used (membranes, catalysts) are expensive and some (catalysts) can
be recovered, but membranes cannot. Since some catalyst materials are particularly
rare (e. g., iridium), the development of a recycling industry parallel to the devel-
opment of electrolysers production is necessary [19].
In electrolysis mode, the CO2 emissions can be reduced by around 90 %—
compared to the natural gas reforming that is common today [31]. Since the
electrolysis process has so far only had an efficiency of approx. 60–70 %, it is
obvious that a high proportion of fossil energies in electrolysis would lead to more
CO2 being emitted in extreme cases than if hydrogen would be from natural gas. In
addition, it must be considered that—if hydrogen is stored under high pressure
(300–700 bar)—additional energy expenditure is required for the compression.
Decommissioning, dismantling, and recycling play an important role in
electrolysers because of the rare and expensive catalysts, but also because of the
shorter service life [1].
4.8 Conclusion
This overview of energy storage and conversion technologies shows the wide range
of possibilities of storing energy as well as providing services to other sectors. It also
shows that no single technology alone can provide all the necessary services for a
successful energy transition. From short-term storage needed for power applications
to medium term storage for balancing applications to long-term storage for seasonal
balancing, the different types of energy storage systems offer individual benefits to
the energy system. However, they also come with their individual drawbacks, from
the use of critical materials to costs and overall efficiency to the issue of recycling.
Which of the various energy storage technologies will become the key technologies
for a successful energy transition depends on the—changing—boundary conditions
such as costs and recycling but also the availability of critical materials. However, it
is already certain that energy storage itself is a key technology to enable the energy
transition.
References
1. Altendorfer et al (2022) Ökonomischer, ökologischer und systemischer Wert von

netzgekoppelten Energiespeichern. https://www.vdi.de/ueber-uns/presse/publikationen/details/
oekonomischer-oekologischer-und-systemischer-wert-von-netzgekoppelten-energiespeichern
2. Bauer C, Bollinger R, Tuchschmid M, Faist-Emmenegger M et al (2017) Wasserkraft. Final
Report Ecoinvent No. 6-VIII. In: Dones R et al (eds) Sachbilanzen von Energiesystemen:
Grundlagen für den ökologischen Vergleich von Energiesystemen und den Einbezug von
Energiesystemen in Ökobilanzen für die Schweiz. Dübendorf, CH. (2007)
3. Baumann, Manuel, Jens Peters, Marcel Weil et al (2019) Exploratory multicriteria decision
analysis of utility-scale battery storage technologies for multiple grid services based on life-
cycle approaches. Energy Technol (Weinheim, Germany) 8(11):1901019-N/a. https://doi.org/
10.1002/ente.201901019
4. Becker WL, Braun RJ, Penev M, Melaina M (2012) Production of Fischer–Tropsch liquid fuels
from high temperature solid oxide co-electrolysis units. Energy (Oxford) 47(1):99–115. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2012.08.047
5. Berger A, Bluhm H, Ehrenstein U, Heinbach K, Dunkelberg E, Hirschl B (2020) Systematik Im
power-to-X-Ansatz – identifikation, charakterisierung und clusterung der power-to-X-
technologien. Zeitschrift Für Energiewirtschaft 44(3):177–193. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s12398-020-00281-x
6. Carroll P, Chesser M, Lyons P (2020) Air source heat pumps field studies: a systematic
literature review. Renewable & Sustainable Energy Reviews 134:110275. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.rser.2020.110275
7. CNESA (2021) The thermal energy storage subsystem of the world’s first 100MW compressed
air energy storage demonstration project began to install, http://en.cnesa.org/new-blog/2021/
6/1/the-thermal-energy-storage-subsystem-of-the-worlds-first-100mw-compressed-air-energy-
storage-demonstration-project-began-to-install#%2Finformation%2FinforDetail=. Accessed
4 Apr 2023
8. DOE (2023) Tu Nguyen. ‚DOE global energy storage database”, Sandia National Laboratories,
2021. Accessed 10 Mar 2023, https://sandia.gov/ess-ssl/gesdb/public/statistics.html
9. Doetsch C, Burfeind J (2022) Vanadium Redox Flow Batteries. In Storing Energy: With Special
Reference to Renewable Energy Sources, pp 227–246. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-
803440-8.00012-9
10. Ehrenstein et al (2021) Ehrenstein, Ulrike, Berger, Angelina, Grevé, Anna, and Fraunhofer-
Institut für Umwelt, Sicherheits- und Energietechnik: ProPower: Systemanalyse Power2Products -
ökonomische und sozial-ökologische Auswirkungen einer sektorübergreifenden Nutzung von
Strom; Teilprojekt A: Technische Analyse: Schlussbericht: Laufzeit: 01.01.2018-31.03.2021
(Deutsch)
11. Fraunhofer (2013) Fraunhofer UMSICHT: Machbarkeitsstudie für ein GuD-Kraftwerk mit
Druckluftspeicher zur Kompensation fluktuierender Stromeinspeisung. Abschlussbericht für
das Bayerische Staatsministerium für Wirtschaft, Infrastruktur, Technologie und Verkehr.
Fraunhofer UMSICHT. Sulzbach-Rosenberg, Oberhausen, 2013
12. Girschik J, Kopietz L, Joemann M, Grevé A, Doetsch C et al (2021) Redox flow batteries:
stationary energy storages with potential. Chemie Ingenieur Technik 93(4):523–533. https://
doi.org/10.1002/cite.202100001
13. Götz M, Lefebvre J, Mörs F, Koch AMD, Graf F, Bajohr S, Reimert R, Kolb T (2016)
Renewable power-to-gas: a technological and economic review. Renew Energy 85:1371–
1390. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2015.07.066
14. Immendoerfer A, Tietze I, Hottenroth H, Viere T (2017) Life-cycle impacts of pumped
hydropower storage and battery storage. Int J Energy Environ Eng 8(3):231–245. https://doi.
org/10.1007/s40095-017-0237-5
15. Jiang HR, Sun J, Wei L, Wu MC, Shyy W, Zhao TS (2019) A high power density and long
cycle life vanadium redox flow battery. Energy Storage Mater 24(2020):529–540. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.ensm.2019.07.005
16. Lupi S (2017) Direct resistance heating. Fundamentals of Electroheat: Electrical Technologies
for Process Heating, pp 287–352. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-46015-4_5
17. Markowz G (2014) Power-to-Chemistry® Strom speichern im industriellen Maßstab. Presenta-
tion at Innovationskongress Berlin, EVONIK Industries 7
18. Maruf M, Islam N, Morales-España G, Sijm J, Helistö N, Kiviluoma J (2022) Classification,
potential role, and modeling of power-to-heat and thermal energy storage in energy systems: a
review. Sustain Energy Technol Assessment 53:102553. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.seta.2022.
102553
19. Minke C, Suermann M, Bensmann B, Hanke-Rauschenbach R (2021) Is iridium demand a
potential bottleneck in the realization of large-scale PEM water electrolysis? Int J Hydrogen
Energy 46(46):23581–23590. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2021.04.174
20. Neupert et al (2009) Fraunhofer-Institut Für Naturwissenschaftlich-Technische Trendanalysen-
INT-, Euskirchen Energiespeicher: Technische Grundlagen Und Energiewirtschaftliches
Potenzial Stuttgart: Fraunhofer-IRB-Verlag, 2009
21. Oertel D (2008) Energiespeicher – Stand Und Perspektiven. Sachstandsbericht Zum Monitoring
»Nachhaltige Energieversorgung. https://doi.org/10.5445/IR/1000103107
22. Oliveira L, Messagie M, Mertens J, Laget H, Coosemans T, Van Mierlo J (2015) Environmental
performance of electricity storage systems for grid applications, a life cycle approach. Energy
Convers Manag 101:326–335. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2015.05.063
23. Rahman, Gemechu E, Oni AO, Kumar A (2021) Energy and environmental footprints of
flywheels for utility-scale energy storage applications. E-Prime 1:100020. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.prime.2021.100020
24. Rahman MM, Oni AO, Gemechu E, Kumar A (2022) Chapter 11 – environmental impact
assessments of compressed air energy storage systems: a review. In: In environmental assess-
ment of renewable energy conversion technologies. Elsevier, pp 249–276. https://doi.org/10.
1016/B978-0-12-817111-0.00003-6
25. Rooij V et al (2018) Plasma for electrification of chemical industry: a case study on CO2
reduction. Plasma Phys Contr Fusion 60(1):1–7. https://doi.org/10.1088/1361-6587/aa8f7d
26. Ruddel A (2003) Investire network – investigation of storage technologies for intermittent
renewable energies: evaluation and recommended R&D strategy, storage technology report
ST6: flywheel, CCLRC-Rutherford Appleton Laboratory. https://epubs.stfc.ac.uk/work/1224
6036
27. Sadjjadi BS, Gerdes J-N, Sauer A (2022) Energy flexible heat pumps in industrial energy
systems: a review. Energy Report 9:386–394. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egyr.2022.12.110
28. Simandl GJ, Paradis S (2022) Vanadium as a critical material: economic geology with emphasis
on market and the main deposit types. Appl Earth Sci 131:218–236. https://doi.org/10.1080/
25726838.2022.2102883
29. Smolinka T, Garche J (2021) Electrochemical power sources: fundamentals, systems, and
applications: hydrogen production by water electrolysis. Elsevier. https://doi.org/10.1016/
C2018-0-05096-3
30. Sterner M, Stadler I (2014) Energiespeicher: bedarf, technologien, integration. Springer
Vieweg, Berlin. ISBN 3642373801
31. Valente A, Iribarren D, Dufour J (2017) Harmonised life-cycle global warming impact of
renewable hydrogen. J Clean Prod 149:762–772. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.02.163
32. Urbaneck, T. (2012) Kältespeicher: Grundlagen, Technik, Anwendung. München: Oldenbourg
Wissenschaftsverlag GmbH.
33. Weber et al (2018) Life cycle assessment of a vanadium redox flow battery. Environ Sci
Technol 52(18):10864–10873. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.8b02073
34. Weidner E, Pflaum H (2017) Leitprojekt ‘Strom Als Rohstoff’. In: Ressourceneffizienz.
Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, Heidelberg, pp 197–238. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-
662-52889-1_11
35. Wietschel M, Plötz P, Klobasa M, Müller-Kirchenbauer J, Kochems J, Hermann L, Grosse B,
Nacken L, Küster M, Naumann D, Kost C, Fahl U, Timmermann D, Albert D (2018)
Sektorkopplung – Was Ist Darunter Zu Verstehen? Zeitschrift Für Energiewirtschaft 43(1):
1–10. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12398-018-0241-3
Chapter 5
Batteries: Advantages and Importance
in the Energy Transition
Cristian Giovanni Colombo, Michela Longo, and Dario Zaninelli
Contents
5.1 Battery Energy Storage Systems Composition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69
5.2 BESS Application as Grid Integration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72
5.3 BESS Integration in Transport Sector . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74
5.4 Electric Vehicle and Infrastructure Interaction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75
5.5 BESS Lifetime . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77
5.6 BESS Dismission and Second Life . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80
5.1 Battery Energy Storage Systems Composition
Wind and photovoltaic generation systems are expected to become some of the main
driving technologies toward the decarbonization target [1–3]. Globally operating
power grid systems struggle to handle the large-scale interaction of such variable
energy sources which could lead to all kinds of disruptions, compromising service
continuity. Electricity storage systems can help reduce some of the inefficiencies and
gaps in the system, helping to increase its reliability, helping to facilitate the
integration of renewables, and effectively managing energy production. Further-
more, through the reasoned use of electric energy storage systems, it is possible to
facilitate the regulation between supply and demand of electric energy, through a
decoupling of electricity production from the load or from the user. Finally, the use
C. G. Colombo · M. Longo (✉) · D. Zaninelli

Department of Energy, Politecnico di Milano, Milan, Italy

70 C. G. Colombo et al.
of storage systems allows distributed accumulation for the increasingly widespread

microgrids, which significantly increase the certainty of electricity supply [4].
There are therefore different types of storage systems, and they are defined as
mechanical, electrical, thermal, and electrochemical. Among the categories of stor-
age systems, in recent years, the one linked to electrochemical systems, also known
as batteries [5], is becoming more and more interesting. Battery uses are commonly
divided into two categories—in front of the meter (FTM) and behind the meter
(BTM)—depending on where they are placed within the electrical supply chain.
FTM batteries can be found in distribution and transmission networks, utilities,
substations, and generation plants. In general, the sizes in terms of capacity of
FTM storage systems are in the order of MWh. On the other hand, talking about
BTM storage systems, generally they are batteries that are positioned in the final part
of the supply chain, the user side. Typically, these batteries are smaller in terms of
capacity size and are used in residential, industrial (as backup generators), commer-
cial, and transportation [6–8]. Among the various categories of batteries, those based
on lithium ions are increasingly used; however, there are different chemical compo-
sitions that are used depending on the applications. Lithium-ion batteries, among the
most common today, thanks to their high specific energy value (3.86 Ah/g), are used
in electric vehicles and also as storage systems to support the grid and can be of
different sizes. With that type of chemistry, it is also easy to avoid the memory effect
of the batteries; they also have a low self-discharge and are also safe in environ-
mental terms. In addition to high specific energy and high load capacity, power cells
have long cycle life and long service life, with little need for replacement. They are
characterized by their high specific energy density, low internal resistance, and
relatively short recharging time. Among the disadvantages, however, there are the
high temperatures and charge levels, which accelerate the degradation in terms of
accumulation and, moreover, require a protection circuit that prevents heat disper-
sion during overloads. This means that high value of C-rate must be avoided, in
order to prevent undesired temperature raise, able to generate thermal runaway
phenomena, which affect the storage system with fire risk. Another type of battery
is lead-acid, cheaper than the previous ones, but less efficient in charge, less durable,
and with a limited specific energy and power compared to other technologies
[9, 10]. Even if the treatment for their disposal is easier with respect to Li-ion,
where innovative methods are studied to recover materials, also lead-acid batteries
require a special operation for the disposal; otherwise, they risk becoming harmful to
the environment. Nickel batteries, on the other hand, have longer life cycles than
lead-acid battery and have a higher specific energy; however, they are more expen-
sive than lead batteries [11–13]. Open batteries, usually indicated as flow batteries,
have the unique capability to decouple power and energy based on their architecture,
making them scalable and modular with moderate cost of maintenance. They are
used as energy backup, covering long duration energy storage timeframes up to 1 or
2 weeks, but also load leveling and peak shaving applications for the transmission
and distribution of electricity. These batteries have a specific energy significantly
lower with respect to Li-ion, generally used for shorter timeframes (up to 8 hours),
but flow batteries are simple to update and easily integrated, however, they are an
5 Batteries: Advantages and Importance in the Energy Transition 71
innovative technology and are still being studied and improved today. There are
currently new flow batteries in development, but also more mature technologies such
as vanadium redox flow batteries (VRFB). In this case for high capacity to power
ratio, the cost per stored kWh is lower than for lithium-ion batteries [14]. The
batteries are then integrated with other systems, with which they create a more
complex architecture defined as battery energy storage system (BESS), which can
work with a centralized or distributed architecture. Conventional centralized archi-
tectures consist of the following:
• The battery pack: the electrochemical storage system, which transforms electrical
energy into chemical energy during the charge phase, while the opposite occurs
during the discharge phase. The energy released during discharging can be used
by the user for the various purposes previously described.
• The battery management system (BMS): The BMS takes care of the correct and
safe functioning of the battery. Since each battery has preferential operating
conditions, the BMS ensures that these conditions are met. Furthermore, the
BMS takes care of monitoring the residual energy inside the battery and its
state of health (SOH), so as to optimize performance.
• The power conversion system (PCS): The PCS is the interface with the grid and
allows the DC terminal of the battery to communicate with the AC terminal of the
grid. Since the AC current has a certain mains frequency, an electronic circuit
called phase-lock-loop (PLL) is used to synchronize the current leaving the
battery with that of the mains.
• The energy management system (EMS): The EMS control unit is the equivalent
of the BMS applied not to the battery but to the entire BESS. EMS links all
elements of the BESS together and optimizes the performance of the entire
system.
• The safety system: It is generally structured on several levels, each responsible for
a specific task.
Subsequently, it should be remembered that each type of BESS has certain
technical specifications that characterize the efficiency of the system [15]. It is
clear that the first characteristic parameter is the storage capacity, i.e., the amount
of electric charge that the battery can accumulate and that the BESS can make
available. Another parameter of primary importance is the nominal power, a char-
acteristic that specifies the amount of power that the BESS can transmit. The round-
trip efficiency represents the ratio between the energy emitted during the discharge
phase and the energy supplied during the battery charge phase. The depth of
discharge (DoD) represents the percentage of energy discharged with respect to
the maximum capacity. Battery lifetime is also a relevant parameter for choosing the
storage system and is calculated through the number of battery charge and discharge
periods; otherwise, it can be expressed as the total amount of energy that a battery
can supply during its life. Finally, the safety parameter is important in determining
the suitability of the battery for a particular use.
5.2 BESS Application as Grid Integration
Therefore, considering the decarbonization trend in the field of electricity produc-

tion, it is clear that the development of these storage systems can facilitate the energy
transition. In fact, following the decarbonization trend of the various sectors,
the national electricity requirement is only increasing, rising the electrical demand.
The typical electrical demand curve has peaks at certain times of the day, one in the
morning and one in the evening. This demand is compensated for by various energy
sources, in a manner compatible with the national energy production mix. Energy
sources, both renewable and nonrenewable, have precise start-up times; in fact,
depending on the time of day, a specific energy source is used. For example, coal-
fired plants require very long start-up times; therefore, the fund of energy demand is
met through the use of these plants. Conversely, systems whose start-up is much
faster, such as gas cycles, for example, can compensate for the momentary peaks
encountered during the day. Qualitatively, the shape of the demand curve is similar
in the various days of the week; therefore, the presence of these peaks is almost
constant. Finally, the production curve will have to be capable of punctually
following the demand curve. However, starting up these gas-fired plants is both
expensive and polluting. Therefore, the integration of storage systems within the
electricity grid could contribute to the damping of these peaks, making it possible to
avoid the start-up of gas-fired plants. This attempt to dampen peak loads is also
called peak shaving. The application of the peak shaving technique, through the use
of accumulation systems, also helps to avoid grid oversizing, which would be
necessary for peak hours. Furthermore, it must also be considered that sudden
variations in demand generate grid instability, in terms of voltage and frequency
[16]. Such fluctuations would risk damaging the quality of the supply service. The
use of the peak shaving technique would therefore make it possible to absorb
electricity when demand is lower, and then release it when it is higher. However,
it should be considered that the integration of the various renewable resources within
the electricity grid, however, only increases the variability of the production curve.
Following the principle described above, there is another technique that is
establishing itself to facilitate the integration of renewables. If peak shaving tech-
nique aims to remove the generation peaks, load leveling is a technique that is used
to level the load curve [17, 18]. The operating principle is similar to that of peak
shaving, absorbing power from the grid when demand is lower and then returning it
when demand reaches its maximum daily values. Therefore, the damping of peak
power demand can be facilitated, if accompanied by a prudent tariff policy which, by
combining the price of power and energy supplied, makes it convenient for a user to
purchase such storage systems. Therefore, the two techniques end up combining
perfectly, since the user’s peak shaving operation leads to load leveling for the
supplier. Therefore, the user, through an automatic BMS, applies a daily peak
shaving, optimizing the management of electricity and, consequently, saving the
user. In fact, in doing so it is possible to stipulate a contract with the distributor at a
lower peak power, since the peak beyond the maximum established level required by
the loads would be filled by the accumulation system. For the supplier, however, this
procedure means a leveling of demand (load leveling), improving efficiency in the
power generation and transmission phases, avoiding construction costs linked to
infrastructural upgrades.
Furthermore, as previously mentioned, the network may be subjected to instabil-
ity. Among these instabilities are voltage dips. Voltage dip is defined as the tempo-
rary reduction of voltage below 90% of the declared voltage for a period greater than
or equal to 10 milliseconds and not greater than 1 minute, where the conditions for
interruption do not exist (definition taken from standard CEI EN 50160); the
unipolar voltage dip is a voltage dip that affects only one phase [19]. These insta-
bilities generally originate from faults in the public network or in network systems,
sometimes linked to overloads of starting transients of large motors or to the
insertion of significant loads. These holes are unpredictable, and their annual
frequency is variable and is not attributable to the network operator or local
distributor. In addition, data processing and control equipment can experience data
loss and require time-consuming maintenance in the event of a significant voltage
sag. In addition to this, voltage sags lead to economic losses. If previously diesel
generators such as UPS (uninterrupted power supply) were used to compensate for
the existence of voltage dips, today the use of electrochemical storage systems would
facilitate the management of voltage dips, thanks to BMS systems [4]. Similarly, it
has been studied that when there are fluctuations in the network frequency, due, for
example, to the variation of the rotation speed of synchronous generators, the use of
batteries considerably facilitates frequency regulation [20–22]. Therefore, to con-
dense the various uses applied to the network, it is possible to state the FTM
applications to which the BESSs should be applied:
• Bulk energy services: mass energy service process, which increases the capacity
that can be supplied by the electricity system, thanks to the accumulation of
massive quantities of energy to meet the peaks. At the same time, it is possible to
accumulate electricity in the time slots in which it has a low cost, to sell it at a time
in which the demand is higher and the cost of energy is higher.
• Ancillary services: e.g., all those systems that support the transmission of energy
from the production site to the user and that help to maintain the usability of the
system. Ancillary services can be generators or connected service providers
capable of rapidly increasing the output of potential reserves, regulation, and
flexibility (e.g., frequency regulation, voltage regulation, black start).
• Transmission and distribution network support: Expansion of the transmission
network to avoid unwanted congestion can be expensive, and installing a BESS
can be more cost-effective. Furthermore, with the growing contribution of renew-
ables to the local distribution system, the power fluctuations in their output can
create voltage fluctuations and damage the equipment connected to the system. A
BESS can take part in voltage regulation, stabilizing the system.
• Integration of renewables: The integration of batteries into variable renewable
energy production systems helps to give greater stability to the electricity grid.
Capacity firming is widely used, for example, with the production of wind and
solar energy and has advantages such as the optimization of the generation
profile, supply, and exchange of reactive power in support of renewables and
balancing of load currents [23].
5.3 BESS Integration in Transport Sector
If on the side of the electricity system, electrochemical storage systems represent a

great opportunity, within the transport sector they represent a necessity. Indeed, the
use of batteries within the mobility sector has become the engine of the
decarbonization of this sector. Although electric means of transport have already
existed for some time, electrification through battery-mounted vehicles has under-
gone significant development in recent years. Furthermore, the different needs
related to the different types of vehicles have also favored the study of new
accumulation chemistries related to the different types of vehicle that use them.
NMC (nickel-manganese-cobalt), LFP (lithium-iron-phosphate), and NCA (nickel-
cobalt-aluminum) batteries are among the most used onboard road vehicles. Mean-
while, other studies of electric vehicles that require more effort in power use other
types of chemical compositions such as LTO (lithium-titanate) [24]. In any case,
batteries represent a fundamental prerogative for the electrification of electric vehi-
cles, as much as they represent for the creation of a recharging infrastructure capable
of supporting the electrification of the mobility system. With the increase in the
number of electric vehicles on the market and in use, local distribution networks risk
running into overloads. This is due to the fact that some users, such as those who are
driving along a motorway, suddenly need high power to quickly recharge their
exhausted vehicle through fast charging. The use of a distributed storage system
helps to reduce the maximum load that must be supported by the transmission and
distribution infrastructure by implementing BESSs in the vicinity of the electrical
loads. The integration of BESS systems within the electricity grid brings various
advantages, such as the provision of ancillary services for the distribution system
operator (DSO) and transmission system operator (TSO). Based on these consider-
ations and with the increase in the use of electric vehicles, the attention on the
integration of BESSs, based on Li-Ion batteries, in charging stations has increased.
Interest has been brought both to the domestic use of these batteries, to integrate the
solar home systems (SHS), for vehicles, and with public recharging infrastructures.
Indeed, it is evident that, despite all the benefits that follow the electrification of
means of transport, there is an increase in the demand for electricity to power them,
with a considerable impact on the electricity grid. In fact, the presence of multiple
charging infrastructure systems that require very high powers easily creates voltage
dips and voltage instability, which represent one of the main causes of blackouts,
since, as mentioned, the supply system works very close to the limit of stability,
since the power demand is very high. The electrical loads associated with the rapid
recharging of vehicle batteries, in addition to requiring significant amounts of power
from the grid, are also highly nonlinear. The characteristics of nonlinear loads have a
non-negligible impact on the network; therefore, it is advisable to recognize them.

Such nonlinearities, for example, affect voltage stability, making in-depth studies in
this regard fundamental. It is recognized that careful planning of the use of charging
infrastructure can smooth out voltage fluctuations [25]. At the same time, careful
planning of the charging phases of electric vehicles prevents the emergence of
unwanted peaks in the demand curve [26]. Among the other critical issues that can
be encountered are those that are identified as power quality (PQ) problems, deriving
from harmonics and voltage imbalances that occur in the event of crowding in the
recharge. In addition to voltage dips, unwanted peaks in demand, and PQ problems,
an increase in the EV penetration rate can increase grid power losses, proportional to
the number of feeders in the destruction system, augmented by the additional losses
inherent in the recharge [27, 28]. The last of the critical issues to be submitted is the
overload and overheating of distribution transformers, which are particularly
stressed in the event of a request for high powers. Operation of transformers at
temperatures higher than the nominal ones causes premature aging, reducing the
useful life of the transformer [29]. However, despite the critical issues reported,
electric mobility, if properly integrated with the smart grid, can assist in the dynam-
ics of peak shaving. In fact, it is known that for most of the time during a day, the
cars of private users remain parked and consequently unused or are used for limited
trips. Based on this consideration and on the recent developments of the intelligent
grid, which has evolved in a bidirectional perspective, thanks to the advent of
distributed generation, we thought about how to optimize the times in the stall
phase of the cars. The vehicle-to-grid (V2G) technology was born from this idea.
5.4 Electric Vehicle and Infrastructure Interaction
With the increase in technological availability and sensors in the field of mobility, it
is correct to say that the entire sector, by imitating the distributed generation of
dispatching, has evolved from a bidirectional perspective. If previously, the vehicle
had a one-way interaction with the infrastructure, this is no longer the case. In fact,
previously four charging methods have always been considered, which differ in
power and protections, which transferred electric power from the charging infra-
structure to the vehicle, stationed in a dedicated space. The traditional one-way
charging procedure was then renamed as V1G, which means intelligent charging.
Through intelligent recharging, the vehicle is able to change the recharging timing
dynamically, since in addition to power, the vehicle and the infrastructure exchange
information, which allows recharging to be regulated, helping to minimize its costs.
Among the advantages of V1G, in addition to charging monitoring and timing
optimization, there are also the infrastructure localization tool and the possibility
of charging the vehicle at certain times of the day, so as to have greener and at the
same time cheaper energy [30]. If sensoring and artificial intelligence (AI) have been
fundamental in the development of intelligent recharging, the integration of a
bidirectional power inverter connected to the car battery and to the grid represents
the heart of V2G technology. The improvement that V2G brings to V1G is the
possibility of having a vehicle that is not only able to draw power from the grid to
recharge the battery but is also able to return power to the grid at times of the day
when it is most stressed. These energy flows are obviously managed by a control
unit, which ascertains the needs of both the network manager and the user. Follow-
ing the description of the increase in electricity demand, the need to dampen peaks,
the need to level the load, and the value that electrochemical storage systems will
have to meet all the needs of the network, the V2G technology, which exploits the
power that could be supplied by vehicles that remain parked and unused for most of
the day, is perfectly combined with the demands of the network. In doing so, from an
electrical point of view, the vehicles are seen by the network as many distributed
accumulation systems from which it is possible to draw power to level the load curve
[31, 32]. If this technology is seen from the point of view of a broad distribution
network, in the various bibliographic studies, its applicability at the local level has
not been overlooked. When the V2G technology is applied locally, and therefore on
a building or at home, it takes the name of vehicle-to-building (V2B) or vehicle-to-
home (V2H), respectively. The operating principle of V2B and V2H is the same and
very similar to that of V2G but limited to a single building: with the integration of
renewables and their variability, the generated power becomes fluctuating, some-
times creating power excesses or imbalances; therefore, vehicles are used as real
batteries to receive or deliver energy according to the demand curve. In that case, the
power transmitted by the vehicle can be applied to prevent service interruptions and
blackouts locally [33]. Finally, to complete the description of the interactions
between the vehicle and the surrounding world, vehicle-to-everything (V2X) should
be mentioned. The V2X is based on the interaction of the vehicle with any object that
surrounds it—vehicles, infrastructures, people, and traffic—in order to improve the
driving experience. This technology is also strictly dependent on the high level of
sensing. What prompted private companies to invest in V2X technology was the
better management of roads and traffic, which are supported by AI through various
algorithms and predictive models, but at the same time it encourages safer driving,
thanks to continuous communication of data with the surrounding vehicles and
infrastructure and energy savings. Today with V2X, we mean the possibility that
the vehicle has to interact, in a bidirectional way, with any object that surrounds it
[34]. It is clear that, with the increase in the diffusion of renewables and the
electrification of the transport sector, the possibility of having energy storage
systems available in a distributed manner represents an important push toward
decarbonization, since they would help to combat the variability of the production
and demand. At the moment, however, a remuneration policy has not yet been
clearly defined for those who decide to join the sharing of energy toward the grid.
Remuneration to those who subscribe to the V2G service is important, not only
because users are actively supplying energy to the grid rather than recharging but
also because users are subjecting their vehicle to continuous charge and discharge
cycles in the process, potentially contributing to battery aging [35].
5.5 BESS Lifetime
Although today we have a thorough knowledge of electrochemical storage systems,

still today there are several limitations related to BESSs, and the most relevant is
precisely the useful life of rechargeable batteries, which degrade with aging. This
event represents a problem for applications such as electric vehicles, since battery
degradation implies a reduction in capacity and consequently a limitation of the
vehicle’s travel range. As a result, EV manufacturers have a tendency to oversize the
battery, to make the driving range appear constant, over the life of the battery.
However, this technique only increases the cost and mass of the battery. Complicat-
ing matters is the fact that the degradation process of lithium-ion batteries is
nonlinear, requiring knowledge of the materials that make up the battery, internal
reactions and knowledge of aging processes. Normally, the useful life of the battery
is characterized by a predefined number of charge and discharge cycles to which it
can be subjected, which can vary depending on some factors during the life cycle,
decreasing its efficiency. For batteries, there is a specific parameter that indicates the
condition of the battery, called state of health (SOH). SOH indicates the level of
performance of the storage system, based on voltage, self-discharge, and internal
resistance. This parameter varies in the range 0–1, and an SOH equal to 1 indicates a
battery at the beginning of its useful life, in which the capacity, in kWh, is maximum.
Among the factors that influence the useful life of the battery, the first is the aging
and degradation of materials. After that, the working environment is one of the
factors that influence the useful life of the batteries. Specifically, if a battery worked
in an environment with a temperature that was too high or too low for its operating
range, the activity of the electrode would end up decaying. Therefore, maintaining an
operating temperature range in line with the nominal one has a positive impact on
battery life. Maintenance and cleaning factors, which facilitate the functioning of the
components, should not be overlooked. Another factor that impacts battery life is the
charge and discharge cycle. The succession of charge and discharge cycles implies a
decrease in capacity, also due to the internal degradation of the materials. The factor
that most significantly impacts the useful life of the batteries is the depth of discharge
(DoD). The higher the DoD, the shorter the useful life of the battery; therefore, a
charge and discharge cycle with a controlled and optimal DoD helps to significantly
extend the useful life of the battery. The different chemistries of the storage systems
will then have operating ranges and different DoD [36–38]. For example, for
lithium-ion batteries, which have a wide range of uses since they are excellent for
both power and energy applications, they have an optimal state of charge (SoC)
operating range between 20% and 80%. Within this range, the duration of the useful
life of the lithium-ion battery is maximized. Furthermore, by respecting this range,
the amount of energy stored in the batteries is optimized with respect to the recharge
time [39]. Current also has a major impact on the life span of the cells and
consequently on the battery and the number of cycles it can withstand. Batteries
that are subjected to higher discharge currents have a shorter life.
5.6 BESS Dismission and Second Life
Downstream of the knowledge of how the useful life of the batteries works and is
interpreted, it is useful to describe how these storage systems are decommissioned.
When it comes to decarbonization and reducing the environmental impact through
electrification, it is often mentioned that the disposal of batteries is a complicated and
not always green process. In addition, despite the lowering of battery costs relative to
capacity, batteries still have a significant cost, for example, for an electric vehicle the
battery can be worth 50% of the total cost. Therefore, to respond to these two needs,
various stakeholders have undertaken various studies on the second life of batteries.
Second life has the purpose of ensuring a recovery of the functionality of the
batteries at the end of the life cycle, converting them into stationary accumulation
systems. For example, the useful life of a lithium-ion battery applied to electric
vehicles has a duration in charge and discharge cycles equivalent to 8–10 years.
After this time, the battery is removed from the vehicle even if it still has some
remaining capacity, as this is not sufficient to meet the standards for electric vehicles.
However, the battery can still be useful for other energy storage purposes, such as,
for example, the inclusion of storage systems in the charging infrastructure for
electric vehicles, which help to sustain the grid. The three main benefits that can
be generated to the smart grid by reusing batteries after their first life are as follows:
• Defer and limit expenses related to the production and sale of new batteries.
• Provide energy reserves that allow continuity of service, especially in industrial
processes powered by other energy sources.
• Use the available energy previously accumulated in times of absence or high cost
of raw materials.
Typically, end of life (EOL) is considered to occur when actual capacity reaches
80% of rated capacity. Similarly, the end of the second life is considered to occur
when the actual capacity reaches 30% of the nominal capacity. For this reason, half
the nominal effective capacity is considered for stationary applications where batte-
ries are used during their second life, since it is considered the middle ground
between 80% maximum nominal capacity and 30% minimum rated capacity. The
theoretical value 50% of the nominal capacity is considered for practical purposes,
since it is approximately possible to have a desired capacity value with a number of
second life batteries equal to twice the number of first-life batteries that would be
needed to have the same capacity [40].
Among the BTM areas of application with the greatest interest in the second life
of batteries are the fast-charging systems (DC fast-charging stations) with which it is
possible to reduce charging times. Using batteries during their second life to assist
recharging stations, it is possible to guarantee high peak currents, accelerating
recharging times, avoiding oversizing of the network. This solution also represents
an opportunity for savings or income for car manufacturers, which have resalable
batteries in proportion to the range of vehicles they put on the market. Instead, the
FTM applications that best lend themselves to a second life are those related to
transmission services and energy shifting, a practice that aims to distribute energy
production throughout the day. These applications present marginal installation
space problems; in fact, it should be remembered that second life batteries occupy
twice as much space as first-life ones.
On the basis of these considerations, therefore, it is possible to deduce that some
BESSs are particularly suitable for use as storage systems during their second life,
such as those based on lithium ions. Among the applications that these storage
systems can perform during their second life are as follows:
• Peak shaving: process of damping power demand peaks through the activation of
local energy sources or using an accumulation system.
• Power upgrade deferral: Through the BESS, it is possible to provide additional
capacity, and with low growth rate loads, it is possible to postpone infrastructural
interventions.
• Time-of-use energy cost management: BESSs can help end users reduce the cost
of the service by smoothing demand into preset daily peaks.
• Self-production optimization: A BESS can assist standby generators by extending
uninterrupted service time, reducing inefficient start-ups, and reducing fuel
requirements for diesel powered UPS systems.
• Integration of renewables: Renewable energy sources are fluctuating by nature
and depend on several variable parameters. These variations cause frequency and
voltage fluctuations, causing grid instability. A BESS system even in its second
life can help compensate for grid imbalances.
• Energy independence applications: Batteries during their second life can be
integrated into microgrids, useful for powering users, which can range from
buildings to neighborhoods. Microgrids are often powered by renewables; there-
fore, BESSs prevent grid imbalances.
• Support for fast-charge recharges: The possibility of integrating BESSs during
their second life into high-power infrastructures helps to reduce energy costs and
avoid grid peaks. The station could also move toward net-zero energy consump-
tion with the assistance of a BESS.
Despite the existence of different applications for batteries during their second
life, there are applications where high-power density and instantaneous service with
a high C-rate are required, which do not make second life batteries suitable for the
task. Among the high-performance applications, there are those of backup or support
to the network to increase the power quality. Therefore, even reactive power
compensation operations require too high performance and significant stress levels
for batteries during their second life [41–43].
References
1. Pérez Henríquez BL (2020) Energy sources for sustainable transportation and urban develop-
ment. Transportation, land use, and environmental planning. Elsevier, pp 281–298. https://doi.
org/10.1016/B978-0-12-815167-9.00015-3
2. Necibi MC, Brouziyne Y, Chehbouni A (2022) Decarbonization. In: Emerging carbon capture
technologies. Elsevier, pp 401–426. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-323-89782-2.00009-0
3. Perissi I, Jones A (2022) Investigating European Union decarbonization strategies: evaluating
the pathway to carbon neutrality by 2050. Sustainability 14:4728. https://doi.org/10.3390/
su14084728
4. Sagara M, Sediqi MM, Senjyu T, Danish MSS, Funabashi T (2016) Voltage stability improve-
ment by optimal active power and reactive power output control of storage battery system. In:
2016 IEEE Region 10 Conference (TENCON). IEEE, pp 2671–2674. https://doi.org/10.1109/
TENCON.2016.7848523
5. Salkuti SR (2021) Electrochemical batteries for smart grid applications. IJECE 11(3):1849.
https://doi.org/10.11591/ijece.v11i3.pp1849-1856
6. Zurfi A, Albayati G, Zhang J (2017) Economic feasibility of residential behind-the-meter
battery energy storage under energy time-of-use and demand charge rates. In: 2017 IEEE 6th
International Conference on Renewable Energy Research and Applications (ICRERA). IEEE,
pp 842–849. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICRERA.2017.8191179
7. Eller A (2017) Energy storage news. Understanding the energy storage world leaders, antici-
pating the next big markets [https://www.energy-storage.news/understanding-the-energy-
storage-world-leaders-anticipating-the-next-big-markets/]. Energy Storage News
8. Karandeh R, Lawanson T, Cecchi V (2021) A multi-application energy management of behind-
the-meter battery energy storage system. In: 2020 52nd North American Power Symposium
(NAPS). IEEE, pp 1–6. https://doi.org/10.1109/NAPS50074.2021.9449803
9. Chemali E, Preindl M, Malysz P, Emadi A (2016) Electrochemical and electrostatic energy
storage and management systems for electric drive vehicles: state-of-the-art review and future
trends. IEEE J Emerg Sel Top Power Electron 4(3):1117–1134. https://doi.org/10.1109/
JESTPE.2016.2566583
10. May GJ, Davidson A, Monahov B (2018) Lead batteries for utility energy storage: a review. J
Energy Storage 15:145–157. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.est.2017.11.008
11. Yao L, Yang B, Cui H, Zhuang J, Ye J, Xue J (2016) Challenges and progresses of energy
storage technology and its application in power systems. J Mod Power Syst Clean Energy 4(4):
519–528. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40565-016-0248-x
12. Surender RS (2018) Control and communication of renewable energy based smart grid: an
overview. Int J Eng Technol 7(3):1276. https://doi.org/10.14419/ijet.v7i3.13104
13. Kocer MC, Cengiz C, Gezer M, Gunes D, Cinar MA, Alboyaci B et al (2019) Assessment of
battery storage technologies for a turkish power network. Sustainability 11(13):3669. https://
doi.org/10.3390/su11133669
14. Sánchez-Díez E, Ventosa E, Guarnieri M, Trovò A, Flox C, Marcilla R et al (2021) Redox flow
batteries: status and perspective towards sustainable stationary energy storage. J Power Sources
481:228804. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpowsour.2020.228804
15. Abdi H, Mohammadi-ivatloo B, Javadi S, Khodaei AR, Dehnavi E (2017) Energy storage
systems. In: Distributed generation systems. Elsevier, pp 333–368. https://doi.org/10.1016/
B978-0-12-804208-3.00007-8
16. Serban E, Ordonez M, Pondiche C (2017) Voltage and frequency grid support strategies beyond
standards. IEEE Trans Power Electron 32(1):298–309. https://doi.org/10.1109/TPEL.2016.
2539343
17. Komasatid K, Jiriwibhakorn S (2018) Load leveling application of energy storage system for
generation expansion planning. In: TENCON 2018–2018 IEEE Region 10 Conference. IEEE,
pp 122–127. https://doi.org/10.1109/TENCON.2018.8650357
18. Harasawa J, Ikegami T (2017) Load leveling effects by massively introduced residential battery
storage systems. In: 2017 IEEE Innovative Smart Grid Technologies – Asia (ISGT-Asia). IEEE,
pp 1–6. https://doi.org/10.1109/ISGT-Asia.2017.8378386
19. CEI EN 50160 e Delibera AEEGSI 646/2015/R/eel del 22/12/2015. Italy; 2015
20. Kim YJ (2016) Experimental study of battery energy storage systems participating in grid
frequency regulation. In: 2016 IEEE/PES Transmission and Distribution Conference and
Exposition (T&D). IEEE, pp 1–5. https://doi.org/10.1109/TDC.2016.7520058
21. Dvorsky E, Rakova L (2017) Voltage and frequency regulation in microgrids with photovoltaic
power station. In: In: 2017 18th International Scientific Conference on Electric Power Engi-
neering (EPE). IEEE, pp 1–6. https://doi.org/10.1109/EPE.2017.7967245
22. Xu B, Shi Y, Kirschen DS, Zhang B (2018) Optimal battery participation in frequency
regulation markets. IEEE Trans Power Syst 33(6):6715–6725. https://doi.org/10.1109/
TPWRS.2018.2846774
23. Faisal M, Hannan MA, Ker PJ, Hussain A, Mansor M, bin, Blaabjerg F (2018) Review of
energy storage system technologies in microgrid applications: issues and challenges, vol
6. IEEE Access, pp 35143–35164. https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2018.2841407
24. Borghetti F, Colombo CG, Longo M, Mazzoncini R, Somaschini C (2021) Development of a
new urban line with innovative trams. In: WIT Transactions on the Built Environment.
WITPress, pp 167–178. https://doi.org/10.2495/UT210141
25. Nemeth T, Kollmeyer PJ, Emadi A, Sauer DU (2019) Optimized operation of a hybrid energy
storage system with LTO batteries for high power electrified vehicles. In: 2019 IEEE Trans-
portation Electrification Conference and Expo (ITEC). IEEE, pp 1–6. https://doi.org/10.1109/
ITEC.2019.8790613
26. Rajakaruna S, Shahnia F, Ghosh A (eds) (2015) Plug in electric vehicles in Smart grids.
Springer Singapore, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-287-302-6
27. Ding Z, Teng F, Sarikprueck P, Hu Z (2020) Technical review on advanced approaches for
electric vehicle charging demand management, part II: applications in transportation system
coordination and infrastructure planning. IEEE Trans Ind Appl 56(5):5695–5703. https://doi.
org/10.1109/TIA.2020.2993760
28. Schey S, Scoffield D, Smart J (2012) A first look at the impact of electric vehicle charging on the
electric grid in the EV project. World Electr Veh J 5(3):667–678. https://doi.org/10.3390/
wevj5030667
29. Sun W, Yang L, Feng D, Zhao X, Li J (2016) A new accelerated thermal aging test for over-
loading condition transformer. In: 2016 IEEE Electrical Insulation Conference (EIC). IEEE, pp
354–357. https://doi.org/10.1109/EIC.2016.7548612
30. Tran VT, Sutanto D, Muttaqi KM (2017) The state of the art of battery charging infrastructure
for electrical vehicles: Topologies, power control strategies, and future trend. In: 2017 Austral-
asian Universities Power Engineering Conference (AUPEC). IEEE, pp 1–6. https://doi.org/10.
1109/AUPEC.2017.8282421
31. Shekari M, Arasteh H, Vahidinasab V (2022) Recognition of electric vehicles charging patterns
with machine learning techniques, pp 49–83. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-05909-4_3
32. Logavani K, Ambikapathy A, Arun Prasad G, Faraz A, Singh H (2021) Smart grid, V2G and
renewable integration, pp 175–186. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-9251-5_10
33. Antunes CH, Soares A, Gomes Á (2017) An integrated building energy management
system. In: Mediterranean green buildings & renewable energy. Springer International Publish-
ing, Cham, pp 191–199. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-30746-6_13
34. Mahmood Z (2020) Connected vehicles in the IoV: concepts, technologies and architectures. In:
Connected vehicles in the internet of things. Springer International Publishing, Cham, pp 3–18.
35. Adnan N, Md Nordin S, Althawadi OM (2018) Barriers towards widespread adoption of V2G
technology in smart grid environment: from laboratories to commercialization, pp 121–134.
36. Jiang J, Shi W, Zheng J, Zuo P, Xiao J, Chen X et al (2014) Optimized operating range for large-
format LiFePO 4 /graphite batteries. J Electrochem Soc 161(3):A336–A341. https://doi.org/10.
1149/2.052403jes
37. Lacey G, Jiang T, Putrus G, Kotter R (2013) The effect of cycling on the state of health of the
electric vehicle battery. In: 2013 48th International Universities’ Power Engineering Confer-
ence (UPEC). IEEE, pp 1–7. https://doi.org/10.1109/UPEC.2013.6715031
38. Mastoi MS, Zhuang S, Munir HM, Haris M, Hassan M, Alqarni M et al (2023) A study of
charging-dispatch strategies and vehicle-to-grid technologies for electric vehicles in distribution
networks. Energy Rep 9:1777–1806. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egyr.2022.12.139
39. Chang Y, Fang H, Li S, Yan Y (2018) Prognostics for lithium-ion battery operating under
different depth of discharge using hybrid method. In: 2018 Chinese Control And Decision
Conference (CCDC). IEEE, pp 6239–6244. https://doi.org/10.1109/CCDC.2018.8408225
40. Li D, Danilov DL, Bergveld HJ, Eichel RA, Notten PHL (2019) Understanding battery aging
mechanisms. In: Future lithium-ion batteries. The Royal Society of Chemistry, pp 220–250.
https://doi.org/10.1039/9781788016124-00220
41. Pasquali M, Vellucci F (2016) Second life, definition of the criteria for withdrawing cells from
the first application
42. Sathre R, Scown CD, Kavvada O, Hendrickson TP (2015) Energy and climate effects of
second-life use of electric vehicle batteries in California through 2050. J Power Sources 288:
82–91. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpowsour.2015.04.097
43. Wei J, Dong G, Chen Z (2018) Remaining useful life prediction and state of health diagnosis for
lithium-ion batteries using particle filter and support vector regression. IEEE Trans Ind Electron
65(7):5634–5643. https://doi.org/10.1109/TIE.2017.2782224
Part III
Battery Markets
Preface
The market for batteries, in particular lithium-ion batteries that constitute the pres-
ently dominating technology, keeps growing at stunning pace, and technological
boundaries are being pushed further. There are several markets for stationary,
mobile, and portable applications, which are all characterized by different require-
ments and that are subject to high dynamics in line of the ongoing energy transition.
For example, new policy regulations, the pandemic, and the ongoing war in Ukraine
have triggered several developments that lead to an increased demand of batteries for
stationary and mobile applications. One of the most striking developments is the fast
growth of electric mobility which is gaining a high momentum triggered by China
and the USA. At the same time, batteries are gaining more and more attention for
stationary applications, starting from residential on a kWh size to bulk storage with
multiple MWh capacities. The first section, i.e., Chapter 6, analyzes in detail the
battery market fragmentation, upcoming requirements, main drivers, and challenges
of stationary, mobile, and portable applications. In the following Chapter 7, fore-
seeable developments in battery technologies, markets, key performance indicators,
and demand scenarios are discussed along with most relevant battery use cases. In
addition, new research trends for future market developments are assessed and
broken down to lithium, new cell materials, cell and manufacturing design,
recycling, and the use of raw materials.
Chapter 6
Battery Market Segmentation
Stefan Wolf and Javier Olarte
Contents
6.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85
6.2 Stationary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86
6.3 Mobile . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91
6.4 Portable . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100
6.1 Introduction
Batteries are used in a large number of different applications. The spectrum ranges
from grid-connected stationary battery storage in the megawatt-hour range to
extremely small batteries in the microwatt-hour range that can be integrated into
electronic systems. Each use case places different demands on the battery. Accord-
ingly, there are major differences between the battery technologies used, both at the
level of the cells and at the battery systems level. In many applications at the system
design phase, engineers select the battery technology in a tradeoff between cost and
application requirements. The sweet spot in this tradeoff is different from one
application to another. Scientific literature provides a set of KPIs to describe battery
characteristics that allow to compare them with each other. In many cases these
S. Wolf (✉)
VDI/VDE Innovation + Technik GmbH, Berlin, Germany
J. Olarte
CIC energiGUNE, Parque Tecnológico de Álava, Albert Einstein, Vitoria-Gasteiz, Álava, Spain

86 S. Wolf and J. Olarte
Fig. 6.1 Most valuable characteristics or KPIs for battery technology comparison [25]
KPIs serve as a first orientation for which battery technology is is best suited
for which application as shown in Fig. 6.1.
However, when the application requirements are analyzed in more detail, other
aspects appear as relevant in the decision-making process, namely, cost, safety,
environmental, and social, among others.
The battery market is therefore fragmented into many market segments that differ
considerably not only in terms of the technology used but also in terms of market
volume. The most important market segment by market size is batteries for road
vehicles. Nevertheless, different market segments are described below and classified
in terms of their specific requirements. These market segments are grouped into the
classes stationary, mobile, and portable.
6.2 Stationary
Stationary battery storage systems are usually connected to an electricity grid. They
provide services that serve the grid operation and decouple the generation and
consumption of electricity over time. This facilitates the integration of volatile
renewable power generation. In addition, they can be used to dampen peak loads
and thus facilitate the integration of new consumers such as electric vehicles and heat
pumps. Thus, stationary battery storage represents a key technology for the energy
6 Battery Market Segmentation 87
Fig. 6.2 Stationary energy storage systems and their use cases [3]
transition in the electricity grid. Figure 6.2 provides an overview of different storage
technologies and their areas of application in the electricity grid.
Home Storage Home battery storage is mostly used “behind the meter” to optimize
self-consumption via time-shifting of locally generated renewable energy. The most
common combination is a battery home storage system with a rooftop photovoltaic
system. Energy is stored during the midday hours. In the morning and evening hours,
it is fed into the home grid to supply electrical appliances. The optimal storage size
depends on electricity and system costs, load and generation profiles, energy con-
sumption, and the size of the installed photovoltaic system. In addition, battery home
storage systems can also be used to bridge interruptions in the power supply. The
typical usable battery capacity of such storage systems is in the range of 2–15 kWh
[27]. In contrast to other applications, the esthetics of the battery storage unit is also a
purchase-relevant decision criterion here.
The demand for home battery storage will continue to increase in the coming
years. The driving forces for market development are listed below:
• Renewable energies and electrification: Residential buildings are increasingly

being equipped with photovoltaic systems. Additionally, new electrical con-
sumers such as heat pumps and electric vehicles are being added. Time-shifting
of generated electricity behind the meter significantly increases the self-
consumption rate and lowers energy supply costs.
• Rising energy costs: Fossil greenhouse gas emissions are increasingly being
factored into energy costs. Taxes and levies are designed to provide incentives
to conserve energy. Political and economic crises repeatedly cause fluctuating
prices on the energy markets. Home storage systems serve as enablers for
personal energy cost optimization.
• Guaranteed electricity supply: Not in every country electricity is reliably avail-
able 24/7. Blackouts or scheduled brownouts restrict the quality of life and can
lead to consequential damages. Home storage systems make it possible to bridge
gaps in the electricity supply.
• Technological progress: The technology offers potential for further improvement.
New battery chemistries like sodium ion promise a rapid further decrease in
battery costs. Optimized software and electronics will increase round-trip effi-
ciencies. This will improve economic efficiency. With increasing sales figures,
economies of scale can be realized in production resulting in a further improve-
ment of economic efficiency.
Industrial and Commercial Storage The focus of industrially and commercially

used battery storage systems is on peakshaving and uninterruptible power supply
(UPS). Peakshaving serves to reduce the connected load, which is particularly
relevant for companies in the manufacturing sector. The “behind-the-meter” battery
storage system can reduce load peaks. For particularly short load peaks with steep
power gradients, a combination with ultracapacitors can be useful. In UPS applica-
tions, battery storage ensures the power supply for machines and ICT systems.
Especially for the operation of data centers, such UPS systems are an absolute
necessity. Furthermore, the roofs of factory and office buildings are increasingly
being equipped with photovoltaic systems. Even if the generation and consumption
profiles usually have a considerably greater overlap here than in residential build-
ings, time-shifting can be used to optimize self-consumption. Comparing different
companies for storage systems, the size of such battery storage systems typically
ranges from 20 kWh to 2 MWh [10]. While the energy density plays a subordinate
role for such applications, the price and potential energy cost savings have a major
influence on the purchase decision.
The use of battery storage systems will continue to increase in industrial and
commercial applications [4]. The main drivers for this are listed below:
• Energy cost optimization: Grid connection costs are usually calculated on the
basis of the maximum electrical power used. Peakshaving can reduce power
peaks and thus energy costs. The same applies to optimizing self-consumption
by time-shifting renewable energy production.
• Sustainability reporting: Low greenhouse gas production and on-site generation

and use of renewable energies have a positive impact on the sustainability of the
company. Battery storage is an enabler for the optimal use of renewable energy.
Positive sustainability reports can be used in advertising. Furthermore, sustain-
ability reports are used by investors to analyze the company’s exposure to climate
legislation. This can have an effect on the company’s cost of capital.
• Security of supply: Power failures or voltage drops can affect technical systems.
Considerable damage to plants and products can be the result. Battery storage
works like an insurance against this risk. The willingness to pay is accordingly
based on the amount of risk that can be avoided.
Utility Storage Grid-integrated battery storage can provide various ancillary ser-
vices listed in Fig. 6.2. The integration of battery storage systems is possible in the
distribution grid as well as in the transmission grid. In the distribution grid, station-
ary battery storage systems primarily serve to stabilize the grid in the event of short-
term fluctuations. The feed-in of fluctuating renewable energies and new consumers
such as electric vehicles or heat pumps leads to an increased strain on the distribution
grids. This can lead to voltage fluctuations. However, maintaining certain voltage
bands (+/- 10%) is a crucial prerequisite for the reliable operation of electrical
devices [16]. Grid-integrated battery storage systems can stabilize the grid voltage
by feeding in or consuming active power. Via the inverter, battery systems can also
provide reactive power, which also affects grid voltage. In addition, battery storage
systems can have a dampening effect on voltage gradients and thus improve the
voltage quality. In time-shifting and peakshaving operation, battery storage systems
reduce grid load. In this way, the need for grid expansion can be reduced or delayed.
In the event of a grid collapse, grid-integrated battery storage can maintain the power
supply in smaller grid areas for a short time. If the grid does collapse completely,
such storage systems can also be used for black-starting the grid.
When used in the transmission grid, the main focus is on providing control power.
There must be a constant balance between generation and consumption in the
electricity grid. If this balance is disturbed, balancing measures take effect, which
are classified according to their time of provision as instantaneous reserve, primary
control reserve, secondary control reserve, minute reserve, and reserve by the
balancing group manager. The instantaneous reserve is the immediate compensation
of power imbalances. In conventional power plants, it is provided from the energy of
the rotating masses in turbines and generators. Therefore, it is also called spinning
reserve. Primary control power must be activated within seconds and held for a
period of minutes. In Germany, activation time is 15 s and power must be held for up
to 15 min [9]. The following activation times are valid for power balancing in
Germany, but there are comparable requirements in other electricity markets
[24]. These requirements are similar in different electricity markets. Secondary
control power must be capable of being fully activated within 5 min. The minute
reserve must be fully activated within 15 min and be provided for at least 15 min.
However, the provision period can also be up to several hours. If these measures are
not sufficient, the balancing group manager activates further reserve capacities.
Battery storage systems are able to provide all these balancing measures positively
(energy injection) or negatively (energy absorption).
The demand for grid-integrated utility scale battery storage is much related to the
chosen power generation mix. The continuing global trend toward the expansion of
weather-dependent renewable energies indicates that the market will expand much
further. However, the extent of market growth is difficult to estimate. The main
influencing factors are listed below:
• Grid relief: The integration of weather-dependent renewable energies and new
electricity consumers creates major challenges, especially at distribution grid
level. Grid-integrated battery storage can relieve the load on the electricity grid.
In this way, grid operators can save costs and gain time for grid expansion or
make it unnecessary.
• Cost reduction: In control devices, power electronics, and battery technology,
there is still great potential to further reduce the total cost of ownership. With
regard to battery technology, cost reductions can be achieved through new cell
chemistries such as sodium-ion batteries and possibly also second life batteries.
• Demand side integration: It is uncertain to what extent the consumer side can be
integrated into grid operation and to what extent consumers behind the meter will
make their own optimizations. For example, electric vehicles have a huge storage
capacity in total. However, it is uncertain to what extent the vehicle electronics,
the cycle stability of vehicle batteries, and the charging infrastructure will enable
the grid integration of electric vehicles.
Non-battery Stationary storage In addition to battery systems and different cell

chemistries, there are a number of other energy storage technologies that need to be
mentioned here (also see Fig. 6.2) in order to compare battery technology.
• Ultra-/Supercapacitor energy storage (SCES) is primarily suitable for very short-
term, high-power electricity storage. Their use is particularly worthwhile in the
case of rapid successive charging and discharging cycles. This is the case, for
example, in the improvement of power quality. When electrifying applications
with this requirement profile, combined systems with batteries and capacitors are
increasingly being used.
• Superconductive magnetic energy storage (SMES) can store energy in magnetic
form in superconducting coils. They have a high-power density. The field of
application corresponds to that of supercapacitors.
• Compressed air energy storage (CAES) uses compressed air to store energy. Air
is sucked in and compressed by a compressor and stored in a tank. Since large
volumes are required, underground caverns, for example, in salt domes, are often
used for storage. When energy is needed again, the compressed air can be
expanded via a gas turbine. Heat recovery can significantly increase circulation
efficiency. The shorter the cycle duration, the better heat can be recovered.
Therefore, CAES are used as spinning reserves and for time-shifting.
• Pumped hydro energy storage (PHS) stores electricity in positional energy. For
this purpose, water is pumped into a higher basin. When energy is needed, the
water is drained from the basin and passed over a turbine, which then generates
electricity again. Due to its very fast reactivity, PHS is suitable for peakshaving
and arbitrage trading but also for longer term energy storage.
• Flywheel energy storage (FES) stores electricity in rotational energy. For this
purpose, a heavy cylinder is rotated or decelerated by an electric motor. The
energy that can be stored is comparatively limited. That is why there are only a
few applications for this type of storage.
6.3 Mobile
Batteries are increasingly being used to power vehicles of all kinds—a domain
previously primarily occupied by petrochemical fuels and internal combustion
engines. However, fuels of fossil origin are not compatible with mitigating climate
change. Therefore, governments around the world have taken steps to phase out
internal combustion engines in the transport sector. In the European Union, for
example, with a few exemptions, only zero-emission vehicles can be newly regis-
tered from 2035 [13]. Japan and China are aiming for full electrification of new car
sales by 2035 [17]. Battery-electric vehicles are the most advanced technology to
meet these requirements. However, the trend toward electrification is not limited to
road transport. Electrification with the use of battery technology is also advancing in
other areas such as micromobility, commercial vehicles, shipping, rail transport or
aviation. As different as these application areas are, the suitable battery technologies
are also very different. Each battery technology has its characteristic properties, just
as each mobility application has its characteristic requirements. Table 6.1 shows a
utility value analysis of which battery technology is suitable for which
application [6].
Micromobility Micromobility includes e-bikes, electric scooters, and other small
electric means of transport. They are mainly used for shorter distances in urban
environments. Electric scooters in particular are offered as mobility as a service
products by various providers in cities. Batteries are usually integrated into the
product or can be removed and replaced completely in form of an encased battery
pack. The design and size of the product is decisive for the degree of integration of
the battery. Typical battery sizes range from a few 100 Wh to a few kWh [4]. Impor-
tant criteria for the selection of suitable battery technologies in this market segment
are cost, energy density, and charging rate.
Micromobility devices became possible due to low-cost batteries, compact and
powerful electric motors, and advances in power electronics and control compo-
nents. Due to the great success of e-bikes, powered scooters, powered self-balancing
boards, powered skate boards, and many other devices, market diffusion is already
more advanced compared to other mobile battery applications. Yet significant
growth potential remains in the micromobility market, even if year-on-year growth
rates are declining to single-digit percentages. The key growth drivers are listed
below:
Table 6.1 Battery technology to mobility application fit overview
Lithium Metal (High Ni - Li)
Silicon (High Ni - High Si)
Sodium Ion (NaMOx)

NMC 811 / Graphite
High Voltage LNMO

NCA / Graphite
LCO / Graphite
LFP / Graphite
Lithium Sulfur
Solid State
Micromobility ○ ○ ○ ○ + – – + + –
Motorcycle ○ ○ – – –– ○ + –– – ○
Sedan – – ○ – ○ –– –– ○ – ––
Sports Car + + ○ ○ – –– ○ –– –– –
SUV ○ ○ ○ ○ – –– – –– – ––
Pickup Truck – – – –– –– –– ○ –– ○ +
Heavy Duty Truck – – – –– –– –– – –– + ––
Planes ○ –– –– –– –– –– ○ –– + +
Legend: – – bad, – poor, ○ average, + good, + + great
• Growing urbanization: The global trend toward urbanization is changing mobility

behavior as well. Congestion and growing environmental awareness lead to an
increased use of alternative modes of transport. Battery-powered micromobility
on short distances and paved surfaces in urban centers is a viable alternative to
other modes of transport.
• Convenience and accessibility: Battery-powered micromobility devices are a
low-barrier complement to public transport in urban centers. For disabled people,
they can facilitate access to mobility. It is also the most affordable form of
motorised individual mobility.
• Government incentives: Cities create incentives to improve air quality and decar-
bonize mobility. Battery-powered micromobility benefits from this.
Passenger Vehicles This class of mobile applications represents the largest market
segment in terms of market volume. Therefore, the class of passenger vehicles
deserves further subdivision into motorbikes, cars, buses, and trucks.
For the application of batteries in motorcycles, the charging rate and the volu-
metric and gravimetric energy density are primarily relevant decision variables. The
reasons for this are the limited construction space available and the narrow limits in
the tolerable vehicle weight. Typical battery sizes are in the range of 5–20 KWh
[4]. For less heavily motorized mopeds and scooters used in urban traffic, exchange-
able batteries may also be an option. In those cases, priorities shift toward gravimet-
ric energy density and cost. Such vehicles are typically equipped with batteries of
1–5 kilowatt-hours [4].
Battery-electric cars represent the single largest market segment. Depending on
the size and weight of the vehicle as well as the intended use, different requirements
for the battery technology apply (compare Table 6.1). Battery-electric cars are
typically equipped with batteries from 30 to 110 KWh [14] with a growth trend.
NMC cell chemistries are widely used. In cheaper vehicles with a shorter range, LFP
is also used. For small vehicles with low range, the use of sodium-ion batteries may
also be conceivable. For the selection of battery technologies for electric cars, the
most important priorities are cost, volumetric energy density, and life cycle. Batte-
ries are usually permanently installed in the vehicle in the form of a battery pack
although some vehicle manufacturers also offer interchangeability of battery packs.
These batteries are usually equipped with a conditioning system that can cool or heat
the battery. Cooling is particularly necessary for fast charging. While charging, heat
is generated due to the internal resistance of battery cells that must be managed in
order not to endanger the thermal stability of cells. Moreover, the battery can be
preheated in cold ambient temperatures to prepare it for charging and enable a higher
charging rate. With regard to the integration of batteries into the vehicle, there are
two opposing trends. Manufacturers like Tesla and BYD work on making the battery
pack a structural part of the vehicle [28]. This saves weight and reduces the
necessary installation space. Other manufacturers, above all nio, are opting for
battery swap systems. This allows for greater flexibility and gentler charging.
However, this greater flexibility comes at the price of disadvantages due to the
standardized form factor of the battery pack and the more difficult thermal manage-
ment. In addition, the construction and operation of the swapping infrastructure is
associated with comparatively high costs. Therefore, vehicle-integrated battery
systems are likely to be sufficient for most applications. Cars with swappable
batteries primarily address the customer segment of businesspersons and travelling
salespersons, since a costly battery-swapping infrastructure must be built and oper-
ated. Due to the cost premium, it is to be expected that cars with swappable batteries
will initially be offered in the premium segment and purchased by people with high
mobility needs and a high willingness to pay.
For buses, there are two different use cases. Most buses are used in urban public
transport. This use case is characterized by frequent starts and stops as well as fixed
routes. Longer stops, e.g., at terminus stations, allow for recharging of the batteries.
Recharging can be done in different ways. However, automated pantograph systems
are becoming increasingly popular. Depending on the route and charging opportu-
nities, city buses are equipped with 200–500 kWh batteries [1, 7]. Due to frequent
starting and stopping, there is a great potential for recuperation. For maximum
utilization of the recuperation potential, batteries can also be combined with

ultracapacitors. Here is also the biggest difference to coaches, since they are usually
travelling at a constant speed over longer distances. In addition, there are fewer
opportunities for charging breaks. For this reason, coaches are also offered with
larger batteries beyond 500 kWh [1].
Battery-electric vehicles are the largest market segment for the application of
batteries for the foreseeable future. More than 80 million passenger vehicles are sold
globally [11]. By 2050, battery-electric vehicles will make up most of this market. In
its net zero-emissions scenario, the IEA projects that by 2030 the global market share
of electric vehicles will be around 60% [18]. This significant market growth is driven
by several factors, which are listed below:
• Environmental and climate regulation: In order to mitigate climate change and
improve air quality in urban areas, governments are taking regulatory measures
against internal combustion engine vehicles. Since this does not fundamentally
change mobility behavior, battery-electric vehicles are among the beneficiaries.
• Government incentives: In order to accelerate the market ramp-up, many gov-
ernments provide substantial financial incentives for the purchase of zero-
emission vehicles. In particular, countries with a strong automotive industry
also directly promote the development and production of batteries.
• Comfort: Even if charging pauses on long-distance journeys have a detrimental
effect on comfort, battery-electric vehicles do offer some advantages. The interior
can be designed more generously; the vehicle is significantly more quiet and less
prone to wear and tear.
Commercial Vehicles Commercial vehicles fulfill transport applications from

urban delivery services to freight transport on international long-haul routes. The
requirements for performance and range differ accordingly. In delivery applications,
smaller vehicles below 12 t gross vehicle weight are commonly used. The require-
ments for these vehicles are similar to those for large cars and pickup trucks. Heavier
trucks are used for short-distance transport logistics and retail deliveries. Due to the
relatively short daily routes of less than 400 km, moderate battery sizes of 100 kWh
to 500 kWh are mostly sufficient [26]. Long-distance road transport of goods is
usually done with heavy duty long-haul trucks with larger batteries in the range of
350–1000 kWh [5, 26]. Figure 6.3 gives an overview of the frequency of the
different applications and the average battery sizes installed [8]. The most common
cell chemistries in commercial vehicles are NMC, LFP [20], and, coming up soon,
LMFP [19]. The most important criteria for choosing the right battery technology are
gravimetric energy density, life cycle, and cost. Compared to passenger vehicles, life
cycle is of particular importance. Especially in long-distance traffic, mileages of
more than 1000,000 kilometers must be achieved over the lifetime of the vehicle.
Despite the disadvantages of batteries in terms of weight and charging time, the high
degree of utilization of batteries in long-haul transport leads to unexpectedly positive
cost-effectiveness.
Fig. 6.3 Use cases for battery-electric heavy duty transport [8]
Shipping Shipping is a difficult field for the application of battery-electric propul-

sion systems. Large and heavy vessels require a lot of energy and thus also
exceptionally large batteries. Nevertheless, battery-electric propulsion systems are
increasingly being used in shipping. The first applications are pleasure crafts,
touristic riverboats, and ferries. These applications combine relatively short routes
and nearby charging opportunities. Norway is the global pioneer in the electrification
of shipping. As of 2026, the country has declared its fjords to become the world’s
first maritime zero-emission zone [21]. The first battery-powered ferries are already
in operation. The Bastø Electric, for example, began operation in the Oslo Fjord in
2021. The ferry is 143 m long and has room for 200 cars, 24 trucks, and 600 people.
Batteries with a total capacity of 4300 kWh store the energy [12]. In addition, it can
be useful in regions that are less well connected to the electricity grid to set up buffer
storage at piers to charge the ships’ batteries. Beyond that, battery-electric marine
propulsion systems could also be used in coastal cargo shipping. A study published
in 2022 concludes that the total cost of propulsion (TCP) of battery-electric vessels is
competitive to internal combustion engine powered vessels up to a distance of
1000 km [22]. The authors estimate that the competitive route length will increase
to around 3300 km in the near future. This is due to expected further reductions in
battery costs and higher energy density as well as increasing TCP for internal
combustion engine ships.
Battery-electric drives are becoming increasingly relevant in shipping. The larg-

est number of sold propulsion systems is achieved in the segment of pleasure crafts.
Passenger and container ships, however, require considerably larger batteries, so that
a relevant market is emerging here as well. The most important market drivers are
listed below:
• Comfort: In the pleasure craft market segment, comfort plays a very significant
role. Battery-electric drive systems are compact and low maintenance. They are
also quiet and do not produce exhaust emissions. Integrated systems can also
provide power for electrical devices on board. It is also possible to charge these
batteries with onboard solar panels. Accordingly, a dynamically growing market
is already developing here.
• Environmental regulation: Emissions of pollutants from shipping are the subject
of public debate. The example of Norway shows how states are setting regulatory
frameworks that benefit battery-electric propulsion systems. Besides the Norwe-
gian fjords, also pollutant emissions from ships on inland waterways in densely
populated areas are relevant.
• Corporate sustainability: Sustainability is becoming an increasingly strong selling
point. This is especially true in tourist shipping.
• Costs: Especially in the pleasure craft segment, there are synergy effects that
justify higher costs. In commercial shipping, the economic competitiveness is
much more important. The competitiveness of battery-electric propulsion
depends on two opposing trends: firstly, the further cost degression of battery
storage system and, secondly, cost increases of fossil fuel powered propulsion
systems. Here, factoring in of the damage caused by CO2 emissions is a major
cost driver.
Aviation Aviation is one of those industries where avoiding greenhouse gas emis-
sions is particularly difficult. One obstacle to the electrification of aviation is the very
tight weight limits. Consequently, propulsion systems must provide a high energy
density and, for takeoffs, also a high-power density. In addition, very strict safety
requirements apply, because problems during flight can have devastating conse-
quences. This combination of requirements poses a major challenge for new climate-
friendly propulsion systems. Despite this, the use of battery-electric propulsion
systems is being considered in aviation. Prototypes and demonstrators from various
manufacturers have already proven the technical feasibility of battery-powered
aircraft. This concerns small short-haul aircraft or vertical takeoff and landing
(VTOL) devices. If batteries are to play a relevant role in aviation, however, battery
technologies with significantly higher energy densities must be developed. Studies
assume that at least 400 Wh/kg to 750 Wh/kg are necessary for regional air traffic. If
traditional narrow-body aircraft designs are to be equipped with battery-electric
propulsion systems, at least 600 Wh/kg to 820 Wh/kg will be required for commer-
cial operation on regional routes [2]. Current lithium-ion technology cannot meet
these requirements. Lithium sulfur batteries could theoretically achieve the required
energy densities but are still under development. Key challenges would be higher
discharge rates and a longer life cycle. Greater hope lies in the use of solid state
batteries. Here, too, many challenges still need to be solved, especially to improve
manufacturability. If solid state batteries with high energy density and good safety
characteristics become available by the end of the 2020s, aviation will be one of the
most interesting market segments for their commercial application. But the challenge
of battery-electric flying is bigger than just changing the propulsion system. New
aircraft designs are necessary to exploit all efficiency potentials. Decades of further
development are necessary to enable widespread adaptation of battery-electric
aviation in passenger transport. The first applications of this technology will be
small short-haul aircraft for only a few passengers.
Aviation is a market segment in which battery-electric propulsion systems may
play a role in the future. The prerequisite for this, however, is significant technolog-
ical progress. Therefore, this market segment is prone to become a test field for novel
high-performance batteries. Whether battery-electric designs will play a larger role
in regional air traffic also depends on the progress made in the development of
alternative drive technologies and synthetic fuels. The key market drivers are listed
below:
• New aviation concepts: VTOLs enable flight connections over short distances
that were previously restricted to other modes of transport. Especially in densely
populated areas, low noise and pollutant emissions as well as high safety stan-
dards are mandatory acceptance criteria for this technology. Electric propulsion
systems with multiple rotors can meet these requirements. Various companies are
developing and testing such concepts already. Another rapidly growing market
segment is unmanned drones, which are being used in various fields of applica-
tion. Military applications are a strong technology and market driver in this area.
• Environmental regulations: Aviation is also experiencing increasingly stricter
regulation of pollutant and greenhouse gas emissions. To some extent, it is
already included in emissions trading systems. Regulatory requirements and
rising costs associated with fossil fuels may improve the economic viability of
battery-electric propulsion systems in aviation in the future.
Rail Rail transport can be subdivided into light urban and tram transport, regional
and long-distance passenger transport, and heavy freight transport. Overall, rail
transport is already a very efficient and climate-friendly mode of transport. Never-
theless, there are use cases in the different areas where batteries should be consid-
ered. Urban rail passenger transport is already electrified to a large extent. Here,
batteries can be used to make optimal use of the energy recovery potential of
regenerative braking. Depending on the topology of the terrain and the dimensioning
of the catenary network, the amount of energy that can be fed back into catenaries
may be limited. Small batteries sometimes in combination with ultracapacitors can
act as buffer storage and help to stabilize the voltage quality in the overhead contact
line network. This can save up to 30% energy [15]. In addition, the construction of
tram lines and catenaries in dense urban areas can lead to spatial conflicts with other
infrastructures. With small batteries, trams can bridge shorter distances without
catenary. This can simplify the traffic planning of intersections, for example.
Long-distance passenger transport is usually equipped with overhead lines, as
long-distance routes are often at high capacity. In regional transport, the share of
electrified routes is significantly lower. Here, battery-electric trains are an alternative
to diesel-powered trains. This is especially true if parts of the route are electrified
with catenaries. The trains’ batteries can then be recharged in these sections of the
route. The first battery-electric trains are already in operation. Due to the good
integration into the existing infrastructure, battery-electric regional trains are an
interesting market segment. Depending on the route length, batteries with more
than 300 kWh capacity are used. Due to the high total weight and the large transport
capacity, the energy consumption of battery-electric trains is 3–8 kWh/km. Where
there is no catenary infrastructure at all, battery-electric trains will eventually have to
compete with other propulsion technologies such as hydrogen fuel cells and syn-
thetic fuels.
In heavy freight transport, the comparatively low energy density of batteries
becomes a problem especially over long distances. However, the use of battery-
electric power trains would also be technically feasible here. More realistic, how-
ever, is the use of battery-electric freight locomotives in shunting operations, on
factory premises, and on short regional routes.
Batteries for rail transport require a high energy density. This is particularly
important when longer distances are to be covered. In addition, a high-power density
is necessary to exploit the full potential of regenerative braking and quick acceler-
ation. Another important aspect is the requirement for a very long life cycle. Trains
are in continuous operation and cover several million kilometers over their lifetime.
Accordingly, the battery must be able to withstand many charging cycles. In
addition, there are high demands on safety and reliability. Particularly in freight
transport, hazardous goods are also transported. Fire risks must therefore be avoided.
Furthermore, in the event of a defect, a train may block a section of the track. This
can lead to high consequential costs.
Rail transport is an interesting market segment for a relatively small number of
large battery systems. Whereas in the past it was mainly hydrogen drives that were
seen as a future technology here, interest is increasingly moving in the direction of
battery-electric trains. The main market forces are listed below:
• Environmental regulation: Stricter climate and environmental legislation also
affects rail transport. Moreover, many railway companies around the world are
partly or fully state-owned. Therefore, politics can exert more direct influence on
investment decisions and accelerate the switch to more climate-friendly
technologies.
• Energy costs: Electric trains can recover energy when braking. With battery-
powered trains, this is becoming possible even in areas without catenaries.
Energy costs can be reduced through increased energy efficiency. The magnitude
of this effect, of course, depends on the difference between electricity and fuel
prices.
• Improved performance: Compared to diesel engines, electric motors can be

controlled better, and they provide full torque already at low speed. This has a
positive effect on acceleration.
• Comfort: In passenger transport, passenger comfort is also an important decision
criterion. Diesel engines cause nuisance through exhaust fumes, noise, and
vibrations, which have a negative impact on the passengers’ perception of
comfort and quality.
6.4 Portable
Portable batteries have been the largest market segment in the past. This market
segment covers a wide range of applications. These include consumer electronics,
power tools, medical devices, and numerous other applications. The typical battery
capacity is in the range of a few watt-hours. Batteries with a capacity of up to
1 kilowatt-hour are used in power tools. Portable batteries are usually directly
integrated into the product. Depending on the size, energy requirements, and usage
characteristics of the product, there are very different requirements for the battery
technology. Accordingly, this market segment offers many small niches for manu-
facturers of special batteries. The various niche applications also offer interesting
market entry opportunities for the first-time commercialization of new battery
technologies. Due to the great diversity of battery applications, with relatively
small market volumes, the individual applications are only briefly described
below [4].
• Telecommunications: The market segment is very established and the products
are mature. The market is saturated and the number of smartphones sold has been
declining slightly since 2017. Lithium-ion battery cells in laminated cell formats
with form factors specially adapted to the product are used to a large extent. The
capacity of these batteries is in the range of 4–20 Wh. This market segment is
very cost-sensitive.
• Laptops and tablets: The market for laptop and tablet batteries is saturated.
Laptops reached peak demand in 2011 and tablets in 2014. Since then, sales
figures have stagnated. In the past, 18,650 format round cells were more common,
but in the competition for thinner and lighter laptops, many manufacturers are
increasingly switching to specially designed pouch formats. Nearly all batteries
used are lithium-ion.
• Power tools: The market for power tools continues to grow dynamically. More
than one million units are sold annually. The market covers a broad spectrum
from low-end solutions for occasional users (6 V, 10 Wh) to powerful profes-
sional tools (36 V, > 50 Wh). Increasingly, Li-Ion batteries are prevailing over
NiCd batteries. The power-tool manufacturers expect from batteries above all low
prices, fast charging, and high energy density. For professional tools, an
improved life cycle of more than 500 cycles is also important.
• Medical devices: Batteries are used in medical devices such as implants, defibril-
lators, hearing aids, and prostheses. Particularly in the case of implants and
hearing aids, extreme requirements are placed on batteries due to the small
packaging space. As these requirements can be very specific, various cell chem-
istries are used in special cell formats. The market for medical battery applications
is growing dynamically. On the one hand, this is due to the constant expansion of
the product range, but also to an aging population in wealthy industrial countries.
• Household devices: Batteries are increasingly being used in household appliances
such as shavers, toothbrushes, or vacuum cleaners. The market is growing
dynamically, even if there are major differences between the individual product
categories. Lithium-ion batteries have replaced other cell chemistries in many
product categories. The market segment is very price-sensitive. In addition, short
charging times and low self-discharge are expected.
Besides the market segments mentioned, there are numerous others, such as toys,
mobile video game consoles, sports equipment, smartwatches, or wearable electron-
ics, which will not be discussed in detail. However, the large number of applications
shows the great potential for smaller manufacturers of special batteries. The special
requirements create the necessary conditions for the introduction of new battery
technologies. For this reason, the small-scale consumer battery market cannot be
neglected.
References
1. Aamodt A, Cory K (2021) Kamyria Coney: Electrifying transit: a guidebook for implementing
battery electric buses. Online: https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy21osti/76932.pdf
2. Adu-Gyamfi BA, Good C (2022) electric aviation: a review of concepts and enabling technol-
ogies. Transp Eng 9:100134, ISSN 2666-691X. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.treng.2022.100134
3. Kebede AA, Kalogiannis T, Van Mierlo J, Berecibar M (2022) A comprehensive review of
stationary energy storage devices for large scale renewable energy sources grid integration.
Renew Sust Energ Rev 159:112213
4. Avicenne (2020) The worldwide rechargeable battery market 2019–2030. Online: https://www.
avicenne.com/reports_energy.php
5. Basma H, Beys Y, Rodríguez F (2021) Battery electric tractor-trailers in the European Union: A
vehicle technology analysis. Working Paper 2021–29. The internatnional council on clean
energy transportation (icct). Online: https://theicct.org/sites/default/files/publications/eu-trac
tor-trailers-analysis-aug21-2.pdf
6. Battery Application Breakdown: Spreadsheet. Version 01/01/2023. Online: https://docs.google.
com/spreadsheets/d/1BmUIc7glVppOUBByrKPAhSImwjPMJMecZis9XyAKiG8/edit#gid=0
7. Beckers CJJ, Besselink IJM, Nijmeijer H (2021) The state-of-the-art of battery electric city
buses. In: 34th International Electric Vehicle Symposium and Exhibition (EVS34), Nanjing,
Jiangsu. June 25–28, 2021. Online: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/352793138_The_
State-of-the-Art_of_Battery_Electric_City_Buses
8. Beermann V, Vorholt F (2022) Heavy commercial vehicles boost future battery demand.
Online: https://www.ipcei-batteries.eu/fileadmin/Images/accompanying-research/publica
tions/2022-05-BZF_Kurzinfo_Marktanalyse_Q2_ENG.pdf
9. Joachim Bertsch, Helena Schweter, Amelie Sitzmann, Hans Ulrich Buhl, Gilbert Fridgen,
Marc-Fabian Körner, Anne Miachelis, Vadim Rägo, Thomas Sachs, Miachel Schöpf, Paul
Schott (2019) Ausgangsbedingungen für die Vermarktung von Nachfrageflexibilität – Status-
Quo-Analyse und Metastudie.. Online: https://www.ewi.uni-koeln.de/cms/wp-content/
uploads/2019/12/Studie_SynErgie_Metastudie_Zweite-Auflage_final.pdf
10. C.A.R.M.E.N e.V.: Marktübersicht Batteriespeicher 2022 – Informationsangebot. 2023.
Online: https://www.carmen-ev.de/wp-content/uploads/2022/04/Marktuebersicht-
Batteriespeicher_2023_03.pdf
11. CLEPA: The Transformation Continues | A Look Ahead to 2022 – Market Outlook. 2022.
Online: https://clepa.eu/wp-content/uploads/2022/01/Market-Outlook-2022.pdf
12. electrive.com (2021) World’s largest electric ferry launches in Norway. 2021. Online: https://
www.electrive.com/2021/03/02/worlds-largest-electric-ferry-yet-goes-into-service-in-norway/
13. European Union (EU): ‘Fit for 55’: council adopts regulation on CO2 emissions for new cars
and vans. Press release 28 March 2023. Online: https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/press/
press-releases/2023/03/28/fit-for-55-council-adopts-regulation-on-co2-emissions-for-new-
cars-and-vans/
14. EV Database: Useable battery capacity of full electric vehicles. Website. Checked 28 March
2023. Online: https://ev-database.org/cheatsheet/useable-battery-capacity-electric-car
15. Fedele E, Iannuzzi D, Del Pizzo A (2021) Onboard energy storage in rail transport: review of
real applications and techno-economic assessments. IET Electr Syst Transp 11(4):279–309.
https://doi.org/10.1049/els2.12026
16. FNN: Voltage Regulating Distribution Transformer (VRDT) – Use in Grid Planning and
Operation. (2016). Online: https://www.vde.com/resource/blob/1570326/c4c73c2670f47f820
71b81eab368b85e/hinweis%2D%2Dront%2D%2Ddownload-englisch-data.pdf
17. International Energy Agency (IEA): Global EV Outlook 2021 – Accelerating ambitions despite
the pandemic. 2021. Online: https://iea.blob.core.windows.net/assets/ed5f4484-f556-4110-
8c5c-4ede8bcba637/GlobalEVOutlook2021.pdf
18. International Energy Agency (IEA): Global EV Outlook 2022 Securing supplies for an electric
future. 2022. Online: https://iea.blob.core.windows.net/assets/e0d2081d-487d-4818-8c59-
69b638969f9e/GlobalElectricVehicleOutlook2022.pdf
19. Jana Kirchen: Stärken und Schwächen elektrischer Truck-Architekturen. electrive.net LIVE.
30 August 2022. Online: https://www.electrive.net/2022/08/30/jana-kirchen-von-p3-ueber-
staerken-und-schwaechen-elektrischer-truck-architekturen-electrive-net-live/
20. Mauler L, Dahrendorf L, Duffner F, Winter M, Leker J (2021) Cost-effective technology choice
in a decarbonized and diversified long-haul truck transportation sector: a U.S. case study.
Online: https://juser.fz-juelich.de/record/904873/files/20211210_Manuscript.pdf
21. Norwegian Maritime Authority: Assignment on implementation of zero emissions requirement
for cruise ships, tourist boats and ferries in the World Heritage fjords by 2026. 2022. Online:
https://www.sdir.no/contentassets/447066ba59bc437a943380fd9f7f6738/eng-publ-oppdrag-
om-innretning-av-nullutslipp-for-store-turistskip-og-ferger-i-verdensarvfjordene-fra-2026.pdf?
t=1676667074960
22. Kersey J, Popovich ND, Phadke AA (2022) Rapid battery cost declines accelerate the prospects
of all-electric interregional container shipping. Nat Energy 7:664–674. https://doi.org/10.1038/
s41560-022-01065-y
23. Pillot C (2022) The rechargeable battery market and main trends 2020–2030. Avicenne Energy.
Online: http://www.energycluster.it/it/eventi/la-filiera-delle-batterie-sfide-e-opportunita-per-la-
lombardia/1-batterie-per-il-settore-automotive-mercato-trend-sfide-e-opportunita-pillot-
avicenne.pdf
24. Roberts C (2018) Review of International Grid Codes. Energy Analysis and Environmental
Impacts Division Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory. Online: https://eta-publications.lbl.
gov/sites/default/files/international_grid_codes_lbnl-2001104.pdf
25. Šimić Z, Topić D, Knežević G, Pelin D (2021) Battery energy storage technologies overview.
Int J Electr Comput Eng Syst 12:53–65. https://doi.org/10.32985/ijeces.12.1.6
26. David Smith, Ron Graves, Burak Ozpineci, P.T. Jones, Jason, Lustbader, Ken Kelly, Kevon
Walkowicz, Alicia Birky, Grant Payne, Cory Sigler, Jeff Mosbacher Medium- and heavy-duty
vehicle electrification – an assessment of technology and knowledge gaps. 2019.. Online:
https://info.ornl.gov/sites/publications/Files/Pub136575.pdf
27. U.S. Department of Energy (DoE) (2021) Battery storage in the United States: an update on
market trends. Independent Statistics & Analysis. Online: https://www.eia.gov/analysis/studies/
electricity/batterystorage/pdf/battery_storage_2021.pdf
28. Zahng P (2022) BYD supplying batteries to Tesla, first vehicles to roll off line as soon as
August, report says. Press report. CNEV Post. 10 August 2022. Online: https://cnevpost.
com/2022/08/10/byd-is-supplying-batteries-to-tesla/
Chapter 7
Future Battery Market
Stefan Wolf and Michael Lüken
Contents
7.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103
7.2 Market Outlook . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 104
7.3 Market Entry of New Battery Technologies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 108
7.4 Overview of Target KPIs for Batteries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109
7.5 KPI Trends in Relation to Both Battery Market Segments and Technologies . . . . . . . . . 109
7.6 Current Research Trends and Conclusions for Future Market Developments . . . . . . . . . 112
7.7 Lithium-Ion Batteries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112
7.8 Innovative Cell Chemistries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113
7.9 Cell Design and Manufacturing Processes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114
7.10 Battery Systems and End Use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 115
7.11 Raw Materials, Recycling, and Sustainability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 115
7.12 Conclusions for Future Market Developments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 116
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117
7.1 Introduction
The global battery market has been growing very dynamically since the beginning of
the 2010s, with annual growth rates of more than 30%. According to data from
Avicenne Pillot (2022), the market volume of the entire battery market in 2020 was
S. Wolf
VDI/VDE Innovation + Technik GmbH, Berlin, Germany
M. Lüken (✉)
New Vision University (NVU), School of Politics and Diplomacy, Climate and Sustainability
Governance Research, Tbilisi, Georgia

104 S. Wolf and M. Lüken
Fig. 7.1 Evaluation of the global battery market outlook [14]
USD 93 billion. Lead-acid batteries accounted for USD 37 billion of this, of which
414 GWh were produced in 2020. The production volume of Li-ion batteries was
just over half that at 250 GWh. However, the market volume of Li-ion batteries was
already USD 39 billion in 2020.
7.2 Market Outlook
The market outlook is characterized by strong growth in the production of Li-ion

batteries. Figure 7.1 shows the battery market development based on an assessment
of market reports listed in Table 7.1. This growth is predominantly caused by the
transition from internal combustion engine vehicles to battery-electric vehicles. The
most likely growth path reaches a global production capacity of 3200 GWh/a in
2030, 7100 GWh/a in 2040, and 8900 GWh/a in 2050 [14].
In terms of regional breakdown of the global market, Asia, and China in partic-
ular, remains in the leading position. Based on the announced production capacities,
a substantial change in regional market shares is not to be expected. The studies
evaluated conclude that Europe will be able to cover a large part of its battery cell
demand itself by 2030. Europe’s share of the global market will be 16% to 27% in
2030, depending on the assumptions applied. Due to the multitude of influencing
factors, there is a great degree of uncertainty in this result.
In the decade from 2020 to 2030, the compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of
the global market is projected to be 26% [14]. This rapid growth provides a good
market entry opportunity for many new companies. As market diffusion of battery
technology continues, the CAGR will drop to single digits in the following decade
7 Future Battery Market 105
Table 7.1 Evaluated market reports projecting the future development of the battery market
from 2030 to 2040. This will start a market consolidation phase which many of the
new companies will not survive. The unsuccessful companies will be bought up by
the better performing ones. Therefore, an aggressive growth strategy is necessary to
survive in the mass market. In the second half of the 2020s, companies will need to
secure significant market share and strategic alliances with automakers to survive in
the long term. This conflicts with the limited experience of European and North
American start-ups in particular. It will be a matter of not only scaling quickly but
also learning more efficiently and faster than established companies that have been
active in the market for years. Another possible strategy is specialization. By
building up know-how and serving the needs of a smaller market segment, a
technological advantage over competing companies can be achieved. This approach
can enable survival with lower revenues compared to the mass market, but possibly
more attractive margins.
The Li-ion battery market projection in Fig. 7.1 shows an assessment of 25 market
development scenarios from 18 market reports. The market projections are classified
into maximum, minimum, and realistic development paths depending on the
assumptions on which they are based. The maximum scenarios are mostly based
on the expansion targets announced by battery manufacturers. However, it can be
assumed that not all of the announced battery production capacities will actually be
created. Some of the players on the market today will not be able to survive and will
withdraw their announcements. The minimum scenarios are mostly based on regu-
latory requirements. Particularly in the vehicle sector, many countries have already
passed resolutions to phase out the internal combustion engine. One example of this
is the CO2 fleet limits for passenger cars and light commercial vehicles that apply in
the European Union [6, 7]. The minimum scenarios use these regulatory require-
ments as a basic assumption for estimating the expected market diffusion. The
realistic scenarios are based on the historically observable market diffusion of
battery technology.
Battery-electric passenger cars will be by far the most important market segment.
Other, much smaller, market segments are commercial vehicles, stationary power
storage, consumer electronics, power tools, and similar. Projections for the marine,
aviation, and stationary power storage market segments are subject to the greatest
uncertainties. Stationary power storage in particular has less limiting requirements
for KPIs such as energy or power density neither gravimetric nor volumetric. This
allows significantly more freedom in the choice of cell chemistry. One example of
new battery chemistries with disruptive potential is sodium ion batteries. It is likely
that this battery technology will capture a significant portion of the market volume
outlined in Fig. 7.1. The properties of sodium ion batteries make them suitable for
use cases that do not necessarily require high energy densities. However, manufac-
turers are also considering putting sodium ion batteries in vehicles with a range of up
to 400 km in the future [3]. Breakthroughs in the industrialization of such cheaper
batteries for stationary electricity storage can lead to significantly accelerated market
diffusion. Nevertheless, even in this case, passenger cars would be expected to form
the largest market segment.
The actual development of the battery market is difficult to estimate because it
depends on a variety of influencing factors. The most probable path indicated in
Fig. 7.1 reflects the mean value of the realistic scenarios. Realistic scenarios are
considered to be those that make probable assumptions for the future impact of key
influencing factors while weighing up various options. The consistent scenario
descriptions resulting from this approach allow a projection for the future develop-
ment of the battery market based on the state of knowledge in 2022. The real
development of the battery market can deviate considerably from the most probable
path. The following developments can lead to a positive deviation [14]:
• Realization of all announced projects: The construction, commissioning, and
ramp-up of battery factories are a complex task that poses considerable chal-
lenges, especially for start-up companies. The supply of raw materials, active
materials, and components must also be ensured. It is therefore to be expected that
not all announced production capacities will actually be built, commissioned, and
fully utilized. Time delays also have a negative impact on the availability of
production capacities. If these assumptions are not correct and the production
capacities are actually realized as announced, the market development will shift
into the area of maximum scenarios.
• Accelerated demand growth: The realistic scenarios are based on the established
regulatory framework. In the past, it was observed that the speed of market
diffusion of new technologies has been increasing. Accordingly, it is possible
that the market for batteries, especially in the automotive segment, could grow
much faster than previously assumed.
• Faster battery cost degression: With every battery produced, the knowledge about
possible cost savings increases. Accordingly, the realistic scenarios extrapolate
the future development of battery costs in line with the observed learning curve.
New technical developments, for example, in production technology or through
the introduction of cheaper battery cell chemistries, can accelerate the cost
degression. Accordingly, a new market equilibrium would be expected to emerge
resulting in a larger battery market volume.
• Political support measures: Political measures can have a significant impact on
the development of the battery market. The realistic scenarios are based on a
business as usual assumption derived from the current and expected political
framework conditions. More ambitious policies and actual compliance with the
1.5 °C target of the Paris climate agreement would shift the market development
into the range of the maximum scenarios.
However, there are also a number of factors that can have a negative impact on the
development of the battery market:
• Upstream supply bottlenecks: The rapid growth of battery production capacities
requires an equally rapid growth of upstream supply chains. Capacities along the
entire supply chain must be ramped up in parallel. However, especially in the
commodity sector, scaling up capacities is much more time-consuming
(5–10 years) than building battery factories (2–4 years). Therefore, realistic
scenarios assume that not all announced battery production capacities will actu-
ally be built. If significantly greater challenges arise in the development of
upstream supply chains than expected today, this will have a negative impact
on the development of the battery market. Influencing factors that are difficult to
assess are the actions of governments in local protests against mining projects and
the discovery of new raw material deposits.
• (Trade) conflicts: International trade went into crisis as early as the 2010s,
triggered by trade disputes between the USA and China. Russia’s invasion of
Ukraine and the subsequent sanctions also have an impact on the battery industry,
since Russia is a major nickel supplier with a global market share of slightly less
than 10%. Such conflicts can therefore have a significant impact on the develop-
ment of the battery industry. However, they are difficult to predict. Even more
difficult to assess are their consequences. New conflicts and a further acceleration
of the economic decoupling between the USA, Europe, and China can lead to
problems along the supply chains with negative effects on the development of the
battery market.
• Shortage of skilled labor: Many thousands of skilled workers are needed to build
up the battery industry and its supplier industries. These workers must be trained
and educated. This is a major task that requires the cooperation of the
governments, industry, and educational institutions. However, the battery indus-

try competes with other emerging industries for talents. This is further exacer-
bated by the demographic trends in major battery producing countries. However,
there is an opportunity for the battery industry to tap into skilled labor that is
being laid off in the production of internal combustion engines. Advances in
automation can also further reduce labor intensity. If the demand for skilled labor
cannot be met, delays are to be expected, which will shift market development
into the realm of the minimum scenarios.
• Economic slowdown: A general economic slowdown is likely to result in
restrained consumer spending and thus reduced demand for batteries. Recessions
are expected and occur at regular intervals. The realistic scenarios continue the
patterns observed in the past. If instead a prolonged stagnation phase or even a
depression occurs, this will lead to a slower development of the battery market.
The market reports evaluated in Fig. 7.1 are listed in Table 7.1 together with
additional information on the level of detail of those reports. Most of the reports
consider the world market in aggregated form. Some break down the market into
individual regions or countries. The table also shows the period covered by the
reports. Few reports make statements beyond 2030; as such, long-term projections
are subject to great uncertainty. The year in which the publication appeared is also
indicated.
7.3 Market Entry of New Battery Technologies
The fundamental challenge of the future battery market lies in the mutual
interdependence of market demands and technological advances. The advancement
of battery application in various sectors (especially in aviation and medical devices)
requires a market maturity of high-performance battery solutions, while in turn
technological development progress is—at least partially—determined by market
potential. This section hence provides an outlook on foreseeable developments in
battery technologies (not limited to cell chemistry but including management sys-
tems and further components) and how their market introduction might interact with
demand scenarios in various segments.
KPIs play a crucial role in bridging the gap between market assessments and
technological outlooks by defining the most important characteristics of a battery
system with respect to their applicability. They serve as a measure of “how a battery
can be used” (for market scenarios) as well as a guideline for “what a battery can
provide” (in technology roadmaps). Our analysis will hence focus on current
definitions of and trends in KPIs.
This section is structured as follows: we will first give a short overview of KPI
target values for batteries on an international level. We will then discuss KPI trends
in relation to both battery market segments and technologies. Finally, we derive
conclusions for future market developments on the background of current research
trends.
7.4 Overview of Target KPIs for Batteries
The set of KPIs for a particular battery application defines the main properties of
battery performance in the respective application. It typically encompasses a wide
range of technical parameters as well as cost parameters. For the sake of our analysis,
we will mainly focus on the KPIs used in the most recent battery Strategic Research
and Innovation Agenda (SRIA) [2]:
• Gravimetric and volumetric energy density at cell level (Wh per kg and Wh/l,
resp.)
• Power density at cell level (W per kg and W/l, resp.)
• Cycle life (for high-capacity and high voltage applications, resp.)
• Cost at pack level (€ per kWh).
Besides of upcoming improvements of lithium-ion-based cell chemistry, SRIA
provides KPI estimates for so-called “beyond lithium” approaches based on natrium
ion and metal-air concepts. Another stream of innovation is the concept of solid-state
batteries (SSBs) with polymer electrolytes. KPI estimates are taken from a recent
report by the Fraunhofer ISI [12].
With the advancement and market introduction of new cell technologies, signif-
icant improvements in all KPIs can be expected (see Table 7.2), although the
respective year of market availability bears uncertainty. For example, assuming the
availability of systems with a lifetime of more than 6000 cycles in the year 2030 and
over 15,000 cycles in the years after is well reasonable. The reader should keep in
mind though that these numbers represent goals related to ongoing or foreseeable
developments until the year 2030 rather than safe forecasts. However, a recent
overview [15] of manufacturers announcements indicates an earlier market
upscaling of sodium ion batteries than expected by SRIA.
7.5 KPI Trends in Relation to Both Battery Market

Segments and Technologies
The next step in the analysis is to summarize current expectations for particular KPI
levels from the demand/application perspective and compare them to the above
results. For the purpose of our analysis, we aggregate market subsegments up to a
reasonable degree and omit niche applications with relatively small market sizes.
The results of the comparison are summarized in Table 7.3.
A differentiated picture emerges in the comparison of KPI requirements in
different market sectors with current KPI projections of various battery technologies.
For large market segments, esp. light- to heavy-duty vehicles, the needs on
the demand side and the projections for generation 4–5 lithium-ion batteries on the
supply side are in fair agreement. However, further research is needed to satisfy the
needs of smaller segments such as airborne transport.
Table 7.2 Objectives and outcomes of advanced material development, based on the Batteries
European Partnership Association [2] and Schmaltz et al. [12]
Time
KPI goals: technological KPI goal: cost at pack to
Technology/application parameters level market
Generation 3 50–400 Wh/kg, < 100 €/kWh 2025+
Li-ion batteries for mobility 750–1.000 Wh/l
applications 700 W/kg, 1500+ W/l
3000+ cycles (high-
capacity applications)/
2000+ cycles (high voltage
applications)
Generation 4 400+ - 500+ Wh/kg, < 75 €/kWh 2030+
Li-ion batteries for mobility 800+ - 1.000+ Wh/l
applications Up to 3000 cycles
Generation 5 500+ Wh/kg, 1.000 Wh/l < 75 €/kWh 2030+
Li-ion batteries for mobility At least 800 cycles at 80%
applications DoD
Li-ion batteries for stationary 500+ Wh/l < 75 €/kWh 2030
storage applications (commer- 6000+ cycles
cial high-power applications)
(a longer lifetime of 10,000+
cycles is defined for utility-scale
applications)
“Beyond lithium” Na-ion systems: <0.05 €/kWh/cycle 2030+
180 Wh/kg, 500 Wh/l corresponds to 100 €/
15.000+ cycles kWh for 2.000 cycles,
Metal-air systems: e.g.
200+ Wh/kg, 800+ Wh/l
2.000–5.000 cycles
Solid-state battery (SSB) with 440 Wh/kg, 900 Wh/l n.a. 2030
polymer electrolyte
“+” denotes “or more than”/“or later.” Li: lithium. Na: sodium
Light-duty battery-electric vehicles for passengers are the largest market segment
within the mobility sector. However, the KPI requirements of this segment can-
not fully be met by generation 3 Li-ion batteries (1000 W/kg/2.200 W/l of power
density in 2030). The same holds for plug-in hybrid electric vehicles. While their
future market share is significantly smaller than for BEVs, they still constitute a
demand of over 100 GWh [2] of battery capacity in the year 2030. Market maturity
of generation 4 and 5 solutions improves the situation, while the power density
remains a challenge.
Sodium (Na) ion-based systems are an option to satisfy the cycle life needs of
medium to heavy-duty BEV applications (up to 6000 cycles) in the near future. The
market introduction of these systems, expected to allow for a lifetime of over
15,000 cycles, is highly desirable to support a large-scale electrification of road
freight transport. Likewise, expectations for cycle lifetime in stationary applications
can—according to current projections—only be met by Na-ion systems. The power
Table 7.3 Comparing KPI goals on the demand side (market segments/applications) to KPI
projections on the supply side (technology-specific)
Market segment, KPI goals Comparison to KPI projections

market size (2030) Gen. Gen. Na-ion, SSB with
3 4-5 metal- polymer
Li-ion Li-ion air electrolyte
Mobility: 450 Wh/kg, 1.000 Wh/l (+) (+) (-) (-)
light-duty BEV (1.000 - 1.000 W/kg, 2.200+ W/l (-) n. a. n. a. n. a.
2.500 GWh/a)
2.000 cycles (light) (+) (+) (+) n. a.
and medium to heavy-duty
BEV (200 GWh/a) 6.000 cycles (medium to (o) (+) (+) n. a.
high)
85 EUR/kWh (light), (o) (+) (-) n. a.
150 EUR/kWh (medium to (+) (+) (-) n. a.
high)
Mobility: 350 Wh/kg, 800 Wh/l (+) (+) (o) (+)
light duty PHEV 1.750 W/kg, 3.850 W/l (-) n. a. n. a. n. a.
(100 – 150 GWh/a)
>2.000 cycles (+) (+) (+) n. a.
120 EUR/kWh (+) (+) (+) n. a.
Mobility: 350 Wh/kg, 800 Wh/l (+) (+) (o) (+)
Off-road mobile (Ship: 1.000 Wh/l)
machinery1 >6.000 cycles (o) (-) (+) n. a.
(30 GWh/a) and BE or (Ship: > 10.000)
hybrid electric ship with 200 EUR/kWh (+) (+) (+) n. a.
energy battery (4 GWh/a) (Ship: 75 EUR on cell level)
Mobility: BE or hybrid 450 Wh/kg, (power density (+) (+) (-) (-)
electric aircraft with power n/a)
battery (up to 5 GWh/a) >3.000 cycles (o) (-) (+) n. a.
200-300 EUR/kWh (+) (+) (+) n. a.
Stationary applications >250 Wh/kg, >700 Wh/l (o) (+) (-) (+)
>700 W/kg, >1.400 W/l (+) n. a. n. a. n. a.
15.000 cycles (-) (-) n. a.
70 €/kWh on module level (o) n. a.
Colors: goals are met (+, green), application goals are not met (-, red), ambiguous (o, yellow)
because the KPI goals on the supply side are not clearly defined or specified. “n.a.”: KPI estimate is
not available in the considered literature
density projections for Na-ion systems (500 Wh/l) do not satisfy the requirements of
stationary applications yet.
Off-road mobile machinery (up to 30 GWh per year in the year 2030), often
characterized by continuous operation and robustness, requires large battery systems
of up to 1000 kWh in size, optimized for a high energy (rather than power) density
and outstanding lifetime requirements of up to 6000 cycles. Similarly, most water-
borne transport applications (approx. 4 GWh/a in 2030) require even larger scales
(up to several hundreds of MWh) and lifetimes (over 10,000 cycles). The latter
requirement can neither be met with generation 3–5 battery concepts for mobility
applications nor with metal-air systems. Li-ion batteries for stationary storage
applications but also Na-ion systems would meet the cycle lifetime requirements
but not the energy density demands. Improved solid-state batteries with polymer
electrolytes might provide the power density required in these market segments by
2030 [12].
To conclude, while the technological development of batteries achieved remark-
able results, solutions beyond current Li-ion batteries are needed to enable large-
scale mobility and stationary applications. Particularly, power density levels beyond
those of the coming Li-ion battery generations for road vehicle applications and
improved cycle lifetimes for marine/aviation mobility and stationary applications are
desirable. While sodium ion battery technologies are a promising option to allow for
the high cycle lifetimes needed in most airborne and waterborne transport applica-
tions, energy density needs to improve to fully match the requirements of current
aircrafts and long-distance vessels for a full electric operation. A mature market
battery solution for the electrification of maritime and particularly airborne trans-
portation might have a high symbolic value, beyond its limited market size and
relatively modest contribution to current greenhouse gas emissions.
7.6 Current Research Trends and Conclusions for Future

Market Developments
Current challenges in battery research and development span over the whole range of
the battery ecosystem. The European Battery Partnership defines in its recent
Strategic Research and Innovation Report six focus areas to support the development
and market introduction of future battery technologies along the value chain: Raw
Materials and Recycling, Advanced Materials and Manufacturing, Battery End Uses
and Operations, Crosscutting Topic Safety, Crosscutting Topic Sustainability, and
Coordination [2]. The report outlines strategic actions and a timeline of Technology
Readiness Level (TRL) estimates in each area. The main trends and TRL projections
in the areas of materials and manufacturing are summarized in Fig. 7.2.
7.7 Lithium-Ion Batteries
Innovative cell chemistries are catching up, but the current Li-ion battery will most
probably remain the dominating battery type until 2030 due to successful market
uptake and an established industrial value chain. The Li-ion battery concept is
subject to continuous improvement and still bears potential for optimization. Current
research focuses on improving the energy density while delivering on the other
application relevant KPIs [1].
Fig. 7.2 Timeline of selected future battery developments, based on Batteries European Partner-
ship Association [2], pp. 56 and 61, complemented by estimates on SSB development based on
Schmaltz et al. [12] (pp. 92–93). The numbers indicate TRL estimates
• Intensive research is being carried out into nickel-rich NMC materials on the
cathode side. Increasing the nickel content increases the specific capacity while
reducing the cobalt content. Suitable composites are required to assure a high
cycle stability. Nickel-rich 811-NMC cathodes are close to market launch.
• On the anode side, research aims at increasing the silicon content of graphite
electrodes (up to 10% Si/SiOx in generation 3) and thus the specific capacity
without large loss of cycle stability.
• Research on electrolytes focuses on compatibility with the electrode by develop-
ing additives for organic liquid electrolytes and on solid electrolytes, to improve
battery safety and render the use of metallic lithium anodes possible.
• Coated separator membranes improve lifetime, temperature tolerance, and safety
properties of batteries, e.g., through hydrogen fluoride absorbing ceramic parti-
cles. Extra costs for coating need to be compensated for by optimizing the
manufacturing process.
7.8 Innovative Cell Chemistries
Substantial improvements of battery KPIs can be expected from so-called post-

lithium-ion batteries. Most technologies have a high theoretical energy density. A
variety of challenges still need to be overcome before market maturity can be
achieved.
• Major progress in solid-state batteries (SSBs) with polymer electrolytes is

expected in the coming years, bearing large potential to fulfill energy density
KPIs in mobility applications [12].
• The lithium solid-state battery logically connects to the Li-ion battery. The
application of solid electrolytes, in the form of ceramics, polymers, or hybrid,
allows for the use of metallic lithium in cell chemistry.
• Na-ion and Ka-ion batteries follow a similar operating principle as Li-ion batte-
ries but bear the advantage of less raw material scarcity compared to lithium. Due
to the larger ion radius and lower redox potential, lower energy densities are
expected for these two technologies. Na-ion batteries have already entered the
market but fill only a small market niche for stationary storage so far due to high
costs.
• The Zn-O2 battery (as an example of metal air batteries) has already reached
technological maturity. However, the energy density is still far below the
predicted energy density, making this system mostly suitable for stationary
applications. Improving reversibility and thus cycle stability remains a challenge.
• Redox flow batteries, e.g., based on vanadium, potentially allow for high cycle
stability (>10,000 cycles) but have only a very low energy density.
7.9 Cell Design and Manufacturing Processes
Next to advanced material development, innovations in cell design and manufactur-

ing processes provide chances especially for cost reductions. Trends in this area are
the following:
Ongoing improvements in particular steps of the manufacturing process contrib-
ute to production efficiency. Prominent examples are 3D printing (allowing for
individual cell designs), 3D inkjet processes (facilitating the production of anodes
and cathodes), selective laser melting (SLM, enabling complex filigree geometries,
e.g., in electrode production), and selective laser sintering (SLS, saving additional
assembly steps).
Advanced environmentally sustainable processing techniques for Li-ion batteries
(denoted as “Step 2 Advanced Cell Manufacturing Processes” in the SRIA report)
will become mature in the second half of the decade, with positive effects on the
environmental footprint of battery production, in particular energy efficiency (and,
hence, costs). First improvements on coating processes are expected already by
2025. The expected impact on KPIs is a 20% cost reduction, and carbon intensity
might drop by 25% [2].
Progress in digitalization improves testing and manufacturing processes in the
second half of the decade. A major role plays the development of data-driven or
physics-driven so-called digital twins—an advanced method for monitoring and
managing complex battery systems [10]. A 25% reduction in energy consumption
and lower capital costs of manufacturing processes can be expected. The integration
of smart functionalities in battery cells allows for improved performance, reliability,
and lifetime of 20% and more [2].
7.10 Battery Systems and End Use
Manufacturing is not the end of the process to ensure a large-scale market uptake of
novel battery technologies in mobility and stationary applications. Improvements to
the level of battery systems and end use are important to ensure high performance
and safety. Current trends focus on improved safety (e.g., Battery4Europe defines
the action item to introduce safe-by-design solutions by 2028) [2]; optimized battery
management systems allow for accurate and robust determination and active control
of cell states (e.g., current of individual cells), improved balancing schemes, and
error diagnostics [9].
7.11 Raw Materials, Recycling, and Sustainability
Recent supply chain disruptions raised concerns on the availability and costs of raw
materials in battery production. A recent report by the IEA provides an overview of
current trends and challenges in battery supply chains [8]. The stability of the supply
chain depends on a reliable supply of scarce materials. Many of them, most prom-
inently lithium, are limited to a few production sites and suppliers. On this back-
ground, measures to improve the resilience of the supply chain are highly desirable:
• Regional diversification of material sources and suppliers.
• Improving social sustainability standards of material suppliers, not only as an
ethical necessity but also as an essential contribution to supply chain resilience.
• Improved recycling processes and additional measures for supply chain effi-
ciency, such as tracing and labeling procedures. For example, the Battery4Europe
network defines the action item to develop a tracing and labeling scheme over the
full life cycle by 2028 [2]. Also, the concept of a “digital battery passport”
receives growing attention [5].
Recycling plays a crucial role in reducing material scarcity and the ecological
footprint of batteries. With growing battery production, a massive increase in
recycling volume can be foreseen. Recent estimates of the volume of lithium-ion
batteries components in Europe amount to 230 kilotons per year in 2030 and about
1500 kilotons per year in 2040 [11].
Current recycling approaches suffer from the fact that production processes do
not take end of life treatment into account, so that huge efforts are required for the
separation of materials. Besides direct mechanical separation, pyrometallurgical and
hydrometallurgical methods are currently applied. Pyrometallurgical methods
require substantial energy and material input for chemical calcination and combus-
tion. Hydrometallurgical approaches are more complex and require less energy but
use large amounts of toxic substances and require water purification. Both result in
high costs and a low material recovery rate. The savings achieved by using recycled
material compared to never used material is currently in the range - 5 to +20%
[13]. A ready-for-recycling approach in cell design and battery pack assembly is
hence the most effective action in this field.
More generally, the environmental sustainability of batteries receives growing
awareness. For example, water use of mining is a serious concern in lithium mining
regions such as Chile [4]. Due to current uncertainty in energy costs, substantial
progress in material recycling and efficient production processes is of vital interest
for the battery industry and not only an environmental concern anymore. The
development and introduction of sustainability standards and regulations clearly
contributes to improved material supply security and the resilience of manufacturing
and distribution processes. The widespread implementation of circular designs in
industry can be expected in the second half of this decade.
7.12 Conclusions for Future Market Developments
The overview of current research and development trends leads to the following
conclusions for future market developments:
1. Significant improvements in Li-ion batteries can be expected by 2030. According
to the above analysis of KPI needs in various applications, post-generation
3 systems can contribute to future market maturity of light- and medium to
heavy-duty vehicles in road transportation.
2. Stationary applications and air/marine mobility would benefit from further efforts
to improve cycle lifetimes of Li-ion batteries, production ramp-up of Na-ion
batteries, and market introduction of improved solid-state batteries.
3. The main application of Na-ion, metal air, and redox flow batteries is currently
expected in stationary applications due to their relatively low energy density. As
discussed above, their high cycle lifetime might be beneficial in some mobility
applications, too. With growing demand for electricity storage, the market share
of these innovative concepts will increase substantially, bearing the potential for
cost decreases from economies of scale.
4. Improvements in cell design and manufacturing processes as well as advanced
material recycling concepts bear a large potential to improve the efficiency of the
overall battery supply chain. Substantial cost reductions can be expected,
although there is hardly any reliable estimate for the total reduction potential.
5. Growing awareness of risks for supply chain resilience and environmental foot-
print initiates a trend toward a more circular, diversified, and sustainable approach
of the battery supply chain. From a market perspective, this trend translates into
improvements of supply and cost stability.
6. Enforced technological research and development are inevitable to secure the
accelerating market growth for batteries and the expectations for future cost
decreases. Collaboration within the battery industry, public funding, and a strin-
gent strategic research agenda are essential to achieve this goal.
References
1. European Technology and Innovation Platform on Batteries: Strategic research agenda for
batteries (2020) Online: https://www.era-min.eu/sites/default/files/docs/batteries_europe_strate
gic_resea.pdf
2. Batteries European Partnership Association (BEPA): Strategic Research & Innovation Agenda
(2021) Online: https://bepassociation.eu/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/BATT4EU_reportA4_
SRIA_V15_September.pdf
3. BatteriesNews (2022) Sodium-ion batteries expected in evs with ranges of up to 500 km, CATL
Exec Says. 30 November 2022. Online: https://batteriesnews.com/sodium-ion-batteries-
expected-evs-ranges-500-km-catl-exec-says/
4. Baum ZJ, Bird RE, Xiang Y, Ma J (2022) Lithium-ion battery recycling─overview of tech-
niques and trends. ACS Energy Lett 7(2):712–719. https://doi.org/10.1021/acsenergylett.
1c02602
5. Berger K, Schöggl J-P, Rupert J, Baumgartner (2022) Digital battery passports to enable
circular and sustainable value chains: conceptualization and use cases. Journal of Cleaner
Production 353:131492, ISSN 0959-6526. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2022.131492
6. European Union (EU): Regulation (EU) 2019/631 of the European Parliament and of the
Council of 17 April 2019 setting CO2 emission performance standards for new passenger cars
and for new light commercial vehicles, and repealing Regulations (EC) No 443/2009 and
(EU) No 510/2011. 2019. Online: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/ALL/?uri=
CELEX:32019R0631
7. European Union (EU): ‘Fit for 55’: council adopts regulation on CO2 emissions for new cars
and vans. Press release 28 March 2023. Online: https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/press/
press-releases/2023/03/28/fit-for-55-council-adopts-regulation-on-co2-emissions-for-new-
cars-and-vans/
8. International Energy Agency (IEA): Global Supply Chains of EV Batteries. Paris. 2022. Online:
https://www.iea.org/reports/global-supply-chains-of-ev-batteries
9. Komsiyska L, Buchberger T, Diehl S, Ehrensberger M, Hanzl C, Hartmann C, Hölzle M,
Kleiner J, Lewerenz M, Liebhart B, Schmid M, Schneider D, Speer S, Stöttner J, Terbrack C,
Hinterberger M, Endisch C (2021) Critical review of intelligent battery systems: challenges,
implementation, and potential for electric vehicles. Energies 14:5989. https://doi.org/10.3390/
en14185989
10. Lamagna M, Groppi D, Nezhad MM, G. (2021) Piras: a comprehensive review on digital twins
for smart energy management systems. Int J of Energy Prod & Mgmt 6(4):323–334. Online:
https://elar.urfu.ru/bitstream/10995/106465/4/ijepm_2021_v6_4_01.pdf
11. Neef C, Schmaltz T, Thielmann A (2021) Recycling von Lithium-Ionen-Batterien: Chancen
und Herausforderungen für den Maschinen- und Anlagenbau. C. Neef, T. Schmaltz,
A. Thielmann. Online: https://www.isi.fraunhofer.de/content/dam/isi/dokumente/cct/2021/
VDMA_Kurzstudie_Batterierecycling.pdf
12. Schmaltz T, Wicke T, Weymann L, Voß P, Neef C, Thielmann A. Solid-state battery roadmap
2035+. 2022. Online: https://www.isi.fraunhofer.de/content/dam/isi/dokumente/cct/2022/SSB_
Roadmap.pdf
13. Thompson DL, Hartley JM, Lambert SM, Shiref M, Harper GDJ, Kendrick E, Anderson P,
Ryder KS, Gaines L, Abbott AP (2020) The importance of design in lithium ion battery
recycling – a critical review. Green Chem 22. Online: https://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/
articlelanding/2020/gc/d0gc02745f
14. Vorholt F, Bünting A, Bechberger M. Market analysis Q4 2022 – Turbulent battery cell market.
2023. Online: https://www.ipcei-batteries.eu/fileadmin/Images/accompanying-research/publica
tions/2023-02-BZF_Kurzinfo_Marktanalyse_Q4_22-ENG.pdf
15. Wunderlich-Pfeiffer F. Die Revolution der Natrium-Akkus wird absehbar. Press article. Golem.
de. 12 October 2022. Online: https://www.golem.de/news/akkutechnik-die-revolution-der-
natrium-akkus-wird-absehbar-2210-168344.html
Part IV
Economics and Materials of Present
Batteries
Preface
To date, lithium-ion batteries (LIBs) are unrivaled in terms of energy density and
performance, making them the technology of choice for virtually all mobility
applications but also stationary storage systems. However, they are not the only
energy storage option and compete with numerous other technologies in terms of
cost and performance but also (to an increasing extent) in terms of sustainability such
as material intensity or criticality. This chapter gives an overview of the present state
of the art in batteries under these aspects. As such, it is mainly focused on lithium-ion
technology, treating the main drivers for their success, but also the problems that
might arise from the high material intensity of the battery sector and the
corresponding limitations that might arise from them in the future. Specifically,
Chap. 8 treats the challenges posed by the different energy storage applications and
how electrochemical storage systems are typically tailored to match these in terms of
performance and costs. From there, Chap. 9 establishes the link to the circular
economy principles as introduced in Chapter 2, treating the presently prevailing
and near-future recycling processes and the potential (but also limitations) of them to
close the material circles. Finally, a spot is also put on safety aspects, which have
important implications especially for end-of-life handling and logistics and thus also
the efficiencies and corresponding impacts of battery recycling.
Chapter 8
Performance and Cost
Johannes Büngeler and Bernhard Riegel
Contents
8.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 121
8.2 Lead-Acid Batteries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 122
8.3 Li-Ion Technology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 124
8.4 Post-Li-Ion Battery Technologies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 126
8.5 Nickel-Based Batteries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 131
8.6 Sodium-Based Batteries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 135
8.7 Redox Flow Batteries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 136
8.8 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 137
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 140
8.1 Introduction
Over the past few decades, a wide variety of electrochemical storage systems have
been developed and made commercially available. Today’s prominent electrochem-
ical storage systems encompass technologies like lead-acid, nickel-cadmium, and
nickel-metal hydride alkaline batteries, sodium-nickel chloride and sodium-sulfur
high-temperature batteries, and lithium-ion technology.
Each of these unique electrochemical storage systems possesses specific features.
Product variants, adjusted to meet the requirements of individual applications, are
offered with tailored performance characteristics [20]. These tailored performance
characteristics primarily encompass energy and power density, life cycle, design life,
and the operating temperature range.
J. Büngeler (✉) · B. Riegel

HOPPECKE Batterien GmbH & Co. KG, Brilon, Germany

122 J. Büngeler and B. Riegel
Consequently, certain applications are dominated by specifically adjusted elec-

trochemical systems. Due to the complexity of application-specific requirements,
selecting the most suitable electrochemical storage technology based solely on
tabulated performance data can be challenging. Additional necessary system com-
ponents, such as thermal management and battery management, can significantly
impact the performance of the overall system and should not be overlooked.
A technology substitution within a particular application only occurs if a tech-
nology reaches its performance limits and can no longer meet the changed or
increased requirements of the application. Other reasons for a technology change
in specific applications are usually economical (e.g., total cost of ownership) or
environmental (e.g., bans on heavy metals, safety concerns).
Sustainability aspects, such as the recycling and recovery of battery materials,
will become increasingly important for end customers seeking to reduce the CO2
footprint of their applications.
The following subchapters will discuss the main performance criteria and costs
associated with the different technologies, addressing each technology separately.
8.2 Lead-Acid Batteries
Lead-acid batteries accounted for the largest share of the global battery market, at
around 90%, until 2010. From then on, the market share of lithium-ion batteries has
been growing steadily, and in 2021, the market share of lithium-ion batteries was
already slightly higher than the market share of lead-acid batteries, due to the
upcoming demand for electromobility.
For the automotive and industrial market, the lead battery has been the predom-
inant energy storage system for over 100 years.
The lead-acid batteries are on the market in two major different construction
designs. On the one side, there is the flooded or “vented” construction design,
requiring maintenance. On the other side, there is the maintenance-free valve-
regulated (VRLA) batteries [1].
Today, the share of maintenance-free lead-acid batteries has increased to about
80% of the total lead market. There are two types of VRLA batteries, which differ in
the way the electrolyte (sulfuric acid) is fixed. In one type, the electrolyte is fixed in a
silica gel; in the other, it is in an AGM (absorbent glass mat) material.
Lead-acid batteries with AGM technology have become the most important
technology in the field of automotive and industrial applications [3]. The share of
AGM types, which are more efficient than gel types, is 85% of the VRLA market.
The lead-acid battery innovation has historically been market driven, primarily by
the end-user applications. This explains the very wide range of specific battery
products, sizes, and construction designs.
The positive electrodes in lead-acid batteries can have either a tubular, flat grid
plate design or plante design, while the negative electrodes are always constructed as
a flat grid plate design.
8 Performance and Cost 123
Table 8.1 Main performance and cost parameters of the most important positive electrode designs
used with the lead-acid technology
Electrode
design Cost Performance
Performance HP (high HE (high
classification Cycle-life power) energy)
Planté Very high High power < 100 +++ +
Grid Low Low to high > 100– ++ +++
1.000
Tubular Medium Medium > 1.600 + ++
Bipolar Low High > 1000 +++ +++
(target) (target)
Total range 50–250 €/ Up to <700 W/kg <60 Wh/kg
kWh >1600
(+) is good
(+++) very good
Table 8.1 shows the most important positive electrode designs and their main
performance characteristics and cost. It is evident that there are significant differ-
ences between the various types of electrodes and their properties. For instance, the
plante electrode exhibits high-power density but comes with a higher price tag and a
lower life cycle. In contrast, the tabular electrode has a lower power density. The grid
electrode, currently employed in VRLA batteries, offers lower costs and a higher
power density compared to the tabular electrode. Additionally, ongoing develop-
ment is focused on the bipolar electrode, as outlined in the “Further Development”
section. This electrode aims to combine high performance, extended cycle-life, and a
lower price.
The main application fields for lead-acid batteries are as follows:
• Automotive mobility applications (grid electrode)
• Material handling and logistics applications (tabular electrode)
• Stationary energy storage applications (grid, tabular, and plante electrode)
Advantages
• High-power densities
• Very robust and abuse tolerant (safe without an additional battery management
system (BMS)
• Cost-effective with low maintenance cost
• Application approved
• High recyclability
Disadvantages
• Low gravimetric energy density
• Mandatory ventilation for flooded lead-acid batteries
• Water loss that requires maintenance in flooded cells
• Contains lead.
Further Development
In recent years, the lead-acid battery has undergone many relevant improvements in
terms of lifetime and performance.
These include material innovations such as the addition of novel carbon additives
and expanders to the anode to avoid negative electrode sulfation and the use of
innovative separator materials and the development of more resistant alloys for high-
temperature environments. The outstanding feature in this process is that these
improvements have been tailored to the specific application. These novel designs
are referred to as “advanced lead-acid batteries,” which include bipolar, lead-carbon,
and pure lead thin plate technologies [2].
Bipolar Lead-Acid Batteries
While bipolar and monopolar designs share the same lead-based chemistry, they
differ in that in bipolar batteries, the cells are stacked in a sandwich construction so
that the negative plate of one cell becomes the positive plate of the next cell.
Stacking these cells next to one another allows the potential of the battery to be
built up in 2 V increments. Since the cell wall becomes the connection element
between cells, bipolar plates have a shorter current path and a larger surface area
compared to connections in conventional cells. This construction reduces the power
loss that is normally caused by the internal resistance of the cells. At each end of the
stack, single plates act as the final anode and cathode. This construction leads to
reduced weight since there are fewer plates and bus bars are not needed to connect
cells together. The net result is a battery design with higher power than conventional
monopolar lead-based batteries.
Until recently, the main problem limiting the commercialization of bipolar lead-
acid batteries was the availability of a lightweight, inexpensive, and corrosion
resistant material for the bipolar plate and the technology to properly seal each cell
against electrolyte leakage.
Architectural advantages are as follows:
• Lower inner resistance, i.e., higher power density
• Increased energy density up to 63 Wh/kg
The lead-acid battery technology has a well-established circular economy. At the
end of their life, lead-based batteries are collected for recycling. Within the EU,
almost 100% of lead-based batteries are returned and recycled in a closed loop with a
high efficiency of over 80% [20]. The market for lead-based batteries in the EU is
mainly served by recycled material, and the demand for primary lead reserves is low.
8.3 Li-Ion Technology
As lithium shows the most negative normal potential of 3.05 V against hydrogen,
Li-Ion batteries achieve higher gravimetric and volumetric energy densities com-
pared to other widely used technologies like lead-acid or nickel-based systems.
In the past few decades, lithium-ion batteries have replaced the NiMH batteries in
the field of portable and mobility applications due to their higher energy densities
(80 Wh/kg vs. up to about 300 Wh/kg).
Currently, the expected market growth for Li-Ion batteries will be more than
3 TWh by 2030 and will largely serve with up to 85–90% the e-mobility and the
energy storage markets [20].
The high market growth will most likely result in lower cost per kilowatt-hour
due to standardization and mass production.
Due to the variety of possible combinations of cathode and anode materials, the
resulting Li-ion batteries show specific and individual performance characteristics
suitable for different kinds of applications. The development of Li-ion technologies
suitable for industrial and automotive applications is still a challenge in terms of
material research process, production, development, recycling, safety, and
transportation [4].
Typical cathode active materials are as follows:
• LCO—lithium cobalt oxide (LiCoO2).
• LMO—lithium manganese oxide spinel (LiMn2O4).
• LFP—lithium iron phosphate (LiFePO4).
• NCA—lithium-nickel-cobalt-aluminum oxide (LiNiCoAlO2).
• NMC—lithium-nickel-cobalt-manganese oxides (Li(NiCoMn)O2).
The most relevant cathode material for the e-mobility is the NMC material, which
is currently further developed to meet the major requirement for higher energy
densities to achieve an increased driving range. This results in modifications of
nickel-cobalt-manganese oxide (NMC) materials, from NMC 111 to NMC 811, with
increased nickel and reduced cobalt content. Typically, these NMC materials are
combined with anode materials of high capacity (Fig. 8.1).
Gravimetric Energy Density in Wh/kg
800
Li-Air
600
LiS
400 SSB
Gen3b
Na-Ion RT
Gen3a
200 Gen2b
Gen2a
0
0 200 400 600 800 1.000 1.200
Volumetric Energy Density in Wh/l
Fig. 8.1 Gravimetric and volumetric energy densities of most relevant Li-Ion and post-lithium
battery technologies
Table 8.2 Cost and performance data of most relevant anode/cathode combinations for NMC
batteries
Generation 2a 2b 3a 3b
Cathode NMC NMC 523– NMC 622 NMC 811
111 622
Anode 100% C 100% C C + Si Si/C
(5–10%) composite
Gravimetric energy density in 100–170 150–250 180–270 300–350
Wh/kg
Volumetric energy density in 420–700 520–800 700–970 850–1000
Wh/l
Cost in €/kWh 100–110 90–100 85–95 65–95
Table 8.2 and Fig. 8.1 show the performance and cost parameters of the most
relevant anode/cathode combinations.
The electrolyte composition is usually LiPF6 in organic solvents with additional
additives in order to improve certain properties. Field of developments is electrolytes
that can withstand higher voltages and consequently higher energy densities.
Depending on the active material combinations, some advantages and disadvan-
tages become less or more apparent.
Advantages
• Very high energy densities.
• High cell voltages: up to 3.7 V nominal.
• Can be optimized for specific application performance requirements.
• Tolerate to high discharge currents (discharged rate > 40 C).
• Fast charging possible.
• Batteries can be almost completely discharged without affecting cycle durability,
lifetime, or high current output.
• Very low self-discharge rate (3–5%/month).
Disadvantages
• Sensitivity to deep discharge, overcharge, and excessive temperatures requires
active battery management and monitoring.
• Relatively high sensitivity to high or low temperatures.
8.4 Post-Li-Ion Battery Technologies
In response to the growing demand for energy-efficient and environmentally sus-

tainable energy storage, researchers are seeking alternatives to conventional lithium-
ion batteries. This exploration is motivated by the need to address not only energy
efficiency but also the ecological and social impacts of current battery technologies.
A key challenge is developing electrodes that are durable and stable while also
offering high energy densities and quick charge-discharge rates.
To address these challenges, studies are concentrating on materials that are more
abundant and environmentally friendly compared to traditional lithium sources.
The exploration of post-lithium battery technologies, based on alternative mate-
rials, presents both challenges and unique opportunities.
8.4.1 Lithium All-Solid-State Battery Technologies
Structure of Solid-State Batteries

The electrochemical system of lithium solid-state batteries is similar to lithium-ion
batteries. The major difference is that, at the very least, the electrolyte is in a solid
state.
All-solid-state batteries are generally considered to be a class of batteries that will
enable higher energies in the future (see Table 8.3 and Fig. 8.2). The actual increase
in energy comes only through the elimination of the graphite by the metallic Li
anode.
Solid-state batteries use an electrolyte made of solid material instead of the usual
liquid electrolyte. The electrodes are also made of solid material in terms of an all-
solid-state battery [5].
Currently there are solid/liquid hybrid cells on the market which are also
described as a certain kind of solid-state system.
The main components of the SSB cell are the anode and cathode active materials
and the solid electrolytes. Various materials are suitable for use in SSB.
Anode Active Material
The most promising anode active materials in order to achieve high energy density
are lithium metal and silicon. Lithium metal anodes are considered the most prom-
ising, as they enable the highest possible energy density on the anode side.
Cathode Active Material
Soon, Ni-rich layered oxides (NMC, NCA) and lithium iron phosphate (LFP) will
become the most likely to be dominant cathode active materials. These materials are
already commonly used in state-of-the-art LIB.
Table 8.3 Cost and performance data of most relevant post-Li-Ion and sodium-ion battery
technologies
Sodium-
Li-SSB Lithium-air LiS ion RTa
Gravimetric energy 280–500 500–800 180–270 90–160
density in Wh/kg (200)
Volumetric energy 500–1150 700–850 300–450 215–280
density in Wh/l
Cost in €/kWh Not commer- Not commer- Not commer- 40–65
cially available cially available cially available
a
Adelhelm [17]
Gravimetric Energy Density in Wh/kg

300
NMC
200
NaNiCl
LFP
100
NaS NiMh
Lead NiCd
VRFB
0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800
Volumetric Energy Density in /l
Wh
Fig. 8.2 Gravimetric and volumetric energy densities of different battery technologies
Electrolyte
With solid-state batteries, there is the possibility that part of the solid electrolyte can
be incorporated into the electrodes. The main advantages of future solid-state
batteries are that the energy density of the cells would increase significantly in the
future and the risk of fire would also decrease due to the less pronounced flamma-
bility of the electrolyte.
Compared with Li-ion cells, high-power densities cannot be achieved with the
solid-state technology. The reason for this is usually the high Li+ contact resistance
at the phase boundary between the cathode and the solid electrolyte.
Solid-state cells are being developed with both polymeric and inorganic solid
electrolytes. Inorganic electrolytes can be distinguished between sulfide and oxide
solid electrolytes.
The specific energy/energy density of solid-state cells can be increased by the
following:
• Lower electrolyte/separator thickness
• Use of Li anodes
• Use of nonporous active materials
• Increase in cell voltage due to the higher electrochemical stability (electrochem-
ical window) of the electrolyte
Advantages of solid-state batteries compared to liquid electrolyte Li-Ion batteries
are as follows:
• Higher energy density than Li-ion
• Safety—instead of flammable organic liquid electrolyte, use of a solid-state
electrolyte (ceramic, polymer)
• No electrolyte leakage
• Can fit easier casing shapes
• Solid-polymer Li-ion cells can be made as thin as 0.1 mm or about one-tenth the
thickness of the thinnest prismatic liquid Li-ion cells
• Potentially lower manufacturing costs
Disadvantages of solid-state cells compared to liquid electrolyte cells are as
follows:
• Power limited by low ionic conductivity of electrolyte
• High interfacial resistance
• Poor interface contacts
In addition, due to the non-combustibility (at least of the ceramic electrolyte) and
the higher temperature resistance of the electrolyte, safety-relevant components can
be reduced in the module/pack, thus achieving a volume/mass reduction for the
battery system.
8.4.2 Li-S Batteries
Lithium-sulfur batteries represent a new type of battery that promises high gravi-
metric energy densities at a moderate cost (see Table 8.3 and Fig. 8.2).
Design
Li-S batteries usually have a cathode consisting of sulfur and carbon and an anode of
lithium metal to take advantage of the high specific capacity of the sulfur cathode [6].
Currently, there are also approaches of using a liquid polysulfide solution instead
of a solid-state sulfur electrode. This idea is not new and was published as early
as 1975.
Challenges and Opportunities
The cathode material of common lithium-ion cells is the most expensive component
of a battery (more than 20% of the cell cost). It contains cobalt and nickel. Both are
rare raw materials whose costs tend to rise rather than fall when batteries are mass-
produced. In lithium-sulfur batteries, this cost item is eliminated, potentially saving
more than 20% of the cost, because sulfur is very inexpensive and available in large
quantities. Dry electrode manufacturing processes can also reduce production costs.
The theoretical gravimetric energy density of around 2500 Wh/kg is almost ten
times that of conventional lithium-ion batteries.
However, the Li-S battery has disadvantages in terms of volumetric energy
density. Future applications could be for situations in which the low weight of the
battery is more important than its size, such as quadcopters, aircrafts, and ships.
These appear to be more realistic applications for Li-S batteries.
The cycle stability, i.e., the lifetime of Li-S batteries, is currently still very low
(limited to less than 200 cycles). Cells from pre-commercial production achieve only
about 100 cycles at an energy density of 350 Wh/kg. However, cells with a
significantly longer service life of several thousand cycles have already been
achieved on a laboratory scale.
Advantages
• Main advantage of Li-S batteries is the potentially high gravimetric energy
density, estimated up to 600 Wh/kg in perfect systems.
• Hope for low cost: Compared to LIB, it is hoped that the low cost of sulfur will
result in significantly lower prices for energy storage. However, this is partially
offset by the higher cost of metallic lithium (compared to graphite).
• The usage of pure materials allows higher recyclability.
Disadvantages
• Volumetric energy density lower than lithium-ion batteries (currently about
50%). Even in fully developed cells, at most the level of today’s lithium-ion
batteries can be achieved.
• Achievable performance lower than in commercial lithium-ion batteries.
• Current prototypes can only be operated at currents of approx. C/2.
The low cost and high abundance of sulfur (i.e., the active cathode material) make
LiSB more appealing than Li-ion batteries, given the fact that the latter use critical
materials, such as cobalt and nickel, in the manufacturing of the cathodes. LiSB are
promising because of the high energy density, low cost, and natural abundance of
sulfur.
8.4.3 Lithium-Air Battery Technologies
Lithium-air batteries possess a great potential for efficient energy storage applica-
tions in order to resolve future energy and environmental issues. The extremely high
theoretical energy density is attractive, but there are still various technical limitations
to overcome. The performance of lithium-air batteries is governed mainly by
electrochemical reactions that occur on the surface of the cathode [7]. Widespread
interest in various carbons and their applicability as cathode materials in lithium-air
batteries are a result of their highly specific surface area and porosity, their light-
weight, and their low production cost.
Among the group of metal-air batteries, intensive research is being carried out in
particular on the development of lithium-air batteries. Since lithium has the highest
electrochemical potential of all metals, these batteries offer the highest energy
density by far of all metal-air systems that can theoretically be achieved [8, 18]. Com-
pared with the state-of-the-art, it is hoped that energy densities can be achieved that
are about ten times higher in practice, in order to make the ranges of electric vehicles
based on such batteries competitive with today’s gasoline-powered cars.
However, it may result in the need for a lot of additional technology and
electronics (e.g., to clean the air), so that the weight and space this takes up reduces
the theoretical energy density to such an extent that the batteries hardly have any
advantages over more advanced lithium-ion batteries. For example, the theoretical
material energy density of a lithium-air system is up to 3450 Wh/kg, but if the entire
periphery is taken into account, the possible energy density is reduced to about
1000 Wh/kg. Currently available primary cells achieve energy densities of around
800 Wh/kg.1.
Major challenges currently lie in achieving an acceptable number of charge cycles
and reducing voltage losses during charging and discharging.
8.4.4 Sodium Ion Room-Temperature Technology
In comparison with the state-of-the-art high-temperature sodium batteries, the

upcoming new sodium-ion battery technology operates at room temperature. The
sodium-ion battery has a similar working principle to the Li-ion battery. Sodium ions
also shuttle between the cathode and the anode to store and release energy [16].
The significantly higher global equal distribution of sodium and absence of
critical raw materials like cobalt and nickel in the cathode lead to cost reductions
and lower environmental impact of the sodium system compared to lithium-ion
[15]. Due to the technological similarities with existing Li-ion batteries, the indus-
trialization process of sodium-ion batteries can be accelerated. A significant advan-
tage is that the sodium-ion battery can be manufactured with the same production
facilities as lithium-ion cells.
For cathode materials, the most important part of sodium-ion batteries, Prussian
blue analog, layered metal oxides, and NASICON (sodium (Na) super ionic con-
ductor) have their own advantages in different aspects. The most critical indicators
based on potential application scenarios are higher energy density, longer life cycle,
and better low temperature performance. Overall, the cost and safety advantages of
sodium batteries will gradually gain in prominence. Therefore, it is likely that
sodium-ion batteries will be used in different automotive and industrial applications.
So far, the technology is not yet fully developed and still needs to be tested in
practical applications. Safety concerns have also not been conclusively assessed,
especially given the lower melting point of sodium in potential sodium plating
scenarios. It is believed that its properties at low temperatures are superior to those
of lithium-ion batteries.
8.5 Nickel-Based Batteries
Alkaline batteries that use nickel hydroxide as a cathodic material belong to the
mainstream battery systems.
The most important representatives of this technology are the nickel-cadmium
(NiCd), nickel-metal hydride (NiMh), as well as nickel-zinc (NiZn) and Ni-iron
(NiFe) systems. In past decades, only NiCd and NiMH technology has played an
important role in portable, automotive, and industrial applications. Therefore, only

the cost and performance of the NiCd and NiMH systems will be discussed below.
It can already be pointed out that neither NiCd nor NiMh play a significant role in
the current markets and are only used to a small extent exclusively in niche
applications.
Due to the performance and the costs of these systems, it can be assumed that they
will be substituted by other technologies, such as Li-Ion, by 2030.
8.5.1 Nickel-Cadmium Batteries
Nickel-cadmium batteries played a major role in the past, competing with lead-acid
batteries in certain applications.
The general advantages of the very reliable NiCd battery system is the higher
energy density, the robustness, and a high deep discharge cycle-life—even at low
temperatures when compared with lead-acid batteries.
The electrodes for NiCd systems are classified into five electrode types: pocket
electrodes, sintered electrodes, plastic-bonded electrodes, nickel foam electrodes,
and fiber electrodes [9].
Table 8.4 presents the key properties and costs of these electrodes. The pocket
plate electrode, characterized by its relatively thick electrode, is primarily used in
applications that require low to medium performance. It has been the dominant
choice for standby applications like uninterruptible power supplies (UPS) and
emergency power supply systems for railway rolling stock. On the other hand,
sintered electrodes are designed for high-power cells that can deliver significant
power output. However, the sintered structure undergoes mechanical stress during
charge and discharge cycles, which can potentially affect the overall durability and
longevity of the system. Moreover, this technology is associated with higher costs
compared to other alternatives. Despite these limitations, this energy storage system
Table 8.4 Cost and performance data of most relevant NiCd electrode designs
Electrode
design Cost Performance
Performance Cycle- HP HE
classification life (high power) (high energy)
Pocket plate Low Low < 1.000 - +
Sintered High High > 2.500 +++ +++
Fiber Medium to Medium to high > 3.500 ++ ++
high
Foam Medium to High > 2.500 ++ +++
high
Total range 300–450 Up to 200–500 W/kg 25–60 Wh/kg
€/kWh >3500
(+) is good
(+++) very good
finds application in demanding sectors such as aircraft, military, railway, and

vehicles where high performance and reliability are crucial requirements.
The fiber electrode enables the fabrication of both high-power and high-energy
cells by adjusting the electrode thickness accordingly. These cells exhibit long life
due to their ability to compensate for volume changes in the active material during
cycling, thereby preventing shedding of the active material. They also offer fast
rechargeability, facilitating quick energy replenishment. This versatile system finds
applications in various domains, including standby and mobile applications such as
railway rolling stock and automated guided vehicles (AGVs). Additionally, it is
suitable for use in aviation and space flight applications where high performance,
durability, and reliability are essential.
The foam technology emerged in the late 1980s to address the need for energy
cells with higher volumetric and specific energy capacities. Unlike sintered technol-
ogy, which allows only a maximum of 50% of the electrode volume for active
material loading, the foam approach utilizes a metallic nickel substrate. The elec-
trode structure is formed by electrolytic nickel plating of polyurethane foam,
followed by the removal of the organic core material under high-temperature
conditions in a reducing atmosphere. The resulting isotropic reticulated substrate
exhibits exceptionally high porosity exceeding 95%. As a result, the available
porosity for active material loading increases by approximately 30% compared to
sintered substrates. Overall, this technique offers enhanced active material utilization
and provides higher porosity for improved energy capacity, meeting the require-
ments for higher volumetric and specific energy cells.
Cell designs for NiCd batteries are prismatic or spiral wound, flooded, or
maintenance-free valve regulated.
Nickel-cadmium cells have been manufactured as maintenance-free, sealed bat-
tery system since the 1950s.
The sale of new cadmium-containing batteries in the EU has only been permitted
for a few applications since December 2009, and it must be ensured that batteries are
returned for recycling at the end of life. The few exceptions are portable batteries for
emergency or alarm systems, including emergency lighting and medical equipment,
and certain industrial applications.
The NiCd battery system has become a subject of environmentally related
discussions, due to the fact that cadmium is a hazardous heavy metal and has been
banned from many applications. This has resulted in the NiCd being substituted in
many applications by the NiMh technology.
Advantages
• High-power capability
• Fast rechargeability
• Good low temperature performance (-40 °C)
• Good energy density
Disadvantages
• Poor environmental compatibility: Cadmium is a toxic heavy metal
• High self-discharge rate
• Low cell voltage of 1.2 V/cell
8.5.2 Nickel-Metal Hydride Batteries (NiMH)
Since the 1990s, NiCd batteries in the consumer markets for portable devices have
been displaced by NiMH batteries. The reason for this was the higher energy storage
capability achievable with NiMH and the general concern about cadmium as an
environmentally hazardous material. Beneficial for an easy substitution of the NiCd
technology by NiMh is the similar cell voltage of 1.2 V/cell [10].
The NiMH system was developed in the 1980s for electronic devices with high
energy demand. During the 1990s, NiMH was the dominating electrochemical
storage system for portable devices, which was replaced by Li-ion battery system
in the middle of the 1990s. The Li-ion technology has shown even higher gravimet-
ric and volumetric energy densities, which are essential for advanced portable
devices. Another major application where NiMH played a very important role was
the introduction of the first hybrid electrical vehicles at the beginning of the twenty-
first century. In particular, the high-power performance of the NiMH battery systems
was the greatest attraction for automotive applications.
The basic technologies for the electrodes as well as for other components used in
NiMH cells are very similar to what has been developed for NiCd cells in a variety of
applications.
The preferred electrode types of NiMH are the sinter-type and the foam-type
electrode.
Two major designs for NiMH batteries are realized, the cylindrical and prismatic
types.
Advantages
• High energy and power density
• Robust, but not as robust as NiCd for deep discharge and overcharge
• Temperature operation range from -15 °C to 40 °C
• Fast rechargeability
• Environmentally friendlier compared to NiCd (no heavy metals)
• Good recyclability
Disadvantages
• Need for battery management system
• High self-discharge rate.
• Low cell voltage of 1.2 V/cell
8.6 Sodium-Based Batteries
8.6.1 High-Temperature Sodium Batteries
High-temperature sodium batteries consist of liquid electrodes and a solid electrolyte

(usually an ion-conducting (e.g., Na+) ceramic). These batteries require relatively
high operating temperatures of >300 °C to maintain the sodium-based electrode in
the liquid state as well as to increase the conductivity of the solid electrolyte.
Mainstream technologies are the sodium-nickel-chloride (NaNiCl) and the
sodium-sulfur battery (NaS).
NaNiCl and NaS batteries have a service life of around 4500 cycles and an
efficiency of 75–86%. Thermal losses due to the heating required to maintain the
cell temperature must be considered if there are longer periods of time between
charging and discharging. This can be influenced to a certain extent through a
corresponding effort in thermal insulation.
8.6.1.1 Sodium-Nickel-Chloride Batteries
Sodium-nickel-chloride ZEBRA batteries were developed in 1985 in South Africa.

The name ZEBRA stands for Zeolite Applied to Battery Research Africa. The
cathode mainly consists of a porous nickel matrix which serves as a current con-
ductor with nickel chloride (NiCl2), which is impregnated with sodium aluminum
chloride (NaAlCl4). The anode is made of sodium [11].
Ceramic β-aluminum oxide is used as the separator and electrolyte, but the
sodium ions do not allow electrons to pass between the anode and cathode. The
operating temperature of this type of battery is between 270 °C and 350 °C, so that
the electrodes (active material) are in the liquid state (melted) and the ceramic
separator achieves high conductivity for sodium ions [12]. The specific energy of
the cells is approximately 120 Wh/kg at a nominal voltage of 2.3 V to 2.6 V.
Advantages over the sodium-sulfur battery are the inverse structure with liquid
sodium on the outside, which allows the use of inexpensive rectangular steel
housings instead of cylindrical nickel containers. The assembly is simplified in
that the battery materials can be used in the uncharged state as sodium chloride
and nickel, and the charged active materials are only generated in the first charging
cycle. Sodium-nickel-chloride batteries have been used in the past for small series of
electric vehicles in fleets and for stationary storage applications.
8.6.1.2 Sodium-Sulfur Batteries
The cells consist of an anode made of molten sodium and a cathode made of graphite
fabric soaked with liquid sulfur to achieve electrical conductivity, as sulfur is an
insulator. As in the case of the NaNiCl battery, the solid electrolyte β-aluminum
oxide is used as the electrolyte, which becomes conductive for Na + ions above a
temperature of approx. 300 °C. The optimum temperature range is between 300 °C
and 340 °C. During the discharge process, positively charged sodium ions enter the
solid electrolyte from the liquid sodium, releasing electrons. The sodium ions
migrate through the electrolyte to the positive electrode, where they form sodium
polysulfides. The cell voltage is 2 V. This process is reversed during charging.
A major advantage of the sodium-sulfur battery is that the internal resistance of
the cell is almost independent of the state-of-charge. It only rises sharply toward the
end of the charge because there is a decrease in sodium ions in the electrolyte. The
required operating temperature is maintained in normal operation by the power
dissipation of the cells themselves; in standby operation, it is achieved by an
additional electric heater, which increases the battery’s own consumption.
One advantage of this battery is a long calendar life of over 15 years [13]. The
technology has been commercialized since 2002, mainly for large-scale storage with
more than 1 MWh of energy [14].
8.7 Redox Flow Batteries
Redox flow batteries have been under development since the 1970s. The vanadium
redox flow battery, developed in the 1980s, is considered the best-studied redox flow
battery system.
Research efforts are currently focused primarily on reducing equipment and
maintenance costs and searching for new electrolyte systems for higher energy
densities, electrode optimization for higher performance, membrane development
for lower maintenance costs, and electrical system development.
In redox flow batteries, the electrolytes are stored in two circuits in external tanks,
while the electrochemical reaction takes place in a “power stack” (reversed fuel cell).
Unlike other battery technologies, redox flow batteries thus allow independent
scaling of power and energy capacity, making them suitable for a wide range of
stationary applications [8, 18].
RF batteries are suitable as stationary energy storage mainly for industrial
applications (backup power, load management), at distribution grid level (MW and
MWh range, grid management), and for off-grid applications and minigrids (kW and
kWh range, long-term storage).
A characteristic of this type of battery is that the power (size of the reactor) can be
scaled independently of the capacity (electrolyte volume), because the electro-active
materials (electrolytes) can be stored in external tanks [19].
Lifetime.
A lifetime of 20 years is generally expected for VRFB (vanadium redox flow
batteries), where temperature control (against precipitation) and regular internal
re-initialization of the electrolyte (which is state-of-the-art) are established.
The electrolyte, which represents a significant part of the capital cost of the
vanadium redox flow battery, has an unlimited lifetime due to the possibility of
reprocessing.
Vanadium redox flow batteries are considered to have an unlimited lifetime, since
there are no classical aging mechanisms as in typical battery systems.
Up until now, more than 50 different RFB systems have been described in the
literature, of which only a small number have been commercialized or are in the
commercialization phase.
The most relevant systems currently are as follows:
• Iron/chromium (Fe2+/Fe3+; Cr2+/Cr3+)
• Bromine/polysulfide (Br-/Br3-; S22-/S42-)
• All-vanadium (V2+/V3+; V4+/V5+)
• Vanadium/bromine.
Advantages
• Good energy efficiency: 60–85%
• Very long service life (> 20 years)
• Electrolyte recyclable and reusable
• Cycle stability (> 10,000 cycles)
• Good response time (some micro- to milliseconds)
• Scalable, modular design
• Independent scaling of power and capacity
• Due to separation of energy storage and converter
• Overcharge and deep discharge tolerance
• Low maintenance
• Almost no self-discharge
Disadvantages
• Low energy densities
• Investment costs
8.8 Conclusion
The selection of an appropriate electrochemical storage system involves consider-

ation of various performance factors such as energy and power density, cycle-life,
design life, efficiency, and self-discharge. However, the compatibility of a storage
system with specific application requirements is the most crucial factor in its
selection. Additionally, factors like investment costs, total cost of ownership, system
safety, reliability, and sustainability have gained importance in recent years, partic-
ularly with the introduction of the new European Batteries Regulation [21].
Traditional technologies, such as lead- and nickel-based systems, have undergone
continuous application-specific development over the years. These developments
have focused on adapting the design (including external dimensions, shape, and
internal electrochemical design) to meet specific electrochemical requirements, such

as high cycle-life for traction applications or an optimized design life for charge
retention in UPS applications. The performance data ranges for these systems, listed
in the overview in Table 8.5, are a result of appropriate internal designs aimed at
achieving high performance in various areas or meeting high energy demands.
Usually, power density and energy density, as shown in Fig. 8.2, or cost per unit
of energy are commonly compared. However, this approach can be misleading. For
instance, a common mistake is often made when comparing systems based on cost
per unit of energy content (€/kWh), as there are many applications where the cost per
required power (€/kW) is more relevant. High-performance battery systems are
typically more expensive in terms of energy content (€/kWh) due to their internal
design.
Moreover, considering the cost based on energy throughput (cycle-life) for many
applications is less meaningful, especially when such systems are used as backup
systems for emergency power.
The progress of lithium-ion batteries for electric vehicle (EV) applications serves
as a prime example. Lithium-ion batteries have undergone significant development
to meet the specific demands of the EV industry. Initially utilized in consumer
electronics, this technology has been tailored and tested in fleet trials to address
the requirements of electric vehicles. These trials have emphasized the importance of
maximizing energy density while accommodating reduced cycle lives, typically
ranging from 1000 to 1500 energy throughputs, for EVs.
In contrast, stationary large-scale storage applications necessitate life cycles
surpassing 6000 energy throughputs and extended design lives of up to 20 years.
These requirements are significantly higher compared to EVs, highlighting the
divergent needs of different applications in terms of battery longevity and reliability.
The development of lithium-ion batteries for electromobility applications illus-
trates the need for application-specific development to cater to the unique require-
ments of different applications. This example highlights the importance of tailoring
battery technologies to meet specific demands, as seen in the progression of lithium-
ion batteries for electric vehicles. Similarly, emerging technologies such as sodium-
ion batteries (RT, room temperature) are expected to undergo a similar development
process, where their characteristics and performance will be optimized to address the
specific needs of various applications. This approach ensures that future energy
storage solutions are customized and efficient, aligning with the diverse require-
ments of different industries and sectors.
In conclusion, the demand for electrochemical storage systems is increasing due
to the electrification of the mobility sector and the integration of renewable energy
sources. There is no universal battery system that fits all applications. The market
and applications indicate that there will be a need for different mainstream and
upcoming storage systems in the future.
Therefore, when selecting the optimal energy storage system for a specific
application, it is crucial to carefully consider the application-specific requirements
in order to choose the most optimal and sustainable system for the given application.
8
Table 8.5 Main performance and cost parameters of the most important battery technologies
Li-ion
Performance and Cost
Lead-acid NiCd NiMH NMC Li-ion LFP NaS NaNiCl VRFB

Gravimetric energy density in 20–60 25–60 60–80 170–280 100–190 100–120 100–150 20–25
Wh/kg
Specific power in W/kg 75–700 200–500 200–1000 200–2000 200–1000 60–100 100–300 5–15
Volumetric energy density in 30–100 120–300 140–300 220–580 140–350 130–140 130–165 15–20
Wh/l
Open circuit voltage in V/cell 2.12 1.3 1.3 3.7 3.2 2.08 2.58 1.3
at 100% state-of-charge
Full cycle equivalents 500–2000 1000– 2000–4000 1500–3500 2000–5000 2000–10,000 2000–10,000 10,000–
(80% DoD) 3500 (80% DoD) (100% DoD) (100% DoD) (100% DoD) (100% DoD) 16,000 (100%
(100% DoD)
DoD)
Charging time Hours Minutes Minutes to Minutes to Minutes to Hours Hours Hours
to hours hours hours hours
Energy efficiency in % 75–90 75–85 75–85 90–95 90–95 75–85 75–90 70–75
Operational temperature range -25 to +50 -40 to -20 to +50 -20 to +55 -20 to +55 -20 to +60 -40 to +80 -10 to +60
in°C +60
Cost in €/kWh 50–250 300–450 750 130 120 400–600 550–750 600
139
References
1. Bode H (1977) Lead-acid batteries. Wiley, New York

2. Garche J, Dyer CK (2009) Encyclopedia of electrochemical power sources. Academic Press,
Amsterdam, Boston, imprint of Elsevier
3. Berndt D (1993) Maintenance-free batteries: lead-acid, nickel/ cadmium, nickel/ hydride: a
handbook of battery technology. Wiley, New York
4. Korthauer R (2013) Handbuch Lithium-Ionen-Batterien. Springer Berlin Heidelberg Imprint
Springer Vieweg, Berlin, Heidelberg
5. Li C et al (2021) An advance review of solid-state battery: challenges, progress and prospects.
Sustain Mater Technol 29:e00297. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.susmat.2021.e00297
6. Chen L, Shaw LL (2014) Recent advances in lithium–sulfur batteries. J Power Sources 267:
770–783. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpowsour.2014.05.111
7. Imanishi N, Bruce P, Luntz AC (2014) The lithium air battery: fundamentals. Springer,
New York
8. Kurzweil P (2015a) Hochenergiebatterien nach Lithium-Ion. In: Kurzweil P, Dietlmeier OK
(eds) Elektrochemische Speicher. Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden, Wiesbaden, pp 291–341.
9. Wang L et al (2022) A critical review on nickel-based cathodes in rechargeable batteries. Int J
Miner Metall Mater 29(5):925–941. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12613-022-2446-z
10. Furukawa N (1994) Development and commercialization of nickel-metal hydride secondary
batteries. J Power Sources 51(1–2):45–59. https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-7753(94)01928-2
11. Böhm H, Bull RN, Prassek A (2014) ZEBRA’s response to the new EUCAR/USABC abuse test
procedures. Electric Vehicle Symphosium 15:1998
12. Sudworth JL (1994) Zebra batteries. J Power Sources 51(1–2):105–114. https://doi.org/10.
1016/0378-7753(94)01967-3
13. Möller K-C (2013) Übersicht über die Speichersysteme/Batteriesysteme. In: Korthauer R
(ed) Handbuch Lithium-Ionen-Batterien. Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, Heidelberg, pp
3–9. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-30653-2_1
14. Hueso KB, Armand M, Rojo T (2013) High temperature sodium batteries: status, challenges
and future trends. Energy Environ Sci 6(3):734. https://doi.org/10.1039/c3ee24086j
15. Vaalma C et al (2018) A cost and resource analysis of sodium-ion batteries. Nat Rev Mater 3(4):
18013. https://doi.org/10.1038/natrevmats.2018.13
16. Titirici M-M, Adelhelm P, Hu YS (eds) (2023) Sodium-ion batteries: materials, characteriza-
tion, and technology. Wiley-VCH, Weinheim
17. Adelhelm P (2023) ‘Na-ion batteries: materials and state-of-art’, in AABC 2023. Humboldt-
University Berlin, Mainz
18. Kurzweil P (2015b) Redox-flow-Batterien. In: Kurzweil P, Dietlmeier OK (eds)
Elektrochemische Speicher. Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden, Wiesbaden, pp 343–362.
19. Pletcher D, Walsh FC, Wills RGA (2009) Flow-batteries. In: Garche J, Dyer CK (eds)
Encyclopedia of electrochemical power sources. Elsevier: Academic Press, Amsterdam, Bos-
ton, pp 745–749
20. EUROBAT (2022) White paper: battery innovation roadmap 2030 – version 2.0. Association of
European Automotive and Industrial Battery Manufacturers, Brussels, Belgium
21. European Commission (2023) Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the
Council on circularity requirements for vehicle design and on management of end-of-life
vehicles, amending Regulations (EU) 2018/858 and 2019/1020 and repealing Directives
2000/53/EC and 2005/64/EC, Brussels, Belgium
Chapter 9
Raw Materials and Recycling
of Lithium-Ion Batteries
Shannon Helen Davies, Paul Christensen, Thomas Holberg, Joao Avelar,

and Oliver Heidrich
Contents
9.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 143
9.2 Battery Contents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 144
9.3 Battery Cathode Materials and the Associated Supply Risks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 146
9.4 Lithium-Ion Battery Recycling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 151
9.5 Current Safety Concerns of End-of-Life Batteries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 161
9.6 Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 165
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 166
9.1 Introduction
Electric vehicles (EVs) powered by lithium-ion batteries (LIBs) have quickly

emerged as the most popular replacement for petrol- and diesel-powered vehicles.
In the next 5–10 years, the LIB market is set to grow exponentially due to a push
toward EVs by both policymakers and vehicle manufacturers [25]. Such a push will
inevitably lead to an increase in demand for raw materials, which is of particular
concern for critical raw materials (CRMs) such as lithium and cobalt which are of
S. H. Davies · O. Heidrich (✉)

Tyndall Centre of Climate Change Research, School of Engineering, Newcastle University,
Newcastle, UK
P. Christensen
School of Engineering, Newcastle University, Newcastle, UK
T. Holberg · J. Avelar
TES – Sustainable Technology Solutions, TES, Recklinghausen, Germany

144 S. H. Davies et al.
high economic importance [25]. Moreover, with a life span in EV of only

8–10 years, the LIB waste stream will increase considerably [39]. This is particularly
important considering that, by 2025, the UK’s dynamic stockpile of spent LIBs
could exceed 100,000 battery packs or 42,000 tons of LIB waste [39].
Due to the economic value of the materials contained within spent LIBs and the
volume of waste predicted in the coming years, the most economical and environ-
mentally friendly option is to reuse or to recycle them. This is even more important
considering that 2022 has seen the first ever increase in LIB pack prices since records
began in 2010 [24]. Such increases are primarily due to rising raw material and
battery component prices and the increasing inflation.
The development of recycling processes in the last decade has led to a sharp
increase in the purity of materials recycled which can reduce the reliance on raw
materials and alleviate some of the pressure on the natural reserves of materials such
as nickel and cobalt. The most advanced recycling processes are pyrometallurgical,
hydrometallurgical, and direct recycling [37]. However, even the most advanced
technologies have challenges with regard to recycling efficiencies, significant envi-
ronmental impacts, and safety hazards [22]. The safety hazards extend from the
battery’s primary use through to their final disposal, with 48% of waste fires in the
UK attributed to LIBs [4]. It is worth noting that, these fires will increase signifi-
cantly if the sale of EVs increases as forecasted.
This chapter starts with a brief review and analysis of the value chain of LIBs,
their supply risks associated with raw materials, as well as the global impacts of
using these materials, in both their original and secondary usage. This is followed by
a detailed description of the three existing recycling processes for LIBs and the
material yield from each of these processes, as well as a discussion on the opportu-
nities and problems that come with these recycling processes. We briefly discuss
battery recycling legislation and describe some of the safety risks associated with the
transportation, processing, and recycling of LIB. The primary risks of LIB fires and
how to prevent the fires are highlighted. This chapter concludes by summarizing the
key findings of this work. For more details on general circular economy consider-
ations related with batteries, including reuse and second life, the reader is referred to
Chap. 2 of this book.
9.2 Battery Contents
9.2.1 Battery Families and Their Cathode Chemistries
To understand the supply and safety risks associated with the materials used in LIBs,
it is important to consider the various active cathode chemistries of the numerous
LIBs currently available. LIBs currently on the market use a variety of lithium metal
oxides as the cathode and graphite as the anode [29].
Most existing LIBs use aluminum for the mixed-metal oxide cathode and copper
for the graphite anode, with the exception of lithium titanate (Li4Ti5, LTO) which
9 Raw Materials and Recycling of Lithium-Ion Batteries 145
uses aluminum for both [23]. The cathode materials are typically abbreviated to three
letters, which then become the descriptors of the battery itself. For example, lithium
cobalt oxide (LiCO2) becomes LCO, which was presented in 1991 as the first major
commercially available LIB technology [50]. Due to the high-cobalt content, and
soaring cobalt costs, LCO batteries have become very expensive to manufacture.
Problems also lie in LCO’s lack of thermal stability and quickly fading capacity.
Despite this, they are heavily used in mobile devices [46].
The next LIB emerged in 1996 with a cathode made of lithium manganese oxide
(LiMn2O4, LMO) [23]. Replacing cobalt in the cathode with nickel and manganese
does make LMO cheaper than LCO but has resulted in a lack of cycling stability at
high temperatures [46].
Most commonly used in medium- and high-range electric vehicles (EVs), due to
their high energy density and low power consumption [45], is the lithium nickel
manganese cobalt battery (LiNixMnyCo1 - x - yO2, NMC). The NMC battery is a
so-called “family” as any combination of the three metals is possible, giving rise to a
variety of cathode chemistries within one family. The four chemistries which are
most common are NMC-111, NMC-532, NMC-622, and NMC-811, with the num-
bers referring to the ratio of nickel-manganese-cobalt in the active cathode material.
First commercialized in 2004, the NMC battery family boasts very good specific
power, life span, cost, safety, and specific energy [31].
Similar to NMC is the lithium nickel cobalt aluminum oxide cathode
(LiNi0.8Co0.15Al0.05O2, NCA). NCA also has a high specific energy, power, and
life span, but it is more expensive than NMC [31].
The final example is the lithium iron phosphate battery (LiFePO4, LFP), widely
used in medium- and low-range EVs, which has sacrificed energy density for safety,
improved environmental performance, and low production costs, coming from the
lack of cobalt in the cathode [45]. The market share of LFP batteries has grown
substantially in recent years, from 10% of the global EV market share in 2018 to
approximately 40% in 2022 [9]. One reason for this is the popularity of LFP batteries
in the Chinese market, with Tesla recently announcing they will use LFP batteries in
their Model 3 for the Chinese market [13]. The drive towards the electrification of
public transport has also played a part in this. This is due to factors such as the
absence of cobalt in the cathode reducing the production costs, the use of phosphate
to increase stability, enhanced electrode stability against overcharging, and a higher
tolerance to heat. All of which has lead to LFPs being commonly used in buses [44].
9.2.2 Whole Battery Pack
Most of the focus from recyclers is extracting the valuable metals such as copper,
nickel, and cobalt [40] contained within the active cathode material. Despite this, the
active cathode material only makes up a maximum of 35% of a LIBs’ relative
weight, as seen in Fig. 9.1. Pouch cells can weigh between 75 and 225 g, depending
on the battery cathode chemistry.
100%
90%
% Mass of Component
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
NMC(111) NMC(622) NMC(811) LCO NCA LMO LFP
Cathode Chemistry
Cathode Material Graphite Carbon black Binder: PVDF

Copper Aluminium Electrolyte Plastic
Fig. 9.1 Relative weight percentages of LIB. (Based on Sommerville [40])
Lithium-ion cells come in three principal shapes and sizes: cylindrical, pouch,
and prismatic. All three “form factors” are employed in the larger applications of
LIBs including EVs and battery energy storage systems (BESS). In an EV pack, the
cells are arranged in series, parallel, or mixed configurations to form a module.
Each module will also have its own electrical and thermal control components
[38]. The modules are then connected in series, parallel, or a combination of the two,
to form a battery pack. The modules can be mechanically locked into place or
welded or glued together, which is a considerable disadvantage in their manufactur-
ing, as it makes them particularly difficult to disassemble. The packs themselves are
housed in a plastic or metal container, also containing a whole pack battery and
thermal management systems.
9.3 Battery Cathode Materials and the Associated

Supply Risks
A LIB’s active components are an anode and a cathode, separated by an organic

electrolyte, i.e., a conductive salt (LiPF6) dissolved in an organic solvent. The anode
is typically graphitic carbon, but silicon has emerged in recent years as a replacement
with a significantly higher specific capacity [51]. The inactive components include a
polymer separator, copper and aluminum current collectors, as well as a metal or
plastic casing.
Table 9.1 Typical raw mate- Type Lithium Cobalt Nickel Manganese
rial requirements (Li, Co, Ni
LCO 0.11 0.96 0.00 0.00
and Mn) for three battery
cathodes in kg/kWh [20] NCA 0.10 0.13 0.67 0.00
NMC 111 0.15 0.40 0.40 0.37
622 0.13 0.19 0.61 0.20
811 0.11 0.09 0.75 0.09
The majority of materials that are constrained by resource limitations are those
contained within the cathode, as well as the electrolyte due to its lithium content
[35]. The majority of LIBs on the market today have cathodes which include lithium,
cobalt, nickel, and manganese due to their high energy densities. Table 9.1 shows an
estimate of the amount of these metals, in kilogram required per kilowatt-hour for
five popular cathode materials.
Batteries with lithium cobalt oxide (LCO) cathodes typically require approxi-
mately 0.11 kg/kWh of lithium and 0.96 kg/kWh of cobalt (Table 9.1). Nickel cobalt
aluminum (NCA) batteries, however, typically require significantly less cobalt,
approximately only 0.13 kg/kWh, as they contain mostly nickel at approximately
0.67 kg/kWh. Nickel manganese cobalt (NMC) batteries vary on their raw material
requirements depending on which member of the battery family is being used. For
example, the NMC-111 contains approximately 0.40 kg/kWh of nickel, manganese,
and cobalt, whereas NMC-811 requires 0.75 kg/kWh of nickel and only 0.19 and
0.20 kg/kWh of cobalt and manganese respectively. In practice, this means a Tesla
Model S, which uses a 100kWh NCA battery [25], would require 10 kg of lithium,
13 kg of cobalt, and 67 kg of nickel.
The following section describes the supply chains associated with the elements
used in the manufacturing of LIBs, particularly those contained in the cathode.
9.3.1 Cobalt, Lithium, and Nickel
It is projected that, just for EV batteries and energy storage, the EU will need
18 times more lithium and 5 times more cobalt in 2030, with this increasing another
three-fold by 2050, compared to the current supply to the whole EU economy
[1]. This will inevitably lead to supply issues not just in the EU, but globally, and
has resulted in both materials being added to the EU’s Critical Raw Materials
(CRMs) list [14].
The significant increase in demand for cobalt, lithium, and nickel is demonstrated
in Fig. 9.2, where it is easy to see that the adoption of LIBs with cathode chemistries
with very low or even no cobalt is appealing. In both scenarios modeled in Xu et al.
[49], the known global reserves for cobalt could be depleted by 2050. Cobalt
reserves also have the added challenge of being very geographically concentrated,
partly in areas with political and social conflict [49]. The Democratic Republic of the
Congo (DRC) in particular plays a dominant role in current and future cobalt supply,
4,500,000
4,000,000
3,500,000
3,000,000
Tonnes
2,500,000
2,000,000
1,500,000
1,000,000
500,000
0
2025 2030 2035 2040
Cobalt LCE Nickel
Fig. 9.2 Global demand for raw materials to 2040 [20]
Fig. 9.3 Cobalt price volatility from February 2010 to August 2023 [43]
accounting for 60–75% of global mine production [2]. Cobalt mining also has the
disadvantage of being reliant on the nickel and copper markets, as cobalt is primarily
mined as a by-product of the two [2300], so the expansion of new cobalt mines will
only occur if the nickel and copper markets are strong [2].
Due to this, cobalt markets are volatile, rising from $31,000 per ton in 2012 to
$93,000 per ton in 2018, with another peak in 2022 [2300, 28]. The volatility is well
demonstrated in Fig. 9.3. This increase resulted in a 5–64% increase in cathode
material costs per technology, proving the high dependence on raw materials in the
industry [46]. Moreover, the supply risk score of cobalt has risen sharply from 49 in
2007, meaning the element was uncritical, up to 60 in 2017, making it the most
critical element contained within battery cathodes [46].
Cobalt plays an important role within the battery chemistries, providing high
energy densities and stable batteries, and so it is unlikely that cobalt will be
eliminated from LIB cathodes in the near future [2]. This benefits the recycling
industry as cobalt is the main driver of the revenue produced from pyrometallurgical
and hydrometallurgical recycling. With appropriate recycling facilities and further
development, the industry can move away from mined cobalt and begin to use
recycled cobalt from spent LIBs.
Lithium has much the same supply issues as cobalt. By 2025, it is possible that
lithium demand could outgrow current production capacities [49], with one of the
scenarios in Xu et al. [49] concluding that known reserves of lithium could be
depleted before 2050.
Battery manufacturers are attempting to decrease their reliance on cobalt, but not
lithium; this is perhaps due to lithium reserves being less concentrated in conflict
areas. Despite this, in the year 2012–2013, lithium’s supply risk score jumped
considerably, from 52 to 57 [46]. The issue with lithium is that the industry does
not appear to be trying to relieve their reliance on it at this present time. This further
solidifies how efficient, cost-effective recycling is necessary to recover lithium from
spent LIBs and ensures the recovered lithium is of a high enough quality to be used
in future LIB manufacturing.
Lithium and cobalt also have a variety of other uses, outside of LIBs. For
example, cobalt is magnetic and so when alloyed with aluminum and nickel, it can
be used to produce particularly powerful magnets. Cobalt’s high-temperature
strength also makes it particularly important in the development of jet turbine
generators. More superficially, for centuries cobalt has been used to produce blue
paint. While lithium is a very light metal, it is often alloyed with others to make light-
wear armor plating, and aluminum-lithium alloys are used in aircraft and high-speed
trains. Interestingly, lithium carbonate can be given to people suffering with severe
depression as a mood stabilizer, but the full effect of the drug on the brain is not fully
understood.
Although not as critical as lithium and cobalt, nickel reserves are still a concern,
with the prediction that by 2040 EVs alone could require as much nickel as the
global primary nickel production in 2019 [49]. As with lithium, one scenario in Xu
et al. [49] predicts known reserves for nickel to be depleted by 2050. This is mostly
corroborated by Wentker et al. [46] which predicts that with the current rates of
extraction, nickel reserves will be depleted in 35 years. This is concerning when it is
widely accepted that the adoption of battery chemistries with high-nickel and
low-cobalt content has been faster than expected and could lead to a 60-times
increase in nickel demand for the EU alone from 2017 to 2060 [2].
The industry’s move from high lithium content batteries just shifts the burden
onto nickel reserves. This is depicted well by the projected dramatic increase in
nickel demand compared to cobalt demand displayed in Fig. 9.4. Although LIBs
with high-nickel chemistries have a higher energy density and therefore reach the
desired range for EVs, there is some concerns over the stability of these batteries
EU Cobalt and Nickel Demand to 2050

600
540
500
Ni and Co flows (kt/yr)
429
400
325
300
247
200 172
100 59
20 24 28 31
2 1 11 2 8 15
0
2017 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050
Year
Nickel demand Cobalt demand
Fig. 9.4 Cobalt and nickel demand for European EVs for high adoption of high-Ni cathodes [2]
particularly the lithium nickel oxide battery which, after two decades of intensive
research, still are not commercially ready [2]. However, the revenue generated from
recovered nickel is much lower than that of cobalt which, due to the move toward
high-nickel low-cobalt battery chemistries, may impact economic viability of
recycling, as it will depend more on the volatile price of nickel [2].
9.3.2 Manganese
The supply of manganese comes from the mining of ore and scrap, with the ore
including both manganese and iron ore [42]. The majority of mined manganese
comes from South Africa and Australia, with shares of 26% and 17%, respectively,
with China dominating processing and consumption [42]. Helbig et al. [23] find that
the supply risk score for manganese, 52 points, is particularly average for all the raw
materials used in LIBs. The most notable supply risk indicators for manganese come
from the static reach reserves and the substitutability. The static reach reserves are
only 34 years, the third lowest out of the raw materials, and the substitutability has a
score of 4 which is second lowest [23]. This means that the current easy-to-access
manganese reserves will be depleted in only 34 years and manganese as a component
of LIBs has very limited materials that could replace it while maintaining the battery
capacity and life span. Both of these factors mean it is imperative that the purity of
recycled manganese is adequate to be reused in LIBs, taking away the reliance on
reserves.
9.3.3 Other Materials
Copper, steel, aluminum, and graphite are also materials found in the spent LIBs. Xu
et al. [49] predict that for copper, aluminum, and graphite, all known reserves exceed
demand from EV manufacturing until at least 2050. However, there is a slight
concern about natural graphite, as in 2019 64% of it was produced in China,
which may lead to low supply reliability through political conflicts among global
powers [49]. As much as this would not be ideal, it is true that synthetic graphite has
begun to dominate the LIB anode market, with a 56% share in 2018, due to both its
increased performance and decreased cost [49].
However, the shift toward silicon-based anodes, as appears to be the trend, would
alleviate these concerns, with 25.8% abundance of silicon in the Earth’s crust
[26]. Silicon-based anodes also provide good chemical stability in the electrolyte,
improving safety of the battery, and the abundance of silicon in the Earth’s crust
reduces the overall cost.
As much as these materials are necessary to the manufacturing, and therefore the
recycling, of LIBs, their lack of criticality in comparison with the other materials
makes them of low concern. However, to achieve increasing recycling efficiencies
according to the new regulatory framework for batteries in, for example the EU,
USA, and China, it is vital to recover these fractions, no matter how small.
9.4 Lithium-Ion Battery Recycling
9.4.1 Available Recycling Processes
Due to the value of the materials contained within LIBs, it is vital that they are safely
and effectively recycled. All recycling is either open-loop or closed-loop. Open-loop
recycling is the most common form, in which materials recovered from the recycling
process have to undergo a series of refining processes before they can be used again
[37]. Closed-loop recycling, considered the best case scenario, is when the materials
recovered from the recycling process are in the correct chemical form and sufficient
purity levels to be reused directly in the products they were recycled from [37].
There are a growing number of recycling facilities across the globe, as depicted in
Fig. 9.5. Each company achieves different recycling yields, due to having their own
unique take on one of the three available recycling processes or employing a
combination of two.
Three main recycling processes for spent LIBs are commonly used: pyrometal-
lurgical, hydrometallurgical, and direct cathode recycling (which will be referred to
as direct recycling). Pyro- and hydrometallurgical processes are both employed to
effectively recover metals from e-waste. The recoverable materials from each of
these processes are listed in Table 9.2. None of the recycling processes listed are
Fig. 9.5 Locations of recycling facilities globally, with the size of the red dot representing the
recycling capacity in tons/year
Table 9.2 Recoverable materials through different recycling technologies

Pyrometallurgical Hydrometallurgical Direct
(1) Copper compounds (1) Copper (1) Copper
(2) Iron compounds (2) Steel (2) Steel
(3) Co+2 in output (3) Aluminium (3) Aluminium
(4) Ni+2 in output (4) Graphite (4) Graphite
(5) Lithium compounds (5) Plastics (5) Plastics
(6) Aggregate (from slag) (6) Lithium carbonate (6) NMC
(7) Co+2 in output (7) Electrolyte solvents
(8) Ni+2 in output (8) Electrolyte salts
(9) Mn+2 in output
(10) Electrolyte solvents
(11) Electrolyte salts
perfect, and work is being done to improve the processes in some way. Most of the
improvements are based around increasing yield or purity, reducing the use of raw
materials or energy, and reducing waste [18].
Pyrometallurgical Recycling Process
Pyrometallurgical recycling is one of the most ubiquitous metal recycling technol-
ogies used today. Pyrometallurgical processes use high temperatures to extract and
purify raw materials. Fig. 9.6 depicts the process flow of a generic pyrometallurgical
recycling process, in which spent LIBs, either shredded or intact, are sent to a smelter
which burns off electrolyte and plastics in the battery to supply heat and the gas
produced through the smelting process is treated.
Fig. 9.6 Process diagram of pyrometallurgical recycling processes
Graphite/carbon and aluminum in the LIBs act as reductants for the metals and
are oxidized, while cobalt, nickel, copper, and iron in the LIBs make up the matte.
The rest of the materials, including oxidized aluminum and lithium, end up in the
slag. It is important to note that the slag may be used as aggregate for pavement or as
supplementary material for cement production and there is ongoing research into the
lithium recovery process from the slag [40].
The matte undergoes an acid leaching process and then precipitation to produce
iron and copper compounds. Following this, the matte can be further processed to
produce cobalt and nickel compounds; the processes used are solvent extraction
followed by precipitation. These compounds can also be separated fully through
hydrometallurgy.
The facilities which currently utilize pyrometallurgical recycling are Accurec and
Umicore [40]. In Umicore’s facility in Hoboken, Belgium, only modules or packs
larger than a shoebox require disassembly prior to the recycling process [40]. See
Table 9.2 for a list of recoverable materials through pyrometallurgical recycling.
Fig. 9.7 Left: calcination resp. drying of spent LIB and subsequent generic hydrometallurgical
recycling process. Right: the hydrometallurgical process used by TES
Hydrometallurgical Recycling Process

Figure 9.7 depicts the process flow of a generic hydrometallurgical recycling
process. Hydrometallurgy uses aqueous solutions, such as acids and salts, to dissolve
the metals, and then subsequent steps recover the metals from the solution.
Spent LIBs which are hydrometallurgically recycled must first be discharged and
disassembled, before they are shredded. This is important as, for hydrometallurgy to
be cost-effective, it is necessary to ensure that minimal extraneous material is
exposed to the process [40]. In some cases, organic compounds such as the binder
and solvents from the electrolyte are then burned off and carbon dioxide will be
emitted. TES, a global LIB recycling company, uses shredding under inert atmo-
spheric conditions and vacuum drying followed by condensation for this, as shown
in the right image of Fig. 9.7. The organic solvent from the electrolyte will be
recovered, and residual fluorine and phosphorus will be removed at the purification
step of the hydrometallurgical process.
After shredding, the process is made up of several physical separation processes
to separate out aluminum, copper, and steel as metal scraps, plastics, and black mass
followed by a leaching process for the black mass. The final step includes solvent
extraction and precipitation to produce cobalt-nickel-manganese compounds, with
the potential for lithium carbonate extraction which can be used in the production of
new cathode materials [11]. However, market demand for high purity materials in
the correct ratios justifies further separation into individual cobalt-nickel-manganese
compounds. Both Duesenfeld in Germany and Recupyl in France use this process,
however only at a small scale, selling most of their black mass to the metallurgical
industry [40]. Umicore performs hydrometallurgy after pyrometallurgy to further
separate the compounds of transition metals [40].
Fig. 9.8 Process diagram of a generic direct recycling process
Direct Recycling
Figure 9.8 depicts the process flow of a generic direct recycling process. Direct
recycling describes the process by which the battery components are recycled
without breaking down their chemical structure. For this, spent LIBs must first be
discharged and disassembled before they can be perforated.
To recycle the electrolyte solvent and salts, they then undergo supercritical CO2
extraction. The rest of the LIBs can then be shredded before going through several
physical separation processes, density separation, and froth flotation, which recover
plastics, metals, anode material, and cathode material, respectively [11]. The final
step sees the recovered cathode material relithiated, which is the process by which
they restore lithium stoichiometry of the cathode by bathing it in a heated lithium
solution, to produce rejuvenated cathode powder.
Fig. 9.9 Generalized recycling loop. Processes are in purple and intermediate products in blue.
(Based on Sommerville et al. [40])
Direct recycling is not currently used anywhere in industry, but it is the preferred
method as the active material is reused without it having to be returned to the
constituent raw materials as compounds or salts [40].
9.4.2 Yield for the Different Recycling Processes
As mentioned previously, the uniqueness of each company’s recycling process leads

to differing material recovery percentages and purities. This section will give
statistics as produced in generalized processes modeled in Everbatt [11]. It cannot
be overstated how essential high material recovery percentages and purities are to the
alleviation of pressure on material reserves globally. Striving for closed-loop
recycling across the industry should be an ultimate goal.
A generalized recycling loop showing the potential routes in which LIB cells may
be recycled is shown in Fig. 9.9, with processes in purple and intermediate products
in blue. In practice, some large-scale recyclers follow the loop to the left, using a
combination of pyro- and hydrometallurgical processes. Not shown in Fig. 9.9 is that
some recyclers produce only a “black mass” of active material, i.e., metal oxides and
carbon, which will then be sold on for pyro- or hydrometallurgical recovery [40].
Both pyrometallurgical and hydrometallurgical processes recover 98% of the

cobalt from the input, and, with such a high efficiency, there should be a consistent
drive to ensure spent LIBs are recycled so the cobalt can be reused, particularly due
to the high volatility of the cobalt markets and low natural reserves [11].
Material recovery of lithium is not as efficient as cobalt, at only 90%, and to
recover lithium using pyrometallurgical recycling, the slag must undergo a hydro-
metallurgical process, thus increasing recycling costs making it less attractive to
recyclers [11]. This means recyclers are less likely to recover lithium, increasing the
reliance on virgin materials. Luckily, like cobalt, material recovery efficiency of
nickel is 98% for both pyrometallurgical and hydrometallurgical recycling
[11]. Only hydrometallurgical recycling recovers manganese, but this is also at
98% efficiency [11]. Copper and steel have 90% material recovery efficiencies
from all three recycling processes. Meanwhile, aluminum and graphite have 90%
material recovery efficiencies from only hydrometallurgical and direct
recycling [11].
9.4.3 Opportunities from Recycling
The primary advantage of LIB closed-loop recycling is that it can save raw materials.
When materials such as lithium, cobalt, and nickel are so critical to the operation of
LIBs but are relatively scarce, it is vital to develop recycling processes which will
alleviate some of the pressure on natural reserves. It is estimated that recycling can
save up to 51% of the extracted raw materials, in addition to the reduction in the use
of fossil fuels and nuclear energy in both the extraction and reduction processes [8].
One benefit of a LIB compared to a primary battery is that they can be repurposed
and given a second life. A LIB in an EV is classed as EOL once the warranty, usually
8–10 years, has been exceeded; however, both manufacturers and developers agree
that LIBs still retain 70–80% of their initial capacity after this time [39]. Some
changes to the LIB may be necessary before it can be repurposed, such as replacing
damaged cells or reconfiguring the pack for non-EV use [5], but it is estimated that
LIBs which are repurposed in stationary energy storage applications have a second
life span of an additional 10 years before they reach their absolute EOL [39]. Another
benefit of second life LIBs is both environmentally and economically valuable, as
they can reduce direct energy consumption from the electricity grid [39].
The idea of a second life for LIBs from small devices such as mobile phones has
been trialed in the developing world, mostly in isolated areas that are not connected
to the national grid. The second life LIBs can be connected to solar panels and
allowed to charge and then used to power LED-based systems [8]. This is a safe,
reliable, and sustainable way to light homes, aiding in the replacement of candles and
kerosene lamps. Costa et al. [8] find that a LIB that was used in the standard life of a
mobile phone, 2 years, still contains 1250 cycles. This means a 12 V, 3.1A battery
will be able to power a 5 W LED lamp for 4 hours every night for 3 years and the unit
itself will cost only $35 whereas kerosene lamps cost an average of $54 per year of
use [8].
Pyrometallurgical recycling has been proven to be economically feasible and
conducive for large-scale operations [30]. Hydrometallurgical recycling has a num-
ber of environmental benefits, such as a low operating temperature and lower CO2
emissions compared to the pyrometallurgical process [5]. Economically, hydromet-
allurgical recycling is preferable due to the increase in recoverable materials and
their increased quality. The hydrometallurgical process allows most of the metals
contained within EOL batteries to be recovered after extraction and separation
through using strong inorganic acids to leach the metals into solvents. Inorganic
acids such as hydrochloric, sulfuric, and nitric can be used to achieve 99% solubi-
lization of lithium and cobalt [30].
9.4.4 Limitations of Recycling
The primary limitation of LIB recycling is that closed-loop recycling does not exist;
the materials cannot be used in like-for-like products and instead have to be down-
cycled. This is due to the waste treatments, namely, shredding, involving some
degree of material intermixing and small-scale dispersion of metals into those
recovered in bulk, such as aluminum and steel, reducing their quality. Although
recycling cobalt from LIBs can be used in samarium-cobalt magnets for sensors and
electric motors [34], the majority of recycled materials go on to be used in products
with lower material quality requirements. To compensate for this, primary and
secondary materials are often mixed to match material requirements in other
products.
The pyrometallurgical recycling process may have generated relatively successful
business models up until now, but this is likely to change. Despite the fact that the
process is simple and mature and requires no sorting prior to recycling, there are a
number of disadvantages [5]. Pyrometallurgical recycling requires a significant
amount of energy to treat waste gases before they are safe to release into the
environment [47]. This is in addition to the process itself requiring very high
temperatures, making it very energy intensive [30]. Moreover, metals such as
lithium, aluminum, and manganese cannot be recovered at such high temperatures,
and the growing trend toward manufacturing LIBs with lower cobalt content means
the revenue generated from this process will decrease. This is due to recovered cobalt
generating 50–70% revenue for pyrometallurgical recycling, so lower cobalt leads to
lower revenue and a lack of profit. Unfortunately, recent trends suggest that batteries
with higher nickel and lower cobalt content, such as the NMC-811 batteries, are
becoming more popular due to increased energy density, environmental sustainabil-
ity, and reduced manufacturing cost [48].
Another disadvantage of the pyrometallurgical process is that both lithium and

aluminum are entrained in the process slag and therefore require further processes to
recover. The UK currently exports most of its spent LIBs to Umicore in Belgium,
which uses the pyrometallurgical process; this meant lithium and aluminum were
lost to the slag as it was not economically feasible to process it [47]. However,
Umicore have recently employed further processing to recover lithium from the slag
[5]. Although this is a positive in terms of material recovery, an additional process
increases not just the total recycling cost but the environmental one too.
As with pyrometallurgical recycling, hydrometallurgical recycling does rely on
cobalt recovery for the majority, in this case 40–60%, of its generated revenue. As
above, the low nickel, high-cobalt content means it is not economically feasible to
hydrometallurgically recycle NMC-811 batteries. However, unlike pyrometallurgi-
cal recycling, a profit is still generated per kg of NMC-532 and NMC-622 batteries
when hydrometallurgically recycled. In addition to this advantage, the materials
produced from hydrometallurgical processes are of a high purity while recovering
most of the LIB constituents [5].
Unlike pyrometallurgical, the hydrometallurgical process does require manual
deep-discharging and dismantling before recycling can begin, which requires con-
siderable storage space, which adds to overall costs, due to an increase in labor costs,
and overall complexity [5].
Hydrometallurgical recycling also produces a considerable amount of wastewater
through the leaching and precipitation operations. The treatment this requires adds to
both the environmental burden and overall recycling cost. Another increase in cost
comes from the challenge of separating some elements in the solution, such as
cobalt, nickel, manganese, iron, copper, and aluminum, due to their similar proper-
ties [5], more specifically cobalt and nickel in aqueous medium. This requires
solvent extraction and consequently large amount of organic solvent with organo-
phosphate additives to be stored and processed. Purification steps generate, e.g.,
Al(OH)3, FeO.OH, CaF2, CaPO4, which potentially need to be treated as hazardous
waste.
Direct recycling is the newest of the modeled recycling processes and is still in its
development stages for EV LIB recycling [25], which is its primary disadvantage.
Another disadvantage of direct recycling is that it requires rigorous sorting before the
recycling process can begin, as the exact cathode chemistry must be known prior to
recycling. This is due to the inflexibility of the process: what goes in must come out
[5]. This raises questions of whether the process is appropriate for an ever-changing
reality; with a market already saturated by differing cathode chemistries, how can a
process which can only recycle one specific chemistry at a time be sustainable?
Although this is an important question, it is true that direct recycling produces the
highest revenues of all the recycling processes and, due to this, it has the highest net
recycling profit by a considerable margin [25]. The overarching economic benefits
suggest that research into direct recycling must continue, ensuring it can be used
sustainably on a commercial scale.
9.4.5 Battery Recycling Legislation
With battery recycling comes battery recycling legislation. Current legislation across
all three major markets, China, the EU, and the USA, focuses on the protection of
local environment and human health [32].
While the EU’s original battery directive was published in 2006, the new Battery
Regulation, published in 2023, will build upon and replace the 2006 EU Battery
Directive, with a direct focus on the challenges that have come with rapid develop-
ment of the industry [16]. Melin et al. [32] divide the new Regulation into four key
elements, all of which are imperative to improving the sustainability of LIBs:
The first is the Regulation aims to increase both transparency and traceability across
the battery life cycle; second, it mandates carbon footprint declaration throughout the
life cycle and establishing maximum thresholds, addressing climate impact of the
batteries; third is an emphasis on circularity through increased collection and
recycling efficiencies and mandating the use of recycled materials, particularly in
batteries above 2kWh; and finally, fourth are including waste processors to the
Battery Management System (BMS), verifying the battery’s state of health in real
time, and determining if the battery has the potential to be reused or repurposed
before it is recycled.
While the EU has a number of directives to support in research and innovation
across the entire battery chain, it has failed to secure key elements of the supply
chain, such as raw material extraction, refining, and battery manufacturing
[32]. Much is the same in the USA who, through Tesla, have been at the forefront
of manufacturing but rely on global markets for refinement, production, and
recycling of battery raw materials [2300].
The market is dominated by China, who occupy more than two-thirds of it
[32]. This has been possible through a booming EV battery sector and strong
government support in the form of subsidies and investment stimulus [32]. China
also implemented the Interim Measures for the Administration of the Recycling and
Utilization of Power Batteries for New Energy Vehicles from 2018 [32]. These cover
minimum standards for the reclassification of batteries for second life applications,
the recycling efficiency of plants treating EOL batteries, and requirements necessary
to qualify for subsidies. When these measures were tightened further in 2019, they
were made stricter than the regulations the EU plan to enforce a decade from
now [16].
While in the USA, the Biden administration has declared the electrification of
transport a top priority and produced an investment proposal of up to $174 billion,
they still lag behind both the EU and China in mandating EPR or promoting circular
economy principles. The stringent measures imposed on Chinese companies, who
already dominate in material refining, battery production, and mature recycling
infrastructure, have allowed them to easily comply with EU regulations. This
imbalance between new and mature markets has led to a variety of unintended
consequences. For example, such stringent measures can lead to distorted innovation
through increased compliance costs, hindering competitiveness. Moreover,
European EV manufacturers having to adhere to the new, stricter regulations will be

more constrained in their options than the less regulated USA and also risk losing out
to Chinese competitors due to their bigger, more mature share of the market [32].
EU regulation does aim to responsibly develop supply chains for Europe’s EV
industry, with recycling being at the forefront of this. However, the regulations do
not require recycled material to be sourced in Europe, nor does it restrict the source
of recyclables to EOL batteries [16]. This will put companies who have operated in
markets such as China and South Korea, with much greater experience in battery
material production, including in the use of recycled materials, in a much better
position to meet these regulations. This could lead to European material producers
and battery manufacturers being essentially eliminated from their own market.
One new regulation being proposed by the industry is a digital battery passport
(DBP) for each battery entering the market. Digital product passports themselves are
not novel; they have existed for some time to assist value chain stakeholders in
achieving sustainable product management [36]. However, the concept has recently
caught the attention of battery policymakers, and the European Commission is
implementing DBPs [15]. The policy explicitly calls for the implementation of
DBPs for industrial and EV batteries by January 2026 [16]. The EU has implemented
three main EOL battery polices: maximum carbon footprint thresholds, minimum
shares of recoverable materials, and DBPs. The main goal of DBPs is to enable
sustainable product life cycle management and promote value-retaining processes,
which in turn facilitates sustainable and circular value chains [3]. However, due to
DBP development currently being pursued by nongovernmental institutions, there is
a lack of clear specifications for the scope of DBPs, leading to inconsistency across
the industry.
Battery legislation covers the entire life cycle of a LIB, from manufacture to
initial use through to collection, processing, recycling, and disposal. The life cycle
itself comes with a number of impacts, covered under environmental, social, and
economic.
The steps of a LIB’s life have been covered throughout this chapter; however, one
important element which runs throughout the life cycle of a LIB that has not yet been
addressed is the safety risks that come together with LIB’s use and disposal and the
social impacts these have. The way these risks fit into the life cycle of a LIB is
demonstrated with the flowchart in Fig. 9.10. In the next section, we will discuss
these risks, as well as addressing how it is best to reduce them.
9.5 Current Safety Concerns of End-of-Life Batteries
9.5.1 End-of-Life Management and Recycling
At present, there are very few LIB recycling facilities in the UK and Europe, despite
the crucial role the industry has in the decarbonization of the planet. However, there
are almost daily reports of fires caused by LIBs in both bin lorries and recycling
Fig. 9.10 Flowchart of the life cycle of a LIB
facilities [33]. In the USA, the cost is even greater, and not just financially, they have
seen injuries and even deaths. This had led to material recovery facilities in the USA
being increasingly reluctant to admit LIB related fires due to insurance concerns.
A report from Eunomia found that there are approximately 201 waste fires each
year caused directly by LIBs [4]. While the fires do vary significantly in terms of
severity and duration, it is estimated that the fires cost the UK £158 million annually
[4]. The majority of these costs are found to be incurred by waste site operators;
however, the cost to society, the environment, and the fire service is approximated to
be £16 million. The report also breaks the waste fires into four categories, with
1 being the most severe and 4 being the least, finding that it is fires of severity level
3 which occur most frequently and therefore have the highest cost implications at
over £128 million annually [4].
In the USA, the situation is even more bleak with a Fire Rover report estimating
the cost of LIB waste fires to be $1.2 billion annually [17]. Even with the report’s
author believing fires are underreported, there is still an alarming year-on-year
increase in waste fires. Although they have not all been directly linked to LIBs,
LIBs are listed as 1 of the 4 causes of the increasing number of facility fires which
have resulted in 49 injuries and 2 deaths, an increase in injuries of 158% from Fire
Rover’s 2018 report [17].
At present, these fires are caused by small LIBs from or in small rechargeable
devices such as mobile phones. However, the battery industry is ever-changing and,
most importantly, ever-growing, with an onslaught of EOL LIBs from EVs and
second life applications coming very soon. This will diversify the waste stream
recycling facilities have to manage, and it may be that the global drive to replace
fossil fuels could mean the fiery epidemic in recycling facilities is the calm before the
storm [33].
LIBs can store large amounts of energy, but this energy must be released in a safe,
controlled fashion. If this energy is released through abuse of the batteries, toxic,
flammable, and potentially explosive gases, as well as fine particles of heavy metals,
are released; this process is known as thermal runaway. This can easily be caused by
crushing and penetration of the batteries, which are common practices in recycling
facilities. When the batteries are crushed, the separator may be pierced, which in turn
allows the anode and cathode to come into contact and a short circuit to develop.
When this occurs, the heat generated causes pyrolysis of the organic solvent and
other exothermic reactions which generate a mixture of gases that includes hydrogen
(up to 50%), carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide, small organic molecules such as
ethane and ethene, hydrofluoric and hydrochloric acid, and hydrogen cyanide. When
these vent from the cells, via safety caps on cylindrical and prismatic cells, or pouch
cells bursting, the gases take with them small droplets of the remaining organic
solvent producing a thick, white vapor cloud [6]. Thermal runaway produces very
large volumes of vapor cloud, e.g., up to c.a. 6000 L/kWh [21], and hence when this
is vented, it does so at high pressure: immediate ignition of the cloud thus results in
flares that can be several meters long. Delayed ignition can, and has, resulted in
unconfined vapor cloud explosions (UVCE) [10], and such large volumes of vapor
cloud have also led to UVCEs from small LIBs including e-scooters and e-bikes.
One common practice is the storage of road traffic collision (RTC) vehicles in
vertical piles and moving them with magnetic claws and forklifts. This cannot be the
case for EVs due to the risks posed by potentially damaged battery packs, which
have been known to ignite hours, days, or even weeks after the initial incident
[41]. Thus, it has been generally accepted that RTC EVs should be stored with a
10–20 m exclusion zone.
Although the biggest concern does lie with damaged or abused LIBs, it has been
known for EVs to apparently spontaneously ignite, and, while the cause is still
unclear, BMS failure, defects in design and/or manufacture, or some contamination
during manufacturing are the most common postulations [7].
The lack of understanding of the risks and hazards of LIBs is concerning; while
there seems to be some in governments, the public appears to be wholly unaware: an
example is the incidents of fires due to members of the public assembling spare
e-bike batteries bought online and doing so by soldering. Companies are currently
able to sell secondhand EV battery packs, even batteries that are damaged or missing
their BMS, to the public, with no safety warning. While this may not be illegal at
present, it is wildly irresponsible. Without the appreciation for the complexity of the
protection systems or the hazards of abused batteries, the risk of personal and
municipal harm cannot be understated [7]. It is evident that abuse of batteries,
such as rapid charging, does destabilize them and can reduce the onset of thermal
runaway to room temperature [27], and damaged EV batteries have an increased risk
of explosion. LIBs are safe and stable to use under specified limits of temperature
and charge, but where does liability lie when misuse leads to injury or death?
9.5.2 Reducing Waste Fires
The most obvious way to reduce waste fires caused by LIBs is to ensure the batteries
do not end up in the residual and mixed recycling waste streams in the first place.
There are two easy to implement, short term measures which may help with this.
Firstly, separate kerbside battery and small waste electronic and electrical equipment
(WEEE) collection from households, and, secondly, increase the number of retail
collection points for batteries and small WEEE [4].
However, the responsibility cannot be placed only on the consumer; instead, there
must be supporting policy mechanisms that would fund systemic change in the
collection of spent LIBs. The most effective way to do this is to financially
incentivize or deter consumers from incorrectly disposing of batteries, alongside
an improved collection system. These policies may include the banning of batteries
from residual and mixed recycling waste streams, fining those who do not comply;
enforcing enhanced extended producer responsibility (EPR) for batteries and small
WEEE to pay for and coordinating, improving collection, and reflecting the cost of
fires; creating a deposit return scheme (DRS), or other incentivization method, to
encourage consumers to return spent LIBs and small WEEE for recycling; and
introducing fee modulation within WEEE EPR system that allows producers to
pay lower fees for design features that facilitate easier battery removal by
consumers [4].
Moreover, there is evidently a problem in the WEEE management stream, with
the increase in fires being an indicator of the need for change. The GRINNER project
aims to rectify this. Funded through the European Union’s (EU) Horizon Europe
program, the GRINNER project will focus on the reduction of fires caused by LIBs
in the WEEE management chain [12]. The plan is to develop an AI-powered battery
detection system utilizing data from X-ray detectors and pick-and-place robots. The
system will use X-ray detectors to analyze X-ray data and detect waste containing
batteries that can then be removed by a vision-based pick-and-place robot [12]. The
robots will be commercially available and easily incorporated into existing WEEE
and other recycling environments, to extract batteries and other e-waste safely and
effectively before they are damaged by machines that crush and consolidate waste.
Batteries themselves do contain several methods to improve their thermal stabil-
ity. For example, each battery contains a BMS which controls and prevents condi-
tions which could lead to failure, such as overcharging and overdischarging
[19]. The BMS also operates the battery for the best application performance and a
long life span. In addition to BMS, all batteries contain a thermal management
system (TMS) which maintains the optimum operating temperature of between
20 and 40 °C and keeps temperature changes between the modules to a minimum
[19]. As a whole, the battery compartment is also built with fire prevention in mind,
being designed to survive structurally and containing a vent to let out any pressure
buildup [19].
9.6 Conclusions
It is evident that the EV revolution is well underway, with a vast number of raw
material requirements and battery waste being created.
With such a diverse product market, there is a great amount of choice for battery
manufacturers, from the low cost LFP batteries to the high capacity NCA batteries.
The diversity of this market does not come without its problems, with many of the
materials used to produce the battery cathodes coming with considerable material
criticality issues, particularly lithium and cobalt. While the market does appear to be
moving away from batteries with a high-cobalt content, the use of lithium is here to
stay, due to its stabilizing properties. Moreover, this move away from cobalt has led
to the development of batteries with a higher nickel content, simply shifting the
burden onto nickel reserves.
Made up from a variety of toxic and rare materials, stockpiling and landfilling
spent LIBs is not an option, so the waste streams generated from them need
sustainable, cost-effective, high-yield management systems, such as recycling. The
recycling market has already undergone change: pyrometallurgical recycling began
as the most popular recycling method; however, there is no lithium recovery under
this method. This has led to the growing popularity of hydrometallurgical recycling
which produces high material yields, for low environmental cost. As direct recycling
is still in its relative infancy, it is not yet available for commercial use; however, this
method of recycling is the industry’s best chance at achieving closed-loop recycling.
There are some very clear advantages of recycling LIBs, with the main one being
the alleviation of pressure on reserves of the raw materials. It is important, however,
to consider second life applications of LIBs that have reached their EOL in their first
application. For example, LIBs in EVs reach their EOL in an EV after only
8–10 years, but they retain 70–80% capacity. These batteries can go on to have a
second life in stationary energy storage, storing renewable energies such as solar to
be released in times of high demand, alleviating pressure on the national grid.
Smaller LIBs from small electronic devices can also be used in such a way to
power individual electronic devices.
As closed-loop recycling, the method by which recycled products are used in like-
for-like products, has not yet been achieved, the recycled products must be down-
cycled. Mostly, the recovered materials are mixed with other raw materials to
contain the correct mix to be used in products with lower material quality require-
ments. This is only one of the limitations of LIB recycling; the others include the
hazardous waste produced from the recycling processes and the fact that LIB
recycling is still not economical, with government grants needed to fill the gap.
Safety in recycling plants has already proven to be a real concern, and that is
without the addition of a very large number of very large EV batteries entering the
waste stream. To date, fires caused by LIBs have cost the UK and US economy
billions and will continue to do so without sufficient policy intervention which
prevents spent LIBs from finding their way into conventional waste streams. Due
to the high chance of thermal runaway, spent LIBs cannot be handled in the way
lead-acid batteries are; long gone are the days of scrap vehicles being stored in piles
20 meters high.
This chapter has presented the cathode chemistries and the supply risks that come
with the most important raw materials for each cathode. There is a discussion to
move away from high-cobalt chemistries, the impacts on nickel reserves, as well as
the low substitutability of other materials such as manganese. The different recycling
processes, with a simple explanation of each, accompanied by a flow diagram were
presented. The yield of each process was discussed followed by the opportunities
and problems we are presented with when recycling LIBs, namely, the environmen-
tal benefits and down-cycling of products. This chapter covers battery recycling
legislation, including DBPs and how they aim to aid in the adoption of a circular
economy. We finish with an overview of the safety issues which come throughout
the life cycle of a LIB, with a particular focus on how the LIB waste stream is
incredibly high risk.
Acknowledgments This work was supported by the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research
Council (grant number EP/S024069/1) and by TES. The work was conducted within the Centre for
Doctoral Training in Sustainable Electric Propulsion.
References
1. Alves Dias P, Blagoeva D, Pavel C, Arvanitidis N (2018) Cobalt: demand-supply balances in

the transition to electric mobility, vol 10. European Commission, Joint Research Centre,
EUR-Scientific and Technical Research Reports Publications Office of the European Union, p
97710
2. Baars J, Domenech T, Bleischwitz R, Melin HE, Heidrich O (2021) Circular economy strategies
for electric vehicle batteries reduce reliance on raw materials. Nat Sustain 4:71–79
3. Berger K, Schöggl J-P, Baumgartner RJ (2022) Digital battery passports to enable circular and
sustainable value chains: conceptualization and use cases. J Clean Prod 353:131492
4. Brown M, Hilton M, Crossette S, Horton I, Hickman M, Mason R, Brown A (2021) Cutting
lithium-ion battery fires in the waste industry. Eunomia Research & Consulting, Bristol
5. Chen M, Ma X, Chen B, Arsenault R, Karlson P, Simon N, Wang Y (2019) Recycling end-of-
life electric vehicle lithium-ion batteries. Joule 3:2622–2646
6. Christensen P, Milojevic Z, Wise M, Ahmeid M, Attidekou P, Mrozik W, Dickmann N,
Restuccia F, Lambert S, Das P (2021a) Thermal and mechanical abuse of electric vehicle
pouch cell modules. Appl Therm Eng 189:116623
7. Christensen PA, Anderson PA, Harper GD, Lambert SM, Mrozik W, Rajaeifar MA, Wise MS,
Heidrich O (2021b) Risk management over the life cycle of lithium-ion batteries in electric
vehicles. Renew Sust Energ Rev 148:111240
8. Costa CM, Barbosa JC, Gonçalves R, Castro H, Del Campo F, Lanceros-Méndez S (2021)
Recycling and environmental issues of lithium-ion batteries: advances, challenges and oppor-
tunities. Energy Storage Materials 37:433–465
9. Crownhart C (2023) What’s next for batteries. Available: https://www.technologyreview.
com/2023/01/04/1066141/whats-next-for-batteries/. Accessed 4 Apr 2023
10. Cui Y, Liu J, Cong B, Han X, Yin S (2022) Characterization and assessment of fire evolution
process of electric vehicles placed in parallel. Process Saf Environ Prot 166:524–534
11. Dai Q, Spangenberger J, Ahmed S, Gaines L, Kelly JC, Wang M (2019) EverBatt: a closed-loop
battery recycling cost and environmental impacts model. Argonne National Lab(ANL),
Argonne, IL
12. Dennis P (2022) New EU-funded project aims to prevent fires caused by batteries at e-waste
recycling facilities [Online]. Circular Available: https://www.circularonline.co.uk/news/new-
eu-funded-project-aims-to-prevent-fires-caused-by-batteries-at-e-waste-recycling-facilities/.
Accessed 8 Dec 2022
13. Dunn J, Slattery M, Kendall A, Ambrose H, Shen S (2021) Circularity of lithium-ion battery
materials in electric vehicles. Environ Sci Technol 55:5189–5198
14. European Commission (2020a) Critical raw materials resilience: charting a path towards greater
security and sustainability, Brussels
15. European Commission (2020b) A new circular economy action plan for a cleaner and more
competitive Europe. European Commission, Brussels, pp 1–20
16. European Union (2020) Proposal for a regulation of the European parliament and of the council
concerning batteries and waste batteries, repealing Directive 2006/66/EC and amending Reg-
ulation (EU) No 2019/1020. European Commission, Brussels
17. Fogelman R (2021) August 2021 fire report: EPA’S Report Proves It’s Time For Government
Intervention [Online]. Michigan, USA: FireRover. Available: https://firerover.com/august-
2021-fire-report-epas-report-proves-its-time-for-government-intervention/. Accessed
8 Dec 2022
18. Gaines L (2019) Profitable recycling of low-cobalt lithium-ion batteries will depend on new
process developments. One Earth 1:413–415
19. Ghiji M, Novozhilov V, Moinuddin K, Joseph P, Burch I, Suendermann B, Gamble G (2020)
A review of lithium-ion battery fire suppression. Energies 13:5117
20. Gifford S (2022) Lithium, cobalt and nickel: the gold rush of the 21st century. Changes 2050(6):
500
21. Gully B, Helgesen H, Skogtvedt J, Kostopoulos D (2019) Technical reference for Li-ion battery
explosion risk and fire suppression. DNV GL 1025
22. Harper G, Sommerville R, Kendrick E, Driscoll L, Slater P, Stolkin R, Walton A, Christensen P,
Heidrich O, Lambert S (2019) Recycling lithium-ion batteries from electric vehicles. Nature
575:75–86
23. Heidrich O, Ford AC, Dawson RJ, Manning DA, Mohareb E, Raugei M, Rajaeifar MA (2022)
LAYERS: a decision-support tool to illustrate and assess the supply and value chain for the
energy transition. Sustainability 14(12):7120
24. Helbig C, Bradshaw AM, Wietschel L, Thorenz A, Tuma A (2018) Supply risks associated with
lithium-ion battery materials. J Clean Prod 172:274–286
25. IEA (2022) Global EV Outlook 2022. IEA, Paris
26. Lander L, Cleaver T, Rajaeifar MA, Nguyen-Tien V, Elliott RJ, Heidrich O, Kendrick E, Edge
JS, Offer G (2021) Financial viability of electric vehicle lithium-ion battery recycling. Iscience
24:102787
27. Liu H, Sun Q, Zhang H, Cheng J, Li Y, Zeng Z, Zhang S, Xu X, Ji F, Li D (2022) The
application road of silicon-based anode in Lithium-ion batteries: from liquid electrolyte to solid-
state electrolyte. Energy Storage Materials 55:244
28. Liu J, Duan Q, Ma M, Zhao C, Sun J, Wang Q (2020) Aging mechanisms and thermal stability
of aged commercial 18650 lithium ion battery induced by slight overcharging cycling. J Power
Sources 445:227263
29. Lme (2022) LME cobalt official prices graph [Online]. LME. Available: https://www.lme.com/
Metals/EV/LME-Cobalt#Price+graphs. Accessed 8 Dec 2022
30. Lyu H, Sun X-G, Dai S (2021) Organic cathode materials for lithium-ion batteries: past, present,
and future. Adv Energy Sustain Res 2:2000044
31. Makwarimba CP, Tang M, Peng Y, Lu S, Zheng L, Zhao Z, Zhen A-G (2022) Assessment of
recycling methods and processes for lithium-ion batteries. Iscience 104321:104321
32. Malik M, Chan KH, Azimi G (2022) Review on the synthesis of LiNixMnyCo1-x-yO2 (NMC)
cathodes for lithium-ion batteries. Mater Today Energy 101066
33. Melin HE, Rajaeifar MA, Ku AY, Kendall A, Harper G, Heidrich O (2021) Global implications
of the EU battery regulation. Science 373:384–387
34. Mrozik W, Rajaeifar MA, Heidrich O, Christensen P (2021) Environmental impacts, pollution
sources and pathways of spent lithium-ion batteries. Energy Environ Sci 14:6099–6121
35. Nordelöf A, Poulikidou S, Chordia M, Bitencourt de Oliveira F, Tivander J, Arvidsson R (2019)
Methodological approaches to end-of-life modelling in life cycle assessments of lithium-ion
batteries. Batteries 5:51
36. Olivetti EA, Ceder G, Gaustad GG, Fu X (2017) Lithium-ion battery supply chain consider-
ations: analysis of potential bottlenecks in critical metals. Joule 1:229–243
37. Portillo-Barco C, Charnley F (2015) Data requirements and assessment of technologies
enabling a product passport within products exposed to harsh environments: a case study of a
high pressure nozzle guide vane. Int J Prod Lifecycle Manag 8:253–282
38. Rajaeifar MA, Raugei M, Steubing B, Hartwell A, Anderson PA, Heidrich O (2021) Life cycle
assessment of lithium-ion battery recycling using pyrometallurgical technologies. J Ind Ecol 25:
1560
39. Saw LH, Ye Y, Tay AA (2016) Integration issues of lithium-ion battery into electric vehicles
battery pack. J Clean Prod 113:1032–1045
40. Skeete J-P, Wells P, Dong X, Heidrich O, Harper G (2020) Beyond the EVent horizon: battery
waste, recycling, and sustainability in the United Kingdom electric vehicle transition. Energy
Res Soc Sci 69:101581
41. Sommerville R, Zhu P, Rajaeifar MA, Heidrich O, Goodship V, Kendrick E (2021) A
qualitative assessment of lithium ion battery recycling processes. Resour Conserv Recycl
165:105219
42. Sun P, Bisschop R, Niu H, Huang X (2020a) A review of battery fires in electric vehicles. Fire
Technol 56:1361–1410
43. Sun X, Hao H, Liu Z, Zhao F (2020b) Insights into the global flow pattern of manganese.
Resources Policy 65:101578
44. Trading Economics (2023) Cobalt [Online]. Tradingeconomics.com. Available: https://
tradingeconomics.com/commodity/cobalt. Accessed 29 July 2023
45. Vasconcelos DDS, Tenório JAS, Botelho Junior AB, Espinosa DCR (2023) Circular recycling
strategies for LFP batteries: a review focusing on hydrometallurgy sustainable processing.
Metals 13:543
46. Wang M, Liu K, Dutta S, Alessi DS, Rinklebe J, Ok YS, Tsang DC (2022) Recycling of lithium
iron phosphate batteries: status, technologies, challenges, and prospects. Renew Sust Energ Rev
163:112515
47. Wentker M, Greenwood M, Asaba MC, Leker J (2019) A raw material criticality and environ-
mental impact assessment of state-of-the-art and post-lithium-ion cathode technologies. J
Energy Storage 26:101022
48. Winslow KM, Laux SJ, Townsend TG (2018) A review on the growing concern and potential
management strategies of waste lithium-ion batteries. Resour Conserv Recycl 129:263–277
49. Wood M, Li J, Ruther RE, Du Z, Self EC, Meyer HM III, Daniel C, Belharouak I, Wood DL III
(2020) Chemical stability and long-term cell performance of low-cobalt, Ni-rich cathodes
prepared by aqueous processing for high-energy Li-ion batteries. Energy Storage Mater 24:
188–197
50. Xu C, Dai Q, Gaines L, Hu M, Tukker A, Steubing B (2020) Future material demand for
automotive lithium-based batteries. Commun Mater 1:1–10
51. Yoshino A (2012) The birth of the lithium-ion battery. Angew Chem Int Ed 51:5798–5800
52. Zhao X, Lehto V-P (2020) Challenges and prospects of nanosized silicon anodes in lithium-ion
batteries. Nanotechnology 32:042002
Part V
Emerging Battery Chemistries
Preface
Batteries are playing a central role within the European Green Deal roadmap that
targets climate neutrality by 2050. Indeed, rechargeable batteries of high energy
density and round-trip efficiency and designed by a sustainable approach represent
the key technology for many applications, from sustainable and smart mobility,
clean, affordable, and secure energy from intermittent renewable sources, smart
environments, and communications. However, the search for battery chemistries
offering even higher energy and/or power density in combination with enhanced
sustainability is still open. This chapter takes a technology perspective and intro-
duces the fundamental technical and electrochemical concepts and working princi-
ples of the most relevant battery chemistries. As such, it is fundamental for
understanding the general principles of battery energy storage. Within this,
Chapter 10 focuses on “classic” closed systems, with the most prominent represen-
tative being lithium-ion batteries, but tackles also other emerging systems such as
sodium-ion or solid-state technologies. Chapter 11 then deals with open systems,
mainly redox-flow batteries, where energy and power can be scaled independently.
Chapter 10
Closed Battery Systems
Akiko Tsurumaki, Sergio Brutti, Giorgia Greco,

and Maria Assunta Navarra
Contents
10.1 Lithium Metal Batteries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 173
10.2 All-Solid-State Lithium Metal Batteries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 179
10.3 Sodium and Sodium Ion Batteries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 186
10.4 Battery Technologies Based on Alkaline Earth Metals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 193
10.5 Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 201
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 201
10.1 Lithium Metal Batteries
Electrochemical plating/stripping of lithium metal at the negative electrode of

aprotic batteries can in principle provide significant functional improvements
compared to Li ion intercalation electrodes, in terms of the outstanding performance
of the Li metal electrode (theoretical capacity = 3860 mAh g-1 and
E° = -3.04 V vs. SHE, standard hydrogen electrode, cf. 372 mAh g-1 and
≈ - 2.9 V vs. SHE for graphite) [1]. A high energy density of 400–600 Wh kg-1
can be achieved when lithium metal anode is combined with intercalation-type
cathode materials such as LiFePO4, LiCoO2, lithium–nickel–manganese–cobalt
oxide (NMC), and lithium–nickel–cobalt–aluminum oxide (NCA). The use of Li
metal anode is also proposed in Li–sulfur (Li–S) batteries and Li–oxygen (Li–O2)
batteries, thus enabling further increase in the energy density of these
A. Tsurumaki · S. Brutti · G. Greco · M. A. Navarra (✉)

Department of Chemistry, Sapienza University of Rome, Rome, Italy
e-mail: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected];
[email protected]

174 A. Tsurumaki et al.
next-generation battery chemistries. However, and despite the extraordinary research

efforts made in the last five decades by researchers all over the word, lithium metal
electrodes in secondary, i.e., rechargeable, batteries are still far from being commer-
cially feasible. In fact, there are fundamental limitations that hinder the reversibility
of lithium metal stripping/deposition in aprotic electrolytes based on liquid, polymer,
or crystalline components [2].
In the lithium metal battery (LMB) technology, the reduction potential of Li is
below that of conventional organic electrolytes. Therefore, lithium metal electrodes
show Coulombic efficiencies upon cycling lower from unity in batteries. This fact
makes the electrolyte a critical component in the development of LMB. In addition,
the uneven deposition morphology of Li and inhomogeneous electrochemical dis-
solution lead to dendrite and dead lithium formation, lowering the Coulombic
efficiencies [3]. A wide variety of approaches has been proposed to tackle these
drawbacks, rooted in thermodynamics and kinetics of the lithium stripping/deposi-
tion. Overall, the electrochemical reversibility of lithium metal electrodes can be
enhanced by the following four main strategies [4]:
1. Optimization of the electrolyte formulation to control the solid electrolyte inter-
phase (SEI) formation over the electrodes
2. Pre-deposition of an artificial SEI over the lithium metal electrode
3. Exploitation of open three-dimensional scaffolds with controlled meso- or nano-
morphologies to buffer volume expansions and self-heal the formation of dead
lithium
4. Substitution of liquid electrolytes with solid polymer and inorganic materials, and
their combination into hybrid electrolytes, to limit side reactions at the lithium
metal surface
10.1.1 Mechanism of the Electrochemical Lithium

Stripping/Deposition in Liquid Electrolytes
Lithium metal is an extraordinary reducing agent with the redox potential of

E° = -3.04 V vs. SHE. Almost all aprotic liquid solvents with polar groups suitable
for the formulation of secondary battery electrolytes are thermodynamically unstable
in contact with lithium. This thermodynamic constraint causes an immediate degra-
dation of solvent molecules in contact with the surface of lithium metal through a
pseudo-corrosion mechanism [5]. The degradation is initiated by the irreversible
reduction of one solvent molecule:
solvent þ Li → solvent • - þ Liþ ðsolvÞ
and this reaction unavoidably creates pitting holes over the lithium metal through the
release of solvated Li+ ions in the electrolyte, simultaneously generating the unstable
radical solvent• - anion in a doublet state [6]. This radical molecule easily undergoes
further reactions with other solvent molecules:
10 Closed Battery Systems 175
solvent • - þ solvent → ðsolvent–solventÞ • -
to form a short-chain radical polymer (solvent–solvent)• -. The radical can also react
with the salt anion (e.g., LiPF6) to form insoluble lithium salts like lithium fluoride:
solvent • - þ LiPF6 ðsolvÞ → LiF ðsolidÞ þ ðPF5 –solventÞ • - :
In turn, unstable alkyl carbonate–fluorophosphate adducts, i.e., (PF5–solvent) • -,

are formed that easily further degrade through irreversible multistep processes,
leading to a precipitation of the insoluble species and/or an alteration of the electro-
lyte composition. Another degradation process of the solvent• - radical anion is its
intramolecular breakup promoted by a further reduction, leading to the formation of
gaseous species (i.e., molecular hydrogen, ethylene, and other small volatile organic
molecules like formaldehyde, acetylene, etc.) [7]. These multifarious radical chain
reactions, initiated by the inevitable reduction of solvent molecules, lead very
rapidly to the precipitation of insoluble inorganic and organic by-products (e.g.,
Li2CO3, Li2O, lithium alkyl carbonates, esters, etc.) over the surface the lithium
metal, thus forming a passivation film (i.e., a natural solid electrolyte interphase,
namely, n-SEI) [8]. This n-SEI completely passivates the surface of lithium metal,
within the pitting holes as well as in the outer areas, but the pseudo-corrosion is not
remarkable in the latter. Therefore, the n-SEI is unavoidably inhomogeneous in the
nanometer scale, with significant compositional and morphological differences.
Furthermore, in the initial electrochemical lithium deposition or oxidation of the
lithium electrode, further electrolyte degradation occurs ending in the complete
passivation of the surface by a thick passivation n-SEI film that is reminiscent of
the original natural SEI [9].
The compositional inhomogeneity of the n-SEI originates from the so-called
weak points, where the accumulation of organic by-products makes the local electric
resistance larger compared to the surrounding areas of the electrode. These weak
points become the most favorable nucleation sites for the electrochemical deposition
of lithium metal and the electrochemical stripping of lithium ions. Overall, the
surface of the lithium metal electrodes upon cycling will alter, driven by the local
fluctuation of the n-SEI transport properties, thus leading to the aggravation of the
original morphological inhomogeneities with formation of dendrites and pitting
holes [10].
Once formed, dendrites increase remarkably the volume of the lithium metal
electrode and grow preferentially toward the counter-electrode, following the elec-
tric field lines. This growth leads to internal short circuits and catastrophic cell
failures. Moreover, dendrite formation exposes additional fresh lithium surface to
the electrolyte, thus leading to further electrolyte degradation and accumulation of
n-SEI. This mechanism is particularly unfavorable as it drives the formation of dead
lithium upon stripping. This is because dendrites can be electrochemically dissolved
during discharge, and therefore it is possible that a portion of the metallic lithium
dendrite, passivated by the unfavorable n-SEI, may lose an electronic contact with
Fig. 10.1 Optimal

properties of SEI layers over
metallic lithium [12]
the bulk of the electrode. Unavoidably, these isolated lithium dendrites cannot
undergo further electrochemical reactions leading to the loss of active material [11].
In general, the n-SEI grown on lithium metal before and upon cycling should
meet several requirements to mitigate the dendrite growth, enhance the reversibility
of plating/stripping, and suppress the formation of dead lithium as schematically
summarized in Fig. 10.1.
Unfortunately, the n-SEI layer formed in typical LIB electrolytes is unable to
fulfill these demands, and, as already mentioned, different strategies have been
considered to tackle this challenge, in particular forming artificial SEI layers or
altering the nature of the n-SEI. Another radical approach is to replace liquid
electrolytes moving to solid-state (electrolyte) batteries.
10.1.2 SEI Modulation via In Situ Formation
The formation of the SEI can be modulated by electrolyte additives that can alter the
degradation mechanism to form more homogeneous and stable passivation films
over the surface of the lithium metal electrodes. These sacrificial chemical species
initially consume some metallic lithium of the electrode, but this consumption is
generally limited and will end once the lithium electrode surface is passivated in situ
by a modified solid electrolyte interphase (m-SEI). These electrolyte additives
belong to two main groups depending on their main effect, i.e., reduction-type and
reaction-type additives [13].
Reduction-type additives have a relatively high redox potential and are reduced
upon lithium deposition prior to any unfavorable effect on the electrolyte [14]. Their
decomposition products form an insoluble film, protecting the electrode/electrolyte
interface, with enhanced transport properties compared to the n-SEI formed sponta-
neously without the additive. Reduction-type additives are divided into two sub-
groups. The first subgroup consists of reactive compounds containing unsaturated
bonds like vinylene carbonate (VC) or fluoroethylene carbonate (FEC) and promotes
the accumulation of polymerized organic species over the surface of the lithium
metal electrodes. The second subgroup includes reductive agents aiding the SEI
formation. This class of reductive additives is electrochemically reduced before the
electrolyte decomposition by-products precipitate onto the lithium surface. These
additives can also react with radical species generated during the initial solvent
reduction process, thus terminating the radical chain reaction that leads to the
uncontrolled n-SEI formation. The most common chemical species that belong to
this class are sulfur-containing chemical like sulfolane, ethylene sulfite, or dialkyl-
sulfone [15]. Their degradation ends with the formation of insoluble lithium sulfites
or alkyl lithium sulfites.
Reaction-type additives are typically molecules with scavenging abilities. These
species can react with intermediates of the natural degradation radical chain reaction
of the electrolyte in contact with lithium surfaces, altering the final composition of
the SEI by promoting the accumulation of electrochemically inert species with
favorable transport properties. (Trimethylsilyl)isothiocyanate can easily scavenge
PF5 as well as phosphite-containing compounds, thanks to their strong nucleophilic
character [16].
Besides reaction-type and reduction-type additives, it is important to mention the
possible use of co-salts of multivalent cations (e.g., Mg2+, Ca2+, Zn2+ Fe2+, In3+, and
Ga3+). Many of these cations can alloy with lithium upon reduction worsening the
ionic transport properties across the entire electrode surface. This effect leads to a
smaller ionic conductivity but mitigates the uncontrolled growth of lithium
dendrites [17].
10.1.3 Ex Situ Deposition of Artificial SEI
The second general strategy to improve the reversibility of lithium stripping/depo-

sition is the ex situ preformation of an artificial SEI layer (a-SEI) on the surface of the
metallic electrode. This strategy cannot fully prevent the spontaneous reactivity of
the electrolyte with the lithium surface but can strongly mitigate its occurrence and
therefore strongly reduce the chemical and morphological inhomogeneity of the
lithium electrode surface. In general, a-SEIs over lithium metal electrodes can be
synthesized by atomic-layer deposition (ALD), aeration, or chemical coating in a
liquid precursor solution [18].
ALD is an advanced thin-film fabrication technique capable of producing homo-
geneous and ultrathin films at room temperatures or slightly above [19]. The final
surface film is extremely thin, thanks to the careful control of the mass-loading of the
a-SEI allowed by the technique. These ultrathin films are typically constituted by
Al2O3 that, during the electrochemical deposition of lithium, firstly converts into the
highly conductive lithium aluminate LixAl2O3 that stabilizes further the a-SEI and
allows a remarkable limitation of the dendrite growth [20].
Aeration is a chemical deposition method from the gas phase, in which the
lithium metal surface reacts with almost permanent gaseous species like N2 or O2
to form homogeneous nitride or oxide layers. Since Li3N is an electrochemically
stable and fast ion conductive chemical species, the precipitation of a continuous and
homogeneous thin film of lithium nitride over the surface of lithium metal acts to
prevent side reactions between lithium metal and the electrolyte without hindering
the lithium ion mobility [21].
The a-SEI, starting from selected liquid precursor solutions, can be obtained by
using the so-called dip-coating or drop-casting method. A suitable chemical com-
position of the precursor solutions promotes the formation of a-SEI with controlled
compositions and surface moieties. In fact, the constituent species of the precursor
solution degrades due to the direct chemical reaction with the metallic lithium
forming a preliminary passivation film [22]. This a-SEI can mitigate the unavoidable
reactivity of the metallic lithium surface with the electrolyte upon cycling. The
composition of the precursor solutions can modulate the composition of the resulting
a-SEI allowing the control of the transport and mechanical properties of the a-SEI.
An almost innumerable number of precursor solutions have been proposed in the
literature, all leading to an improvement in the overall reversibility of the lithium
plating/stripping. Among the many possibilities, one that should be mentioned is the
use of polyphosphoric acid solution in organic solvents like dimethyl sulfoxide that
promotes the formation of a Li3PO4-rich a-SEI, with excellent chemical stability,
high Young’s modulus (10–11 GPa), and high lithium ion conductivity [23].
10.1.4 3D Engineering of the Electrode Morphology
The third possible approach is to modify the morphology of the surface where Li is
plated (either Li metal or directly the current collector) by an engineering at the
nanoscale. Mechanically robust and chemically inert three-dimensional scaffolds or
generic frameworks are used to facilitate homogeneous deposition of lithium metal,
thus indirectly limiting the degradation of the electrolyte over fresh lithium surface
[24]. The coating of lithium metal electrodes with very thin amorphous carbon-based
hollow nanostructures can modulate the Li+ ion transport pathways toward the metal
surface, leading to the nucleation and growth of the lithium deposits either over Li or
the current collector. Furthermore, lithium metal can deposit within the hollow
nanostructures with a minimal contact with the electrolyte, thus mitigating any
further degradation. Also, the use of two-dimensional materials like graphene or
hexagonal boron layer can modulate the lithium stripping/deposition reaction by
inducing specific growth morphologies and the formation of a tailored a-SEI [25].
The use of open nickel foams as a current collector and support for the lithium
deposition is also an effective strategy to accommodate the huge volumetric changes
experienced by conventional host-less flat electrodes to lead homogeneous lithium
deposition. In fact, the 3D open foam can be infused with molten lithium by capillary
force forming a composite scaffold with a minimized interfacial resistance and
empty spaces to buffer volumetric changes upon stripping and deposition [26].
10.2 All-Solid-State Lithium Metal Batteries
The use of commercially available organic liquid electrolytes in LMBs, as well as in

Li ion batteries (LIBs), unavoidably poses major safety issues because of their
flammability and strongly exothermic reactivity with lithium that can easily self-
heat the battery in case of accidents, leading to catastrophic explosions. The replace-
ment of liquid electrolytes with a solid electrolyte (SE) allows to tackle this serious
drawback drastically and reduces the risk of fire and explosion even in case of major
thermal, mechanical, or electrical abuse. As a further advantage, the use of SEs as an
electrolyte having a function of separator increases the overall volumetric energy
density of the batteries, thus improving the overall performance [27].
The ideal set of properties of SEs is [28, 29]:
1. High ionic conductivity (>10-4 S cm-1, better >10-3 S cm-1 in the case of thick
composite electrolytes) with a high Li+ transference number (tLi+), especially at
low temperatures
2. Good chemical compatibility with other battery components including
lithium metal
3. Good thermal and electrochemical stability at a wide range of temperatures and
voltages for the constant operation of cells, including the thermal stability also in
terms of the absence of phase transition so as to avoid the formation of low
conductive solid phase
4. Minimal interfacial resistance between SE and electrodes
5. High electronic area-specific resistance, resulting in conductivities <10-12 S cm-
1
, to prevent self-discharge
6. Appropriate mechanical strength to resist dendrite growth
7. Good affordability in terms of less environmental impact, allowing for simple and
low cost fabrication of both SE itself and devices
All-solid-state batteries with lithium metal electrodes (ASS-LMB) are classified
as “generation 4b batteries” by the EU commission. However, despite the excellent
functionality of SEs, several drawbacks hinder their development beyond the
lab-scale and the final commercialization. The most relevant challenges are the
unsatisfactory ionic conductivity compared to classical liquid electrolytes, the
large impedance at the electrode–electrolyte interfaces, and the electrochemical
instability against lithium metal of SE constituents.
10.2.1 Classification of Solid Electrolytes
Solid-state electrolytes can be either inorganic solid electrolytes (ISEs), solid poly-
mer electrolytes (SPEs), or their composites. The former electrolyte can further be
divided into oxide types, sulfide types, and others including hydride, borate, and
phosphate types. The oxide-type ISEs have good chemical and electrochemical
stability. The design of a material with a good air stability and low toxicity is
possible. They exhibit a fast ionic conductivity in bulk, up to 10-3 S cm-1 at
room temperature; however, to achieve this ionic conductivity, a sintering procedure
at high temperatures, conventionally at around 1000 °C, is necessary to reduce grain
boundary resistance between electrolyte particles. In contrast to this, sulfide-type
ISEs have a low oxidation stability and high reactivity in the presence of moisture
but exhibit a high ionic conductivity merely by pressing the materials at room
temperature (so-called low-temperature sintering). This is because of a larger size
S2- which broadens ion conduction pathways in the electrolyte structure and the
higher polarizability of S2- which weakens the interaction with Li+. On the other
hand, SPEs have several advantages in manufacturing processes, such as simple
production of large-area films, easy formation of a seamless interface with the
electrodes, and possible handling of SPE in ambient air. However, it is not easy to
find a suitable combination of a polymer matrix and additive salt that can exhibit
ionic conductivity higher than that of ISEs, except for the combinations forming gel
polymer electrolytes.
10.2.2 Ion Conduction Mechanisms of Solid Electrolytes
ISEs normally consist of two sublattices: a crystalline framework composed of

immobile ions and a sublattice of mobile ions [30]. Therefore, Li+ ions move within
an essentially static framework through ion hopping (i.e., the Grotthuss mechanism),
which is favorable with regard to a faster ion conduction. The mobile species in a
crystalline solid need to pass through periodic bottleneck points, which defines
migration energy. To reduce the energy barrier and achieve faster ion conduction,
(1) the number of mobile ions and their hopping sites, as well as the vacancy of the
mobile ions, (2) the size of bottleneck points, (3) the degree of structural order in a
mobile ion sublattice, and (4) the presence of highly polarizable anions in sublattices
are critical factors [31]. In glassy inorganic materials, the ion conduction mecha-
nisms are quite like those in crystalline structures. The ions at local sites, being
excited to neighboring sites, diffuse collectively on a macroscopic scale. In contrast
to these, in SPEs, the motion of Li+ ions is mediated by the dynamics of the host
polymer, i.e., the vehicular mechanism, thereby restricting the ion conduction to a
relatively slow speed. The segmental motions of polymer chains create free volumes
that allow for the migration of ions coordinated by the polymer polar groups, and
ions migrate from one coordinate site to another, promoted by the segmental
motions. The ionic conductivity, in this case, is strongly dependent on the crystal-
linity of the host polymer.
10.2.3 Development of Inorganic Solid Electrolytes
The diffusion of ions in crystalline solids is significantly affected by both ion valence
and ionic radius of the migrating species because these influence electrostatic
interactions between mobile ions and cations forming the structural skeleton
[31]. In addition to this, the natures of the ligands and metals composing the skeleton
of the host framework have large impacts on the performance of ISEs because they
determine the channel size for ion migration. In the case of Li+ diffusion, since
controlling the bottleneck size for the ion diffusion has been successful in enhancing
Li+ conductivity and reducing the activation energy, structural tuning by cation
substitutions within a given structural framework has been intensively studied.
Among those investigated, the most attractive Li+ conductors, based on oxides
such as natrium super ionic conductor (NASICON) type, garnet type, and perovskite
type, as well as sulfides such as lithium super ionic conductor based on sulfides (thio-
LISICON) type, Li10MP2S12 (LGPS) type, argyrodite type, and Li7P3S11 type, are
summarized in this section and Table 10.1.
NASICON-Type (e.g., LATP/LAGP) NASICON-type Li+ conductors are
represented by the general formula of AM2(PO4)3, in which A = Li and M = Ge,
Ti, Zr, etc., forming a three-dimensional framework of MO6 octahedra alternatively
connected with PO4 tetrahedra by sharing their vertices [31]. Lithium ions occupy
two different sites in the structure, so-called A1 and A2 sites, and their migration
occurs via ion hopping between these sites. The limitation for the ion motion comes
from triangular oxygen windows, which separate the A1 and A2 sites, known as the
bottleneck [38]. Therefore, optimization of the bottleneck size effectively improves
the ionic conductivity and reduces its activation energy.
The first strategy for this issue is the use of larger M ion in AM2(PO4) structure
[33]. For example, the ionic conductivity of LiGe2(PO4)3 is only 6.62 × 10-9 S cm-1
[32]. In the case of LiTi2(PO4)3 and LiZr2(PO4)3, where Ge4+ is replaced with larger
ions, their ionic conductivities improve to 2 × 10-6 S cm-1 and 3.8 × 10-5 S cm-1 at
room temperature, respectively. The second strategy is the aliovalent substitution,
resulting in A1 + xM′xM2–x(PO4)3, in which M′ = Al, Ga, La, etc. This increases the
Li+ concentration and also its mobility [33]. The concentration of M3+ needs to be
limited to 15% (x = 0.3) to avoid the formation of a secondary phase due to an
ionic radius mismatch [31]. Al-doped NASICON-type materials, such as
Li1 + xAlxTi2 - x(PO4)3 (LATP) and Li1 + xAlxGe2–x(PO4) (LAGP), are known to
exhibit ionic conductivities of ~3 × 10-3 S cm-1 (when x = 0.3) [31] and 1.0 × 10-
3
S cm-1 (when x = 0.5), respectively [33]. Both LATP and LAGP are stable at
relatively high potentials and in air, while they are unstable at low potentials because
Ti4+ is easily reduced. The formation of a protective layer based on polymers,
LiPON, or other ISEs allows the use of this kind of materials with lithium metal
anodes [39].
Garnet-Type (e.g., LLZO) The general formula of garnet-type materials is
A3B2(XO4)3, in which A = Ca, Mg, Y, La, etc., B = Al, Fe, Ga, Ge, Mn, Ni, V,
etc., and X = Si, Ge, Al, etc., forming eightfold, sixfold, and fourfold coordinated
Table 10.1 Properties of different kinds of ISEs

Conductivity
Structure Basic at R.T./ S Advantage/
type structure Particular composition cm-1 disadvantage [Ref]
Oxides
NASICON AM2(PO4)3 LiTi2(PO4)3 2 × 10-6 High air stabil- [32]
A site for Li1 + xAlxTi2 - x(PO4)3 ~ 3 × 10-3 ity/incompati- [31]
Li+ (LATP) (x = 0.3) ble with
Li1 + xAlxGe2–x(PO4)3 1.0 × 10-3 lithium metal [33]
(LAGP) (x = 0.5) anode because
of Ti4+ with
poor resistance
to reduction
Garnet A3B2(XO4)3 Li7La3Zr2O12 1.63 × 10-6 Stable against [34]
X site for (LLZO) (tetragonal) lithium metal/
Li+ Li7La3Zr2O12 2.44 × 10-4 lithiophobic [32]
(LLZO) (cubic)
Li6.24Al0.24La3Zr2O11.98 4 × 10-4 [35]
Li6.4Ga0.2La3Zr2O12 1.32 × 10-3 [35]
Perovskite ABO3 Li3xLa2/3–x□1/3–2xTiO3 10-3 Presence of [32]
A site for (0 < x < 0.167, LLTO) grain boundary
Li+ resistance,
incompatible
with lithium
metal anode
because of Ti4+
Sulfides
Thio- LixM1– Li3.25Ge0.25P0.75S4 2.2 × 10-3 High ionic [36]
LISICON yM’yS4 conductivity
LGPS Li10MP2S12 Li9.54Si1.74P1.44S11.7Cl0.3 2.5 × 10-2 (merely after [32]
Argyrodite Li6PS5X Li6PS5Cl 1.9 × 10-3 pressing)/lim- [36]
Li6PS5Br 6.8 × 10-3 ited stabilities
in the contact
Li7P3S11 Li2S–MSn Li7P3S11 1.7 × 10-2 [37]
with moisture
and lithium
structures centered on A, B, and X cations, respectively [32]. Li+-conductive garnets

have the general composition of A3B2(LiO4)3. The Li+ content can be increased by
the aliovalent doping, and several materials with different stoichiometry such as the
Li3 series, Li3Ln3Te2O12 (Ln = Y, Pr, Nd, etc.), Li5 series, Li5La3M3O12 (M = Nb,
Ta, Sn, etc.), Li6 series, Li6ALa2M2O12 (A = Ca, Sr, Ba, etc., and M = Nb, Ta, etc.),
and L7 series, Li7La3M2O12 (M = Zr, Sn, Hf, etc.), have been reported [32]. Garnets
with Li+ concentration > 3, e.g., Li7La3Zr2O12 (LLZO), are identified as stuffed
lithium garnets [40]. In these stuffed lithium garnets (i.e., Li5-7 series), Li+ occupies
both tetrahedral and highly distorted octahedral coordination sites, while in the
conventional garnets (i.e., Li3 series), Li+ occupies only a tetrahedral coordination.
Li ions in octahedral site migrate easily, while those in the tetrahedral site are not.
In the case of Li7 series garnet-type materials, including LLZO, the material can
possess a cubic phase featuring a disordered lithium arrangement in addition to a
tetragonal phase featuring a fully ordered lithium occupancy [32, 35]. The formation
of a cubic structure is critical to achieve a high level of ionic conductivity. Alumi-
num doping is known to stabilize the cubic phase of LLZO and enhance Li+
conductivity in one to two orders of magnitude compared to undoped tetragonal
LLZO [35]. Furthermore, the ionic conductivity can be increased to 1.32 × 10-
3
S cm-1 by doping Ga3+ [35]. Regarding the electrochemical stability, garnet-type
electrolytes are favorable in terms of showing a stability against lithium metal. In the
case of LLZO, however, the material is lithiophobic [41], resulting in a formation of
the interphase with a high charge transfer resistance. Softening of the lithium at
170–175 °C (about 5–10 °C below Li melting temperature) [1] and the formation of
lithiophilic coating such as those based on ionic liquids or polymers [42, 43] are
known to be an effective solution for this problem. Instability at the interface with
cathode has also been reported. The coating formation is effective also in this case in
preventing oxidations of the electrolyte.
Perovskite-Type (e.g., LLTO) Perovskite structures are described as follows:
ABO3, in which the A-site ions (typically divalent alkaline earth metal ions) locate
at the corners of a cube structure, B ion (typically transition metal ions, such as Ti4+)
at the center, and oxygen atoms at the face-centered positions. Based on this
framework, 12-fold coordination is formed around A sites and sixfold coordination
(BO6) around B sites by a sharing corner with each other [31]. A Li+ conductor can
be obtained by replacing the divalent alkaline earth metal ions at A sites with the
trivalent rare-earth element such as La3+ and monovalent Li+. Just like the other
ISEs, the bottleneck size for the ion conduction needs to be controlled to improve
ionic conductivity, and this has been done by introducing large rare-earth or alkaline
earth metal ions in the A site [31]. The presence of vacancy in the material, more
specifically Li3xLa2/3–x□1/3–2xTiO3 (LLTO, 0 < x < 0.167, □ represents vacancy),
for example, also allows for the enhanced bulk conductivity of 10-3 S cm-1 at
room temperature. In such materials, La-rich and La-poor (i.e., Li-rich) layers are
formed and alternately stacked. Within this structure, Li+ transport is restricted to the
Li-rich layers, and minimal transport occurs between these layers, which limits Li+
transport to be two-dimensional. In polycrystalline structures, Li-rich layers in each
grain are misaligned, and this reduces the ionic conductivity of the materials one to
two orders of magnitude lower than that of the bulk [44]. As observed in other
materials containing Ti4+ with less resistance to reduction, LLTO is not stable in a
low-potential region, making it incompatible with the lithium metal anodes. There-
fore, the partial or complete substitution of Ti4+ with Sn4+, Zr4+, Mn4+, and Ge4+ has
been reported. These modifications need to be carried out so as not to form a
secondary phase and not to decrease the Li+ concentration in the materials [45].
Thio-LISICON-Type and LGPS-Type Thio-LISICON-type electrolytes can be
obtained by substituting O2- by S2- in a LISICON structure, specifically from
LixM1–yM′yO4 to form LixM1–yM′yS4 (M = Si or Ge; M′ = P, Al, Zn, Ga, etc.)
[29]. The thio-LISICON-type electrolytes exhibit higher ionic conductivity
compared with the LISICON electrolytes [31]. This is because of a larger size and
higher polarizability of sulfide ions as discussed before for the classification of SEs.
Depending on the valence of the cations, lithium vacancies in the structure can be
controlled which affect Li+ conduction significantly [46]. The maximum conductiv-
ity of the thio-LISICON family can be as high as 2.2 × 10-3 S cm-1 in the case of
Li3.25Ge0.25P0.75S4 [36]. Thio-LISICON-type electrolytes tend to be unstable faced
with lithium metal. However, their high ionic conductivity established this class of
electrolytes as potential ISEs for the future of ASS batteries.
Li10MP2S12 (M = Si, Ge, or Sn) and Li11Si2PS12 are frequently considered as one
of the thio-LISICON-type electrolytes [31]. However, thio-LISICON-type and these
electrolytes have different crystalline structure, specifically based on orthorhombic
and tetragonal crystal systems, respectively [47], and therefore can be regarded as
different class of materials, namely, LGPS type. The electrolyte consists of (Ge/P)S4
tetrahedra alternating with LiS6 octahedra, forming a one-dimensional chain along
the c-axis by sharing a common edge. These linear chains are connected to each
other by PS4 tetrahedra by sharing a vertex with LiS6 octahedra [36], forming a
backbone structure. Lithium ions locate in the empty space of the backbone structure
by forming LiS4 tetrahedra and create a one-dimensional LiS4 chain along the c-axis,
which is available for Li+ conduction. In addition to this conductive channel, Li+
diffusion is possible between neighboring conduction paths through the LiS6 tetra-
hedra. Aliovalent doping enhances ionic conductivity, and, in particular,
Li9.54Si1.74P1.44S11.7Cl0.3 exhibits ionic conductivity of 2.5 × 10-2 S cm-1 [32].
Argyrodite Type Lithium argyrodite, Li6PS5X (with X = Cl, Br, or I), is also one of
the sulfide-based Li+ conductors, having a face-centered cubic lattice of X-, in
which PS4 tetrahedra locate as if isolated by the anions [31]. Li+ ions form Li6S
octahedra and distribute over the remaining tetrahedral interstices [31]. In the case of
Li6PS5Cl and Li6PS5Br, the halide ions can partially occupy the place of S2- in the
Li6S octahedra due to an X-/S2- site disorder, which promote Li+ mobility signif-
icantly. As a result, annealed Li6PS5Cl and Li6PS5Br exhibit high ionic conductiv-
ities of 1.9 × 10-3 S cm-1 and 6.8 × 10-3 S cm-1, respectively [36]. In contrast to
these, the site disorder does not occur in the case of Li6PS5I due to a large size of I-,
and annealed Li6PS5I shows the low ionic conductivity of 4.6 × 10-7 S cm-1 [36].
Li7P3S11 Type Li7P3S11 is glass-ceramic-type sulfide-based electrolytes, which can
be obtained through the crystallization of glassy electrolytes formed by a binary
mixture of Li2S–P2S5. Binary mixtures of Li2S–MSn, such as Li2S–P2S5, Li2S–B2S3,
and Li2S–SiS2, mixed by a mechanical milling technique exhibit glassy phase with
conductivities of 10-5–10-4 S cm-1 at room temperature. The conductivity can be
improved in the order of 10-3–10-2 S cm-1 by heat treatments because the glassy
electrolyte softens and reduces the grain boundary resistance during the crystalliza-
tion process [36]. Particularly, Li7P3S11, obtained in 70% Li2S–30% P2S5 in molar
ratio, exhibits the ionic conductivity of 1.7 × 10-2 S cm-1 [37]. Li7P3S11 consists
of P2S74- di-tetrahedra and slightly distorted PS4 tetrahedra. An inherent flexibility
of readily fluctuating P2S74- polyhedra enables the fast Li+ migration in the material
[48]. The ionic conductivity of Li7P3S11 phase is higher than those of highly
conductive thio-LISICONs, which mainly contain PS43- [45].
Overall, sulfide-type ISEs possess considerable high ionic conductivities. How-

ever, their drawback is their instability. Several Li2S–P2S5 binary systems are known
to generate H2S upon an exposure to moisture [45]. In addition, at the interface with
lithium metal, multiple solid phases including Li2S, Li3P, Li17Ge4, and
polyphosphide are usually formed, and the most common solution for this problem
is the formation of a-SEI on lithium metal [1]. Also, for the cathode side, the
formation of a protective layer, so-called a buffer layer, usually based on lithium
metal oxide (e.g., LiNbO3, Li2ZrO3) or lithium borate (e.g., Li3B11O8), is
effective [1].
10.2.4 Solid Polymer Electrolytes
Non-swollen dry polymer solid electrolytes, so-called SPEs, with suitable physico-
chemical and mechanical properties can be easily processed into thin separators. The
advantages of SPEs as compared to the ISEs are easy fabrication, better scalability,
high levels of safety, and flexible shapes. Some polymers with a high polarity, such
as poly(ethylene oxide) (PEO) and poly(ethylene carbonate) (PEC), dissolve a large
variety of lithium salts, such as lithium triflate (LiCF3SO3), lithium bis
(fluorosulfonyl)imide (LiFSI), and lithium bis(trifluoromethanesulfonyl)imide
(LiTFSI). The cations and anions dissociated in the polymer matrices are both
mobile, and therefore SPEs act as a dual-ion conductor. Since the ion motion in
the polymer matrices is assisted by the segmental motion of polymer chains, it
mostly occurs within the amorphous fraction of the polymer matrix above its glass
transition temperature (Tg). In this temperature range, the SPEs exhibit an ionic
conductivity of around 10-3–10-4 S cm-1. To reduce Tg, but to still retain the solid
state, copolymerization, insertion of a branch structure, and cross-linking have been
undertaken [49]. In addition, the use of inorganic additives such as Al2O3-, ZrO2-,
TiO2-, SiO2-, and Li+-conductive ceramic fillers (i.e., ISEs) has been confirmed to
improve ionic conductivity and, mainly, enhance the mechanical strength of the
resulting polymer membranes [50].
Despite these promising features, many drawbacks hinder the application of SPEs
in LMB such as:
1. Small tLi+, generally lower than 0.5
2. Occurrence of lithium dendrite growth and dead lithium formation, leading to
poor efficiency and limited reversibility upon cycling
3. Low electrochemical anodic limit, around 4–4.1 V vs. Li+/Li, that limits the
choice of cathode.
Many efforts are presently devoted to tackle these issues. The fixation of an anion
structure such as carboxylate, sulfonate, sulfonylimide, etc., onto a polymer back-
bone allows the SPEs to have the tLi+ of unity. In this case, the effective dissociation
of the immobilized anions and Li+ is essential for the ion conduction. Recently,
fixation of sulfonylimide on SPEs is dominating the material development because a
delocalized negative charge of the anion is favorable for the ion dissociations [51]. In
addition, since an enlarged conjugation structure adjacent to the anion structure can
reduce the ionic interactions, several polystyrene derivatives with functional struc-
tures at the para position have been designed as Li+-conductive SPEs [51].
Besides PEO, also PEC has been proposed and demonstrated as a potential
polymer matrix having the favorable combination of good physicochemical proper-
ties and satisfactory conductivity even at low temperatures. PECs show also a better
anodic stability compared to PEO, thus allowing the use of high-voltage cathode
such as layered oxides. On the other hand, the mechanical properties of PECs
counterbalance the benefits, and relevant dendrite growth occurs at the lithium
metal side [52]. In such cases, the use of dual or multiple polymer layers, having
different functions, may help the homogeneous lithium metal plating/stripping, thus
suppressing the dendrite growth.
10.3 Sodium and Sodium Ion Batteries

10.3.1 Battery Technologies Based on Na Metal
Among the emerging battery technologies alternative to LIBs, sodium-based batte-

ries, in particular sodium metal batteries (NMBs), sodium ion batteries (NIBs), all-
solid-state sodium metal battery (ASS-NMB), Na–S, and Na–O2, show attractive
benefits such as sustainable precursors, secure raw material supplies, and, in princi-
ple, low costs [53–56].
Figure 10.2 shows a schematic view of the most common Na batteries [55]. NIBs
are represented by a porous Na-free negative electrode, a liquid electrolyte, and a
Na-rich positive electrode; the full battery is assembled in the discharged state
(Fig. 10.2a) like LIBs. The most common negative electrodes are composite films
constituted by insertion-type active material, but also conversion and alloying
materials have been proposed and tested. On the other side of the battery, the most
common positive electrode materials tested successfully are layered ternary oxides
that exploit the reversible insertion/de-insertion of Na+ ions driven by the redox
reactions such as Mn4+/Mn3+, Ni4+/Ni3+, or Co4+/Co3+. Regarding liquid electro-
lytes, formulation closely matching those of LIBs based on organic carbonate
solutions has been demonstrated for the utilization in NIBs by simply substituting
lithium salts with sodium salts. An appealing advantage of NIBs compared to LIBs is
the possible use of Al as the negative electrode’s current collector instead of Cu,
thanks to the inability of Al to alloy with Na above the Na+/Na plating/stripping
redox potential [57].
ASS-NMBs are based on positive and negative electrodes, like that of NIBs,
whereas the electrolyte is a solid composite (Fig. 10.2b). ASS-NMBs are recognized
as a promising future battery technology because of their highly improved thermal
stability, although there is room for performance improvement. Other advanced
systems are Na–O2 and Na–S batteries. The former exploits the plating/stripping
Fig. 10.2 Schematic view of the most common Na battery concepts, (a) Na ion battery, (b) solid-
state Na metal battery, (c) Na/O2, and (d) Na/S [55] (License n. 5,396,641,494,902)
reaction of a Na metal at the anode side, whereas porous conducting carbon-based

composites in contact with O2 are used as the cathode, as depicted in Fig. 10.2c. The
electrolyte can be either aqueous or aprotic. The latter, Na–S batteries, has very
similar configuration compared to Na–O2 ones, the most relevant difference being
the presences of a sulfur–carbon composite at the positive electrode and the exclu-
sive use of either liquid or solid aprotic electrolyte.
This section addresses an overview of state-of-the-art Na batteries, which repre-
sent an attractive solution almost suitable to replace Li ion technology in many future
applications [53–56].
10.3.2 Toward Sodium Ion Batteries: Cathode Materials
Research on active materials for cathodes in NIBs can take advantages from all
similar previous studies for LIBs. Table 10.2 visually summarizes the relative merits
of many of the most promising cathodes for NIBs, namely, O3-NaMO2 and
P3-NaxMO2, Prussian blue analogs (PBA), sodium vanadate phosphates (NVP),
and sodium vanadate fluorophosphates (NVPF), belonging to layered oxides
(O3-NaMO2 and P3-NaxMO2), hybrid materials (PBA), and polyanionic phases
(NVP and NVPF) [55, 58–61].
Table 10.2 Comparison of performance for the most promising NIB’s cathodes. The
different colors of the symbols represent high (green), average (orange), and poor (red)
performance. Acronyms of the compounds are described in the main text [55] (License
n. 5,396,641,494,902)
Layered Oxides These materials have a two-dimensional layered structure, in

which the Na ions intercalate and deintercalate reversibly. The general formula of
the most advanced materials within this class is NaxMM’M”M”‘O2, where M, M’,
M”, and M”’ = transition metals, Sn, Al, Mg, etc. This family of materials has a
small molecular weight and therefore a large theoretical capacity; their stoichiome-
tries and redox mechanisms are comparable to those of their Li analogs successfully
used in LIBs [62]. Differently from the lithium layered oxides, Na ions can be
coordinated by both prismatic (P) and octahedral (O) sites in the layered oxide
structure, giving rise to a large variety of phases with different transition metals
and stacking structures. From the performance point of view, capacities can reach as
large as 200 mAh g-1 [62, 63]. The most critical drawback of these materials is the
anticorrelation between Na content and cycling stability. In fact, materials with a
Na/M ratio close to unity show large initial specific capacities but suffer from a
remarkable capacity fading. On the other hand, layered phases with Na/M ratios
close to 0.7 show excellent stability for prolonged cycling at the expense of the
overall capacity [62, 63]. Presently, research efforts are placed on adding extra-
capacity to layered phases arising from excess sodium and anionic redox activity.
However, true Na-rich phases, i.e., Na1 + xM1-xO2, similar to the so-called lithium-
rich layered oxides, are still elusive due to dimension of the Na atom, being larger
than the Li one.
Polyanionic Compounds Polyanionic compounds are also under study as positive
electrodes for NIBs. Their working potentials can be easily tuned by changing the
composition of the cations and polyanions in the structure, thanks to the close
interplay between the variable intensity of the inductive effect provided by different
polyanionic groups and the redox activity of the different transition metals
[64, 65]. The most common polyanionic compounds for NIBs crystallize in typical
prototype lattices, like tavorite, alluaudite, olivine, and NASICON. The crystalline
structure of these materials is more stable compared to layered oxides and allows a
full intercalation/de-intercalation of one or two Na ions. The best performances
reported in a full cell are delivered by V3+-containing compounds [65]. In particular,

the NASICON-like Na3V2(PO4)3 (NVP) [66] and Na3V(PO4)2F3 (NVPF) in a full
cell with hard carbon (HC) as the negative electrode and a liquid aprotic electrolyte
can deliver specific capacities as large as 120 mAh g-1 at 3.4 V vs. Na+/Na with a
good capacity retention even at high current rates [65, 66].
Prussian Blue Analogs (PBAs) PBAs are very attractive materials for positive
electrodes in NIBs. Their general stoichiometry is AxM[M’(CN)6]1-y•zH2O, where
A is an alkali metal, M and M’ are a transition metal ion, and y is the fraction of
vacancies in the crystal structure [67, 68]. Like in the case of layered oxides and
polyanionic structures, also for PBA the choice of specific transition metal blends
allows to tune the redox potential of NIBs [58, 69], allowing the materials to work
either as cathode or anode. PBAs have been proposed by the US company Natron
that demonstrated the ability of PBAs to operate simultaneously as positive elec-
trodes in the form of sodium hexacyanoferrate and as negative electrodes in the form
of hexacyanomanganate, reaching very promising performance [70].
10.3.3 Toward Sodium Ion Batteries: Anode Materials
A visual comparison among the promising materials for negative electrodes in NIBs
is summarized in Table 10.3. Materials can be grouped depending on the reaction
mechanism upon Na+ incorporation/de-incorporation: insertion (HC, graphite, TiO2,
NaxTiO3), alloying (Sn/C, P/C, Sb/C), conversion (MoS2/C), and mixed alloy
conversion (Sb2O3/C).
Insertion Materials The most promising insertion-based materials are the so-called
hard carbons (HCs) having their specific capacities in the range of 300–350 mAh g-
1
, with a Coulombic efficiency in the first cycle as high as 80% [71] and a working
potential below 1 V vs. Na+/Na. On the other hand, soft carbons (SCs) show a much
smaller capacity compared to HCs, i.e., 200–250 mAh g-1, but at lower working
potential 0.5–0.6 V vs. Na+/Na. Overall, despite the capacity retention in prolonged
Table 10.3 Comparison of performance for the most promising NIB’s anodes. The different colors
of the symbols represent high (green), average (orange), and poor (red) performance [55] (License
n. 5,396,641,494,902)
cycling being better for SCs compared to HCs, the latter phases (i.e., HCs) are the
most promising active materials due to the much smaller accumulation of irrevers-
ible capacity compared to SCs, both in the first cycle and cycle-by-cycle, thus
minimizing the waste of charge and the sacrificial positive electrode masses in a
full NIB configuration. To improve the performance of HC, two main strategies are
presently explored [72]. One is the optimization of the HC microstructure and
surface composition to enhance the specific capacity through pseudo-capacitive
and pseudo-plating sodium incorporation mechanisms [73, 74], whereas the second
one is the incorporation of additional and different sp2 carbon structures (like SCs or
graphene) in HC-based carbon electrodes [75]. Both strategies can increase the
capacity unfortunately at the expense of the Coulombic efficiency [75]. Beyond
the improvement of performance, keeping sustainability and low environmental
impact of these kinds of materials is important because these are critical character-
istics. With this respect, it is also crucial to choose the correct precursors for these
materials to keep the low costs and the sustainable philosophy of HC [76].
Alloying Materials This type of anode material shows a higher specific capacity
compared to HC and operates at low voltages [77]. The alloy-forming materials gain
attention due to the ability to incorporate/de-incorporate more than one Na atom per
redox atom, but as a trade-off, they suffered from huge volumetric changes upon
cycling. Different strategies have been proposed to address this issue, such as
minimization of active material particles into a nanometric scale to reduce the
mechanical strain per one particle, the formation of core–shell materials to physically
restrict the volume change, and the utilization of carbon-based additives as a buffer
space [78]. At the same time, however, it is necessary to evaluate whether these
improvements are essential from different perspectives. For instance, carbon-based
additives are added as stabilizing components for alloy-forming materials, but it also
commits as “dead weight” and affects practical capacity of total electrode mass.
The alloy-forming materials are classified into group 4 elements (Si, Ge, Sn),
group 5 elements (P, As, Sb, Bi), and their binary or ternary alloys. Among the group
4 elements, Si and Sn are attractive materials because of their abundance. Despite the
successes of Si in LIBs, Si has not been that successful in NIBs. In the case of Sn,
there are a number of similarities between the Sn in NIBs and LIBs. Among group
5 elements, P is the element with highest theoretical capacity 2596 mAh g-1 arising
from the formation of Na3P [79], but due to its high flammability, its practical
applications have been hindered [80]. Most of developments are centered on P/car-
bon composites due to large volume changes during cycling as well as low electric
conductivity. P/graphene composites are known to show outstanding performances
[81], as well as Sb/carbon composite which can reversibly deliver up to 3 Na per
atom and reach a specific capacity of 610 mAh g-1 with 95% of capacity retention
over 100 cycles [82]. Unfortunately, however, due to the high cost, toxicity, and low
sustainability of the latter material, its practical application is not recommended.
Metal Oxides Like in the case of LIBs, a variety of metal oxides have been
investigated as anode materials for NIBs, and they are known to show distinctive
mechanisms of anode functionality. Among these materials, the most representative
one is titanium oxide, which operates through an insertion mechanism changing its
structure from crystalline to amorphous [83]. Despite the high operating voltage and
the low Coulombic efficiency, this material is very promising because of the low
cost, low toxicity, and availability [83]. Since the conductivity of titanium oxide is
low, the use of dopant has been proposed to increase its electronic conductivity. To
this end, the materials such as TiO2 nanosheets/graphene oxide composites have
been developed and demonstrated to show a capacity above 175 mAh g-1 at 1C for
200 cycles and 90 mAh g-1 at 20C for 10,000 cycles [84].
Conversion Materials The reaction of this type of materials with Na is known to
form a new phase which is structurally very different from the starting one, specif-
ically MaXb + (bc)Na ⇄ aM + bNacX, in which M is a metal (Cu, Fe, Sn, etc.) and X
is an anion (O, S, P, etc.). Despite their high theoretical capacity, there are different
issues related to the conversion materials, such as a low first cycle Coulombic
efficiency, an insulating property, a voltage hysteresis, and a large volumetric
expansion upon cycling together with consequent electrode degradation in long
term due to the deep structural transformation. The electrode composition design
and the right choice of the electrolyte are two investigated strategies to improve and
solve the issues listed above. MoS2 represents a typical conversion-type material
with a theoretical capacity of about 670 mAh g-1 [85]. The electrochemical perfor-
mance and its stability can be improved by engineering the materials such as the
formation of different heterostructures or the combination of MoS2 layers with
different carbon-containing species [86]. Yet, due to the complexity to scale up a
controlled synthesis of MoS2, the large-scale application of this material has not
been successful.
New emerging candidates are the metal phosphides [87] because they sustain the
conversion reaction of the phosphorus within a metal atom network which provides
electric conductivity. Moreover, in these materials, the volumetric expansion and
long-term degradation are mitigated [88].
10.3.4 Liquid Electrolytes and SEI Formation in NIBs
In the case of LIBs, there are various standard electrolytes, which are also commer-
cially available. In contrast to this, the optimal electrolyte of NIBs is still under
development [89]. Like the electrolytes for LIBs, the performance of electrolytes for
NIBs is strongly dependent on the electrode chemistry and electrode combination,
making the optimization of an electrolyte composition complex. Especially in the
case of NIBs, the ability of electrolyte to form SEI at the anode side is crucial
because the SEI based on sodium salts has a higher solubility compared to that based
on lithium salts; thus, the SEI undergoes continuous creation and destruction [90].
The main salts used in literature are sodium perchlorate (NaClO4), sodium
hexafluorophosphate (NaPF6), sodium triflate (NaCF3SO3), and sodium bis
(trifluoromethanesulfonyl)imide (NaTFSI), which are combined with ether or
carbonate solvents [89]. NaClO4 was chosen in the early stage of NIB research, but it
is not ideal because of its explosive nature. As an alternative salt, NaPF6 has been
employed most frequently, although its performances are strongly affected by the
presence of impurities [91].
The main solvents used together with these salts are the same for LIB technology,
such as propylene carbonate (PC), ethylene carbonate (EC), and dimethyl carbonate
(DMC), or their mixtures, which are known to form a stable SEI in the case of LIBs
[91]. Since, in the case of NIBs, there is a problem in the stability of SEI as
mentioned before, the use of additives has been recommended to form a compact,
uniform, and more stable SEI, such as FEC and VC [92], which is the same additive
used to create m-SEI in LIBs. In addition to these, sodium difluoro(oxalato)borate
(NaDFOB), succinonitrile (SN), and 1,3-propane sultone (PS) have been reported as
potential additives. It should be noted that in the case of NIBs, also ether-based
electrolytes show very good performances for different active materials [93] includ-
ing high surface carbons [94]. The use of ether-based electrolytes allows the
co-intercalation of solvated Na+ into graphite and enables the formation of stable
SEI with enhanced Na plating/stripping efficiency.
Several ionic liquids and aqueous-based electrolytes are also proposed as more
sustainable and stable electrolytes [89, 95]. The use of ionic liquids has positive
effect on the stability of SEI. Because of this, very promising results have been
obtained, for example, when ionic liquids are combined with TiO2 anode material
[96]. Due to the high cost of this class of electrolytes, practical application is not yet
realized. In contrast to this, aqueous electrolytes have advantages in terms of their
low cost, good sustainability, and safety [60]. However, the structural stability of the
electrodes in water and the possible side reactions need to be assessed carefully
[60]. Recently, the concept of the “water-in-salt” (WiS) electrolytes has been
proposed. This class of electrolytes is defined as the concentrated aqueous solution
of salt, in which the number of water molecule per ion is far below the solvation
number [60]. These electrolytes consist of contact ion pairs (CIPs) and aggregated
cation–anion pairs, which decrease the availability of water and improve its electro-
chemical stability. By employing the WiS electrolyte, symmetric NIBs based on a
dual V3+/Ti4+ NASICON-structured Na2VTi(PO4)3@C bifunctional electrode were
successfully investigated, showing a stable performance over 2500 cycles at 10C
[97]. This result demonstrated that the fluorine-rich SEI can suppress the electrode
dissolution [97]. Important results of the advances in electrolyte/electrode optimiza-
tion, related to formulation of advanced electrolyte system, are well summarized in
the review of Chen and co-workers [98].
10.3.5 Next-Generation Sodium Batteries
An important step is being taken toward an all-solid-state configuration of the NIB to

eliminate the serious problems related to the flammability of liquid electrolytes
[99]. The first solid-state sodium ion conductor dates to the 1960s, when a fast
two-dimensional sodium-ion-transport phenomenon was discovered in β-alumina

(Na2O•11Al2O3). In the same period, NASICON-type compounds were first studied
leading to the development of Na1 + xZr2SixP3-xO12 (0 ≤ y ≤ 3). Many efforts have
been made to elucidate the mechanism of Na+ transport and to achieve the optimal
compositions. Recently, the inclusion of NaF at the synthesis step of NASICON was
found to be effective for the fast ion transport (resulting in a conductivity of about
4 × 10-3 S cm-1). In addition, different kinds of solid-state electrolytes have been
reported, such as those based on SPEs as well as oxide and sulfide ISEs, as
summarized by Zhao et al. [100]. The ionic conductivity and electrochemical
stability of Na+-conductive solid-state electrolytes are still low, and further devel-
opment is necessary for the commercial use [99].
Other state-of-the-art systems for future sodium technologies are Na–S and Na–
O2 batteries [101]. As a closed system, in this section, focus is placed on Na–S
batteries only, but both are promising systems. Na–S batteries were patented by Ford
Motor Company in the 1960s, which were made of a β-alumina ceramic electrolyte
and cycled at high temperature around 300 °C [102]. At this temperature, Na and S
are both molten and need to be separated by the solid electrolyte. For a practical
application, the working temperature of Na–S batteries must be reduced, and thus
room temperature or intermediate temperature Na–S batteries are being reconsidered
[103]. The important difference between Li–S and Na–S batteries is the thermody-
namically stable species of alkali metal polysulfides, which should be considered for
further development, possibly being both advantageous and disadvantageous.
10.4 Battery Technologies Based on Alkaline Earth Metals
10.4.1 Rechargeable Magnesium Ion Batteries
Magnesium ion batteries (MIBs) have attracted intensive attention due to their high
capacity, high security, and low-cost properties. However, the performance of MIBs
is seriously hindered by the intense polarization and slow diffusion kinetics of Mg2+
ions. To solve these issues, numerous efforts based on both experimental and
theoretical studies have been proposed [104, 105]. In this section, the latest advance-
ment in anode and cathode materials as well as electrolytes for MIBs is summarized
and discussed.
10.4.1.1 Negative Electrode Materials for MIBs
Metallic Magnesium Anodes The volumetric energy density of Mg is higher than

that of Li (3833 vs. 2046 mAh cm-3), which is beneficial for the energy storage
systems [106]. Different from the lithium metal, Mg was considered for a long time
as a metal whose plating is homogeneous without formation of any dendritic
structures [107, 108]. This, together with the low reduction potential of Mg2+ (-
2.37 V vs. SHE), makes Mg metal an ideal anode. Despite these merits, recently
some authors pointed out the potential hazards related with a formation of dendritic
forms or needlelike structures due to uneven deposits on magnesium metal [109–
111]. Moreover, surface side reactions are known to occur on the anode side
resulting in the accumulation of passivation films during the initial cycles of
batteries. Unlike the formation of the SEI on the lithium metal, many reports assume
that the passivation layers on the metallic magnesium have low ionic conductivity
for magnesium cations [112]. Related to the formation and passivation properties of
the interphase, the Coulombic efficiency of magnesium stripping and plating is the
most critical parameter, and this is strongly affected by the electrolyte, its chemical
properties, purity, and concentration of salt(s). Early generation of nucleophilic
electrolytes [113, 114] in ether-based solvents is known to keep magnesium surface
at least partially active (non-passivated). Acting on the metal anode itself, Liang
et al. synthesized ultrasmall Mg particles with a diameter of 2.5 nm [115]. The
ultrasmall nanoparticles reduced the thickness of the passivation film, which
improved the deposition of Mg. Chemical modification is another feasible way to
control the reactivity of Mg metal. Lv et al. used a SnCl2–dimethoxyethane (DME)
solution to treat Mg foil and obtained a modified Mg anode with a tin-based artificial
layer [116]. The Mg anode can maintain stable plating/stripping for more than
4000 cycles at a high current density of 6 mA cm-2. In the same manner, by adding
GeCl4 into Mg(TFSI)2–DME electrolyte, the Ge-based artificial layer was also
formed on the Mg surface, showing a self-repairing process [117].
Alloying Anodes Some elements from block p are known to electrochemically react
with magnesium ions to form an alloy. Alloying materials, such as bismuth (Bi), tin
(Sn), and phosphorus (P), are promising alternatives to Mg metal anode [118]. Alloy
materials may have synergistic effects in MIBs, bringing new properties that single
Mg metal does not have. Bi anode (theoretical volumetric capacity is 3783 mAh cm-
3
) [119] can rapidly insert and extract Mg2+, with the ion dynamics being related to
defect chemistry. In general, gravimetric and volumetric capacities related to the
electrochemical alloying are very high (theoretically up to 900 mAh g-1(Sn) and
6570 mAh cm-3(Sn) for the formation of Mg2Sn). Synergistic effects have been
expected by combining multiple elements such as Bi–Sb (solid solution), Bi–Sn
(composite), or intermetallic compositions of InBi, SnSb, or InSb [120–122]. Like
the alloying-type electrode materials in LIBs, the volumetric changes due to the
alloying and de-alloying process hamper the long-term cycling of the electrode.
However, with a good electrode formulation, high reversible cycling has been
demonstrated especially with Bi-based electrodes (Fig. 10.3) [123]. It is also impor-
tant to consider that alloy electrodes might be easier to produce than magnesium
metal electrode foils. Indeed, alloys can be synthetized in the form of powder by
ball-milling or high-temperature reactions, which can be easily integrated in the
battery industry. Moreover, alloys are certainly less surface sensitive than magne-
sium metal and might be of interest for protecting the Mg surface from the dendritic
growth.
Fig. 10.3 Electrochemical

behavior of Bi nanowires in
a Bi|Mg half-cell at C/2 with
an organohaloaluminate
electrolyte [123] (License
n. 1,322,765)
Intercalation-Type Anodes Although graphite has been widely employed in con-

ventional LIBs, it is difficult for Mg2+ to be inserted into graphite due to its high
ionization potential (7.65 eV for Mg and 5.39 eV for Li) [124]. However, Kim et al.
proved that the co-intercalation of Mg2+ and linear ether solvents is possible through
the density functional theory (DFT) calculations [125]. The Mg2+ storage properties
of carbon nanotubes (CNTs) have also been studied by the DFT. Aslanzadeh et al.
studied the influence of CNTs’ diameter on the voltage of MIBs by calculating the
adsorption energies of zigzag CNTs [126] and demonstrated that the cell voltage
increased with the increase of CNTs’ diameter. Recently, research interest was
shifted to graphene to explore its potential as the anode material for MIBs. Graphene
with 25% double-vacancy defects can achieve a Mg2+ capacity of 1042 mAh g-1
[127]. In addition to these, many other two-dimensional materials have been studied,
such as transition metal carbides (MXene) [128] and borides (MBene) [129]. Regard-
ing metal oxide insertion materials, TiO2 is a very common anode for various
secondary batteries. However, the limited capacity of 110 mAh g-1 at 0.1 C
seriously obstructs its application in MIBs [130]. According to the research of Luo
et al., proton charge compensation in Ti-deficient TiO2 (B) nanowires ensures more
thermodynamic feasibility and sufficient intercalation sites for Mg2+, thereby
increasing the capacity.
10.4.1.2 Positive Electrode Materials for MIBs
The cathode material, a key component of MIBs, predominantly determines the

energy density of batteries. However, most of the cathode materials of MIBs show
small capacity and poor rate capability, which seriously hinder the battery perfor-
mance. Most studies on Mg batteries focus on the combination of Mg metal with
inorganic cathodes based on transition metal redox centers. As of today, inorganic
oxide, polyanionic, and sulfide compounds are the focus of attention of the research
community, but they all present their pros and cons. Moreover, research on inorganic
cathodes for magnesium batteries is sometimes quite perplexing as the lack of highly
oxidative stable Mg electrolytes prevents the evaluation of Mg insertion reactions at
high voltages.
Chevrel Phase Mo6S8 Research on the cathode materials for Mg insertion was
accelerated by the seminal work of Aurbach et al. with a prototype full Mg cell based
on the Chevrel phase Mo6S8 [114] and opened a large avenue of research on
chalcogenides. These structures are very promising due to the weak electrostatic
interactions between Mg2+ ions and the sulfide/selenide-based anion framework.
The low operating voltage (~1.1 V vs. Mg2+/Mg) and low specific capacity (~100
mAh g-1) of Mo6S8, related to an incomplete de-insertion of Mg ions due to the
trapping of partial charges at room temperature, are limiting factors for commercial
application of the given technology. Substituting sulfur by selenium allows for a
100% capacity usage [131] but at the expense of the specific capacity value.
Although the voltage and capacity values are too modest to obtain energy densities
competitive with Li ion batteries, Chevrel structures remain the benchmark elec-
trodes for Mg batteries as they offer remarkable insertion/de-insertion kinetics and
good reversibility.
Layered Cathode Materials Layer materials possess two-dimensional transmission
channels, which enable rapid Mg2+ migration. The reported layered cathode mate-
rials for MIBs include both transition metal oxides and transition metal sulfides, such
as V2O5, MnO2, MoS2, and TiS2 [132]. As a representative, V2O5 has attracted great
attention due to its high theoretical capacity (295 mAh g-1 for MgV2O5) and
working voltage (2.35 V vs. Mg2+/Mg). Compared with transition metal oxides,
the relatively low ionization degree of S in transition metal sulfide weakens the
electrostatic interaction between Mg2+ and negative charge, which is favorable for
the migration of Mg. Yang et al. studied the diffusion kinetics of Mg2+ in MoS2
(theoretical capacity of 223.2 mAh g-1) [133].
Polyanionic Cathode Materials Polyanionic compounds have been widely used in
MIBs because of their versatile variety, stable structure, and strong inductive effect
[134]. In MgMSiO4 (M = Mn, Co, Fe, etc.), Mg2+ diffuses from the octahedral
(O) site to the tetrahedral (T) site [135], with an energy barrier of 740÷770 meV
[136]. Despite olivine FePO4 performing well in LIBs, its capacity in MIBs is only
13 mAh g-1 at 20 mA cm-2 [137], which can be attributed to the amorphous phase
produced on the material surface during the discharge process, preventing Mg2+
from entering the bulk phase of FePO4.
Organic Cathode Materials Although inorganic materials have widely dominated
the field of rechargeable batteries, a great amount of attention has been recently
placed on organic materials because they possess many crucial advantages, like
safety, sustainability, green, low cost, and high theoretical capacity [138]. Carbonyl
conjugates are a large group possessing many C=O functionalities, essentially
determining properties such as diversity, fast reaction kinetics, and high specific
volume. Therefore, compared to other types of organic cathode materials, carbonyl-
conjugated compounds are expected to develop as the next generation of cathode
materials for Mg batteries. Quinone-based monomers are particularly suitable as an
active storage unit, and most of recent reports [139] provided highly attractive
properties in terms of energy and power density as well as cyclability. Other reports
showed applicability of imides and radical organic compounds [140], which in
theory are less attractive in terms of energy density. As well known, electrochemical
characteristics depend also on type of electrolyte, where both salts and solvents play
important roles [141]. It has been demonstrated that the use of Mg(TFSI)2 salt can
increase the capacity utilization of organic electrodes, while the use of AlCl3 can
upshift the potential of redox active compounds [142]. Although redox active
organics in the form of different polymers show the best properties in terms of
cycling and rate capability, there are still some important challenges that need to be
addressed before their potential commercialization.
10.4.1.3 Electrolytes for MIBs
To make MIBs commercially available, further breakthroughs in the electrolyte

chemistry development are needed. As for other battery technologies, the electro-
lytes for MIBs should fulfill multiple criteria such as low toxicity, low cost, wide
electrochemical stability window, and high ionic conductivity. The following main
types of the electrolytes have been explored in MIB technologies: (i) liquid-organic
solvent electrolytes, (ii) solid-state electrolytes, (iii) polymer electrolytes, and
(iv) ionic liquid-based electrolytes [104].
Liquid electrolytes based on organic solvents or ionic liquids are up to now the
best performing materials for Mg deposition/stripping processes. The former elec-
trolytes present a wider electrochemical stability window, while the latter group
shows a lower overvoltage in the Mg deposition process, a higher thermal and
chemical stability, and a negligible flammability.
For the electrochemical reactivity at the Mg metal anode, even traces of water or
other oxygenated coordination ligands must not be present in the electrolyte, to
avoid any compromise in the anodic reversibility, cyclability, and current density
[143]. Actually, oxygenated species cause the formation of a compact MgOx(OH)y
layer on the magnesium metal anode, which hinders the anode–electrolyte charge
exchange processes promoting on its surface the growth of dendrites. On the other
hand, as demonstrated by Novak et al. in the early 1990s [144, 145], water is
necessary in the cathodic side to efficiently and reversibly exchange magnesium
ions between the solid cathode active material and the electrolyte during insertion
and de-insertion processes. This is because water molecules can exfoliate the
cathode layered structure and enhance the Mg2+ diffusion into the bulk cathode
materials by solvating the ions and facilitating their solid-state migration phenomena
[146, 147]. Taking all together, developing electrolytes for MIBs able to address the
so-called “devil” (at anode) and “holy” (at cathode) water dilemma is a very difficult
target.
10.4.2 Calcium Batteries
Calcium (Ca) batteries are emerging as a promising next-generation electrochemical

energy storage system, due to the abundant reservation of calcium and the compet-
itive redox potential of Ca2+/Ca. However, the practical realization of rechargeable
Ca and Ca ion batteries (CIBs) still relies on the identification of suitable electrodes
and electrolytes. Despite reversible calcium plating–stripping being recently dem-
onstrated [148], efforts are still needed to improve both kinetics and efficiency and to
allow a wider range of electrolyte formulations. Widening the electrochemical
stability window of the electrolyte is crucial to lead the development of positive
electrodes operating at high potential [149, 150].
10.4.2.1 The Benefits of Calcium Batteries
Calcium is a divalent alkaline earth metal with an extraordinarily strong oxidative

ability in consideration of the -2.87 V vs. SHE redox potential for the Ca2+/Ca
couple [151, 152], to be compared to the -3.04 V vs. SHE of the lithium metal
electrode. In comparison to other elements under development for battery applica-
tions, calcium is the multivalent metal with the most negative redox potential and an
ionic radius of 114 pm, very similar to Na+, that is the cation easily intercalated/
deintercalated in/from a variety of materials [153]. The theoretical properties of
calcium metal electrodes, in terms of gravimetric and volumetric specific capacities,
surpass those of potassium, sodium (both gravimetric and volumetric), and zinc
(gravimetric) and are like that of lithium (volumetric), thanks to the favorable
combination of intermediate atomic weight and density [149]. In addition, compared
to aluminum and magnesium, calcium has a larger ionic radius and a smaller
electronegativity [154, 155], thus suggesting on the one hand a lower coordination
binding in the liquid phase, thanks to the smaller charge density, and on the other
hand a less covalent bonding in solid lattices. Furthermore, it is highly abundant on
Earth’s crust and industrially inexpensive, much more than Li, Na, K, Mg, and Zn
[150, 156, 157]. Even though calcium has an atomic weight seven times larger than
lithium, the specific capacities of the calcium-based oxides vary in the 100–250 mAh
g-1 range, comparable with lithium intercalation positive electrodes, also for what
concerns the thermodynamic potentials. Similar to the anode materials available for
LIBs, silicon, phosphorus, and carbon negative electrodes can reach large theoretical
capacities at relatively low redox potentials also in the case of CIBs. On the other
hand, calcium carbide is expected to suffer from large kinetic limitations and
overpotentials being the crystal structures of all CaC2 polymorphs remarkably
different from graphite [158]. Moreover, outstanding theoretical performance is
achievable for Ca–O2, as well as for Ca–S, leading to the formation of calcium
peroxide and calcium sulfide.
A tentative evaluation of the relative merit of various calcium-based batteries in
comparison with LIBs can be made using the theoretical performance of the LiCoO2/
C LIB as the baseline (360 Wh kg-1, calculated assuming a ΔE° = 3.6 V and a
specific capacity normalized by the sum of both positive and negative electrode
materials) [159]. The CIBs constituted by CaMn2O4 and Si can disclose a theoretical
energy density of about 520 Wh kg-1, being superior to the benchmark LIB
(mentioned above) and approaching the desirable figures of the LiMn1.5Ni0.5O4/Si
and LiFePO4/Li configurations [159]. Both sulfur battery chemistries, i.e., Ca–S
and Li–S, have a comparable theoretical performance (approximately
1800–2000 Wh kg-1) that is, in both cases, exceeded by the Ca–O2 and Li–O2
ones (~2400 and ~ 3500 Wh kg-1, respectively).
Overall, calcium-based battery chemistries can theoretically achieve performance
of interest, not far from those of lithium-based ones, but research in the field is still in
its infancy. To date, the serious exploitation of cathode materials for CIBs just
started because of the pioneering work of Ponrouch et al., demonstrating the
successful Ca plating/stripping using conventional organic solvents in 2016
[148]. However, the field being in its early stage, the number of reports on positive
electrode materials in the literature is still limited [159–165].
10.4.2.2 Challenges in Developing Calcium Batteries
The operating principle of typical calcium batteries is depicted in Fig. 10.4, using
inorganic framework as cathode and metallic Ca as anode. In this process, a series of
limiting steps occurs [166]. Firstly, the slow diffusion of Ca2+ in the positive
Fig. 10.4 The diffusion, migration process of Ca2+ in a typical calcium battery [166] (License
n. 5,487,100,248,324)
electrode is inevitable. Although the charge density of Ca2+ is small (52 C mm-3, the
same as Li+), its diffusion rate is significantly affected by its large ion radius (0.99 Å,
compared to 0.76 Å for Li+), which is a dominant limiting factor. Secondly, Ca2+
forms solvated calcium in the electrolyte. In some cases, the formed solvated group
is relatively large, making it difficult to migrate in the electrolyte. Moreover, when
the solvated cluster moves to the electrodes, it needs to be de-solvated. A higher
voltage beyond the reorganization energy is needed to break the interatomic bonds in
the solvation cluster. This voltage needs to be within the electrochemical stability
window of the electrolytes; otherwise, it is easy to decompose the electrolyte.
Thirdly, the shuttle of de-solvated calcium ions in SEI is also a matter to be
discussed. SEI is a thin film with a thickness of several nanometers between the
electrolyte and the anode. This layer can protect the anode from continuous damage
and the electrolyte from side reaction with the anode. Ideally, the SEI film is a good
ion conductor but needs to be an electronic insulator. As for CIBs, the main
components of SEI are CaCl2, Ca(OH)2, CaCO3, CaF2, CaH2, etc. [167]. These
substances undergo structural changes during the calcium ion diffusion process. Due
to the strong interatomic bond, many components are thought to be unable to
transmit Ca2+ (such as CaCl2, Ca(OH)2, CaCO3, etc.). Also, continuous insertion/
de-insertion of Ca2+ induces a large volume change of SEI, which may rupture the
thin film. Once Ca2+ passes the SEI and arrives at the anode, the intercalation,
nucleation, or plating of Ca happens [168]. Owing to these complex steps, it is
extremely challenging for calcium to deposit.
The main issues and their current state, to be carefully addressed to allow the
calcium technology being widely applicable, are summarized as follows:
– The Ca2+ ion hosting materials that must be stable enough during the Ca2+
diffusion and insertion/de-insertion: Prussian blue analogs, transition metal com-
pounds, and organic compounds are known as potential materials for this require-
ment [169, 170].
– The reversible stripping/plating of Ca metal at moderate temperature: the proof-
of-concept batteries, as of today, showed an average Columbic efficiency of 96%
for 50 cycles, which is not sufficient for the practical application [160, 171].
– The efficient solvation/de-solvation process of Ca2+-based electrolytes: different
from Li+-based electrolytes, which can form Li+-conducting SEI, the reactions
between electrolytes and calcium tend to generate Ca2+-blocking phases when
contacting with organic electrolytes [172].
Overall, although great efforts have been made to change the electrolyte and
modify the anode–electrolyte interface, the reversible plating/stripping of Ca metal is
still tricky and complicated matter. The complexity of working directly with a Ca
metal anode drives the search for alternative anodes, which can be categorized into
three types based on the calcium ion storage mechanism, including alloying anodes,
intercalation anodes, and organic anodes [166, 173], showing the direction
toward CIBs.
10.5 Conclusions
Among the emerging battery technologies, Na ion batteries as well as alkali metal
batteries, probably solid state, are those expected to become commercially available
in the near- (2–5 years) to mid-term (5–10 years) future. Na ion batteries are already
being developed by several industries following the CATL announcement made at
the end of 2021. Polyvalent metal-based battery chemistries appear to be in the early
stage of development with a few hurdles to be addressed in the next few years.
References
1. Varzi A, Thanner K, Scipioni R, Di Lecce D, Hassoun J, Dörfler S, Altheus H, Kaskel S,

Prehal C, Freunberger SA (2020) Current status and future perspectives of lithium metal
batteries. J Power Sources 480:228803. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpowsour.2020.228803
2. Voropaeva DY, Safronova EY, Novikova SA, Yaroslavtsev AB (2022) Recent progress in
lithium-ion and lithium metal batteries. Mendeleev Commun 32:287–297. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.mencom.2022.05.001
3. Wang H, Yu Z, Kong X, Kim SC, Boyle DT, Qin J, Bao Z, Cui Y (2022) Liquid electrolyte:
the nexus of practical lithium metal batteries. Joule 6:588–616. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joule.
2021.12.018
4. Yuan H, Ding X, Liu T, Nai J, Wang Y, Liu Y, Liu C, Tao X (2022) A review of concepts and
contributions in lithium metal anode development. Mater Today 53:173–196. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.mattod.2022.01.015
5. Zhang H, Qi Y (2022) Investigating lithium metal anodes with nonaqueous electrolytes for
safe and high-performance batteries. Sustain Energy Fuels 6:954–970. https://doi.org/10.1039/
d1se01739j
6. Gao LT, Huang P, Guo Z-S (2022) Critical role of pits in suppressing Li dendrites revealed by
continuum mechanics simulation and in situ experiment. J Electrochem Soc 169:060522.
https://doi.org/10.1149/1945-7111/ac7668
7. Venturi V, Viswanathan V (2022) Thermodynamic analysis of initial steps for void formation
at lithium/solid electrolyte interphase interfaces. ACS Energy Lett 7:1953–1959. https://doi.
org/10.1021/acsenergylett.2c00550
8. Zhang S, Yang G, Li X, Li Y, Wang Z, Chen L (2022) Controlled lithium deposition. Front
Energy Res 10:837071. https://doi.org/10.3389/fenrg.2022.837071
9. Leung K, Merrill LC, Harrison KL (2022) Galvanic corrosion and electric field in lithium
anode passivation films: effects on self-discharge. J Phys Chem C 126:8565–8580. https://doi.
org/10.1021/acs.jpcc.1c10602
10. Zhu S, Chen J (2022) Dual strategy with Li-ion solvation and solid electrolyte interphase for
high coulombic efficiency of lithium metal anode. Energy Storage Mater 44:48–56. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.ensm.2021.10.007
11. Tewari D, Rangarajan SP, Balbuena PB, Barsukov Y, Mukherjee PP (2020) Mesoscale
anatomy of dead lithium formation. J Phys Chem C 124:6502–6511. https://doi.org/10.
1021/acs.jpcc.9b11563
12. He D, Lu J, He G, Chen H (2022) Recent advances in solid-electrolyte interphase for Li metal
anode. Front Chem 10:916132. https://doi.org/10.3389/fchem.2022.916132
13. Li S, Jiang M, Xie Y, Xu H, Jia J, Li J (2018) Developing high-performance lithium metal

anode in liquid electrolytes: challenges and Progress. Adv Mater 30:1706375. https://doi.org/
10.1002/adma.201706375
14. Mogi R, Inaba M, Jeong S-K, Iriyama Y, Abe T, Ogumi Z (2002) Effects of some organic
additives on lithium deposition in propylene carbonate. J Electrochem Soc 149:A1578. https://
doi.org/10.1149/1.1516770
15. Dong L, Liu Y, Chen D, Han Y, Ji Y, Liu J, Yuan B, Dong Y, Li Q, Zhou S, Zhong S, Liang Y,
Yang M, Yang C, He W (2022) Stabilization of high-voltage lithium metal batteries using a
sulfone-based electrolyte with bi-electrode affinity and LiSO2F-rich interphases. Energy
Storage Mater 44:527–536. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ensm.2021.10.045
16. Wu D, He J, Liu J, Wu M, Qi S, Wang H, Huang J, Li F, Tang D, Ma J (2022) Li2CO3/LiF-rich
Heterostructured solid electrolyte interphase with superior Lithiophilic and Li+-transferred
characteristics via adjusting electrolyte additives. Adv Energy Mater 12:2200337. https://doi.
org/10.1002/aenm.202200337
17. Lu Y, Tu Z, Shu J, Archer LA (2015) Stable lithium electrodeposition in salt-reinforced
electrolytes. J Power Sources 279:413–418. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpowsour.2015.01.030
18. Li NW, Yin YX, Yang CP, Guo YG (2016) An artificial solid electrolyte interphase layer for
stable lithium metal anodes. Adv Mater 28:1853–1858. https://doi.org/10.1002/adma.
201504526
19. Niu J, Wang M, Cao T, Cheng X, Wu R, Liu H, Zhang Y, Liu X (2021) Li metal coated with
Li3PO4 film via atomic layer deposition as battery anode. Ionics 27:2445–2454. https://doi.
org/10.1007/s11581-021-04030-z
20. Wang W, Yuan Y, Wang J, Zhang Y, Liao C, Mu X, Sheng H, Kan Y, Song L, Hu Y (2019)
Enhanced electrochemical and safety performance of lithium metal batteries enabled by the
atom layer deposition on PVDF-HFP separator. ACS Appl Energy Mater 2:4167–4174.
https://doi.org/10.1021/acsaem.9b00383
21. Yao Z, Kang Y, Hou M, Huang J, Zhang J, Yang B, Dai Y, Liang F (2022) Promoting
homogeneous interfacial Li+ migration by using a facile N2 plasma strategy for all-solid-state
lithium-metal batteries. Adv Funct Mater 32:2111919. https://doi.org/10.1002/adfm.
202111919
22. Fan L, Zhuang HL, Gao L, Lu Y, Archer LA (2017) Regulating Li deposition at artificial solid
electrolyte interphases. J Mater Chem A 5:3483–3492. https://doi.org/10.1039/c6ta10204b
23. Ma L, Kim MS, Archer LA (2017) Stable artificial solid electrolyte interphases for lithium
batteries. Chem Mater 29:4181–4189. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.chemmater.6b03687
24. Jin C, Sheng O, Luo J, Yuan H, Fang C, Zhang W, Huang H, Gan Y, Xia Y, Liang C, Zhang J,
Tao X (2017) 3D lithium metal embedded within lithiophilic porous matrix for stable lithium
metal batteries. Nano Energy 37:177–186. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nanoen.2017.05.015
25. Lu Z, Zhang Z, Chen X, Chen Q, Ren F, Wang M, Wu S, Peng Z, Wang D, Ye J (2018)
Improving Li anode performance by a porous 3D carbon paper host with plasma assisted
sponge carbon coating. Energy Storage Mater 11:47–56. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ensm.2017.
09.011
26. Qi LY, Shang L, Chen X, Ye L, Zhang W, Feng P, Zou W, Cao N, Zhou HH, Weitz DA, Li X
(2018) A versatile strategy to fabricate 3D conductive frameworks for lithium metal anodes.
Adv Mater Interfaces 5:1800807. https://doi.org/10.1002/admi.201800807
27. Raj V, Aetukuri NPB, Nanda J (2022) Solid state lithium metal batteries – issues and
challenges at the lithium-solid electrolyte interface. Curr Opin Solid State Mater Sci 26:
100999. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cossms.2022.100999
28. Fan L, Wei S, Li S, Li Q, Lu Y (2018) Recent Progress of the solid-state electrolytes for high-
energy metal-based batteries. Adv Energy Mater 8:1702657. https://doi.org/10.1002/aenm.
201702657
29. Zhang Z, Shao Y, Lotsch B, Hu Y-S, Li H, Janek J, Nazar LF, Nan C-W, Maier J, Armand M,
Chen L (2018) New horizons for inorganic solid state ion conductors. Energy Environ Sci 11:
1945–1976. https://doi.org/10.1039/c8ee01053f
30. Manthiram A, Yu X, Wang S (2017) Lithium battery chemistries enabled by solid-state

electrolytes. Nat Rev Mater 2:16103. https://doi.org/10.1038/natrevmats.2016.103
31. Bachman JC, Muy S, Grimaud A, Chang HH, Pour N, Lux SF, Paschos O, Maglia F, Lupart S,
Lamp P, Giordano L, Shao-Horn Y (2016) Inorganic solid-state electrolytes for lithium
batteries: mechanisms and properties governing ion conduction. Chem Rev 116:140–162.
https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.chemrev.5b00563
32. Chen R, Li Q, Yu X, Chen L, Li H (2020) Approaching practically accessible solid-state
batteries: stability issues related to solid electrolytes and interfaces. Chem Rev 120:6820–
6877. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.chemrev.9b00268
33. Hou M, Liang F, Chen K, Dai Y, Xue D (2020) Challenges and perspectives of NASICON-
type solid electrolytes for all-solid-state lithium batteries. Nanotechnology 31:132003. https://
doi.org/10.1088/1361-6528/ab5be7
34. Matsui M, Takahashi K, Sakamoto K, Hirano A, Takeda Y, Yamamoto O, Imanishi N (2014)
Phase stability of a garnet-type lithium ion conductor Li7La3Zr2O12. J Chem Soc Dalton Trans
43:1019–1024. https://doi.org/10.1039/c3dt52024b
35. Xu L, Li J, Deng W, Shuai H, Li S, Xu Z, Li J, Hou H, Peng H, Zou G, Ji X (2020) Garnet solid
electrolyte for advanced all-solid-state Li batteries. Adv Energy Mater 11:2000648. https://doi.
org/10.1002/aenm.202000648
36. Lian P-J, Zhao B-S, Zhang L-Q, Xu N, Wu M-T, Gao X-P (2019) Inorganic sulfide solid
electrolytes for all-solid-state lithium secondary batteries. J Mater Chem A 7:20540–20557.
https://doi.org/10.1039/c9ta04555d
37. Chang D, Oh K, Kim SJ, Kang K (2018) Super-ionic conduction in solid-state Li7P3S11-type
Sulfide electrolytes. Chem Mater 30:8764–8770. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.chemmater.
8b03000
38. Avdeev M (2021) Crystal chemistry of NaSICONs: ideal framework, distortion, and connec-
tion to properties. Chem Mater 33:7620–7632. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.chemmater.
1c02695
39. Jin Y, Zong X, Zhang X, Liu C, Li D, Jia Z, Li G, Zhou X, Wei J, Xiong Y (2021) Interface
regulation enabling three-dimensional Li1.3Al0.3Ti1.7(PO4)3-reinforced composite solid elec-
trolyte for high-performance lithium batteries. J Power Sources 501:230027. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.jpowsour.2021.230027
40. Ramakumar S, Deviannapoorani C, Dhivya L, Shankar LS, Murugan R (2017) Lithium
garnets: synthesis, structure, Li+ conductivity, Li+ dynamics and applications. Prog Mater
Sci 88:325–411. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pmatsci.2017.04.007
41. Fuchs T, Mogwitz B, Otto SK, Passerini S, Richter FH, Janek J (2021) Working principle of an
ionic liquid interlayer during Pressureless lithium stripping on Li6.25Al0.25La3Zr2O12 (LLZO)
garnet-type solid electrolyte. Batter Supercaps 4:1145–1155. https://doi.org/10.1002/batt.
202100015
42. Liu Z, Borodin A, Endres F (2021) Ionic liquid and polymer coated garnet solid electrolytes
for high-energy solid-state lithium metal batteries. Energ Technol 10:2100907. https://doi.org/
10.1002/ente.202100907
43. Mauger A, Julien CM (2021) Remedies to avoid failure mechanisms of lithium-metal anode in
Li-ion batteries. Inorganics 10:5. https://doi.org/10.3390/inorganics10010005
44. Symington AR, Molinari M, Dawson JA, Statham JM, Purton J, Canepa P, Parker SC (2021)
Elucidating the nature of grain boundary resistance in lithium lanthanum titanate. J Mater
Chem A 9:6487–6498. https://doi.org/10.1039/d0ta11539h
45. Zheng F, Kotobuki M, Song S, Lai MO, Lu L (2018) Review on solid electrolytes for all-solid-
state lithium-ion batteries. J Power Sources 389:198–213. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpowsour.
2018.04.022
46. Lau J, DeBlock RH, Butts DM, Ashby DS, Choi CS, Dunn BS (2018) Sulfide solid electro-
lytes for lithium battery applications. Adv Energy Mater 8:1800933. https://doi.org/10.1002/
aenm.201800933
47. Tao B, Ren C, Li H, Liu B, Jia X, Dong X, Zhang S, Chang H (2022) Thio-/LISICON and
LGPS-type solid electrolytes for all-solid-state lithium-ion batteries. Adv Funct Mater 32:
2203551. https://doi.org/10.1002/adfm.202203551
48. Wenzel S, Weber DA, Leichtweiss T, Busche MR, Sann J, Janek J (2016) Interphase
formation and degradation of charge transfer kinetics between a lithium metal anode and
highly crystalline Li7P3S11 solid electrolyte. Solid State Ionics 286:24–33. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.ssi.2015.11.034
49. Wang J, Li S, Zhao Q, Song C, Xue Z (2020) Structure code for advanced polymer electrolyte
in lithium-ion batteries. Adv Funct Mater 31:2008208. https://doi.org/10.1002/adfm.
202008208
50. Mauger A, Julien CM (2022) Solid polymer electrolytes for lithium batteries: a tribute to
Michel Armand. Inorganics 10:110. https://doi.org/10.3390/inorganics10080110
51. Zhu J, Zhang Z, Zhao S, Westover AS, Belharouak I, Cao PF (2021) Single-ion conducting
polymer electrolytes for solid-state lithium–metal batteries: design, performance, and chal-
lenges. Adv Energy Mater 11:2003836. https://doi.org/10.1002/aenm.202003836
52. Wang Y, Chen S, Li Z, Peng C, Li Y, Feng W (2022) In-situ generation of fluorinated
polycarbonate copolymer solid electrolytes for high-voltage Li-metal batteries. Energy Stor-
age Mater 45:474–483. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ensm.2021.12.004
53. Nayak PK, Yang L, Brehm W, Adelhelm P (2018) From lithium-ion to sodium-ion batteries:
advantages, challenges, and surprises. Angew Chem 57:102–120. https://doi.org/10.1002/
anie.201703772
54. Vaalma C, Buchholz D, Weil M, Passerini S (2018) A cost and resource analysis of sodium-
ion batteries. Nat Rev Mater 3:18013. https://doi.org/10.1038/natrevmats.2018.13
55. Hasa I, Mariyappan S, Saurel D, Adelhelm P, Koposov AY, Masquelier C, Croguennec L,
Casas-Cabanas M (2021) Challenges of today for Na-based batteries of the future: from
materials to cell metrics. J Power Sources 482:228872. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpowsour.
2020.228872
56. Mohan I, Raj A, Shubham K, Lata DB, Mandal S, Kumar S (2022) Potential of potassium and
sodium-ion batteries as the future of energy storage: recent progress in anodic materials. J
Energy Storage 55:105625. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.est.2022.105625
57. Murray JL (1983) The Al-Na (Aluminum-sodium) system. Bull Alloy Phase Diagr 4:407–
410. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf02868094
58. Peng J, Zhang W, Liu Q, Wang J, Chou S, Liu H, Dou S (2022) Prussian blue analogues for
sodium-ion batteries: past, present, and future. Adv Mater 34:2108384. https://doi.org/10.
1002/adma.202108384
59. Chang YX, Yu L, Xing X, Guo YJ, Xie ZY, Xu S (2022) Ion substitution strategy of
manganese-based layered oxide cathodes for advanced and low-cost sodium ion batteries.
Chem Rec 22:202200122. https://doi.org/10.1002/tcr.202200122
60. Zhang H, Tan X, Li H, Passerini S, Huang W (2021) Assessment and progress of polyanionic
cathodes in aqueous sodium batteries. Energy Environ Sci 14:5788–5800. https://doi.org/10.
1039/d1ee01392k
61. Hwang JY, Myung ST, Sun YK (2017) Sodium-ion batteries: present and future. Chem Soc
Rev 46:3529–3614. https://doi.org/10.1039/c6cs00776g
62. Rudola A, Rennie AJR, Heap R, Meysami SS, Lowbridge A, Mazzali F, Sayers R, Wright CJ,
Barker J (2021) Commercialisation of high energy density sodium-ion batteries: Faradion’s
journey and outlook. J Mater Chem A 9:8279–8302. https://doi.org/10.1039/d1ta00376c
63. Yao H-R, Zheng L, Xin S, Guo Y-G (2022) Air-stability of sodium-based layered-oxide
cathode materials. Sci China Chem 65:1076–1087. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11426-022-
1257-8
64. Jin T, Li H, Zhu K, Wang PF, Liu P, Jiao L (2020) Polyanion-type cathode materials for
sodium-ion batteries. Chem Soc Rev 49:2342–2377. https://doi.org/10.1039/c9cs00846b
65. Park S, Chotard J-N, Carlier D, Moog I, Duttine M, Fauth F, Iadecola A, Croguennec L,
Masquelier C (2022) An asymmetric sodium extraction/insertion mechanism for the Fe/V-
mixed NASICON Na4FeV(PO4)3. Chem Mater 34:4142–4152. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.
chemmater.2c00501
66. Jian Z, Han W, Lu X, Yang H, Hu Y-S, Zhou J, Zhou Z, Li J, Chen W, Chen D, Chen L (2013)
Superior electrochemical performance and storage mechanism of Na3V2(PO4)3 cathode for
room-temperature sodium-ion batteries. Adv Energy Mater 3:156–160. https://doi.org/10.
1002/aenm.201200558
67. Li WJ, Han C, Cheng G, Chou SL, Liu HK, Dou SX (2019) Chemical properties, structural
properties, and energy storage applications of Prussian blue analogues. Small 15:e1900470.
https://doi.org/10.1002/smll.201900470
68. Liu Q, Hu Z, Chen M, Zou C, Jin H, Wang S, Chou SL, Liu Y, Dou SX (2020) The cathode
choice for commercialization of sodium-ion batteries: layered transition metal oxides versus
Prussian blue Analogs. Adv Funct Mater 30:1909530. https://doi.org/10.1002/adfm.
201909530
69. Firouzi A, Qiao R, Motallebi S, Valencia CW, Israel HS, Fujimoto M, Wray LA, Chuang YD,
Yang W, Wessells CD (2018) Monovalent manganese based anodes and co-solvent electrolyte
for stable low-cost high-rate sodium-ion batteries. Nat Commun 9:861. https://doi.org/10.
1038/s41467-018-03257-1
70. Wessells CD (2019) Advances in prussian blue batteries for behind-the-meter applications.
ECS meeting abstracts MA2019-03:63. https://doi.org/10.1149/MA2019-03/1/63/meta
71. Kamiyama A, Kubota K, Igarashi D, Youn Y, Tateyama Y, Ando H, Gotoh K, Komaba S
(2021) MgO-template synthesis of extremely high capacity hard carbon for Na-ion battery.
Angew Chem 60:5114–5120. https://doi.org/10.1002/anie.202013951
72. Saurel D, Orayech B, Xiao B, Carriazo D, Li X, Rojo T (2018) From charge storage
mechanism to performance: a roadmap toward high specific energy sodium-ion batteries
through carbon anode optimization. Adv Energy Mater 8:1703268. https://doi.org/10.1002/
aenm.201703268
73. Li Z, Bommier C, Chong ZS, Jian Z, Surta TW, Wang X, Xing Z, Neuefeind JC, Stickle WF,
Dolgos M, Greaney PA, Ji X (2017) Mechanism of Na-Ion storage in hard carbon anodes
revealed by heteroatom doping. Adv Energy Mater 7:1602894. https://doi.org/10.1002/aenm.
201602894
74. Qiu S, Xiao L, Sushko ML, Han KS, Shao Y, Yan M, Liang X, Mai L, Feng J, Cao Y, Ai X,
Yang H, Liu J (2017) Manipulating adsorption–insertion mechanisms in nanostructured
carbon materials for high-efficiency sodium ion storage. Adv Energy Mater 7:1700403.
https://doi.org/10.1002/aenm.201700403
75. Lin Z, Xiong X, Zheng J, Wang G, Yang C (2017) Three-dimensional N-doped graphene as
anode material with superior cycle stability for sodium ion batteries. Mater Lett 202:123–126.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matlet.2017.05.046
76. Peters J, Peña Cruz A, Weil M (2019) Exploring the economic potential of sodium-ion
batteries. Batteries 5:10. https://doi.org/10.3390/batteries5010010
77. Fang L, Bahlawane N, Sun W, Pan H, Xu BB, Yan M, Jiang Y (2021) Conversion-alloying
anode materials for sodium ion batteries. Small 17:2101137. https://doi.org/10.1002/smll.
202101137
78. Jing WT, Yang CC, Jiang Q (2020) Recent progress on metallic Sn- and Sb-based anodes for
sodium-ion batteries. J Mater Chem A 8:2913–2933. https://doi.org/10.1039/c9ta11782b
79. Li WJ, Chou SL, Wang JZ, Liu HK, Dou SX (2013) Simply mixed commercial red phospho-
rus and carbon nanotube composite with exceptionally reversible sodium-ion storage. Nano
Lett 13:5480–5484. https://doi.org/10.1021/nl403053v
80. Ni J, Li L, Lu J (2018) Phosphorus: An anode of choice for sodium-ion batteries. ACS Energy
Lett 3:1137–1144. https://doi.org/10.1021/acsenergylett.8b00312
81. Zhang Y, Xia X, Liu B, Deng S, Xie D, Liu Q, Wang Y, Wu J, Wang X, Tu J (2019)
Multiscale graphene-based materials for applications in sodium ion batteries. Adv Energy
Mater 9:1803342. https://doi.org/10.1002/aenm.201803342
82. Qian J, Chen Y, Wu L, Cao Y, Ai X, Yang H (2012) High capacity Na-storage and superior
cyclability of nanocomposite Sb/C anode for Na-ion batteries. Chem Commun 48:7070–7072.
https://doi.org/10.1039/c2cc32730a
83. Greco G, Mazzio KA, Dou X, Gericke E, Wendt R, Krumrey M, Passerini S (2019) Structural
study of carbon-coated TiO2 Anatase nanoparticles as high-performance anode materials for
Na-Ion batteries. ACS Appl Energy Mater 2:7142–7151. https://doi.org/10.1021/acsaem.
9b01101
84. Zhang R, Wang Y, Zhou H, Lang J, Xu J, Xiang Y, Ding S (2018) Mesoporous TiO2
nanosheets anchored on graphene for ultra long life Na-ion batteries. Nanotechnology 29:
225401. https://doi.org/10.1088/1361-6528/aab562
85. Wu Y, Zhang C, Zhao H, Lei Y (2021) Recent advances in ferromagnetic metal sulfides and
selenides as anodes for sodium- and potassium-ion batteries. J Mater Chem A 9:9506–9534.
https://doi.org/10.1039/d1ta00831e
86. Li Y, Liang Y, Robles Hernandez FC, Deog Yoo H, An Q, Yao Y (2015) Enhancing sodium-
ion battery performance with interlayer-expanded MoS2–PEO nanocomposites. Nano Energy
15:453–461. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nanoen.2015.05.012
87. Xia Q, Li W, Miao Z, Chou S, Liu H (2017) Phosphorus and phosphide nanomaterials for
sodium-ion batteries. Nano Res 10:4055–4081. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12274-017-1671-7
88. Li Q, Yang D, Chen H, Lv X, Jiang Y, Feng Y, Rui X, Yu Y (2021) Advances in metal
phosphides for sodium-ion batteries. SusMat 1:359–392. https://doi.org/10.1002/sus2.19
89. Eshetu GG, Elia GA, Armand M, Forsyth M, Komaba S, Rojo T, Passerini S (2020)
Electrolytes and interphases in sodium-based rechargeable batteries: recent advances and
perspectives. Adv Energy Mater 10:2000093. https://doi.org/10.1002/aenm.202000093
90. Mogensen R, Brandell D, Younesi R (2016) Solubility of the solid electrolyte interphase (SEI)
in sodium ion batteries. ACS Energy Lett 1:1173–1178. https://doi.org/10.1021/acsenergylett.
6b00491
91. Kubota K, Komaba S (2015) Review—practical issues and future perspective for Na-ion
batteries. J Electrochem Soc 162:A2538–A2550. https://doi.org/10.1149/2.0151514jes
92. Komaba S, Ishikawa T, Yabuuchi N, Murata W, Ito A, Ohsawa Y (2011) Fluorinated ethylene
carbonate as electrolyte additive for rechargeable Na batteries. ACS Appl Mater Interfaces 3:
4165–4168. https://doi.org/10.1021/am200973k
93. Palaniselvam T, Goktas M, Anothumakkool B, Sun YN, Schmuch R, Zhao L, Han BH,
Winter M, Adelhelm P (2019) Sodium storage and electrode dynamics of tin–carbon com-
posite electrodes from bulk precursors for sodium-ion batteries. Adv Funct Mater 29:1900790.
https://doi.org/10.1002/adfm.201900790
94. Zhang J, Wang D-W, Lv W, Zhang S, Liang Q, Zheng D, Kang F, Yang Q-H (2017)
Achieving superb sodium storage performance on carbon anodes through an ether-derived
solid electrolyte interphase. Energy Environ Sci 10:370–376. https://doi.org/10.1039/
c6ee03367a
95. Giffin GA (2016) Ionic liquid-based electrolytes for “beyond lithium” battery technologies. J
Mater Chem A 4:13378–13389. https://doi.org/10.1039/c6ta05260f
96. Wu L, Moretti A, Buchholz D, Passerini S, Bresser D (2016) Combining ionic liquid-based
electrolytes and nanostructured anatase TiO2 anodes for intrinsically safer sodium-ion batte-
ries. Electrochim Acta 203:109–116. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.electacta.2016.03.124
97. Shen L, Yang H, Jiang Y, Ma J, Sun T, Zhang M, Zhu N (2021) NASICON-structured Na2VTi
(PO4)3@C for symmetric aqueous rechargeable Na-Ion batteries with long lifespan. ACS
Sustain Chem Eng 9:3490–3497. https://doi.org/10.1021/acssuschemeng.0c07755
98. Huang Y, Zhao L, Li L, Xie M, Wu F, Chen R (2019) Electrolytes and electrolyte/electrode
interfaces in sodium-ion batteries: from scientific research to practical application. Adv Mater
31:1808393. https://doi.org/10.1002/adma.201808393
99. Wu JF, Zhang R, Fu QF, Zhang JS, Zhou XY, Gao P, Xu CH, Liu J, Guo X (2020) Inorganic
solid electrolytes for all-solid-state sodium batteries: fundamentals and strategies for battery
optimization. Adv Funct Mater 31:2008165. https://doi.org/10.1002/adfm.202008165
100. Zhao C, Liu L, Qi X, Lu Y, Wu F, Zhao J, Yu Y, Hu Y-S, Chen L (2018) Solid-State Sodium
Batteries. Adv Energy Mater 8:1703012. https://doi.org/10.1002/aenm.201703012
101. Hartmann P, Bender CL, Vracar M, Durr AK, Garsuch A, Janek J, Adelhelm P (2013) A
rechargeable room-temperature sodium superoxide (NaO2) battery. Nat Mater 12:228–232.
https://doi.org/10.1038/nmat3486
102. Kummer J, Weber N (1967) A sodium-Sulfur secondary battery. Proc Ann Power Sources
Conf 19:113–115. https://doi.org/10.4271/670179
103. Eng AYS, Kumar V, Zhang Y, Luo J, Wang W, Sun Y, Li W, Seh ZW (2021) Room-
temperature sodium–sulfur batteries and beyond: realizing practical high energy systems
through anode, cathode, and electrolyte engineering. Adv Energy Mater 11:2003493. https://
doi.org/10.1002/aenm.202003493
104. Dominko R, Bitenc J, Berthelot R, Gauthier M, Pagot G, Di Noto V (2020) Magnesium
batteries: current picture and missing pieces of the puzzle. J Power Sources 478:229027.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpowsour.2020.229027
105. Wu X, Dou Y, Lian R, Wang Y, Wei Y (2022) Understanding rechargeable magnesium ion
batteries via first-principles computations: a comprehensive review. Energy Storage Mater 48:
344–355. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ensm.2022.03.039
106. Yoo HD, Shterenberg I, Gofer Y, Gershinsky G, Pour N, Aurbach D (2013) Mg rechargeable
batteries: an on-going challenge. Energy Environ Sci 6:2265–2279. https://doi.org/10.1039/
c3ee40871j
107. Aurbach D, Cohen Y, Moshkovich M (2001) The study of reversible magnesium deposition
by in situ scanning Tunneling microscopy. Electrochem Solid-State Lett 4:A113. https://doi.
org/10.1149/1.1379828
108. Matsui M (2011) Study on electrochemically deposited Mg metal. J Power Sources 196:7048–
7055. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpowsour.2010.11.141
109. Ding MS, Diemant T, Behm RJ, Passerini S, Giffin GA (2018) Dendrite growth in Mg metal
cells containing Mg(TFSI)2/Glyme electrolytes. J Electrochem Soc 165:A1983–A1990.
https://doi.org/10.1149/2.1471809jes
110. Davidson R, Verma A, Santos D, Hao F, Fincher C, Xiang S, Van Buskirk J, Xie K, Pharr M,
Mukherjee PP, Banerjee S (2018) Formation of magnesium dendrites during electrodeposi-
tion. ACS Energy Lett 4:375–376. https://doi.org/10.1021/acsenergylett.8b02470
111. Bitenc J, Pirnat K, Žagar E, Randon-Vitanova A, Dominko R (2019) Effect of salts on the
electrochemical performance of Mg metal–organic battery. J Power Sources 430:90–94.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpowsour.2019.04.114
112. Son SB, Gao T, Harvey SP, Steirer KX, Stokes A, Norman A, Wang C, Cresce A, Xu K, Ban
C (2018) An artificial interphase enables reversible magnesium chemistry in carbonate elec-
trolytes. Nat Chem 10:532–539. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41557-018-0019-6
113. Gregory TD, Hoffman RJ, Winterton RC (2019) Nonaqueous electrochemistry of magnesium:
applications to energy storage. J Electrochem Soc 137:775–780. https://doi.org/10.1149/1.
2086553
114. Aurbach D, Lu Z, Schechter A, Gofer Y, Gizbar H, Turgeman R, Cohen Y, Moshkovich M,
Levi E (2000) Prototype systems for rechargeable magnesium batteries. Nature 407:724–727.
https://doi.org/10.1038/35037553
115. Liang Y, Feng R, Yang S, Ma H, Liang J, Chen J (2011) Rechargeable Mg batteries with
graphene-like MoS2 cathode and ultrasmall Mg nanoparticle anode. Adv Mater 23:640–643.
https://doi.org/10.1002/adma.201003560
116. Lv R, Guan X, Zhang J, Xia Y, Luo J (2020) Enabling Mg metal anodes rechargeable in
conventional electrolytes by fast ionic transport interphase. Natl Sci Rev 7:333–341. https://
doi.org/10.1093/nsr/nwz157
117. Zhang J, Guan X, Lv R, Wang D, Liu P, Luo J (2020) Rechargeable Mg metal batteries
enabled by a protection layer formed in vivo. Energy Storage Mater 26:408–413. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.ensm.2019.11.012
118. Niu J, Zhang Z, Aurbach D (2020) Alloy anode materials for rechargeable Mg ion batteries.
Adv Energy Mater 10:2000697. https://doi.org/10.1002/aenm.202000697
119. Kravchyk KV, Piveteau L, Caputo R, He M, Stadie NP, Bodnarchuk MI, Lechner RT,
Kovalenko MV (2018) Colloidal bismuth nanocrystals as a model anode material for recharge-
able mg-ion batteries: atomistic and mesoscale insights. ACS Nano 12:8297–8307. https://doi.
org/10.1021/acsnano.8b03572
120. Blondeau L, Foy E, Khodja H, Gauthier M (2018) Unexpected behavior of the InSb alloy in
Mg-Ion batteries: unlocking the reversibility of Sb. J Phys Chem C 123:1120–1126. https://
doi.org/10.1021/acs.jpcc.8b10913
121. Niu J, Yin K, Gao H, Song M, Ma W, Peng Z, Zhang Z (2019) Composition- and size-
modulated porous bismuth-tin biphase alloys as anodes for advanced magnesium ion batteries.
Nanoscale 11:15279–15288. https://doi.org/10.1039/c9nr05399a
122. Song M, Niu J, Yin K, Gao H, Zhang C, Ma W, Luo F, Peng Z, Zhang Z (2019) Self-
supporting, eutectic-like, nanoporous biphase bismuth-tin film for high-performance magne-
sium storage. Nano Res 12:801–808. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12274-019-2291-1
123. Liu Z, Lee J, Xiang G, Glass HF, Keyzer EN, Dutton SE, Grey CP (2017) Insights into the
electrochemical performances of Bi anodes for Mg ion batteries using 25Mg solid state NMR
spectroscopy. Chem Commun 53:743–746. https://doi.org/10.1039/c6cc08430c
124. Kawaguchi M, Kurasaki A (2012) Intercalation of magnesium into a graphite-like layered
material of composition BC2N. Chem Commun 48:6897–6899. https://doi.org/10.1039/
c2cc31435e
125. Kim D-M, Jung SC, Ha S, Kim Y, Park Y, Ryu JH, Han Y-K, Lee KT (2018) Cointercalation
of Mg2+ ions into graphite for magnesium-ion batteries. Chem Mater 30:3199–3203. https://
doi.org/10.1021/acs.chemmater.8b00288
126. Aslanzadeh SA (2020) A computational study on the potential application of zigzag carbon
nanotubes in Mg-ion batteries. Struct Chem 31:1073–1078. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11224-
019-01485-9
127. Er D, Detsi E, Kumar H, Shenoy VB (2016) Defective graphene and graphene allotropes as
high-capacity anode materials for Mg ion batteries. ACS Energy Lett 1:638–645. https://doi.
org/10.1021/acsenergylett.6b00308
128. Yu Y, Guo Z, Peng Q, Zhou J, Sun Z (2019) Novel two-dimensional molybdenum carbides as
high capacity anodes for lithium/sodium-ion batteries. J Mater Chem A 7:12145–12153.
https://doi.org/10.1039/c9ta02650a
129. Guo Z, Zhou J, Sun Z (2017) New two-dimensional transition metal borides for Li ion batteries
and electrocatalysis. J Mater Chem A 5:23530–23535. https://doi.org/10.1039/c7ta08665b
130. Meng Y, Wang D, Zhao Y, Lian R, Wei Y, Bian X, Gao Y, Du F, Liu B, Chen G (2017)
Ultrathin TiO2-B nanowires as an anode material for Mg-ion batteries based on a surface Mg
storage mechanism. Nanoscale 9:12934–12940. https://doi.org/10.1039/c7nr03493h
131. Levi M, Lancri E, Levi E, Gizbar H, Gofer Y, Aurbach D (2005) The effect of the anionic
framework of MoX Chevrel Phase (X=S, Se) on the thermodynamics and the kinetics of the
electrochemical insertion of Mg ions. Solid State Ionics 176:1695–1699. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.ssi.2005.04.019
132. Yoo HD, Liang Y, Dong H, Lin J, Wang H, Liu Y, Ma L, Wu T, Li Y, Ru Q, Jing Y, An Q,
Zhou W, Guo J, Lu J, Pantelides ST, Qian X, Yao Y (2017) Fast kinetics of magnesium
monochloride cations in interlayer-expanded titanium disulfide for magnesium rechargeable
batteries. Nat Commun 8:339. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-017-00431-9
133. Yang S, Li D, Zhang T, Tao Z, Chen J (2011) First-principles study of zigzag MoS2
nanoribbon as a promising cathode material for rechargeable Mg batteries. J Phys Chem C
116:1307–1312. https://doi.org/10.1021/jp2097026
134. Liu F, Wang T, Liu X, Fan LZ (2020) Challenges and recent Progress on key materials for
rechargeable magnesium batteries. Adv Energy Mater 11:2000787. https://doi.org/10.1002/
aenm.202000787
135. Ling C, Banerjee D, Song W, Zhang M, Matsui M (2012) First-principles study of the
magnesiation of olivines: redox reaction mechanism, electrochemical and thermodynamic
properties. J Mater Chem 22:13517. https://doi.org/10.1039/c2jm31122d
136. Chen X, Bleken FL, Løvvik OM, Vullum-Bruer F (2016) Comparing electrochemical perfor-
mance of transition metal silicate cathodes and chevrel phase Mo6S8 in the analogous
rechargeable Mg-ion battery system. J Power Sources 321:76–86. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jpowsour.2016.04.094
137. Zhang R, Ling C (2016) Unveil the chemistry of olivine FePO4 as magnesium battery cathode.
ACS Appl Mater Interfaces 8:18018–18026. https://doi.org/10.1021/acsami.6b03297
138. Tran NA, Do Van Thanh N, Le MLP (2021) Organic positive materials for magnesium
batteries: a review. Chemistry 27:9198–9217. https://doi.org/10.1002/chem.202100223
139. Vizintin A, Bitenc J, Kopac Lautar A, Grdadolnik J, Randon Vitanova A, Pirnat K (2020)
Redox mechanisms in Li and Mg batteries containing poly(phenanthrene quinone)/graphene
cathodes using operando ATR-IR spectroscopy. ChemSusChem 13:2328–2336. https://doi.
org/10.1002/cssc.202000054
140. Fan X, Wang F, Ji X, Wang R, Gao T, Hou S, Chen J, Deng T, Li X, Chen L, Luo C, Wang L,
Wang C (2018) A universal organic cathode for ultrafast lithium and multivalent metal
batteries. Angew Chem 130:7264–7268. https://doi.org/10.1002/ange.201803703
141. Bančič T, Bitenc J, Pirnat K, Kopač Lautar A, Grdadolnik J, Randon Vitanova A, Dominko R
(2018) Electrochemical performance and redox mechanism of naphthalene-hydrazine diimide
polymer as a cathode in magnesium battery. J Power Sources 395:25–30. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.jpowsour.2018.05.051
142. Bitenc J, Pavcnik T, Kosir U, Pirnat K (2020) Quinone based materials as renewable high
energy density cathode materials for rechargeable magnesium batteries. Materials 13. https://
doi.org/10.3390/ma13030506
143. Mohtadi R, Mizuno F (2014) Magnesium batteries: current state of the art, issues and future
perspectives. Beilstein J Nanotechnol 5:1291–1311. https://doi.org/10.3762/bjnano.5.143
144. Novák P, Shklover V, Nesper R (1994) Magnesium insertion in vanadium oxides: a structural
study. Z Phys Chem 185:51–68. https://doi.org/10.1524/zpch.1994.185.Part_1.051
145. Novák P, Desilvestro J (2019) Electrochemical insertion of magnesium in metal oxides and
Sulfides from aprotic electrolytes. J Electrochem Soc 140:140–144. https://doi.org/10.1149/1.
2056075
146. Ji X, Chen J, Wang F, Sun W, Ruan Y, Miao L, Jiang J, Wang C (2018) Water-activated
VOPO4 for magnesium ion batteries. Nano Lett 18:6441–6448. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.
nanolett.8b02854
147. Song J, Noked M, Gillette E, Duay J, Rubloff G, Lee SB (2015) Activation of a MnO2 cathode
by water-stimulated Mg2+ insertion for a magnesium ion battery. Phys Chem Chem Phys 17:
5256–5264. https://doi.org/10.1039/c4cp05591h
148. Ponrouch A, Frontera C, Barde F, Palacin MR (2016) Towards a calcium-based rechargeable
battery. Nat Mater 15:169–172. https://doi.org/10.1038/nmat4462
149. Stievano L, de Meatza I, Bitenc J, Cavallo C, Brutti S, Navarra MA (2021) Emerging calcium
batteries. J Power Sources 482:228875. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpowsour.2020.228875
150. Hosein ID (2021) The promise of calcium batteries: open perspectives and fair comparisons.
ACS Energy Lett 6:1560–1565. https://doi.org/10.1021/acsenergylett.1c00593
151. Monti D, Ponrouch A, Araujo RB, Barde F, Johansson P, Palacin MR (2019) Multivalent
batteries-prospects for high energy density: Ca batteries. Front Chem 7:79. https://doi.org/10.
3389/fchem.2019.00079
152. Arroyo-de Dompablo ME, Ponrouch A, Johansson P, Palacin MR (2020) Achievements,
challenges, and prospects of calcium batteries. Chem Rev 120:6331–6357. https://doi.org/
10.1021/acs.chemrev.9b00339
153. Ponrouch A, Bitenc J, Dominko R, Lindahl N, Johansson P, Palacin MR (2019) Multivalent

rechargeable batteries. Energy Storage Mater 20:253–262. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ensm.
2019.04.012
154. Shannon RD (1976) Revised effective ionic radii and systematic studies of interatomic
distances in halides and chalcogenides. Acta Crystallogr A 32:751–767. https://doi.org/10.
1107/s0567739476001551
155. Shannon RD, Prewitt CT (1969) Effective ionic radii in oxides and fluorides. Acta Crystallogr
Sect B: Struct Sci Cryst Eng Mater 25:925–946. https://doi.org/10.1107/s0567740869003220
156. Hans Wedepohl K (1995) The composition of the continental crust. Geochim Cosmochim
Acta 59:1217–1232. https://doi.org/10.1016/0016-7037(95)00038-2
157. Jacks DS, Stuermer M (2020) What drives commodity price booms and busts? Energy Econ
85:104035. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eneco.2018.05.023
158. Atoji M (1971) Neutron structure analysis of cubic CaC2and KCN. J Chem Phys 54:3514–
3516. https://doi.org/10.1063/1.1675375
159. Ozawa K (ed) (2009) Lithium ion rechargeable batteries. Wiley-VCH. https://doi.org/10.1002/
9783527629022
160. Wang D, Gao X, Chen Y, Jin L, Kuss C, Bruce PG (2018) Plating and stripping calcium in an
organic electrolyte. Nat Mater 17:16–20. https://doi.org/10.1038/nmat5036
161. Shyamsunder A, Blanc LE, Assoud A, Nazar LF (2019) Reversible calcium plating and
stripping at room temperature using a borate salt. ACS Energy Lett 4:2271–2276. https://
doi.org/10.1021/acsenergylett.9b01550
162. Nielson KV, Luo J, Liu TL (2020) Optimizing calcium electrolytes by solvent manipulation
for calcium batteries. Batter Supercaps 3:766–772. https://doi.org/10.1002/batt.202000005
163. Tchitchekova DS, Monti D, Johansson P, Bardé F, Randon-Vitanova A, Palacín MR,
Ponrouch A (2017) On the reliability of half-cell tests for monovalent (Li+, Na+) and divalent
(Mg2+, Ca2+) cation based batteries. J Electrochem Soc 164:A1384–A1392. https://doi.org/
10.1149/2.0411707jes
164. Dugas R, Forero-Saboya JD, Ponrouch A (2019) Methods and protocols for reliable electro-
chemical testing in post-Li batteries (Na, K, Mg, and Ca). Chem Mater 31:8613–8628. https://
doi.org/10.1021/acs.chemmater.9b02776
165. Xu ZL, Park J, Wang J, Moon H, Yoon G, Lim J, Ko YJ, Cho SP, Lee SY, Kang K (2021) A
new high-voltage calcium intercalation host for ultra-stable and high-power calcium recharge-
able batteries. Nat Commun 12:3369. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-021-23703-x
166. Deng X, Li L, Zhang G, Zhao X, Hao J, Han C, Li B (2022) Anode chemistry in calcium ion
batteries: a review. Energy Storage Mater 53:467–481. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ensm.2022.
09.033
167. Lv T, Suo L (2021) Water-in-salt widens the electrochemical stability window: thermody-
namic and kinetic factors. Curr Opin Electrochem 29:100818. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.coelec.
2021.100818
168. Zhang J, Cao Z, Zhou L, Park G-T, Cavallo L, Wang L, Alshareef HN, Sun Y-K, Ming J
(2020) Model-based Design of Stable Electrolytes for potassium ion batteries. ACS Energy
Lett 5:3124–3131. https://doi.org/10.1021/acsenergylett.0c01634
169. Han C, Li H, Li Y, Zhu J, Zhi C (2021) Proton-assisted calcium-ion storage in aromatic
organic molecular crystal with coplanar stacked structure. Nat Commun 12:2400. https://doi.
org/10.1038/s41467-021-22698-9
170. Xu X, Duan M, Yue Y, Li Q, Zhang X, Wu L, Wu P, Song B, Mai L (2019) Bilayered
Mg0.25V2O5H2O as a stable cathode for rechargeable Ca-Ion batteries. ACS Energy Lett 4:
1328–1335. https://doi.org/10.1021/acsenergylett.9b00830
171. Li Z, Fuhr O, Fichtner M, Zhao-Karger Z (2019) Towards stable and efficient electrolytes for
room-temperature rechargeable calcium batteries. Energy Environ Sci 12:3496–3501. https://
doi.org/10.1039/c9ee01699f
172. Song H, Li Y, Tian F, Wang C (2022) Electrolyte optimization and interphase regulation for
significantly enhanced storage capability in ca-metal batteries. Adv Funct Mater 32:2200004.
https://doi.org/10.1002/adfm.202200004
173. Palacin MR (2009) Recent advances in rechargeable battery materials: a chemist’s perspective.
Chem Soc Rev 38:2565–2575. https://doi.org/10.1039/b820555h
Chapter 11
Open Battery Systems
Eduardo Sanchez Diéz, Federico Poli, and Francesca Soavi
Contents
11.1 Redox Flow Batteries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 213
11.2 Metal–Air Batteries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 217
11.3 Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 220
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 220
11.1 Redox Flow Batteries
In RFBs, the electroactive species are dissolved in solutions (anolyte and catholyte)
that are stored in tanks external to the cell and that are flown in the cell core that is
made by the anode and cathode current collectors, intercepting the anolyte and
catholyte flows, respectively, and separated by the separator (Fig. 11.1a).
E. S. Diéz
Centre for Cooperative Research on Alternative Energies (CIC EnergiGUNE), Basque Research
and Technology Alliance (BRTA), Alava Technology Park, Vitoria-Gasteiz, Spain
F. Poli · F. Soavi (✉)
Department of Chemistry “Giacomo Ciamician”, Alma Mater Studiorum Universitá di Bologna,
Bologna, Italy
ENERCube, Centro Ricerche Energia, Ambiente e Mare, Centro Interdipartimentale per la
Ricerca Industriale Fonti Rinnovabili, Ambiente, Mare ed Energia (CIRI -FRAME), – Alma
Mater Studiorum University of Bologna, Marina di Ravenna, RA, Italy
National Reference Center for Electrochemical Energy Storage (GISEL) – INSTM, Florence,
Italy

214 E. S. Diéz et al.
Fig. 11.1 Schemes of open battery systems: (a) redox flow battery (RFB) and (b) air-breathing
metal–air battery (MAB)
MABs typically consist of a metal anode, a separator soaked in the electrolyte,

and an air (oxygen) cathode that has one face exposed to the environment
(Fig. 11.1b). To solve kinetics and cyclability issues that are still slowing MAB
development, flow MABs (FMABs) have been proposed. FMABs exploit the RFB
design, with the anolyte and/or the catholyte (only one half-cell or both) acting as
carrier of the anodic metal species or of the oxygen, respectively [1].
The main advantage of RFBs relies on their peculiar architecture that allows for
decoupling of power and energy but also enables easy maintenance and scale-up of
the system. However, as the active materials are in solution, their solubility severely
limits the energy density of the system.
Under this open system concept, many chemistries have been postulated looking
at SET plan targets in terms of cost and durability, which are primarily determined
by the active materials’ availability and stability [1]. In this context, vanadium-based
RFBs have demonstrated their supremacy considering their long lifetime (20 years)
and high performance. The scarcity of the raw material is the main reason behind the
need to replace vanadium. Thus, systems such as the H2/Br2 battery, which offer
high power density and a cell voltage of 1.09 V, are also paving their way to market.
Alternatively, the so-called hybrid redox flow batteries contain at least one solid
active material that is plated or stripped within the cell. Zn/Br and Zn/Fe are
successful examples of this concept [2], while all-iron (ca. 1.2 V) and all-copper
(ca. 0.6 V) RFBs can be listed as sustainable options considering the abundance and
the low toxicity of the employed materials when compared with the most used
vanadium-based compounds [1]. The problems inherent to the plating process are
the main hurdles to be solved. Despite the benefits in terms of energy density of
using a solid metal as anode, a direct consequence is that power and energy cannot
be independently regulated.
Back to conventional RFBs, flow batteries based on organic active materials have
been postulated as real candidates to dare VRFB, and based on the ubiquitous nature
of carbon-based materials, they may offer a global solution. Indeed, there is a bloom
of start-ups working on organic flow batteries.
11 Open Battery Systems 215
11.1.1 Organic-Based Chemistries
Irruption of organic active materials in RFBs is an open door to a vast chemical

space. Thus, beyond the abundance and the potential inexpensive manufacturing at
large scale, the high tunability of those compounds is the main reason for the interest
aroused by aqueous organic redox flow batteries (AORFBs) [3].
A wise design of active material should allow to determine the redox potential,
the solubility, the chemical and electrochemical stability, the reaction kinetics,
the gravimetric capacity, and even the crossover rate. In this regard, selection of
the functionality of the active site, the inclusion of polar groups, and the definition of
the molecular weight and the number of active sites would serve to modulate the
properties. The ideal electrolyte is still to come, and a compromise has to be
accepted. The most relevant examples on AORFB are either based on quinone-
type or on viologen-based anolyte solutions (Table 11.1).
Quinone–Fe System Quinone-type molecules can undergo a fast and reversible
2e- and 2H+ transfer according to Eq. 11.1:
Table 11.1 Comparison of the parameters reported for various AORFBs

Theor.
electrolyte
capacity
(Ah L-1)
Electrolyte Anolyte/ Capacity decay EE (%) at current
Anolyte/catholyte catholyte (%) day-1 density (mA cm-2) Ref
DPPEAQ/K4[Fe(CN)6] 26.8/10.7 0.014 (12) 65 (100) [5]
alkaline pH
DPivOHAQ/K4[Fe 26.8/8.0 0.0018 (16) 85 (100) [4]
(CN)6
alkaline pH
DHPS/K4[Fe(CN)6] 37.5/8.3 0.682 (14) 82 (100) [6]
alkaline pH
(SPrN)2V/NH4[Fe 9.6/9.6 0.018 (17) 63 (40) [7]
(CN)6] alkaline pH
Dex-Vi/BTMAP-Fc 40.2/20.1 N.O. (30) N/A (50) [8]
neutral pH
BTMAP-Vi/ 13.4/13.4 N.O (9) 60 (60) [9]
N2TEMPO
neutral pH
(ATBPy)Cl4/ 26.8/26.8 0.445 (2) 86 (60) [10]
(TPABPy)Cl3
neutral pH
N.O. not observed
ð11:1Þ
Among the multiple examples in the literature, anthraquinone–iron couples have

shown the highest stability. Recent efforts have been devoted to further push the
stability of those compounds to capacity decays as low as 0.0018% day-1 [4]. This
has been possible by including highly stable carboxylate (DBEAQ), pivalate
(DPivOHAQ) [5], or phosphonate (DPPE) [6] moieties in anthraquinone core
structure, which can be coupled with ferrocyanide leading to a cell voltage of
1.0 V and operated in alkaline media with high energy efficiencies (>80% at
100 mA cm-2). The lack of a more competitive catholyte solution is identified as
the main limitation, while despite the high solubility of the anthraquinones, the
system has only been validated for low-energy-density electrolytes (0.5 M anthra-
quinone). With a similar reaction mechanism, pyrazines have been employed in
alkaline batteries leading to high cell voltages (1.2–1.4 V) and good cell perfor-
mance when coupled with ferrocyanide [6].
Viologen-Based Systems with Neutral pH Bipyridinium salts can undergo 1e- or
2e- reduction processes (2); the first reduction is considered as fully reversible,
while the capacity retention is generally lower if the second process is involved. No
protons are involved in the redox equilibrium of viologens neither in the case of the
materials selected as catholyte counterparts, i.e., iron complexes or TEMPO deriv-
atives mainly. Those batteries are operated under mild conditions, close to neutral
pH values. This may elongate the durability of the battery’s components, but it also
entails a challenge in terms of conductivity due to the low proton and hydroxyl
concentration in the electrolyte media. Thus, the efficiency of neutral pH systems
ranges between 40% and 80% energy efficiency (EE) for current densities between
50 and 100 mAcm-2. The low cell voltage (ca. 0.8 V) [7, 8] of the viologen–iron
complex systems is their main weakness, while the most stable viologen–TEMPO
systems employ low-energy-density electrolytes (0.5 M) [9]. Molecular engineering
works are still in progress, and stable 2e- storage extended bipyridinium compounds
have been developed [10] boosting potential energy density of viologen systems.
ð11:2Þ
The stability of organic materials is still under debate, and comparison of different
systems is not straightforward even if the capacity fade over time has been taken as a
more reliable parameter [11]. Cycling conditions, capacity utilization, and concen-
tration of active materials among other factors may impact the electrolyte stability.
In a lower extent, polymer redox active materials have been employed as
a measure to mitigate crossover [12], and organics have also been combined with
a metal anode to boost energy density [13]. However, those trends remain as a
secondary option after weighing pros and cons.
The use of nonaqueous organic redox flow batteries (NARFBs) has been also
explored. This full organic electrolyte could theoretically mitigate the energy density
problems of RFB as the cell voltage can be increased over 3 V and the solubility of
the active materials is significantly higher in organic solvents. However, this ideal
scenario is hurdled by the poor conductivity of the electrolytes, the high viscosity of
high concentrated solutions, and the low chemical compatibility of the membranes
and the organic solvents. Thus, high concentrations >2 M cannot be exceeded
without compromising diffusion properties [14]. NARFBs are generally operated
at low current densities (< 40 mAcm-2) [15] or at low concentrations [16].
11.2 Metal–Air Batteries
11.2.1 Steady Metal–Air Batteries
Metal–air (oxygen) batteries (MABs) have the advantage of using the lightest
cathode material available in nature: oxygen. Furthermore, O2 is not stored inside
the cell, but it is continuously supplied from air or tanks outside the cell. Therefore,
cell capacity is not limited by cathode active material depleting. In addition, in
conventional (not-flow) MABs, the anode is a thin metal foil with an extremely high
density. Combining a metal anode and an O2 cathode enables to use most of the
system volume for the anode material, and this results in a battery with an extremely
high energy density.
Several MAB chemistries have been proposed, including those based on alkali,
transition, and multivalent metals [17–19]. Table 11.2 summarizes the cell reactions,
the metal and discharge product densities, the nominal cell voltage, and the theoret-
ical specific capacity and specific energy and energy density of different MABs.
Table 11.2 Cell reactions, metal and discharge product densities, nominal cell voltage, theoretical
specific capacity and specific energy and energy density of different MABs. The energy density
values have been calculated referring to the metal (first value) and the discharge product (second
value) densities
Theor.
energy
Discharge Theor. Theor. density
Metal product Cell specific specific (kWh L-1
density density voltage capacity energy metal
Cell reaction (kg L-1) (kg L-1) (V) (Ah L-1) (kWh kg-1) product)
2Li + O2 ⇆ Li2O2 0.534 2.3 2.96 1.17 3.5 1.9–8.0
2Na + O2 ⇆ Na2O2 0.968 2.8 2.33 0.69 1.6 1.6–4.5
K + O2 ⇆ KO2 0.890 2.3 2.48 0.37 0.9 0.8–2.2
Mg + 1/2O2 + H2O 1.738 2.3 3.09 0.92 2.8 4.9–6.6
⇆ Mg(OH)2
4Al + 3O2 + 6H2O 2.700 2.4 2.71 1.03 2.8 7.5–6.8
⇆ 4Al(OH)3
Zn + ½ O2 ⇆ ZnO 7.140 5.6 1.65 0.66 1.1 7.7–6.1
3Fe+2O2 ⇆ Fe3O4 7.874 5.2 1.28 0.46 0.6 4.6–3.1
Li, Na, K, Mg, and Al-MABs feature cell voltages higher than 2 V and therefore
require the use of nonaqueous electrolytes. In the case of Li and Na, which are not
stable in water, organic/inorganic hybrid electrolytes have been proposed. In these
systems, the metal is in contact with an organic electrolyte, and the cathode operates
with an aqueous electrolyte. Anode and cathode are alienated by a solid ionic
conductor separator. Zn- and Fe-MABs featuring cell voltages lower than 2 V can
operate with aqueous electrolytes, and they typically make use of alkaline solutions.
The specific capacity evaluated based on both metal and oxygen contents depends
on the number of electrons exchanged for mole of reactants and mainly on the atomic
mass of the metal. It spans from 0.46 Ah kg-1 of the Fe–O2 cells (four-electron
process) to 1.17 Ah kg-1of the Li–O2 (two-electron process), which features the
lightest metal, i.e., lithium.
All the MABs listed in Table 11.2 feature high theoretical specific energy
densities that are about two- to tenfold higher than that of today’s lithium-ion
batteries. Among the nonaqueous MABs, the Li–O2 cells exhibit the highest value
that in theory can be as high as 3.5 kW kg-1. Among the aqueous MABs, Zn–O2
holds the best promises with 1.1 kW kg-1.
In MABs, at the anode, metal stripping/deposition occurs. At the cathode, the
sluggish kinetics of the oxygen reduction and evolution reactions (ORR/OER) are
promoted by catalysts (or mediators) that are supported on the electrode surface,
typically a porous carbon with high surface area. Like in fuel cells, in static MABs,
the optimization of the cathode three-phase boundary (catalyst–electrolyte–gas) is of
paramount importance to achieve a high conversion efficiency and fast cell response
under high-current regimes. Today, typical discharge currents are lower than
0.5 mAcm-2 for nonaqueous Li-MABs and 500 mAcm-2 for aqueous
Zn-MABs. In air-breathing cells, the slow natural diffusion of O2 to the cathode is
one of the processes that cause not negligible cell overvoltages during discharge at
high currents. Furthermore, during the discharge, insoluble by-products are depos-
ited on the surface of the metal anode and air cathode, therefore passivating the
electrodes, clogging cathode pores, and further limiting the diffusion of oxygen.
These passivating products limit the discharge capacity of MABs to values that can
be 50% lower than the theoretical ones. They also cause high recharge overvoltages
and, consequently, low recharge energy efficiency that is typically lower than 70%.
As it concerns the metal anode, stripping/deposition inherently induces changes
in the metal surface morphology, dendrite growth, and metal fragmentation into
particles with subsequent loss of electric contact and of material. Here, the electro-
lyte can play a role by forming a suitable solid electrolyte interphase that protects the
anode and controls the uniform metal deposition.
11.2.2 Flow Metal–Air Batteries
Despite such promising theoretical performance, still many challenging problems

need to be solved to let MABs become a consolidated technology. Combining MAB
chemistries with a flow cell design in flow metal–air batteries (FMABs) can be an
answer. FMAB cell commonly consists of a metal anode (tin foil or a flowable
anolyte), a separator soaked in the electrolyte, and a flowable air (oxygen) cathode.
At the anode, the metal stripping/deposition occurs. At the cathode side, an electro-
lyte enriched with oxygen is flowed across a porous current collector where the
oxygen reduction and evolution reactions (ORR/OER) occur. As in their static
counterparts, to overcome the sluggish kinetics of the ORR/OER, the surface of
the porous electrodes is decorated with catalysts or mediators.
The exploitation of a flowable cathode (catholyte) is a smart strategy to overcome
some of MAB’s intrinsic challenges, such as the slow oxygen diffusion at the
cathode and the passivation of electrodes by deposition of insoluble by-products
[1]. The convective transport of the catholyte allows for overcoming the mass
transport limitations due to the oxygen diffusion [20, 21]. To reduce the current
collector passivation, driven by the deposition of the insoluble discharge products
(such as metal oxides), a valuable strategy is the exploitation of slurries rather than
solutions, in which the suspended particles act as nucleation centers [1, 22]. More-
over, to alleviate the dendrite formation, while increasing the current density at the
anode, a possible solution is the exploitation of anolyte slurries [23]. The main
drawback is the nontrivial design of the flow frame, which strongly depends on the
cell chemistry and the rheological properties of the electrolyte.
Nowadays, zinc, aluminum, and lithium are the main metallic anodes on which
the research activity in MAFBs has been focused. According to the metal reactivity,
both aqueous and nonaqueous electrolyte media have been explored [24, 25].
Zn-MAFBs are the most mature technology. Indeed, the company “Zinc 8” is
currently manufacturing 100 kW, targeting 1 MW installation, forecasting a price
below 100 € kW-1. Li-MAFBs, for their exceptionally high theoretical energy
density, are holding great promises for energy storage.
By using the abundant, readily available seawater as catholyte, the seawater battery
(SWB) arises as an attractive option for low-cost, large-scale energy storage [26–
28]. During its charge, at the cathode, the electrolysis (oxidation) of seawater occurs,
contemporary with the reduction of Na+ ions, extracted from seawater on the anode side.
Indeed, seawater features a salinity of ≈3.5% (35 g L-1) in which Na+ and Cl- ions
account for most of the dissolved salts. The metallic sodium requires an anhydrous
anolyte, aprotic solvent solutions with sodium-based organic salts, e.g., 1 M sodium
trifluoromethanesulfonate (NaCF3SO3) in tetraethylene glycol dimethyl ether
(TEGDME) or 0.1 M sodium bis(fluorosulfonyl)imide (NaFSI) in ionic liquid solutions
[27]. The anolyte chamber must be physically separated from the aqueous catholyte
while being in ionic contact. Therefore, Na-ion conducting, solid electrolytes (e.g.,
NASICON) that separate the anhydrous anodic chamber and the aqueous cathodic
chamber are adopted [26–28]. To improve the kinetics of the ORR and OER, Pt/C- and
Ir/Ru-based catalysts could be exploited [29]. However, in SWB, the presence of Cl- in
the catholyte requires the use of a proper current collector to control its oxidation
reactions during charge, and this represents an additional problem.
SWB features a theoretically high cell voltage ≈3.48 V, with reported practical
voltage of 2.2 V. Although extremely promising, today, this technology is still in
R&D phase, and efforts are required to decrease the cost of the components to
efficiently scale up [26].
11.3 Conclusions
The open batteries might change the paradigm of storing, using, and distributing
energy. Besides their inherently higher safety, especially when compared to LIBs,
they feature great flexibility, and a variety of materials and cell design are under
exploitation. RFBs and MABs are interesting open systems that may play an
important role in stationary energy storage application. In RFBs, the electrolyte is
identified as the most critical component of those batteries, and there is an ongoing
search for the most stable, cost-effective, safe, and abundant active materials. Thus,
systems relying on safe aqueous electrolytes comprising organic active materials are
gradually closing the gap with vanadium and have the potential to compete or
coexist with lithium to fulfil the global demand.
MABs, even based on abundant metals, hold the promise of extremely high
volumetric energy density because light and multivalent metals can be exploited.
However, in MABs, low cycling stability and power are still the main limitations that
could be overcome by exploiting the RFB architecture in the emerging flow and
semisolid flow MABs.
Acknowledgments F.P. and F.S. acknowledge the following grants: HyFlow Project (European
Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation program under grant agreement No. 963550),
CO2CARBON – Upscaling carbon nanomaterial production from CO2 emissions (KAVA Call 8,
01.01.2022 – 31.12.2023); SMART – Sustainable MAterials for Redox-flow Technology (EIT Raw
Materials Booster Call, Project Agreement N. 15099-SCLC-2021-5, 07/2021 – 12/2021); Contest
M. Startup (2019); EIT Raw Materials Battery Challenge 2019; H2020-SMEInst-2018-2020-1
(Grant Agreement n. 837091, Nessox. 01/01/2019 – 30/06/2019); Climate-KIC; MOST – Sustain-
able Mobility Center and received funding from the European Union Next Generation EU (PIANO
NAZIONALE DI RIPRESA E RESILIENZA (PNNR) Missione 4 Componente 2, Investimento 1.4
D.D. 1033 17/06/2022, CN00000023). E.S. acknowledges European Union (BEST project, Grant
agreement No. 101069676) and Basque Government (GV-ELKARTEK2022 KK-2022/00043) for
the financial support.
References
1. Sanchez-Díez E, Ventosa E, Guarnieri M, Trovò A, Flox C, Marcilla R, Soavi F, Mazur P,

Aranzabe E, Ferret R (2021) Redox flow batteries: status and perspective towards sustainable
stationary energy storage. J Power Sources 481:228804. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpowsour.
2020.228804
2. Arenas LF, Loh A, Trudgeon DP, Li X, Ponce de León C, Walsh FC (2018) The characteristics
and performance of hybrid redox flow batteries with zinc negative electrodes for energy storage.
Renew Sust Energ Rev 90:992–1016. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2018.03.016
3. (a) Chen Q, Lv Y, Yuan Z, Li X, Yu G, Yang Z, Xu T (2022) Organic electrolytes for
pH-neutral aqueous organic redox flow batteries. Adv Funct Mater 32:2108777. https://doi.
org/10.1002/adfm.202108777; (b) Liu Y, Chen Q, Sun P, Li Y, Yang Z, Xu T (2021) Organic
electrolytes for aqueous organic flow batteries. Materials Today Energy 20:100634. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.mtener.2020.100634
4. Wu M, Jing Y, Wong AA, Fell EM, Jin S, Tang Z, Gordon RG, Aziz MJ (2020) Extremely
stable Anthraquinone Negolytes synthesized from common precursors. Chem 6:1432–1442.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chempr.2020.03.021
5. Ji Y, Goulet MA, Pollack DA, Kwabi DG, Jin S, De Porcellinis D, Ker EF, Gordon RG, Aziz
MJ (2019) A phosphonate-functionalized Quinone redox flow battery at near-neutral pH with
record capacity retention rate. Adv Energy Mater 9:1900039. https://doi.org/10.1002/aenm.
201900039
6. Hollas A, Wei X, Murugesan V, Nie Z, Li B, Reed D, Liu J, Sprenkle V, Wang W (2018) A
biomimetic high-capacity phenazine-based anolyte for aqueous organic redox flow batteries.
Nat Energy 3:508–514. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41560-018-0167-3
7. Luo J, Hu B, Debruler C, Bi Y, Zhao Y, Yuan B, Hu M, Wu W, Liu TL (2019) Unprecedented
capacity and stability of ammonium Ferrocyanide Catholyte in pH neutral aqueous redox flow
batteries. Joule 3:149–163. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joule.2018.10.010
8. Lv XL, Sullivan P, Fu HC, Hu XX, Liu H, Jin S, Li W, Feng D (2022) Dextrosil-Viologen: a
robust and sustainable Anolyte for aqueous organic redox flow batteries. ACS Energy Lett 7:
2428–2434. https://doi.org/10.1021/acsenergylett.2c01198
9. Hu B, Hu M, Luo J, Liu TL (2022) A stable, low permeable TEMPO Catholyte for aqueous
Total organic redox flow batteries. Adv Energy Mater 12:2102577. https://doi.org/10.1002/
aenm.202102577
10. Huang M, Hu S, Yuan X, Huang J, Li W, Xiang Z, Fu Z, Liang Z (2022) Five-membered-
heterocycle bridged Viologen with high voltage and superior stability for flow battery. Adv
Funct Mater 32:2111744. https://doi.org/10.1002/adfm.202111744
11. Brushett FR, Aziz MJ, Rodby KE (2020) On lifetime and cost of redox-active organics for
aqueous flow batteries. ACS Energy Lett 5:879–884. https://doi.org/10.1021/acsenergylett.
0c00140
12. Fu H, Zhang C, Wang H, Du B, Nie J, Xu J, Chen L (2022) Stable aqueous redox flow battery
assembled in air atmosphere employing an anionic terpolymer as active cathode material. J
Power Sources 545:231905. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpowsour.2022.231905
13. Winsberg J, Stolze C, Schwenke A, Muench S, Hager MD, Schubert US (2017) Aqueous
2,2,6,6-Tetramethylpiperidine-N-oxyl Catholytes for a high-capacity and high current density
oxygen-insensitive hybrid flow battery. ACS Energy Lett 2:411–416. https://doi.org/10.1021/
acsenergylett.6b00655
14. Shkrob IA, Robertson LA, Yu Z, Assary RS, Cheng L, Zhang L, Sarnello E, Liu X, Li T, Kaur
AP, Suduwella TM, Odom SA, Wang Y, Ewoldy RH, Farag HM, Z Y (2021) Crowded
electrolytes containing redoxmers in different states of charge: solution structure, properties,
and fundamental limits on energy density. J Mol Liq 334:116533. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
molliq.2021.116533
15. Rhodes Z, Cabrera-Pardo JR, Li M, Minteer SD (2021) Electrochemical advances in
non-aqueous redox flow batteries. Isr J Chem 61:101–112. https://doi.org/10.1002/ijch.
202000049
16. Xu D, Zhang C, Zhen Y, Zhao Y, Li Y (2021) A high-rate nonaqueous organic redox flow
battery. J Power Sources 495:229819. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpowsour.2021.229819
17. Zhang X, Wang XG, Xie Z, Zhou Z (2016) Recent progress in rechargeable alkali metal-air
batteries. Green Energy Environ 1:4–17. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gee.2016.04.004
18. Li CS, Sun Y, Gebert F, Chou SL (2017) Current progress on rechargeable magnesium–air
battery. Adv Energy Mater 7:1700869. https://doi.org/10.1002/aenm.201700869
19. McKerracher RD, Ponce de León C, Wills RGA, Shah AA, Walsh FC (2015) A review of the
iron-air secondary battery for energy storage. ChemPlusChem 80:323–335. https://doi.org/10.
1002/cplu.201402238
20. Monaco S, Soavi F, Mastragostino M (2013) Role of oxygen mass transport in rechargeable
Li/O2 batteries operating with ionic liquids. J Phys Chem Lett 4:1379–1382. https://doi.org/10.
1021/jz4006256
21. Poli F, Ghadikolaei LK, Soavi F (2019) Semi-empirical modeling of the power balance of flow
lithium/oxygen batteries. Appl Energy 248:383–389. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2019.
04.133
22. Ruggeri I, Arbizzani C, Soavi F (2018) Carbonaceous catholyte for high energy density semi-
solid Li/O2 flow battery. Carbon 130:749–757. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.carbon.2018.01.056
23. Pei P, Ma Z, Wang K, Wang X, Song M, Xu H (2014) High performance zinc air fuel cell stack.
J Power Sources 249:13–20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpowsour.2013.10.073
24. Han X, Li X, White J, Zhong C, Deng Y, Hu W, Ma T (2018) Metal–air batteries: from static to
flow system. Adv Energy Mater 8:1801396. https://doi.org/10.1002/aenm.201801396
25. Yu W, Shang W, Tan P, Chen B, Wu Z, Xu H, Shao Z, Liu M, Ni M (2019) Toward a new
generation of low cost, efficient, and durable metal–air flow batteries. J Mater Chem A 7:
26744–26768. https://doi.org/10.1039/C9TA10658H
26. Hwang SM, Park JS, Kim Y, Go W, Han J, Kim Y, Kim Y (2019) Rechargeable seawater
batteries—from concept to applications. Adv Mater 31:1804936. https://doi.org/10.1002/adma.
201804936
27. Kim Y, Kim GT, Jeong S, Dou X, Geng C, Kim Y, Passerini S (2019) Large-scale stationary
energy storage: seawater batteries with high rate and reversible performance. Energy Storage
Mater 16:56–64. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ensm.2018.04.028
28. Kim Y, Künzel M, Steinle D, Dong X, Kim GT, Varzi A, Passerini S (2022) Anode-less
seawater batteries with a Na-ion conducting solid-polymer electrolyte for power to metal and
metal to power energy storage. Energy Environ Sci 15:2610–2618. https://doi.org/10.1039/
D2EE00609J
29. Debe MK (2012) Electrocatalyst approaches and challenges for automotive fuel cells. Nature
486:43–51. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature11115
Part VI
Prospective Assessments of Emerging
Batteries
Preface
There are several challenges related to current lithium-ion battery (LIB) technology,
including safety, the need for scarce resources, environmental impacts, resource
availability, cost, or social implications. Such doubts are addressed in new regula-
tions and frameworks such as the EU Battery Regulation and Critical Raw Materials
Act, as well as in a wider way in the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). The
development of new battery technologies is considered as a way to overcome some
of the named challenges related to LIB. However, requirements towards more
sustainability make it necessary to also adequately provide corresponding prospec-
tive assessments that cover economic, environmental, and social dimensions over
the entire life cycle of new battery types. Prominent methods for this purpose are,
among others, environmental and social life cycle assessments and techno-economic
and acceptance studies. Typically, these generate complex, multidimensional results
that are difficult to communicate and where trade-offs have to be made. This requires
the involvement of relevant stakeholders, e.g., via the use of integrated methods as
multi-criteria decision-making methods to aid decision-making towards sustainabil-
ity and the most appropriate battery technology for a given application. All the
named methods face several challenges which have to be addressed carefully. After
discussing general challenges of prospective assessments in Chapter 12, an overview
of the most relevant methods to assess the environmental (Chapter 13), the techno-
economic (Chapters 14 and 15) and the social (Chapters 16 and 17) impact of battery
systems is provided in the following. Finally, multicriteria decision analysis methods
for battery sustainability assessment are presented in Chapter 18.
Chapter 12
Methodological Challenges of Prospective
Assessments
Felipe Cerdas, Joris Baars, Abdur-Rahman Ali,

and Nicolas von Drachenfels
Contents
12.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 225
12.2 Data Availability and Quality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 227
12.3 Scaling Issues and Modelling Choices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 229
12.4 Uncertainty Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 232
12.5 Comparability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 234
12.6 Conclusion and Outlook . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 237
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 237
12.1 Introduction
Environmental and social impact assessments have been developed from an envi-
ronmental accounting perspective to identify the impacts and hotspots of a present or
past technology retrospectively [33]. The increased use of those assessment meth-
odologies as an engineering tool calls for alternative assessment methods that enable
F. Cerdas (✉) · A.-R. Ali

Chair of Sustainable Manufacturing & Life Cycle Engineering, Institute of Machine Tools and
Production Technology (IWF), Technische Universität Braunschweig, Braunschweig, Germany
Fraunhofer Institute for Surface Engineering and Thin Films IST, Braunschweig, Germany
J. Baars
Fraunhofer Institute for Surface Engineering and Thin Films IST, Braunschweig, Germany
N. von Drachenfels
Battery Lab Factory Braunschweig (BLB), Technische Universität Braunschweig,
Braunschweig, Germany

226 F. Cerdas et al.
guiding innovations towards sustainability. This is the case for emerging technolo-
gies that are at an early stage of the development process [2]. Emerging technologies
include both innovative products and processes that are not yet on the market, such
as novel battery technologies, as well as novel advances to products and technolo-
gies that already exist on the market [4]. To evaluate the impacts of these technol-
ogies, predictions of future markets or future production technologies must be made
that account for changes in economic, environmental, and social conditions over
time [18].
Prospective assessment is a future-oriented method that can be used to assess
environmental, economic, and social impacts of emerging technologies as well as
mature technologies that are predicted to change significantly in the future [6]. Pro-
spective assessment is also sometimes referred to as ex ante, future-oriented, early-
stage, anticipatory, explorative, and scenario-based assessment, although the defini-
tions of these methods, and whether they refer to the same method or slight
variations of a method, are inconsistently reported across literature [4, 6, 9]. For
this section, the definition of prospective assessment is taken as the systematic
assessment of a future point in time, considering developments in society, technol-
ogy, economy, and policy, that potentially influences the technology, its societal
conditions, and its environmentally relevant flows [2, 18, 48].
A key benefit of prospective assessment is that decisions can be made proactively,
at an early stage of the development process, to minimise or even prevent future
potential adverse environmental, economic, and social impacts of the technology
being assessed [22, 31, 50]. Prospective assessments, like retrospective assessments,
provide guidance to decision-makers, including technology developers,
policymakers, and manufacturers. The results of prospective assessments can be
used in multiple ways depending on the goal and scope of the study. For example,
results can inform technology developers of valuable changes that can be
implemented at an early stage of development, support stakeholders in terms of
investment opportunities that can enable further research and technological devel-
opment, inform policymakers of recommendations based on assessed policy imple-
mentation scenarios, and guide manufacturers towards assessed applications of a
technology that are considered relatively more sustainable [7, 9]. Therefore, the
future potential and future challenges of the innovative technology are defined prior
to the technology being implemented at larger production scales [50].
Prospective assessment is therefore valuable for assessing emerging battery
technologies that have not yet penetrated the market and are still in the development
phase. By assessing these technologies at an early stage, mitigation measures can be
implemented more readily and influence the production technology as it is upscaled
to industrial production. A standard method for conducting a prospective assessment
of emerging battery technologies, or for other technologies, presently does not exist.
This leads to challenges when using the results in a decision-making context
[4, 17]. Although such challenges also exist for retrospective assessments,
Hetherington et al. argue that challenges in prospective assessment are more prom-
inent due to the time sensitivity to apply the results within the technology
12 Methodological Challenges of Prospective Assessments 227
development timeframe [19]. These challenges are largely related to data availabil-
ity, scaling issues, uncertainty, and comparability of results [19].
This section focuses on the challenges for applying prospective assessment to
emerging battery technologies. Within the following sections, four key challenges of
prospective assessments are defined and discussed. These challenges include data
availability and quality (Sect. 12.2), scaling issues (Sect. 12.3), uncertainty manage-
ment (Sect. 12.4), and comparability (Sect. 12.5). Section 12.6 concludes with an
outlook on research and development in prospective assessment of emerging battery
technologies.
12.2 Data Availability and Quality
The availability of data is limited and often of lower quality than preferred to meet
the goal of prospective assessments [9]. Primary data, or measured raw data, are
often scarce and/or confidential. While this is also a known challenge for retrospec-
tive LCA, key difference for prospective assessments is that data is simply not yet
available or based on a laboratory scale [33]. Material input and energy consumption
data are difficult to collect at this scale since production conditions are not yet
optimised and the production processes themselves are still under investigation for
their feasibility. Measurements on laboratory scale typically lead to energy con-
sumptions that are not representative of production conditions at larger scales and
material consumptions that suffer from high input quantities and poor product yields
[11, 15].
The availability and quality of data is therefore largely related to the technology
readiness level (TRL) and manufacturing readiness level (MRL) of the technology
being assessed. The TRL indicates the level from 1 (concept development) to
9 (small-scale production) that addresses the maturity and functional readiness of a
technology, whereas the MRL indicates the manufacturing maturity level of the
technology’s components and subsystems [15]. For emerging technologies, the TRL
ranges from 2 (concept feasible) to 5 (laboratory-scale production validated), with
corresponding MRLs from 2 (new manufacturing concepts identified) to 5 (prototype
production simulated) [31]. Gavankar et al. found that the environmental burden per
unit output is likely to reduce significantly with increased technology and
manufacturing maturity levels [15].
In terms of battery technologies, Greenwood et al. [16] have criticised the TRL
for being too generalised for consistent application to batteries. They have taken
inspiration from the TRL, MRL, and other readiness levels, to develop the Battery
Component Readiness Level (BC-RL) framework. In the BC-RL, three types of
technologies are defined depending on the extent to which the technology can use
existing production and cell assembly processes, and nine stages are identified, from
laboratory production (stage 1) to commercialisation (stage 9).
As highlighted in Table 12.1, on each BC-RL stage, different data sources can be
used for assessments of battery components and cells. For example, in the theoretical
Table 12.1 Battery Component Readiness Levels by Greenwood et al. [16] and examples of
assessments for battery components and cells
Battery Component Readiness Level Assessment example
1. Theoretical concept development Environmental screening of nanomaterials for
batteries [13]
2. Determination of fundamental component Estimation of material cost for fictive dual-
properties graphite cells [37]
3. Determination of electrochemical properties LCA based on lab-scale coin cell with a sul-
for small-format full cells – system-level phide solid electrolyte [55]
proof of concept
4. Determination of electrochemical properties LCA based on a lab-produced pouch cells with
for commercial-scale cells – system-level a Sn0.9Mn0.1O2 anode powering a remote-
prototype controlled vehicle [5]
5. Development of proof of concept for scalable Combination of pilot and lab-scale data to
component production predict the environmental impact of processing
battery-grade cobalt sulphate [38]
6. Development of industrial-scale component Cost and energy estimates of industrial pro-
production processes duction of LiPF6 based on process modelling
[43]
7. Development of proof of concept for scalable LCA for a cell based on a pilot-scale produc-
cell production tion line [11]
8. Development of industrial-scale cell produc- Gate-to-gate GHG emissions of a 7 GWh cell
tion processes production line based on calculations [10]
9. Establishment of commercial plants for Top-down LCA of an automotive lithium-ion
component and cell production battery pack produced in an existing 30 GWh
factory [42]
concept development phase, data availability is insufficient to conduct a full LCA. In

this case, streamlined LCA approaches (e.g. ignoring some up- or downstream
processes, mixing qualitative and quantitative data, etc.) are more suitable and
applied for screening purposes [3, 12]. Similarly, in phase 3, lab-produced coin
cell prototypes can be used to establish simplified LCAs of novel technologies.
When using simplified LCA however, complex challenges arise with emerging
technologies that should be understood by all stakeholders to enable effective
development decisions to be made [19]. For example, the function of the product
might not yet be clearly defined (such as for nanomaterials), systems change when
scaled up – lack of knowledge on how they will function at larger scales, processing
stages might not be fully defined, coproduct use is unclear, and end-of-life treatment
is unknown. Additional techniques (e.g. proxies, process simulation) are therefore
used to fill data gaps and assess the technology in a production-scale environment
(addressed further in Sect. 12.3).
For prospective assessments, the background data is also of significance [8, 17,
35]. Foreground data is data related to the technology being assessed, including its
relevant components and processes, whereas background data refers to data for
processes further upstream and downstream of the technology being assessed. For
example, background changes in the electricity mix can influence the future impacts
of electric vehicles and battery technologies [30, 35, 54]. Therefore, changes in the
electricity mixes must also be included in the background data used for the assess-
ments in order to more accurately capture the future impacts of battery electric
vehicles [8].
The available data and quality determine the extent to which results can be
applied for comparative assertion or hotspot assessments [56]. The goal of the
study needs to be transparent and adapted to the data quality. It is furthermore
essential to consider both the quality level and the time required for assessment, as
well as the timing of the results needed to impact effectively the design and
development stage.
12.3 Scaling Issues and Modelling Choices
Additional modelling choices are made for prospective assessments to determine the
expected impacts of an emerging product system, including defining the functional
unit, system boundary, allocation methods, and scaling factors. These challenges are
not unique to prospective assessments, but due to data gaps and several unknowns
such as the future application of the product system and how the production
processes will be implemented at larger scales, these challenges become more
prominent in prospective assessment [19].
The reliance on laboratory-scale data to perform prospective LCAs presents a
significant challenge. It requires the upscaling of foreground inventory data. In a
typical scaled-up process, the process is first optimised in the lab, followed by
several steps to upscale the technology before building a large-scale facility
[45]. This includes preliminary validation of lab-scale process and constructing a
mini-plant, followed by a pilot plant to validate processes and finally simulate
industrial-scale production. Due to the time-intensive nature of actual upscaling,
prospective assessments utilise various data projection techniques to predict the
future implementation of technology on an industrial scale [47]. In the case of
emerging batteries, there are different methods for scaling products, and the scales
defined for this context are at the level of electrodes, cells, or packs.
12.3.1 Upscaling at the Product Level (Cells and Packs)
Upscaling at the product level includes the tasks of determining the material
composition of the product to which other material and energy flows are related.
For incremental innovations that build on existing technology, for example, an
increase of the electrode thickness, the already existing cell design needs to be
adapted. Performance-mass models are the most used tools to calculate the effects
of the changed cell design to the material composition. Those types of models are
typically spreadsheet based and are available for a variety of different cell chemis-
tries and cell formats as they are often used within cost assessments. Prominent
examples for conventional Li-ion technology are the BatPaC model [32], the CellEst
model [52], or the mass model developed by Schünemann [39].
Prospective assessments on new technology for batteries are typically based on
lab-produced prototype cells (e.g. coin cells or small pouch) used for experimental
purposes. However, prototype cells produced on a lab scale are not always compa-
rable with those used in industry [27] and using these as a base of assessments might
result in under- or overestimations of impacts. For example, lab-scale-produced
solid-state cells typically contain a relatively thick solid electrolyte (typically
80–200 μm for solid polymer and composite polymer and up to 1 mm for inorganic
electrolytes) but need to be reduced to below 25 μm to realise high energy densities
[58]. Zhang et al. [55] illustrate how such thick inorganic solid electrolyte (1 mm) in
a lab-produced coin cell is responsible for 97.1% of the total manufacturing energy
consumption and has roughly double the global warming potential impact compared
to a conventional LIB cell.
Different methods can be applied to upscale novel battery technologies from
lab-scale or theoretical conceptual cells in prospective assessments on new technol-
ogy. These include the use of basic calculation project cells produced in a lab
environment, adapted spreadsheet-type models, and more advanced electrochemical
models. The first approach uses basic (linear) calculations to estimate how the
lab-produced prototype cells might scale in the future. For example, Zhang et al.
[55] linearly scale the 1-mm-thick solid electrolyte used in a coin cell down to
thickness of 20 μm to quantify the environmental benefits. Similarly, Wolff et al.
[53] use a set of linear equations to scale a lithium-sulphur lab-produced coin cell to
represent a 50 kWh automotive battery. While such simple scaling is useful for
approximations, they typically neglect the technical complexity of batteries. To
include such technical complexity, more advanced models are used to simulate
specific cell designs used as an input to the inventory data. Due to the structural
similarity of different battery types, existing spreadsheet-based models can be
adapted for new cell chemistries. Peters et al. [34], for example, use a modified
BatPaC model to obtain the inventory data and related life cycle environmental
impacts of different sodium-ion battery types based on the electrochemical param-
eters of different sodium-ion active materials.
The two discussed types of models are important to develop the LCI for the raw
materials, the production, and the end-of-life life cycle stage. For a holistic analysis
as is foreseen in LCA, the use phase of the battery needs to be understood. This task
requires more advanced electrochemical models to understand the aging mecha-
nisms and the performance of the battery over its life cycle. Electrochemical models
have been linked to LCA to enable a more systematic evaluation of battery design
parameters (e.g. electrode thickness, porosity, and ambient temperature) and oper-
ating conditions on energy density and life cycle and related environmental impacts
of lithium-ion batteries [24, 25]. Such coupling between detailed electrochemical
models and system analysis models such as LCA or cost assessments has only
recently been proposed and is presently not widely adopted or available.
12.3.2 Upscaling at the Unit Process Level
In the context of the production life cycle stage, an upscaling method for the unit
process level can be defined as the procedure to project how a new process presently
available at a low MRL might function at a higher MRL [47]. The goal of this
upscaling process is to generate the potential material and energy flows of the unit
process as well as potential emissions and waste flows. Following Parvatker and
Eckelman [33] and van der Giesen et al. [48], a range of general LCI generation
methods can be identified (see Fig. 12.1). The choice of method is largely dependent
on the data and time available for the assessment and the MRL of the assessed
technology. Scaling up the data from lower TRLs and MRLs to commercial scale
also impacts the accuracy and introduces uncertainty into the results (discussed in
more detail in Sect. 12.4).
When inventory data cannot be directly obtained from a commercial plant or LCI
database, the first LCI generation method choice is the use of process simulation.
Process simulation refers to steady-state and dynamic simulation models using
process simulation software (e.g. Aspen Plus, CHEMCAD, or HSC Sim) and is
commonly used in chemical and process engineering to analyse, design, and
improve production processes. As such models typically require detailed process
operational parameters, the manufacturing readiness level of the process has to be
relatively high. Following process simulation, the second method is manual calcu-
lation [47] which includes advanced process calculations, basic process calculations,
and calculation based on stoichiometric relations. As opposed to basic process
calculations, advanced process calculations include more details such as production
scale, equipment efficiencies, equipment sizing, and calculation of the energy
Fig. 12.1 Methods to generate life cycle inventory data with respect to uncertainty, accuracy, data
availability, and manufacturing readiness level (MRL). (Adapted from van der Giesen et al. [48] and
Parvatker and Eckelman [33])
requirement of each piece of equipment used in a production process [33]. On the

lowest MRL, molecular structure-based models and proxies can be used to generate
process inventory data. Molecular structure-based models are not widely applied to
generate inventory data.
Amongst the presented methods, process calculations are mostly adopted for
scaling calculations for the production life cycle stage. In many cases, the process
design can be anticipated with the help of production engineering knowledge. If the
production processes are similar to existing ones, dimensional analysis can be a
powerful tool to scale LCI [57]. This is particularly the case for chemical production
systems, for which several scale-up frameworks based on process calculations have
been developed [36, 40]. However, as the battery production process chain includes
process engineering, manufacturing, and electrical processes, a transfer of the scale-
up frameworks comes with additional challenges. In scaling the LCI from a lab- or
pilot-scale to large-scale production, the following factors describe the situation at
low MRL [11]:
• Significantly lower material efficiencies
• Lower process efficiencies, energy efficiency, and throughput of the processes
• Overvaluation of technical building services like the dry room
• Lack of systemic efficiencies within the production system like the use of waste
heat, energy recovery, or solvent recovery
• Unoptimised product design compared to industrial-scale batteries
Taking these factors into consideration, the scale-up of unit processes needs to
include the production system perspective. In the battery production cell system, the
dry room plays a key role for the energy demand. Modelling approaches for the dry
room have become increasingly accurate but at the same time more complex
[1, 49]. During scaling, it can be a viable option to use dry room area related key
parameters, such as presented by Vogt et al. [49]. Depending on the location of the
dry room, the energy demand is typically within a range of 0.85–0.975 kWh h-1 m-
2
and 0.05–0.7 kg CO2-eq h-1 m-2.
The presented LCI generation and scaling approaches can be applied to most life
cycle stages. However, the use phase of batteries requires different scaling
approaches, for example, electrochemical models which were explained in the
previous subsection. Additionally, learning rate or experience curves can be applied
to estimate the future development of technical performance parameters [44]. While
these have been applied in techno-economic assessments, the application of learning
rates to generate LCI data for foreground systems is a relatively new concept.
12.4 Uncertainty Management
Prospective LCA of emerging technologies has been identified as a challenging area

within the field of LCA due to the lack of empirical data available to perform
assessments. This entails the need for assumptions to be made about future
developments. The absence of empirical data, combined with the high degree of
uncertainty in the future scenarios being evaluated, can lead to uncertainties in the
results between studies performing a prospective LCA [48]. This can make it
challenging for decision-makers to use the results of the assessment in a meaningful
way. Due to such challenges, the management of uncertainty becomes a critical
aspect in the prospective LCA of emerging technologies.
To address these challenges, it is important to have robust and transparent
methods for uncertainty management in prospective LCA of emerging technologies.
This will ensure that the results of the assessment are reliable and that decision-
makers can have confidence in the results. Several methods have been proposed for
uncertainty management in prospective LCA, including sensitivity analysis, scenario
analysis, and Monte Carlo simulation [45]. These methods can be used to identify
the key sources of uncertainty in the results and to assess their impact on the results
of the assessment. In addition, several types of uncertainties exist, including param-
eter uncertainty, scenario uncertainty, and model uncertainty [23]. This section
focuses on parameter and scenario uncertainty, which are the most found ones in
prospective LCAs of emerging technologies.
Parameter uncertainty refers to the variability and unreliability of the input data
used in an LCA study [29]. This type of uncertainty is prevalent in every type of
product assessed using an LCA, but it is especially pronounced at emerging tech-
nologies. Input data can be uncertain due to a lack of information or due to variability
in the data collected. There are several factors that can cause variability in the input
data. Some of the most common sources of variability include data collection, data
quality, model uncertainty, and measurement uncertainty. For example, data on
energy consumption, emissions, or material use can be subject to measurement
error, variability in production processes, or changes in the market energy mixes.
To account for parameter uncertainty, LCA practitioners often use sensitivity ana-
lyses to examine how changes in input parameters affect the overall results of an
LCA. The Monte Carlo method is another commonly used approach to account for
parameter uncertainty, where the input data is modelled using probability distribu-
tions and then simulated multiple times to account for variability.
The uncertainty in LCA scenarios arises from the choices made in the modelling
process, such as the assumptions made in the goal and scope phase or the upscaling
calculations [45]. This type of uncertainty is especially prevalent in prospective
LCAs of emerging technologies, where information is limited and there is a high
degree of uncertainty about the future development of the technology [23]. For
instance, when making assumptions about the development of the electricity grid in
the background datasets, the results of the LCA can be highly uncertain due to the
selection made. To mitigate scenario uncertainty, researchers frequently employ
sensitivity analyses to investigate how changes in key assumptions or boundary
conditions impact the overall results of the LCA [26]. Additionally, prospective
LCAs can be used to explore extreme-case scenarios (or anticipatory LCAs) or to
assess the robustness of the results under different boundary conditions [51].
Several studies have been conducted to address uncertainty in prospective LCAs,
including Cooper and Gutowski’s approach for selecting probability distributions
[7], Lacirignola et al.’s procedure for examining the robustness of global sensitivity
analysis results [23], Marini and Blanc’s method for identifying parameters that
contribute to uncertainty using the Sobol indices [26], Ravikumar et al.’s statistical
test for significant differences in LCA results (Ravikumar et. al. 2018), and Wender
et al.’s development of anticipatory LCAs [51].
In conclusion, uncertainty management is a critical aspect of prospective LCA of
emerging technologies. Applying the existing methods to document the uncertainties
in the results of LCA will aid in wider acceptance of the results. Regardless of the
choice of method used to mitigate uncertainty, considering uncertainty is essential to
ensure the reliability and credibility of the results of a prospective LCA study.
Failing to consider uncertainty can result in unreliable and misleading results,
making it difficult to make informed decisions about the sustainability of emerging
technologies.
12.5 Comparability
LCA has become a widely used method for evaluating the environmental impact of
emerging technologies. However, comparability of results between studies can be
challenging due to several factors, and they can be related to the aim of the LCA
study, the functionality of the LCA, system boundaries, and specified life cycle
impact assessment methodologies [45].
12.5.1 Aim of the Study
In prospective life cycle assessments, the aim of the study plays a crucial role in
determining the comparability of results. The aim of the study can be generally
categorised into (i) comparisons of technologies or (ii) identifications of hotspots,
both of which are predominantly used in retrospective assessments. Unlike retro-
spective assessments, prospective assessments require differentiation between com-
parisons at different technology readiness levels (TRLs), such as laboratory-scale
compared to industrial-scale production, or comparisons at a similar TRL but
different maturity readiness level (MRL), such as laboratory-produced Li-ion battery
cells compared to laboratory-produced solid-state battery cells. Assessing technolo-
gies at different TRLs can prove to be the most challenging task and often result in
less accurate comparisons. To improve the comparability and interpretability of
results, it is essential to communicate the readiness levels and production scale of
the technology as part of the prospective assessment and clearly state them in the
study [15]. The use of various upscaling methods, as discussed in Sect. 12.2, can also
aid in comparing technologies with different TRLs.
The aim of the LCA study also plays a crucial factor in determining the compa-
rability of results between studies. For example, a study that aims to compare the
environmental impact of different materials used in a product will have a different

system boundary than a study that aims to compare the life cycle impact of different
production processes for a specific material. The choice of system boundary affects
the results of the study and, therefore, the comparability of results between studies
with different aims [6].
Finally, the goal of the LCA study can also influence the functional unit, which is
a crucial aspect of the LCA methodology. The functional unit is the unit of
measurement that allows for the comparison of different technologies or products.
The choice of functional unit must be clearly defined and consistent between studies
for results to be comparable [46].
12.5.2 Functionality
The functional unit is a crucial component in conducting an LCA as it quantifies the

performance of a product system. The challenge in defining the functional unit lies in
the fact that the future function of emerging technologies may not be fully known.
Systems at an early stage are susceptible to change, and additional functionality may
develop as the product matures. This was evident in a study by Hischier et al. who
found that the main factor for variations in the LCA outcome depends on a well-
defined functional unit [20].
To overcome this challenge, it is necessary to either define ranges for the
functional unit or to consider multiple functional units. A framework described by
Simon et al. [41] that includes the functional analysis of a lab-scale process can be
useful in defining the system functions. The authors must also be aware of the issues
concerning the definition of the functional unit and should investigate the effects of
different functional units to analyse the full function along the life cycle. However, it
is important to note that defining the functional unit can be challenging, especially
when the application of the product is not yet apparent. This can lead to inaccurate
results due to the uncertainty in upscaling and a potential change or decrease in
functionality.
For example, different functional units, such as one battery pack or cell, 1 kilo-
gram of battery, 1 kilowatt hour of storage capacity, or 1 kilometre driven, may be
used to evaluate variations when assessing the environmental impact of electric
vehicle batteries [28]. In this case, normalising the LCAs based on a common
functional unit, such as 1 watt hour of capacity, can help facilitate comparison of
the assessment results of different emerging battery technologies. By including
multiple functional units in the assessment and analysing the sensitivity of the
functional unit choice, a more in-depth understanding of the environmental perfor-
mance can be obtained.
12.5.3 System Boundary
The system boundary is a critical factor in the comparability of results between LCA
studies. The system boundary determines the extent of the life cycle to be included in
the study, and the choice of system boundary can have a significant impact on the
results of the study. For example, a study with a narrow system boundary may not
include all environmental impacts associated with a technology or product, while a
study with a broad system boundary may include environmental impacts that are not
related to the technology or product [6].
The choice of system boundary can also impact the level of detail and accuracy of
the results. For example, a narrow system boundary might provide a detailed
analysis of specific processes within the technology but may not fully capture the
overall environmental impact of the technology. On the other hand, a broad system
boundary might provide a comprehensive view of the technology but may not
provide the level of detail necessary to evaluate specific processes or impacts.
Therefore, it is essential to indicate the extent of inclusion or exclusion of the
processes in the system boundary. Studies comparing similar systems should attempt
to include the necessary processes required for a fair comparison and evaluation with
existing technologies.
12.5.4 Life Cycle Impact Assessment
The choice of life cycle impact assessment methodology is another key factor in the
comparability of results between LCA studies. Different methodologies have differ-
ent strengths and weaknesses, and the choice of methodology can have a significant
impact on the results of the study. For example, some methodologies may be more
suitable for assessing the impact of emerging technologies, while others may be
better suited for comparing the impact of different production processes [45].
In the impact assessment phase, the methodologies used to calculate the impacts
can also vary, leading to different results. Some methodologies have additional
regionalised impact categories, while others use global impact categories, which
can result in significant differences in the results. Therefore, an appropriate choice of
methodology representing the impacts for the system is necessary [33]. In addition,
to improve comparability with previous and upcoming studies, it would be beneficial
to include as many impact categories and methodologies as possible.
Using outdated LCIA methods can lead to incorrect conclusions as emerging
technologies can cause unknown impacts in the future that are not captured by
existing LCIA categories. Additionally, different characterisation factors are avail-
able for various impact categories, and it is suggested to perform the LCA with
different characterisation factors [20].
Data availability is often limited in early-design-stage assessments, making it
difficult to determine all impact categories [11]. Moreover, the potential
environmental impacts of new substances may be overlooked, due to missing LCIA

categories, insufficient LCI data, or a lack of knowledge about new impacts.
Therefore, there is a need for using a standardised LCIA method when performing
prospective LCA of emerging technologies.
12.6 Conclusion and Outlook
This section discussed the definition of prospective assessment as well as the use of
its results to inform technology developers, policymakers, and manufacturers. The
section also highlighted that there is presently no standard method for conducting a
prospective assessment. Several challenges related to data availability, scaling
issues, uncertainty, and comparability were identified and discussed. These chal-
lenges are highly interconnected and largely linked to the availability of data and
choice of upscaling methods, leading to increased uncertainties and difficulty to
compare results with existing technologies.
The use of prospective assessments for emerging technologies, such as electric
vehicle batteries, poses significant challenges that must be transparently reported and
understood by all stakeholders. The lack of transparency in LCA results, especially
in a prospective context, requires clear descriptions and justifications of all assump-
tions made during the assessment process. The results of prospective assessments
can provide valuable insights in identifying the environmental impacts of emerging
technologies, and results can be used to envisage mitigation strategies.
However, it is important to note that prospective LCAs do not predict the future
but rather explore a range of possible scenarios that define the space in which the
technology may operate. This allows for a fair comparison of emerging technologies
with incumbent technologies and the verification of design options that could steer
the technology towards a preferred future state.
In conclusion, the use of prospective LCA in evaluating emerging technologies
has the potential to provide valuable insights into the future development of these
technologies. By exploring various scenarios and implementing systematic uncer-
tainty management, prospective LCA can support decision-makers in steering the
technology towards a preferred future state. It is crucial that the results of these
assessments are transparently reported and understood by all stakeholders, including
technology developers, policymakers, industry decision-makers, and society, to
ensure their effective use in decision-making.
References
1. Ahmed S, Nelson PA, Dees DW (2016) Study of a dry room in a battery manufacturing plant
using a process model. J Power Sources 326:490–497. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpowsour.2016.
06.107
2. Arvidsson R, Tillman A-M, Sandén BA, Janssen M, Nordelöf A, Kushnir D, Molander S (2018)
Environmental assessment of emerging technologies: recommendations for prospective LCA. J
Ind Ecol 22(6):1286–1294. https://doi.org/10.1111/jiec.12690
3. Baumann M, Häringer M, Schmidt M, Schneider L, Peters JF, Bauer W et al (2022) Prospective
sustainability screening of sodium-ion battery cathode materials. Adv Energy Mater 12(46):
2202636. https://doi.org/10.1002/aenm.202202636
4. Bergerson JA, Brandt A, Cresko J, Carbajales-Dale M, MacLean HL, Matthews HS et al (2020)
Life cycle assessment of emerging technologies: evaluation techniques at different stages of
market and technical maturity. J Ind Ecol 24(1):11–25. https://doi.org/10.1111/jiec.12954
5. Birrozzi A, Bautista SP, Asenbauer J, Eisenmann T, Ashton TE, Groves AR et al (2022)
Toward the potential scale-up of Sn0.9Mn0.1O2kLiNi0.6Mn0.2Co0.2O2 Li-Ion batteries –
powering a remote-controlled vehicle and life cycle assessment. Adv Mater Technol 7(11):
2200353. https://doi.org/10.1002/admt.202200353
6. Buyle M, Audenaert A, Billen P, Boonen K, Van Passel S (2019) The future of ex-ante LCA?
Lessons learned and practical recommendations. Sustainability 11(19):5456. https://doi.org/10.
3390/su11195456
7. Cooper DR, Gutowski TG (2020) Prospective environmental analyses of emerging technology:
a critique, a proposed methodology, and a case study on incremental sheet forming. J Ind Ecol
24(1):38–51. https://doi.org/10.1111/jiec.12748
8. Cox B, Bauer C, Mendoza Beltran A, van Vuuren DP, Mutel CL (2020) Life cycle environ-
mental and cost comparison of current and future passenger cars under different energy
scenarios. Appl Energy 269(5):115021. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2020.115021
9. Cucurachi S, van der Giesen C, Guinée J (2018) Ex-ante LCA of emerging technologies.
Procedia CIRP 69:463–468. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procir.2017.11.005
10. Degen F, Schütte M (2022) Life cycle assessment of the energy consumption and GHG
emissions of state-of-the-art automotive battery cell production. J Clean Prod 330:129798.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.129798
11. von Drachenfels N, Engels P, Husmann J, Cerdas F, Herrmann C (2021) Scale-up of pilot line
battery cell manufacturing life cycle inventory models for life cycle assessment. Procedia CIRP
98:13–18. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procir.2020.12.002
12. Ellingsen LA-W, Holland A, Drillet J-F, Peters W, Eckert M, Concepcion C et al (2018)
Environmental screening of electrode materials for a rechargeable aluminum battery with an
AlCl3/EMIMCl electrolyte. Materials (Basel) 11(6). https://doi.org/10.3390/ma11060936
13. Ellingsen LA-W, Hung CR, Majeau-Bettez G, Singh B, Chen Z, Whittingham MS, Strømman
AH (2016) Nanotechnology for environmentally sustainable electromobility. Nat Nanotechnol
11(12):1039–1051. https://doi.org/10.1038/nnano.2016.237
14. Erakca M, Pinto Bautista S, Moghaddas S, Baumann M, Bauer W, Leuthner L, Weil M (2023)
Closing gaps in LCA of lithium-ion batteries: LCA of lab-scale cell production with new
primary data. J Clean Prod 384:135510. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2022.135510
15. Gavankar S, Suh S, Keller AA (2015) The role of scale and technology maturity in life cycle
assessment of emerging technologies: a case study on carbon nanotubes. J Ind Ecol 19(1):
51–60. https://doi.org/10.1111/jiec.12175
16. Greenwood M, Wrogemann JM, Schmuch R, Jang H, Winter M, Leker J (2022) The Battery
Component Readiness Level (BC-RL) framework: a technology-specific development frame-
work. J Power Sources Adv 14:100089. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.powera.2022.100089
17. Haase M, Wulf C, Baumann M, Rösch C, Weil M, Zapp P, Naegler T (2022) Prospective
assessment of energy technologies: a comprehensive approach for sustainability assessment.
Energ Sustain Soc 12(1):119. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13705-022-00344-6
18. Hauschild MZ, Rosenbaum RK, Olsen SI (2018) Life cycle assessment. Springer, Cham
19. Hetherington AC, Borrion AL, Griffiths OG, McManus MC (2014) Use of LCA as a develop-
ment tool within early research: challenges and issues across different sectors. Int J Life Cycle
Assess 19(1):130–143. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-013-0627-8
20. Hischier R, Salieri B, Pini M (2017) Most important factors of variability and uncertainty in an
LCA study of nanomaterials – findings from a case study with nano titanium dioxide.
NanoImpact 7:17–26. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.impact.2017.05.001
21. Hung CR, Ellingsen LA-W, Majeau-Bettez G (2020) LiSET: a framework for early-stage life
cycle screening of emerging technologies. J Ind Ecol 24(1):26–37. https://doi.org/10.1111/jiec.
12807
22. Klöpffer W, Curran MA, Frankl P, Heijungs R, Köhler A, Olsen SI (2007) Nanotechnology and
life cycle assessment. A systems approach to nanotechnology and the environment. Synthesis of
results obtained at a workshop Washington, DC 2–3 October 2006. European Commission, DG
Research, jointly with the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars
23. Lacirignola M, Blanc P, Girard R, Pérez-López P, Blanc I (2017) LCA of emerging technol-
ogies: addressing high uncertainty on inputs’ variability when performing global sensitivity
analysis. Sci Total Environ 578:268–280. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2016.10.066
24. Lybbert M, Ghaemi Z, Balaji AK, Warren R (2021) Integrating life cycle assessment and
electrochemical modeling to study the effects of cell design and operating conditions on the
environmental impacts of lithium-ion batteries. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 144:111004
25. Ma R, Deng Y (2022) The electrochemical model coupled parameterized life cycle assessment
for the optimized design of EV battery pack. Int J Life Cycle Assess 27(2):267–280. https://doi.
org/10.1007/s11367-022-02026-z
26. Marini C, Blanc I (2014) Towards prospective life cycle assessment: how to identify key
parameters inducing most uncertainties in the future? Application to photovoltaic systems
installed in Spain. In: Computational science and its applications—ICCSA 2014. Lecture
notes in computer science, vol 8581. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-09150-1_51
27. Marks T, Trussler S, Smith AJ, Xiong D, Dahn JR (2011) A guide to Li-ion coin-cell electrode
making for academic researchers. J Electrochem Soc 158(1):A51. https://doi.org/10.1149/1.
3515072
28. Matheys J, Van Autenboer W, Timmermans JM, Van Mierlo J, Van Den Bossche P, Maggetto
G (2007) Influence of functional unit on the life cycle assessment of traction batteries. Int J Life
Cycle Assess 12(3):191–196. https://doi.org/10.1065/lca2007.04.322
29. Mendoza Beltran A, Prado V, Font Vivanco D, Henriksson PJ, Guinéé JB, Heijungs R (2018)
Quantified uncertainties in comparative life cycle assessment: what can be concluded?. Environ
Sci & Technol 52(4): 2152–2161
30. Mendoza Beltran A, Cox B, Mutel C, Vuuren DP, Font Vivanco D, Deetman S et al (2020)
When the background matters: using scenarios from integrated assessment models in prospec-
tive life cycle assessment. J Ind Ecol 24(1):64–79. https://doi.org/10.1111/jiec.12825
31. Moni SM, Mahmud R, High K, Carbajales-Dale M (2020) Life cycle assessment of emerging
technologies: a review. J Ind Ecol 24(1):52–63. https://doi.org/10.1111/jiec.12965
32. Nelson PA, Gallagher, KG, Bloom ID, Dees DW (2012) Modeling the performance and cost of
lithium-ion batteries for electric-drive vehicles – second edition. United States. https://doi.org/
10.2172/1209682
33. Parvatker AG, Eckelman MJ (2019) Comparative evaluation of chemical life cycle inventory
generation methods and implications for life cycle assessment results. ACS Sustain Chem Eng
7(1):350–367. https://doi.org/10.1021/acssuschemeng.8b03656
34. Peters JF, Baumann M, Binder JR, Weil M (2021) On the environmental competitiveness of
sodium-ion batteries under a full life cycle perspective – a cell-chemistry specific modelling
approach. Sustain Energy Fuels 5(24):6414–6429. https://doi.org/10.1039/D1SE01292D
35. Philippot M, Alvarez G, Ayerbe E, van Mierlo J, Messagie M (2019) Eco-efficiency of a
lithium-ion battery for electric vehicles: influence of manufacturing country and commodity
prices on GHG emissions and costs. Batteries 5(1):23. https://doi.org/10.3390/batteries5010023
36. Piccinno F, Hischier R, Seeger S, Som C (2016) From laboratory to industrial scale: a scale-up
framework for chemical processes in life cycle assessment studies. J Clean Prod 135:1085–
1097. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.06.164
37. Placke T, Heckmann A, Schmuch R, Meister P, Beltrop K, Winter M (2018) Perspective on

performance, cost, and technical challenges for practical dual-ion batteries. Joule 2(12):
2528–2550. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joule.2018.09.003
38. Rinne M, Elomaa H, Lundström M (2021) Life cycle assessment and process simulation of
prospective battery-grade cobalt sulfate production from Co-Au ores in Finland. Int J Life Cycle
Assess 26(11):2127–2142. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-021-01965-3
39. Schünemann J-H (2015) Modell zur Bewertung der Herstellkosten von
Lithiumionenbatteriezellen. Göttingen: Sierke
40. Shibasaki M, Fischer M, Barthel L (2007) Effects on life cycle assessment – scale up of
processes. Advances in Life Cycle Engineering for Sustainable Manufacturing Businesses –
proceedings of the 14th CIRP conference on life cycle engineering, pp 377–381. https://doi.org/
10.1007/978-1-84628-935-4_65
41. Simon B, Bachtin K, Kiliç A, Amor B, Weil M (2016) Proposal of a framework for scale-up life
cycle inventory: a case of nanofibers for lithium iron phosphate cathode applications. Integr
Environ Assess Manag 12(3):465–477. https://doi.org/10.1002/IEAM.1788
42. Sun X, Luo X, Zhang Z, Meng F, Yang J (2020) Life cycle assessment of lithium nickel cobalt
manganese oxide (NCM) batteries for electric passenger vehicles. J Clean Prod 273:123006.
43. Susarla N, Ahmed S (2019) Estimating cost and energy demand in producing lithium
hexafluorophosphate for Li-ion battery electrolyte. Ind Eng Chem Res 58(9):3754–3766.
https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.iecr.8b03752
44. Thomassen G, van Passel S, Dewulf J (2020) A review on learning effects in prospective
technology assessment. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 130(June):109937. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.rser.2020.109937
45. Thonemann N, Schulte A, Maga D (2020) How to conduct prospective life cycle assessment for
emerging technologies? A systematic review and methodological guidance. Sustainability
12(3):1192. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12031192
46. Troy S, Schreiber A, Reppert T, Gehrke H-G, Finsterbusch M, Uhlenbruck S, Stenzel P (2016)
Life cycle assessment and resource analysis of all-solid-state batteries. Appl Energy 169(23):
757–767. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2016.02.064
47. Tsoy N, Steubing B, van der Giesen C, Guinée J (2020) Upscaling methods used in ex ante life
cycle assessment of emerging technologies: a review. Int J Life Cycle Assess 25(9):1680–1692.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-020-01796-8
48. van der Giesen C, Cucurachi S, Guinée J, Kramer GJ, Tukker A (2020) A critical view on the
current application of LCA for new technologies and recommendations for improved practice. J
Clean Prod 259:120904. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.120904
49. Vogt M, Dér A, Khalid U, Cerdas F, Herrmann C (2022) Model-based planning of technical
building services and process chains for battery cell production. J Clean Prod 370
(June):133512. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2022.133512
50. Villares M, Işıldar A, van der Giesen C, Guinée J (2017) Does ex ante application enhance the
usefulness of LCA? A case study on an emerging technology for metal recovery from e-waste.
Int J Life Cycle Assess 22(10):1618–1633. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-017-1270-6
51. Wender BA, Prado V, Fantke P, Ravikumar D, Seager TP (2018) Sensitivity-based research
prioritization through stochastic characterization modeling. Int J Life Cycle Assess 23(2):
324–332. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-017-1322-y
52. Wentker M, Greenwood M, Leker J (2019) A bottom-up approach to lithium-ion battery cost
modeling with a focus on cathode active materials. Energies 12(3):1–18. https://doi.org/10.
3390/en12030504
53. Wolff D, Canals Casals L, Benveniste G, Corchero C, Trilla L (2019) The effects of lithium
sulfur battery ageing on second-life possibilities and environmental life cycle assessment
studies. Energies 12(12):2440. https://doi.org/10.3390/en12122440
54. Xu C, Steubing B, Hu M, Harpprecht C, van der Meide M, Tukker A (2022) Future greenhouse
gas emissions of automotive lithium-ion battery cell production. Resour Conserv Recycl 187:
106606
55. Zhang J, Ke X, Gu Y, Wang F, Zheng D, Shen K, Yuan C (2022) Cradle-to-gate life cycle
assessment of all-solid-state lithium-ion batteries for sustainable design and manufacturing. Int J
Life Cycle Assess 27(2):227–237. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-022-02023-2
56. Zimmermann AW, Langhorst T, Moni S, Schaidle JA, Bensebaa F, Bardow A (2022) Life-
cycle and techno-economic assessment of early-stage carbon capture and utilization
technologies—a discussion of current challenges and best practices. Front Clim 4, Article
841907:434. https://doi.org/10.3389/fclim.2022.841907
57. Zlokarnik M (1991) Dimensional analysis and scale-up in chemical engineering. Springer,
Berlin/Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-76673-2
58. Zuo Y, Yu Y, Feng J, Zuo C (2022) Ultrathin Al–air batteries by reducing the thickness of solid
electrolyte using aerosol jet printing. Sci Rep 12(1):9801. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-022-
14080-6
Chapter 13
Life Cycle Assessment of Emerging Battery
Systems
Brian Tarroja, Oladele Ogunseitan, and Alissa Kendall
Contents
13.1 Closed Battery Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 244
13.2 Open Battery Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 250
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 255
The scale of battery capacity that may need to be produced and subsequently
managed to enable compliance with regional clean energy use and emissions
reductions goals highlights the importance of minimizing the life cycle environmen-
tal impact of battery technologies. Here, the life cycle of a battery technology
encompasses the material and energy inputs and outputs associated with materials
extraction, manufacturing, use, and end-of-life handling processes. Each battery
technology requires different processes for each of these stages. In addition,
improvements and changes in these processes are continually being developed and
implemented. Accounting for the material and energy inputs and outputs associated
with a product’s life cycle and translating the results to material resource require-
ments and environmental impacts are encompassed in life cycle assessment (LCA).
Conducting an LCA of a given product requires data that tracks the required
materials and energy inputs and outputs associated with the production, use, and
end-of-life management processes for that product. These data consist of both direct
inputs to and outputs from processes directly involving the product itself, as well as
inputs and outputs associated with the systems that provide those inputs. These
B. Tarroja (✉) · O. Ogunseitan

University of California, Irvine, CA, USA
A. Kendall
University of California, Davis, CA, USA

244 B. Tarroja et al.
datasets are developed from multiple data sources including but not limited to
material supplier data, manufacturer data, trade data, academic literature, and
regional government databases. Datasets for a particular product can be updated as
supply chains and product designs are changed, but due to the lengthy time require-
ment and institutional barriers (i.e., manufacturers protecting their proprietary data)
required to produce LCA data, these may not always keep up with emerging
developments.
Certain battery technologies have relatively mature LCA datasets and subse-
quently a robust literature of LCAs that characterize them. For example, batteries
that have been deployed at a commercial scale for a long time, such as lead-acid,
nickel-metal hydride, and variations on lithium-ion batteries, have been the subject
of many LCA studies due to their ubiquity in consumer electronics and, more
recently, electric vehicles and electric grid-tied energy storage [6, 14, 17, 35, 41,
43]. Improvements are continually being made in terms of reducing the environ-
mental impacts of their product supply chain, in-use performance, and end-of-life
handling procedures for some of these chemistries. Additionally, technological
improvements in battery performance are being assessed and reflected in updated
LCAs that build on the results of previous studies.
Newer battery technologies, as discussed in Parts V, do not yet enjoy the benefit
of a robust literature on their environmental impacts due to their relative immaturity
and/or lack of scale of deployment, combined with the time and effort required to
compose datasets for these technologies that are sufficient to perform informative
LCAs. However, prospective LCAs for some of these battery technologies have
been conducted, whether for full battery packs or installations or for materials and
components that are essential to these systems (i.e., anode materials). This section
will summarize the literature of prospective LCAs for presently emerging battery
technologies and comment on the needs for the scope of future assessments to
improve our understanding of these technologies such that these can be compared
on a consistent basis with incumbent battery technologies.
13.1 Closed Battery Systems
A closed battery system in this discussion refers to a system where all the funda-
mental components of the battery – the anode, cathode, and electrolyte – are
contained within the same physical space and no outflow of matter occurs. This
contrasts with an open system, which will be the focus of Sect. 13.2. For closed
systems, emerging battery technologies of interest for improving performance char-
acteristics (e.g., higher energy density) over incumbent technologies consist of new
battery chemistries based on novel lithium chemistries enabled using metal anodes
or solid electrolytes or chemistries based on different anode materials such as
sodium, magnesium, aluminum, potassium, and calcium.
13 Life Cycle Assessment of Emerging Battery Systems 245
13.1.1 Solid-State Lithium Batteries
An emerging development in lithium-based battery chemistries is the use of solid-

state electrolytes instead of the typical liquid- or gel-based electrolytes used in
incumbent lithium-ion batteries.
A recent LCA of a solid-state lithium-ion battery performed by Zhang et al. [45]
focused on characterizing the environmental impacts of producing a small-scale coin
cell with a solid-state lithium-aluminum-titanium-phosphate (LATP) chemistry and
comparing its impacts to a cell with a conventional liquid-based electrolyte for
lithium-ion batteries. That study demonstrated that production of one solid-state
LATP cell in the CR2032 form factor required higher primary energy inputs than a
conventional lithium-ion cell of the same form factor (2.6 MJ vs. 1.1 MJ) and
produced roughly double the greenhouse gas emissions (0.1 kg CO2e vs. 0.05 kg
CO2e). This was primarily driven by the energy intensity of producing the inorganic
solid electrolyte. Efforts to reduce the required thickness of the electrolyte layer were
found to reduce all the environmental impact indicators considered in the study sig-
nificantly, highlighting the need for manufacturing improvements for this technol-
ogy. A previous LCA for a solid-state lithium battery performed by Troy et al. [32]
focused on the production of a pouch cell based on a lithium-lanthanum-zirconium-
oxide (LLZO) chemistry. Troy et al. did not compare the environmental impact
results with incumbent battery technologies due to the relative immaturity of the
solid-state cell with commercial technologies at the time, but their results show that
on-site electricity use for cell production is the largest contributor to impacts.
Depending on where manufacturing occurs, the environmental impacts from elec-
tricity use can vary dramatically.
Focusing on the pack level, Keshavarzmohammadian et al. [18] conducted an
LCA for a solid-state lithium-ion battery pack with a pyrite cathode (iron sulfide) for
application in electric vehicles. The study scope more closely mimics the production
processes that would be used to produce real-world battery systems. The study found
that cumulative energy demand and contributions to greenhouse gas emissions from
the pyrite-based solid-state pack are on the same order of magnitude as that of
conventional lithium-ion batteries. The largest contribution toward these impacts
was again the energy use for cell production, more specifically the operation of clean
dry rooms and the production of cathode paste.
In perhaps the earliest LCA study of solid-state batteries, Lastoskie and Dai [19]
performed a comparative LCA to assess the environmental impacts of producing a
solid-state cell relative to that of a laminated cell with a gel electrolyte for electric
vehicle applications. They examined various cell chemistries for each type and
scaled the results into battery packs and vehicle assemblies. The study demonstrated
that, compared to laminated cell chemistries, solid-state batteries had lower envi-
ronmental impacts across multiple indicators, depending on the chemistry chosen.
Specifically, solid-state lithium vanadium oxide electrolytes exhibited the lowest
environmental impacts across all the environmental impact indicators considered.
The solid-state batteries specifically provided benefits during the use phase of the
electric vehicles due to higher energy density that reduced energy consumption
during vehicle operation. Cell chemistry variations had a significant effect on
production phase impacts.
Overall, present literature on LCAs of solid-state battery technology shows that
there is still much uncertainty regarding the existence or extent of environmental
benefits from using solid-state batteries compared to conventional lithium-ion bat-
teries. The environmental impacts of these systems are generally found to be similar
to that of conventional lithium-ion batteries but, depending on the scope of the
assessment and the specific chemistries used, can be higher or lower than conven-
tional batteries. In designing future solid-state battery systems, care must be taken to
identify and avoid unintended consequences that contribute to high environmental
impacts.
13.1.2 Metal Anode-Based Lithium Batteries
Another emerging development for batteries based on lithium is the use of lithium
metal anodes instead of traditional graphite-based anodes. Lithium metal anodes
potentially provide the benefit of increased energy and power densities compared to
batteries with conventional anodes but are presently subject to multiple material
stability issues during use [37]. Nonetheless, prospective LCAs of battery systems or
components containing lithium metal anodes have been conducted. Berg and
Zackrisson [8] conducted a cradle-to-grave LCA of metal anodes for lithium battery
packs used in electric vehicles using computer simulations of the battery cells as
opposed to physical fabrication, focusing on greenhouse gas emissions from a life
cycle perspective. They showed that lithium iron phosphate (LFP) and nickel
manganese cobalt (NMC) batteries based on lithium metal anodes exhibit lower
life cycle greenhouse gas emissions compared to their conventional counterparts
used in Nissan Leaf and Tesla Model S vehicles. Emissions reductions for the Nissan
Leaf ranged from 50% to 58% of the original pack, while that for the Tesla Model S
ranged from 20% to 39% of that of the original pack. This study shows the potential
environmental benefits of batteries with lithium metal anodes, but these results
require validation by assessment of physically produced cells.
Vandepaer et al. [34] performed a cradle-to-grave LCA of LFP batteries compar-
ing the use of lithium metal anodes (lithium metal polymer or LMP) versus tradi-
tional graphite anodes in a stationary grid-connected application, differentiating
between systems deployed at the distributed vs. centralized scale. This study showed
that LMP batteries exhibited lower contributions to detrimental human health
impacts (~18% reduction) and climate change (~23% reduction) but similar contri-
butions to ecosystem damage and resource use compared to conventional graphite
anode batteries, for both the centralized and distributed systems. These results are
strongly driven by the assumptions for the sourcing and production of battery
materials – aluminum from China produced using coal power in the graphite anodes
versus aluminum sourced from Canada using hydropower in the metal anodes.
Therefore, the study highlights the key factor of emissions generated from metal
production and their sensitivity to the energy source used for production.
Wu and Kong [40] also performed a comparative cradle-to-gate LCA of lithium-
ion battery production with three different anode materials: lithium metal, silicon
nanowire, and traditional graphite anodes, all used in batteries with a common
chemistry (NCM). When focusing on the production of a given mass of anode
material alone, this study found that the conventional anode material exhibited the
lowest contributions toward six of eight midpoint environmental indicators exam-
ined, with lithium metal anodes exhibiting the lowest contributions toward metal
depletion potential and marine eutrophication potential. The silicon nanowire anode
exhibited the highest impacts across all categories. In translating these results to the
production of full battery systems of the same energy capacity (1 kWh), however, the
batteries made with lithium metal anodes exhibited the lowest contributions toward
all eight environmental impact indicators considered in the study, with the most
significant benefits occurring for marine eutrophication potential. This results from
differences in the specific energy of the different anodes: anodes with higher specific
energy will require a lower mass of anode to be produced to enable a battery with a
given energy capacity. Lithium metal anodes have specific capacities of roughly ten
times that of conventional graphite anodes but do not have ten times the environ-
mental impacts; therefore, full battery systems produced with lithium metal anodes
exhibited the lowest environmental impacts. The study demonstrated, however, that
these benefits occur when the cycle life of the lithium metal-based battery is similar
to that of batteries with conventional anodes; lower cycle life will reduce or eliminate
the cradle-to-gate environmental benefits of lithium metal batteries.
Padashbarmchi et al. [23] performed a comparative, cradle-to-grave LCA of the
lithium-ion batteries produced using three different metal oxide nanoparticles as the
anode active material, iron oxide, cobalt oxide, and copper oxide, and compared
these against a battery with a traditional graphite anode. The study presented
environmental impacts using an aggregated metric of Eco-indicator points from
the Eco-indicator99 framework. Based on this metric, batteries produced with two
of the metal oxide-based anode materials (iron oxide and cobalt oxide) exhibited
lower environmental impact scores than batteries with traditional graphite anodes,
with batteries based on copper oxide obtaining higher environmental impact scores.
For individual endpoint indicators, all three metal oxide anodes showed lower
resource depletion impacts than the traditional graphite anode, while copper oxide
exhibited a very high contribution to human health impacts that drove its total
indicator score. This study shows that metal anodes have the potential to have a
lower impact than conventional anode materials depending on the materials chosen.
The present literature on LCAs of metal anode technology for lithium-ion batte-
ries shows that wider use of this technology have the potential to reduce environ-
mental impacts compared to conventional anode batteries in both mobile and
stationary applications.
13.1.3 Non-lithium Chemistries
Concerns regarding the criticality and geopolitics of access to lithium resources have
also driven interest in developing and scaling battery chemistries that depend on
elements other than lithium for their active anode element. Specifically, other alkali
metals (sodium, potassium), alkaline earth metals (magnesium, calcium), and metals
such as aluminum are of interest for lithium alternatives, described in Part V, as well
as organic materials.
Peters et al. [24] performed the first-of-its-kind LCA of the production (cradle-to-
gate) of a sodium-ion battery pack and compared its impacts using six midpoint
environmental indicators with those for different lithium-ion battery packs. They
also explored the sensitivity of these impacts to cycle life, round-trip efficiency, and
material substitution of anode hard carbon precursors. They found that with a cycle
life of 2000 cycles, sodium-ion environmental impacts were lower than lithium-ion
batteries on two indicators (freshwater eutrophication and human toxicity), within
the range of lithium-ion batteries for three indicators (global warming, fossil deple-
tion, and terrestrial acidification), and higher impacts than lithium-ion batteries for
marine eutrophication potential. Battery cycle life was found to be a major factor in
comparing sodium-ion battery environmental impacts versus lithium-ion batteries: a
drop to a cycle life of 1000 caused sodium-ion batteries to generally perform worse
than lithium-ion across indicators, while increases to 3000 or higher led to lower
impacts than most lithium-ion battery types. This study also highlights the potential
for improvement in these impacts from material selection for the anode and cathode
as well as its precursors and production method.
Jasper et al. [16] included a sodium-ion battery in a comparative, cradle-to-grave
life cycle assessment of a home battery system operated to increase the use of
otherwise curtailed solar electricity generation, where it was compared against
three lithium-ion chemistries based on a functional unit of 1 kWh of electricity
delivered. A sodium nickel magnesium manganese titanium oxide cathode and a
hard carbon anode were selected to represent the sodium-ion battery. For the full life
cycle of these systems, sodium-ion batteries were found to have higher contributions
to global warming potential, resource depletion, and freshwater toxicity than the
three lithium-ion battery systems. These results were driven by the relatively lower
energy density of the sodium-ion battery compared to the lithium-ion batteries at the
time of publishing, which requires a larger material mass to be produced to deliver
1 kWh of electricity. Since this larger material mass increases the scale of all life
cycle processes, their emissions also increased. It is important to note that between
the time of the study [16] and that of the initial study by Peters et al. [24], the energy
density of lithium-ion battery technology has improved, which explains the differ-
ence between the results of these studies. Another recent study by Carvalho et al.
[10] that conducted a comparative cradle-to-gate LCA of lithium-ion and sodium-ion
batteries also found that producing a sodium-ion battery contributed more to climate
change and resource use than lithium-ion batteries on a per-unit energy capacity
basis, also due to its lower energy density.
For mobile applications, Marmiroli et al. [20] performed a cradle-to-grave LCA

of a sodium-nickel-chloride battery used in commercial light-duty vehicles, which
was then compared on a consistent basis with the results of an LCA of an NMC
lithium-ion battery and that for a diesel vehicle used in the same application by
Accardo et al. [1]. These studies found that per kWh of battery capacity across their
entire life cycle, the sodium battery contributed the most toward 7 of the 12 midpoint
indicators with their assumed production location, increasing to 8 of 12 indicators
when the batteries are assumed to be produced in Europe. Generally, the impacts
from the sodium battery were higher than that of the NMC lithium-ion battery.
Present literature on sodium and sodium-ion batteries initially showed promise
for this technology to offer a lower environmental impact option for meeting the
battery capacity needs of the transition to a clean energy system. Improvements in
the energy density of lithium-ion batteries, however, have reduced this prospect with
many studies showing higher life cycle environmental impacts for sodium-ion
batteries. Depending on the criticality of lithium as battery demand grows over
time, sodium-ion batteries may still offer an important alternative in some
applications.
Beyond sodium-based batteries, LCAs of closed system batteries based on other
alternatives to lithium are relatively sparse. Potassium and calcium batteries have
been discussed from materials performance standpoints [2, 5, 12, 25, 26] but have
not yet been the subject of a formal life cycle assessment. Aluminum and magnesium
batteries have been the subject of some initial assessments.
Delgado et al. [28] performed a comparative, cradle-to-grave LCA of an
aluminum-ion and a lithium-ion battery (NMC chemistry) cell, focusing on their
contributions to global warming potential on per-cell and per-energy capacity bases.
This study found that on a per-cell basis, the aluminum-ion battery contributed 30%
lower greenhouse gas emissions than lithium-ion but on a per-energy capacity basis
contributed as much as 12 times the greenhouse gas emissions of the lithium-ion
battery. These results were driven by the significantly lower energy density of the
aluminum-ion battery, resulting in much more material mass required to achieve a
given energy capacity.
Melzack et al. [21] conducted a cradle-to-gate LCA of an aqueous aluminum-ion
battery and compared these results to those of supercapacitors on a per-power
capacity basis. This application better suits the aluminum-ion battery which has
high specific power but low energy density. This study found that the aluminum-ion
battery exhibited lower or similar impacts than graphene and activated carbon-based
supercapacitors on multiple environmental impact indicators, including but not
limited to global warming potential, terrestrial eutrophication, and ozone formation.
The relatively early development stage of the aluminum-ion battery implies the
potential for improvements to its environmental performance. In applications requir-
ing high specific power, it is more competitive with incumbent technologies.
Montenegro et al. [22] conducted a cradle-to-gate LCA of a magnesium-sulfur
(MgS) battery cell with three different cell construction designs and compared it to
those for lithium-ion batteries (LFP, NMC, and lithium-sulfur or LiS). The cell
construction design for the MgS battery was found to be a major driving factor in its
environmental impact profile, with designs that optimize the cell separator thickness
and pouch housing reducing contributions to global warming potential and fossil
fuel depletion to be similar to or lower than that of the lithium-ion batteries. The
optimized cell design for the MgS battery did exhibit higher material depletion and
ozone depletion potential than the initial design, but these impacts fell within the
range of values spanned by lithium-ion batteries. This study highlights the impor-
tance of fundamental cell design in driving larger-scale environmental impacts and
competitiveness of the MgS battery. This work was expanded in a study by Bautista
et al. [7], which takes the optimized cell design from Montenegro et al. [22] and
expands the scope of the LCA to a full modeled battery pack, including the use phase
of different battery applications on the electric grid, and compares the results against
three lithium-ion battery chemistries. This study found that the modeled MgS battery
still contributed environmental impacts that were similar to or lower than the range
spanned by lithium-ion batteries across all of the environmental impact indicators
included and across the different grid applications. The environmental impacts of the
MgS battery were found to be most sensitive to the assumption for the round-trip
efficiency of the system in all applications.
The literature on magnesium-based batteries shows promise for this technology in
competing against lithium-ion batteries from an environmental impact standpoint,
but this potential needs to be verified by LCAs based on physically produced packs
and tracked as production methods for this technology scales up to maturity.
Organic alternatives for battery materials are also of interest due to their potential
benefits for reduced environmental impact and resource depletion potential. A study
by Zhang et al. [46] performed a cradle-to-gate LCA of a fully organic closed system
battery based on organic polymers. This study did not perform a direct comparison to
other battery technologies but rather focused on identifying hotspots and major
contributors to environmental impacts to inform future needs for changes in pro-
duction processes and material selection. This study found that the dominant con-
tributor to environmental impacts was the production of the organic cathode
backbone due to the large number of steps involved requiring significant quantities
of solvents. For future improvements, optimizing the cathode backbone production
processes to reduce or eliminate the need for solvents will be important for reducing
the environmental impacts of this battery at scale.
13.2 Open Battery Systems
An open battery system refers to one where the fundamental components of the
battery are not physically contained within the same space and the flow of matter
(e.g., electrolyte and oxidant) occurs between them. Open systems have the potential
to exhibit high energy density (i.e., in metal-air batteries) or ease of
decommissioning due to the partially deconstructed configuration of these systems.
For open systems, emerging battery technologies of interest for improved
performance, safety, or environmental impact profiles are different chemistries of

redox flow batteries including organic-based systems and metal-air batteries.
13.2.1 Inorganic Flow Batteries
Many flow battery chemistries exist at different stages of technological and com-
mercial maturity; therefore, relatively few of them have been the subject of LCA
studies. The earliest flow battery to reach commercial scale and presently the most
mature is the vanadium redox flow battery (VRFB), which has been the subject of
multiple LCAs. The first LCA including a vanadium redox flow battery was
conducted by Rydh [27] in 1999, which compared the life cycle environmental
impact of the VRFB with a lead-acid battery and found that the VRFB exhibited
lower environmental impact (using an aggregated environmental impact score) than
lead-acid batteries.
A more recent LCA was conducted by Weber et al. [38], which conducted a
cradle-to-cradle LCA of a VRFB based on a more detailed, up-to-date dataset of this
technology compared to the original inventory from Rydh [27] that was used in
multiple studies and compared the results to a lithium titanate-based LFP battery.
This study demonstrated that for the VRFB, components related to the electrolyte
were the strongest drivers of multiple environmental impacts including contributions
to global warming potential, due to the large weight fraction of the electrolyte and
related components and the environmental impact of vanadium production. When
compared to the lithium-ion battery, the VRFB exhibited lower or similar environ-
mental impacts for three of the four environmental impact indicators (global
warming, human toxicity, abiotic depletion) when electricity inputs to battery life
cycle processes were assumed to come from clean sources such as wind and solar.
When electricity inputs are fossil-based, VRFB impacts are higher than lithium-ion
due to its lower round-trip efficiency, requiring more fossil-based generation (and
subsequent environmental impacts) for each unit of electricity delivered by the
battery.
Additional LCA studies have also focused on or included the VRFB. A study by
AlShafi and Bicer [4] conducted a comparative LCA between the VRFB, com-
pressed air energy storage, and molten salt thermal storage based on per kWh of
electricity delivered from solar energy. Of these systems, the VRFB was found to
contribute the most toward all five of the environmental impact indicators consid-
ered, driven by the dominance of copper in the system and the environmental
impacts of solar PV. A study by da Silva Lima et al. [30] conducted a comparative,
cradle-to-grave LCA of a VRFB and an NMC-based lithium-ion battery on a per
kWh of renewable electricity delivered basis. Across their whole life cycle, the
environmental impacts of the VRFB were found to be similar or lower than that of
the lithium-ion battery when both were constructed with virgin materials but gener-
ally lower than that of lithium-ion batteries when 50% of the VRFB electrolyte is
recycled. This study also highlights the prominence of the VRFB electrolyte in
driving environmental impacts due to its large mass fraction in the overall system
and energy-intensive production processes.
Recent LCAs have also started to assess new flow battery chemistries that have
only recently reached commercial scale. A study by He et al. [13] conducted a
comparative cradle-to-gate LCA of three flow battery chemistries: the VRFB, the
zinc-bromide flow battery (ZBFB), and the iron flow battery (IFB), based on up-to-
date manufacturer data for commercial systems. This was the first study to conduct
LCAs of the ZBFB and IFB systems, despite these systems already being deployed
at a small commercial scale. This study found that of these three systems, the IFB
generally exhibited the lowest environmental impacts in six of eight midpoint impact
indicators due to its use of relatively benign materials, the exception being freshwa-
ter ecotoxicity and ozone depletion potential due to materials used in the cell
membranes. The ZBFB generally exhibited the second largest contribution to
environmental impacts but contributed the most to abiotic resource depletion. The
VRFB exhibited the highest environmental impacts on seven of the eight impact
indicators included in the study, strongly driven in five of those impact categories by
the production of the VRFB electrolyte based on vanadium pentoxide. The VRFB
results, however, were shown to be highly sensitive to the assumed production
process of the vanadium pentoxide electrolyte, with lower emissions processes
potentially reducing environmental impacts in four of the eight categories to be
competitive with the IFB. This study highlights the importance of not only material
selection but also reducing the emissions intensity of production processes for key
materials that are required for flow battery operation. The results of this study were
used in a further study by Tian et al. [31] that assessed how the emissions saved from
the deployment of the three different flow batteries on a renewable electric grid scale
versus the emissions contributed from producing these batteries as the installed
capacity of these batteries on the grid increases. Extending the themes from the
study by He et al. [13], the IFB enabled the largest capacity of batteries to be
installed while ensuring that the emissions benefit outweighed battery production
emissions due to the low greenhouse gas emissions intensity of IFB production.
Conversely, the VRFB had a much lower ceiling on how much capacity can be
installed before battery production emissions overtook the emissions saved on the
grid. Selecting lower emissions intensity production methods for vanadium pentox-
ide increased this capacity ceiling, however.
13.2.2 Organic Flow Batteries
Flow battery systems with organic electrolytes are also an emerging technology with
the possibility to reduce the potential environmental impacts and resource depletion
effects associated with inorganic electrolytes [9, 39]. Organic flow batteries are
relatively new and as of this writing (mid-2022) are just starting to be commercial-
ized. Therefore, LCAs of this class of technologies are relatively sparse in the
research literature, but one very recent (published 2022) study focused on
performing LCAs of flow batteries with organic electrolytes.
A study by Di Florio et al. [11] performed a comparative, cradle-to-gate LCA of a
semi-organic flow battery using anthraquinone disulfonic acid and hydrobromic acid
as electrolyte materials and compared the impact results against a VRFB on a per
1 MWh of electricity delivered basis for renewable energy shifting. This study found
that the semi-organic flow battery exhibited lower environmental impacts on 8 of the
11 categories of environmental impacts considered. The three exceptions were
stratospheric ozone depletion, mineral resource scarcity, and cumulative energy
demand; however, the semi-organic flow battery and the VRFB exhibited similar
contributions in these cases, and their differences were found to be within the band of
uncertainty for the analysis. These results were largely driven by the lower contri-
butions to environmental impacts from electrolyte production, highlighting the
benefit of the semi-organic electrolyte. However, the semi-organic electrolyte was
assessed for two different production pathways, air oxidation and dichromate oxi-
dation, and the beneficial results apply to the air oxidation pathway, with the
dichromate oxidation pathway exhibiting higher environmental impacts for the
electrolyte production.
13.2.3 Metal-Air Batteries
Metal-air batteries are an emerging technology of interest due to their advantages

over conventional lithium-ion batteries in energy density. By using ambient air as the
external cathode for the system, these systems can weigh significantly less than
closed system batteries. From an LCA standpoint, lithium-air batteries have been the
primary focus of study due to their energy density.
Iturrondobeitia et al. [15] performed a cradle-to-gate LCA of seven different
chemistries of lithium-oxygen batteries. The study results were compared against
lithium-ion, lithium-sulfur, and sodium-ion batteries when used in electric vehicles
on a per-unit energy capacity basis. This study found that compared to the lowest
emission closed system battery (lithium-ion), five of the seven lithium-air chemis-
tries produced lower greenhouse gas emissions. The two exceptions were the cobalt
carbonate-based and gold/nickel-based lithium-air batteries, which produced 208%
and 175% of the greenhouse gas emissions produced by the lithium-ion battery,
respectively, largely driven by emissions from the production of the battery cathode.
For the average of the seven lithium-air chemistries across all the 18 environmental
impact indicators considered, lithium-air batteries exhibited improved environmen-
tal impacts compared to any of the closed system batteries in 10 out of 18 environ-
mental impact indicators. Notably, lithium-air batteries required significantly larger
land use than the closed system batteries, 17 times more than the lithium-sulfur and
7.6 times more than the lithium-ion battery, but the study did not explicitly elaborate
on the driver of this result. Certain lithium-ion chemistries, such as the battery based
on porous carbon, exhibited lower environmental impacts than the lowest impact
closed system battery on 16 of the 18 environmental impact indicators. This study

highlights how, depending on the chemistry, lithium-air batteries may or may not
provide environmental benefits over closed system batteries even with their higher
energy density.
Uludag and Yay [33] conducted an LCA of a lithium-air battery based on a
tetraethylene glycol dimethyl ether and lithium hexaphosphate electrolyte, produced
with and without electrolyte stabilizers. The study results were compared with closed
system batteries for contributions to greenhouse gas emissions. This study found that
the lithium-air batteries on average exhibited similar greenhouse gas emissions when
produced without stabilizers or when produced with aluminum oxide stabilizers, but
markedly lower greenhouse gas emissions when produced with silicon dioxide
stabilizers. The configuration with silicon dioxide stabilizers enabled a higher energy
density, almost twice that of the configuration when produced with aluminum oxide
stabilizers and 43% more than the configuration without stabilizers. This caused the
silicon dioxide configuration to exhibit the lowest environmental impacts across all
four of the environmental impact indicators considered. When compared to closed
system lithium-ion batteries, the silicon dioxide configuration exhibited only 61% of
the greenhouse gas emissions of the lowest emission lithium-ion battery (lithium
manganese oxide in this study). This study further highlights the importance of
optimizing battery production pathways to realize the environmental benefits of
lithium-air batteries over incumbent technologies.
Wang et al. [36] performed a comparative, cradle-to-grave LCA of a lithium-
oxygen battery and a closed system NMC lithium-ion battery when used in electric
vehicle applications. Production of the negative electrode was found to be a major or
driving contributor to 11 of the 13 environmental impact indicators in the production
phase of the system, with the exceptions being global warming potential and fossil
depletion potential, where cell assembly is the major contributor. The impacts from
the negative electrode are driven by the impacts associated with the production and
use of copper, whereas impacts from cell assembly are driven by the production and
use of carbon nanotubes. From the cradle-to-grave perspective, the lithium-oxygen
battery exhibits lower environmental impacts in 9 of the 13 environmental impact
indicators, with the exceptions being terrestrial ecotoxicity, ozone depletion, human
toxicity, and fossil depletion.
Zackrisson et al. [44] conducted the initial LCA of lithium-air batteries, applying
a cradle-to-grave approach to assessing a prototype lithium-air battery intended for
use in an electric vehicle. At the time of this study [44], environmental impacts
contributed by the lithium-air battery were dominated by the production phase of the
system. Impacts from the use of copper dominated impacts on ecotoxicity, human
toxicity (cancer and non-cancer), and abiotic depletion, while emissions from elec-
tricity use dominated contributions to global warming potential. This initial study
projected that as lithium-air battery technology develops, the use phase will come to
represent the majority of environmental impacts.
Metal-air batteries based on metals other than lithium have not been investigated
extensively with LCA tools. Yang and Knickle [42] conducted a preliminary
analysis of an aluminum-air battery in 2002, well before the large-scale
commercialization of electric vehicles, and focused on life cycle cost instead of

environmental impacts. From an environmental standpoint, Santos et al. [29]
performed a cradle-to-gate LCA of a zinc-air battery based on the laboratory-scale
fabrication of the cell. A comparison of the zinc-air environmental impacts to
incumbent technologies was not provided due to the use of a laboratory-scale
production process; this study highlighted major contributors to the environmental
impacts of this technology. This study found that cathode production was the largest
contributor to 12 out of 14 environmental impact indicators, the two exceptions
being non-cancer human toxicity and mineral/fossil/renewable resource depletion –
where the zinc anode was the largest or dominant contributor. From a cost stand-
point, this study also found that the zinc-air battery exhibited the lowest costs
compared to incumbent battery technologies on a per-power capacity basis
(kW) but one of the higher costs on a per-energy capacity basis.
Lithium-air technologies potentially offer promising environmental impact
reduction benefits compared to incumbent battery technologies, but the careful
configuration of material selection and production pathways is required to realize
these benefits. Due to the relatively immature state of metal-air technologies,
repeating LCAs for these batteries if they achieve scale will be required. Knowledge
of the environmental impacts of metal-air batteries using metals other than lithium is
presently too sparse in the literature to estimate their potential for providing reduced
environmental impacts. Additionally, in real-world operation, certain metal-air bat-
teries are sensitive to air purity; substances such as water vapor in the air, for
example, can degrade and damage such systems [3].
References
1. Accardo A et al (2021) Life cycle assessment of an NMC battery for application to electric light-
duty commercial vehicles and comparison with a sodium-nickel-chloride battery. Appl Sci
11(3):1160. https://doi.org/10.3390/app11031160
2. Adil M et al (2020) Practical aqueous calcium-ion battery full-cells for future stationary storage.
ACS Appl Mater Interfaces 12(10):11489–11503. https://doi.org/10.1021/acsami.9b20129
3. Ahuja D, Kalpna V, Varshney PK (2021) Metal air battery: a sustainable and low cost material
for energy storage. J Phys Conf Ser 1913(1):12065. https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/1913/1/
012065
4. AlShafi M, Bicer Y (2021) Life cycle assessment of compressed air, vanadium redox flow
battery, and molten salt systems for renewable energy storage. Energy Rep 7:7090–7105.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egyr.2021.09.161
5. Arroyo-de Dompablo ME et al (2020) Achievements, challenges, and prospects of calcium
batteries. Chem Rev 120(14):6331–6357. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.chemrev.9b00339
6. Arshad F et al (2022) Life cycle assessment of lithium-ion batteries: a critical review. Resour
Conserv Recycl 180:106164. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2022.106164
7. Bautista SP et al (2021) Prospective life cycle assessment of a model magnesium battery. Energ
Technol 9(4):2000964. https://doi.org/10.1002/ente.202000964
8. Berg H, Zackrisson M (2019) Perspectives on environmental and cost assessment of lithium
metal negative electrodes in electric vehicle traction batteries. J Power Sources 415:83–90.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpowsour.2019.01.047
9. Cao J et al (2020) Organic flow batteries: recent progress and perspectives. Energy Fuel 34(11):
13384–13411. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.energyfuels.0c02855
10. Carvalho ML et al (2022) Sodium-ion batteries with Ti1Al1TiC1.85 MXene as negative
electrode: life cycle assessment and life critical resource use analysis. Sustainability 14(10):
5976. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14105976
11. Di Florio G et al (2022) Assessment of semi-organic electrolytes for redox flow battery: life
cycle assessment as a tool to steer industry toward green chemistry. J Clean Prod 343:130899.
12. Gummow RJ et al (2018) Calcium-ion batteries: current state-of-the-art and future perspectives.
Adv Mater 30(39):1801702. https://doi.org/10.1002/adma.201801702
13. He H et al (2020) Flow battery production: materials selection and environmental impact. J
Clean Prod 269:121740. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.121740
14. Heath GA et al (2022) A critical review of the circular economy for lithium-ion batteries and
photovoltaic modules – status, challenges, and opportunities. J Air Waste Manage Assoc 72(6):
478–539. https://doi.org/10.1080/10962247.2022.2068878
15. Iturrondobeitia M et al (2021) Environmental impact analysis of aprotic Li–O2 batteries based
on life cycle assessment. ACS Sustain Chem Eng 9(20):7139–7153. https://doi.org/10.1021/
acssuschemeng.1c01554
16. Jasper FB et al (2022) Life cycle assessment (LCA) of a battery home storage system based on
primary data. J Clean Prod 366:132899. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2022.132899
17. Kang DHP, Chen M, Ogunseitan OA (2013) Potential environmental and human health impacts
of rechargeable lithium batteries in electronic waste. Environ Sci Technol 47(10):5495–5503.
https://doi.org/10.1021/es400614y
18. Keshavarzmohammadian A, Cook SM, Milford JB (2018) Cradle-to-gate environmental
impacts of sulfur-based solid-state lithium batteries for electric vehicle applications. J Clean
Prod 202:770–778. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.08.168
19. Lastoskie CM, Dai Q (2015) Comparative life cycle assessment of laminated and vacuum
vapor-deposited thin film solid-state batteries. J Clean Prod 91:158–169. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.jclepro.2014.12.003
20. Marmiroli B et al (2020) The transport of goods in the urban environment: a comparative life
cycle assessment of electric, compressed natural gas and diesel light-duty vehicles. Appl Energy
260:114236. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2019.114236
21. Melzack N, Wills RGA, Cruden A (2021) Cleaner energy storage: cradle-to-gate life cycle
assessment of aluminum-ion batteries with an aqueous electrolyte. Front Energy Res. https://
www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fenrg.2021.699919
22. Montenegro CT et al (2021) Environmental assessment of a new generation battery: the
magnesium-sulfur system. J Energy Stroage 35:102053. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.est.2020.
102053
23. Padashbarmchi Z et al (2015) Environmental life cycle assessments of emerging anode mate-
rials for Li-ion batteries-metal oxide NPs. Environ Prog Sustain Energy 34(6):1740–1747.
https://doi.org/10.1002/ep.12148
24. Peters J et al (2016) Life cycle assessment of sodium-ion batteries. Energ Environ Sci 9(5):
1744–1751. https://doi.org/10.1039/C6EE00640J
25. Pramudita JC et al (2017) An initial review of the status of electrode materials for potassium-ion
batteries. Adv Energy Mater 7(24):1602911. https://doi.org/10.1002/aenm.201602911
26. Rajagopalan R et al (2020) Advancements and challenges in potassium ion batteries: a
comprehensive review. Adv Funct Mater 30(12):1909486. https://doi.org/10.1002/adfm.
201909486
27. Rydh CJ (1999) Environmental assessment of vanadium redox and lead-acid batteries for
stationary energy storage. J Power Sources 80(1–2):21–29. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-
7753(98)00249-3
28. Salgado Delgado M et al (2019) Comparative life cycle assessment of a novel Al-ion and a
Li-ion battery for stationary applications. Materials 12(19):3270. https://doi.org/10.3390/
ma12193270
29. Santos F et al (2020) Environmental and economical assessment for a sustainable Zn/air battery.
Chemosphere 250:126273. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2020.126273
30. da Silva Lima L et al (2021) Life cycle assessment of lithium-ion batteries and vanadium redox
flow batteries-based renewable energy storage systems. Sustan Energy Technol Assess 46:
101286. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.seta.2021.101286
31. Tian S et al (2021) Environmental benefit-detriment thresholds for flow battery energy storage
systems: a case study in California. Appl Energy 300:117354. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
apenergy.2021.117354
32. Troy S et al (2016) Life cycle assessment and resource analysis of all-solid-state batteries. Appl
Energy 169:757–767. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2016.02.064
33. Uludağ AA, Erses Yay AS (2021) Life cycle analysis of lithium–air batteries designed with
TEGDME-LiPF6/PVDF aprotic electrolytes. ACS Sustain Chem Eng 9(46):15406–15418.
https://doi.org/10.1021/acssuschemeng.1c04003
34. Vandepaer L, Cloutier J, Amor B (2017) Environmental impacts of lithium metal polymer and
lithium-ion stationary batteries. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 78:46–60. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
rser.2017.04.057
35. Le Varlet T et al (2020) Comparative life cycle assessment of lithium-ion battery chemistries for
residential storage. J Energy Stroage 28:101230. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.est.2020.101230
36. Wang F, Deng Y, Yuan C (2020a) Life cycle assessment of lithium oxygen battery for electric
vehicles. J Clean Prod 264:121339. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.121339
37. Wang R et al (2020b) Lithium metal anodes: present and future. J Energy Chem 48:145–159.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jechem.2019.12.024
38. Weber S et al (2018) Life cycle assessment of a vanadium redox flow battery. Environ Sci
39. Wei X et al (2017) Materials and systems for organic redox flow batteries: status and challenges.
ACS Energy Lett 2(9):2187–2204. https://doi.org/10.1021/acsenergylett.7b00650
40. Wu Z, Kong D (2018) Comparative life cycle assessment of lithium-ion batteries with lithium
metal, silicon nanowire, and graphite anodes. Clean Technol Environ Policy 20(6):1233–1244.
41. Xia X, Li P (2022) A review of the life cycle assessment of electric vehicles: Considering the
influence of batteries. Sci Total Environ 814:152870. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.
152870
42. Yang S, Knickle H (2002) Design and analysis of aluminum/air battery system for electric
vehicles. J Power Sources 112(1):162–173. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-7753(02)00370-1
43. Yudhistira R, Khatiwada D, Sanchez F (2022) A comparative life cycle assessment of lithium-
ion and lead-acid batteries for grid energy storage. J Clean Prod 358:131999. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.jclepro.2022.131999
44. Zackrisson M et al (2016) Life cycle assessment of lithium-air battery cells. J Clean Prod 135:
299–311. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.06.104
45. Zhang J et al (2022a) Cradle-to-gate life cycle assessment of all-solid-state lithium-ion batteries
for sustainable design and manufacturing. Int J Life Cycle Assess 27(2):227–237. https://doi.
org/10.1007/s11367-022-02023-2
46. Zhang S et al (2022b) Life cycle assessment of an all-organic battery: Hotspots and opportu-
nities for improvement. J Clean Prod 337:130454. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2022.
130454
Chapter 14
Techno-economics Analysis on Sodium-Ion
Batteries: Overview and Prospective
Marco Ferraro and Giovanni Tumminia
Contents
14.1 Sodium-Ion Battery Basic Raw Materials . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 259
14.2 Sodium-Ion Battery Cost Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 261
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 265
14.1 Sodium-Ion Battery Basic Raw Materials
The total global battery demand is expected to reach nearly 1000 GWh per year by
2025 and exceed 2600 GWh by 2030 [1]. The expandability of lithium-ion batteries
(LIBs) is one of the options; however, with the increasing shortage of lithium
minerals and their uneven distribution around the world [2], the long-term develop-
ment of LIBs could be constrained. In fact, the raw material demand driven by
battery applications is estimated to experience unprecedented growth in the coming
years. In detail, four battery metals are impacted the most by this growth towards
2030: lithium by a factor of 6, cobalt by a factor of 2, class 1 nickel by a factor of
24, and manganese by 1.2 [1].
In this context, sodium-ion battery (SIB) might become an important alternative
considering its abundant resources, high cost-effectiveness, and high safety.
The early SIB development took place in parallel with the LIB development in the
1970s/1980s. Subsequently, their development slowed down considerably due to the
higher energy density lithium-ion chemistry in the 1990s/2000s [3].
M. Ferraro (✉) · G. Tumminia

CNR-Istituto di Tecnologie Avanzate per L’Energia “Nicola Giordano” (ITAE), Palermo, Italy

260 M. Ferraro and G. Tumminia
On the other hand, due to availability and price issues of Li-ion basic raw
materials, related to the fast increase of demand from mobility, mobile electronics,
and stationary applications confronted with limited availability of the supply side
[4, 5], recently, the studies of sodium-ion batteries have rapidly become highly
topical, as evidenced by the sharp increase in the number of research papers.
SIBs have the most similarities with LIBs in terms of working principle, typical
electrode materials, and electrolyte formulations. Moreover, SIBs in principle can
use the same technologies of LIB manufacturing lines, reducing development costs
and timescales [6]. SIBs have the same working principle as LIBs, with the differ-
ence that the charge transfer relies on sodium ions instead of lithium ions and
electrode RedOx reactions involve Na instead of Li. Both electrodes are deposited
on metallic current collectors, immersed in a liquid electrolyte allowing for mobility
of ions between electrodes, and separated by electrically non-conductive, porous
(to allow ion mobility) layer preventing internal short circuit [3].
Moreover, sodium-ion chemistry allows to use aluminium, which is inactive in
terms of reacting with sodium, for both anode and cathode current collectors,
substituting in this way copper otherwise used as anode current collector in LIBs
[2]. Therefore, changing the current collector from copper to aluminium cannot only
greatly reduce the cost of the cell but also addresses the over-discharge issue,
especially in organic solutions, and decreases the battery weight. According to [7],
the cost shares of the current collector foils are 11.6% for copper and 2.7% for
aluminium in terms of the total cost of a lithium-ion cell. Replacing the copper foil
with an aluminium foil in a SIB would result in a cell material cost reduction of about
9%, with a corresponding battery cost reduction of about 3%. The exchange would
consequently result in a 55% mass reduction but also a 50% volume increase relative
to the exchanged foil.
On the other hand, since commercial graphite cannot be directly used as anode for
SIBs, due to intercalation problems and a lack of stable Na–C compounds [8], SIBs
might show a significant increase of the anode contribution to the total price. The
commonly proposed alternative anode for SIBs is hard carbon, although it re-acts
less with sodium than the lithium in graphite per unit mass and volume. In fact, hard
carbon shows lower specific density than graphite, and thus thicker laminates are
needed, and as the irreversible capacity is also larger, more active material is
required, which could increase the costs [9].
Although different works investigated the use of hard carbon as anode for SIBs,
in order to make it more practical [10–12], commercial hard carbon prices kg-1 are
not available. But it has been reported that higher price comes from the high-cost
precursors [10, 11]. However, in order to reduce SIB cost and increase its perfor-
mances, there are different studies that focus on low-cost/high-yield synthesis of
hard carbon using cheaper precursors (e.g. cellulose, corn stalks, phenolic resin)
[10, 12]. Vaalma et al. used $15 kg-1 as a price of hard carbon; however, it can be
lowered up to $8 kg-1, considering the efforts are being done to enhance the
properties of the hard carbon [7, 10].
For the electrolyte, the differences are comparably small: the amount of lithium in
the electrolyte is very low (0.5% for a 1 M LiPF6 solution in organic solvent), and
14 Techno-economics Analysis on Sodium-Ion Batteries: Overview and Prospective 261
correspondingly low is the potential for cost reductions by substituting it with an

electrolyte using a less expensive sodium salt [13].
However, SIBs compared with LIBs show some drawbacks, which have slowed
down its widespread diffusion, including a higher redox potential (-2.71 V for
sodium compared with -3.04 V for lithium, both versus the standard hydrogen
electrode), a higher atomic mass (23 g mol-1 and 7 g mol-1 for sodium and lithium,
respectively), and a larger size (the Shannon ionic radii are 1.02 Å and 0.76 Å for
sodium and lithium, respectively), which lead to a decrease in the theoretical energy
density [5, 7]. At the cell level, these factors contribute to a decrease in performance.
14.2 Sodium-Ion Battery Cost Analysis
While there are several works available in the literature on the costs of lithium-ion
battery materials [14], cells, and packs, there is relatively little available analysis of
these for sodium ion [15]. Moreover, most of the works focus on costs of material
preparation and the electrodes/electrolytes taken in isolation, without considering the
costs of the whole cell or battery system [16]. However, the cost percentage for
active components (cathodes, anodes, and electrolytes) in cells is generally lower
than 50% [7], while the costs of the inactive components (current collectors, binders,
separators, etc.) are even higher than for those electrode materials. Therefore, the
lack of a cost analysis makes it hard to evaluate the long-term feasibility of this
storage technology.
For realistic cost predictions, calculations must be done for a certain battery cell
with defined kWh. As sodium has a higher molecular weight and a larger size than
that of lithium, the theoretical energy density may decrease, and the cost at the cell
level can increase [5, 10].
A detailed cost analysis using the Argonne National Lab’s BatPaC model
(a commonly applied battery cost model, with specifications for many common
cathode chemistries, including SIB technology) has been undertaken by Faradion
and suggests that material costs at a manufacturing scale will be less than
$150 kWh-1 [17]. This makes sodium technology cost competitive with the most
inexpensive lithium technologies. The cost breakdown for the components for a
Faradion 12 Ah pouch cell is as follows: anode active material = 26%, cathode
active material = 28%, electrolyte = 12%, separator = 3%, current collectors =
13%, and miscellaneous components to a fabricate pouch cell-type battery = 18%.
Hirsh et al. [18] investigated the use of Na-ion batteries for grid energy storage,
included a cost analysis of Na-ion cells for various sodium cathode chemistries, and
included a comparison with the cost ($ per kWh) of LiCoO2. The calculated values
compare very favourably with those calculated by Faradion showing that cobalt-free
Na ion to be between 40% and 60% lower cost in $ per kWh than LiCoO2/graphite
(which they calculate to be at 99 $ per kWh). The authors attribute this significant
decrease in cost to the transition metal elements, particularly Co and Ni, which in
Na-ion cathodes can be absent or minimised without the detrimental effect on

performance observed in equivalent Li-ion cathodes of the same B-site composition.
Schneider et al. [19] compared cost and GHG emissions of LIBs and SIB
reporting that current automotive LIB cell cost based on NMC111|C (186 $
(kWh)) is significantly below the evaluated sodium-ion alternatives. According to
the authors, this finding is mainly due to the lower specific charges and voltage of the
active materials of sodium-ion batteries, leading to higher material requirements and
longer processing times per kWh of capacity. They further show current LIB
superiority regarding greenhouse gas emissions and attribute this fact to the same
mechanism. Consequently, the authors state that sodium-ion batteries can only
become competitive if a performance similar to LIBs is achieved.
Vaalma et al. [7] compared SIB and LIB costs, considering 11.5 kWh, 7 kW
battery, with a fixed number of cells as the model system. In detail, the authors
compared the cell materials and battery costs of three LIB different chemistries
(LMO–sG (LiMn2O4 with synthetic graphite), NCM(622)–nG
(Li1.05(Ni0.6Co0.2Mn0.2)0.95O2 with natural graphite), and NCM(622)–SiC
(Li1.05(Ni0.6Co0.2Mn0.2)0.95O2 with silicon/carbon composite)) with three different
SIB chemistries (NMO–sHC (β-NaMnO2 with standard hard carbon), ASC–PHC
(advanced sodium-ion cathode material with phosphorus-hard carbon composite),
and FSC–aPHC (future sodium-ion cathode (the working potential is increased by
0.2 V compared to ASC) with advanced PHC)). The LIB chemistries have been
selected to illustrate the development of LIBs with increased energy density and
lower cost, while the SIB chemistries are representative examples of a present
(NMO–sHC), advanced (ASC–PHC), and future (FSC–aPHC) SIB.
The results of the study are shown in the following Table 14.1. Comparing the
LIBs, large cost reductions in terms of the total cost of the cell materials result from
changing the cathode material from LMO to NCM (622). Considering NMO–sHC,
an example of a present SIB, a substantial increase in the cost of the cell materials
relative to the three investigated LIBs is reported. More specifically, the anode cost
increases with the use of sHC compared with natural or synthetic graphite owing to
the lower density (1.50 g cm-3 for sHC versus 2.24 g cm-3 for graphite), which
leads to increased electrolyte cost. Furthermore, the anode cost also increases
because of the lower energy density of sHC (300 mAh g-1 and 360 mAh g-1 for
sHC and graphite, respectively), and thus more active material is needed to achieve
the target energy of the battery. Finally, the price of the active materials is higher
with sHC ($15 kg-1) than with natural graphite ($10 kg-1). On the other hand,
considering SIBs that are more advanced, a substantial cost decrease is calculated for
ASC–PHC and FSC–aPHC owing to the use of anode materials that have a higher
capacity (300 mAh g-1 for sHC versus 700 mAh g-1 for PHC and 900 mAh g-1 for
aPHC) and, in particular, exhibit a higher volumetric energy density despite the
average working potential increasing by about 0.2 V with respect to hard carbon22.
Again, the smaller amount of required electrolyte results in a large cost decrease.
Therefore, the development of anode and cathode materials with higher volumetric
energy densities is important because it simultaneously leads to a notable decrease in
Table 14.1 Cost comparison of model sodium-ion and lithium-ion batteries, considering as
assumption an 11.5 kWh, 7 kW battery [7]
LMO– NCM622– NCM622– NMO– ASC– FSC–
sG nG SiC sHC PHC aPHC
Cell material cost ($) 1022 878 841 1164 943 781
Positive active material 31 40 43 20 37 37
(%)
Negative active material 16 13 10 24 12 9
(%)
Carbon and binders (%) 4 3 3 5 4 4
Positive current collector 3 2 3 3 3 4
(%)
Negative current collec- 12 10 11 3 4 4
tor (%)
Separator (%) 20 18 19 23 25 27
Electrolyte (%) 15 13 11 22 15 16
Battery pack ($) 2981 2760 2689 3300 2920 2704
Mass (kg) 89.5 68.1 57.9 111.6 78.4 69.4
Volume (l) 51.3 41.3 34.9 73.9 49.3 43.9
Specific energy density 128.5 169.0 198.5 103.1 146.8 165.8
(Wh/kg)
Price per energy ($/Wh) 1022 878 841 1164 943 781
the cost of the conductive carbon and binder and, especially, the cost of the
electrolyte.
With regard to the entire battery pack, the NMO–sHC battery shows different
disadvantages with respect to the LIBs such as increased volume, mass, and cost. On
the other hand, the FSC–aPHC cell chemistry would be competitive with NCM
(622)–SiC in terms of cost, and although it has a higher mass and volume, these
parameters may be less crucial for stationary applications.
However, as stated by the authors, the lifetime, energy efficiency, and safety
influence on the cost of the final batteries were not considered in the analysis. These
parameters strongly influence the costs of a storage system. In fact, for example, a
NCM–graphite battery with a cost of about $3,000 and a cycle life of about 5,000
cycles would have a cost per kilowatt hour ($0.060 kWh-1) that is more than twice
that of a LFP–LTO battery with a cost of about $5,000 and a cycle life of 20,000
cycles ($0.025 kWh-1).
Another similar study was conducted by [13] modifying BatPaC from a prismatic
cell model to a cylindrical 18,650 cell model. In detail, the authors compared layered
oxide SIB cells with two different LIB cell chemistries: lithium–nickel–manganese–
cobalt–oxide cathodes and lithium–iron–phosphate cathodes. The study results show
that the lithium–iron–phosphate battery shows the highest price per kWh of storage
capacity (229 €/kWh), followed by the SIB at 223.4 €/kWh. On the other hand, the
lithium–nickel–manganese–cobalt–oxide battery is the cheapest (168.5 €/kWh), due
to its high energy density. When looking at the contribution of the battery materials
to the final cell costs (per single 18,650 cell), the benefits of the SIB on a material
level become clearer. Here, the SIB shows the lowest costs per single cell (0.50 €/
cell), whereas the materials for the NMC-type cells are the most expensive (0.72 €/
cell). However, these are costs per single cell and do not consider the storage
capacity.
Moreover, since fluctuations in raw material prices are a major factor of concern
for battery manufacturers [20], the authors perform a sensitivity analysis varying raw
material prices. The results show a high sensitivity to fluctuations in the graphite/
hard carbon prices. This is more severe for the SIB, where the share of anode active
material is higher. Regarding the cathode materials, the highest fluctuations can be
observed for cobalt and nickel. Lithium and copper, despite the variations in their
price, which have a stronger impact on the final cell price, are comparably stable
metals that did not fluctuate heavily over the past 10 years. However, recent
increases in the price of lithium have been significant and might be triggered by an
increasing demand for batteries, leading to potentially stronger impacts in LIB prices
than previously noted. Thus, the high dependency of the actual NMC price on
current nickel market prices, and cobalt market prices to a great degree, produces
significant uncertainty for future price predictions. Since this situation also affects
the SIB due to the high nickel content in the cathode, alternative nickel-free, SIB
cathode chemistries could be an interesting option in this regard.
At this time, a direct comparison of the cost-effectiveness of LIBs and SIBs is not
possible because SIBs have not been produced on a comparable scale to LIBs. In
fact, although the commercialisation and production of these systems are still at a
very infant stage as compared to LIBs, presently, there are few companies worldwide
developing commercial Na-ion batteries for some niche applications:
• Faradion Limited, established in 2011, was the first nonaqueous Na-ion battery
company in the world. It is an owner of >20 patent families (2019) covering a
range of materials, technologies, and system designs. Its main product uses high-
energy-density oxide cathode with hard carbon anode and liquid electrolyte. Its
pouch cells have demonstrated 140–150 Wh/kg at cell level with good rate
performance up to 3 C and cycle life of 300 (100% DoD) to 1000 (80% DoD)
[17]. It demonstrated viability of its solution for e-bike and e-scooter applications.
• Tiamat was founded in 2017 in France. Its solution is a 18,650 cell based on
polyanionic materials, with energy density of 100–120 Wh/kg at cell level
[21]. The company targets fast charging applications for both mobility and
stationary storage use. Durability of more than 4000 cycles and rate capability
of >80% retention for a 10 C rate have been recorded. The company has
demonstrated working prototypes of e-bikes, e-scooters, Start&Stop 12 V and
48 V batteries.
• Novasis Energies, Inc., originated from University of Texas at Austin, further
developed at the Sharp Laboratories of America. Based on Prussian blue ana-
logue as the cathode and hard carbon as the anode, its battery delivered 100–130
Wh/kg with cyclic stability of 500 cycles and rate capability up to 10 C.
• HiNa Battery Technology Co., Ltd., a spin-off from the Institute of Physics,
Chinese Academy of Sciences (IOP-CAS), was established in 2017. Its batteries
are based on Na–Fe–Mn–Cu oxide cathodes and anthracite carbon anode and can
deliver 120 Wh/kg. In 2019, it was reported that HiNa installed a 30 kW/100 kWh
Na-ion battery in East China. Its NIB pouch cells with a cycle life of 2000 cycles
have been developed and demonstrated in e-bike, mini electric vehicle, and
household energy storage system applications.
• Altris AB:301 is a spin-off company from the Ångström Advanced Battery
Centre with links to Uppsala University and EIT InnoEnergy. The company is
selling Fennac®, an iron-based Prussian blue analogue for the positive electrode
in nonaqueous sodium-ion batteries. Batteries containing Fennac® utilise hard
carbon as the anode.
• Natron Energy, a spin-off from Stanford University, is another newly founded
company that uses Prussian blue analogues for both the cathode and anode but in
this case utilises an aqueous electrolyte. At the expense of lower energy density
values than those of organic-based batteries, this cell configuration allows run
times as short as 30 s achieving power values of 775 W kg-1 (or 1550 W L-1).
The cells are able to run over 25,000 cycles at 12 C rate accessing about 70% of
the total capacity and with only 6% degradation measured over the duration of the
test (6 months).
References
1. WEF (2019) A vision for a sustainable battery value chain in 2030 unlocking the full potential
to power sustainable development and climate change mitigation
2. Zhang W, Lu J, Guo Z (2021) Challenges and future perspectives on sodium and potassium ion
batteries for grid-scale energy storage. Mater Today 50:400–417
3. Lebedeva N, Ruiz Ruiz V, Bielewski M, Blagoeva D, Pilenga A (2020) Batteries Technology
Development Report 2020
4. Hwang J-Y, Myung S-T, Sun Y-K (2017) Sodium-ion batteries: present and future. Chem Soc
Rev 46:3529–3614
5. Yabuuchi N, Kubota K, Dahbi M, Komaba S (2014) Research development on sodium-ion
batteries. Chem Rev 114:11636–11682
6. Tapia-Ruiz N, Armstrong AR, Alptekin H, Amores MA, Au H, Barker J, Boston R, Brant WR,
Brittain JM, Chen Y (2021) 2021 roadmap for sodium-ion batteries. J Phys Energy 3:31503
7. Vaalma C, Buchholz D, Weil M, Passerini S (2018) A cost and resource analysis of sodium-ion
batteries. Nat Rev Mater 3:1–11
8. Wen Y, He K, Zhu Y, Han F, Xu Y, Matsuda I, Ishii Y, Cumings J, Wang C (2014) Expanded
graphite as superior anode for sodium-ion batteries. Nat Commun 5:1–10
9. Goikolea E, Palomares V, Wang S, de Larramendi IR, Guo X, Wang G, Rojo T (2020) Na-ion
batteries—approaching old and new challenges. Adv Energy Mater 10:2002055
10. Karabelli D, Singh S, Kiemel S, Koller J, Konarov A, Stubhan F, Miehe R, Weeber M,
Bakenov Z, Birke KP (2020) Sodium-based batteries: in search of the best compromise between
sustainability and maximization of electric performance. Front Energy Res 8:605129
11. Kim Y, Kim J-K, Vaalma C, Bae GH, Kim G-T, Passerini S, Kim Y (2018) Optimized hard
carbon derived from starch for rechargeable seawater batteries. Carbon 129:564–571
12. Irisarri E, Amini N, Tennison S, Ghimbeu CM, Gorka J, Vix-Guterl C, Ponrouch A, Palacín MR
(2018) Optimization of large scale produced hard carbon performance in Na-ion batteries: effect
of precursor, temperature and processing conditions. J Electrochem Soc 165:A4058
13. Peters JF, Peña Cruz A, Weil M (2019) Exploring the economic potential of sodium-ion
batteries. Batteries 5:10
14. Wentker M, Greenwood M, Leker J (2019) A bottom-up approach to lithium-ion battery cost
modeling with a focus on cathode active materials. Energies 12:504
15. Rudola A, Rennie AJR, Heap R, Meysami SS, Lowbridge A, Mazzali F, Sayers R, Wright CJ,
Barker J (2021) Commercialisation of high energy density sodium-ion batteries: Faradion’s
journey and outlook. J Mater Chem A 9:8279–8302
16. Cao Y, Li M, Lu J, Liu J, Amine K (2019) Bridging the academic and industrial metrics for
next-generation practical batteries. Nat Nanotechnol 14:200–207
17. Bauer A, Song J, Vail S, Pan W, Barker J, Lu Y (2018) The scale-up and commercialization of
nonaqueous Na-ion battery technologies. Adv Energy Mater 8:1702869
18. Hirsh HS, Li Y, Tan DHS, Zhang M, Zhao E, Meng YS (2020) Sodium-ion batteries paving the
way for grid energy storage. Adv Energy Mater 10:2001274
19. Schneider SF, Bauer C, Novák P, Berg EJ (2019) A modeling framework to assess specific
energy, costs and environmental impacts of Li-ion and Na-ion batteries. Sustain Energy Fuels 3:
3061–3070
20. Renard F (2014) Cathode materials cost competition for large scale applications and promising
LFP best-in-class performer in term of price per kWh. In: Proceedings of the international
conference on olivines for rechargeable batteries, Montreal, QC, Canada, pp 25–28
21. Broux T, Fauth F, Hall N, Chatillon Y, Bianchini M, Bamine T, Leriche J, Suard E, Carlier D,
Reynier Y (2019) High rate performance for carbon-coated Na3V2 (PO4) 2F3 in Na-Ion
batteries. Small Methods 3:1800215
Chapter 15
Techno-economics of Open Battery Systems
Christine Minke
Contents
15.1 Bottom-Up Approach in Techno-economics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 267
15.2 Data Basis and Quality in Techno-economics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 271
15.3 Target Figures in Techno-economics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 274
15.4 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 276
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 277
15.1 Bottom-Up Approach in Techno-economics
Techno-economics of emerging technologies require a bottom-up approach. Ideally,

it should consist of three different interlinked modeling levels (Fig. 15.1). The basis
is built by the electrochemical level. The calculation of the battery performance
considering thermodynamic constraints (open cell voltage, OCV) and losses allows
for the assessment of the achievable power P, while the available amount of redox-
active species in the electrolyte determines the energy content E. On the component
level, the costs for the key elements of the cells (membranes, electrodes, bipolar
plates) and the electrolyte are determined. Finally, the system level must consider the
technical system design including power electronics and balance of plant (BOP) for
the considered application.
C. Minke (✉)
Chair of Circular Economy Systems, Clausthal University of Technology, Clausthal-Zellerfeld,
Germany

268 C. Minke
Electrochemical • Electric voltage

characteristics • Current density
Component • Materials
costs • Materials
System • Technical design
costs • Application
Fig. 15.1 Interlinkage of levels in techno-economic modeling of flow batteries. (Source: Christine
Minke)
15.1.1 Electrochemical Characteristics of Flow Batteries
The achievable power P in a FB can be calculated with the number of cells N and the
power of a single cell, which is given by the cell voltage Ucell, the applied current
density I, and the cell area Acell:
P = N Pcell = U cell i Acell
The cell voltage can then be easily calculated on the basis of the open cell voltage
U0 and losses Rcell:
U cell = U 0 - Rcell i
The open cell voltage is dependent on the thermodynamic equilibrium potential

and the composition of the electrolyte, i.e., the state of charge (SOC) of the battery,
as well as different losses. Its precise calculation with the Nernst equation is quite
complex, because the concentrated electrolyte mixture exhibits nonideal behavior
[4]. Even more demanding is the determination of the current density-dependent
losses caused by the ohmic resistance of the electrolyte and the battery components
(membrane, electrodes, bipolar plates), the kinetic overpotentials of the half-cell
reactions, and the additional concentration polarization through mass transfer resis-
tances [1]. Moreover, side reactions such as hydrogen evolution [16] and transport of
redox-active species through the membrane, i.e., crossover [15], are further effects,
which have to be taken into account for a precise description of the dynamic FB
performance.
However, for a simplified yet sufficiently exact assessment of these losses in the
view of the techno-economic analysis, an overall cell resistance Rcell is employed
[17], which can be conveniently obtained from measured polarization curves or from
more detailed physicochemically based FB models. The resulting equation for the
battery power is:
15 Techno-economics of Open Battery Systems 269
P = N ðU 0 - Rcell iÞ i Acell
The energy content E of the battery is the product of the power P and the charge/
discharge time t:
E=P t
With Faraday’s law, one can calculate the required molar flow rate n_ R of the
redox-active species in the electrolyte with the elementary charge e, the number of
transferred electrons z, and the Avogadro number NA:
P
n_ R =
U cell e z N A
The volumes of the positive electrolyte PE and the negative electrolyte NE are
then obtained with
n_ R t
V PE = V NE =
cR DOD
Here, cR is the concentration of the redox-active species, and DOD is the depth of
discharge, which is the difference between the minimum and maximum SOC of the
battery.
Finally, the pumping power Ppump can be estimated with the electrolyte flow rate
through the cells V_ and the corresponding pressure drop Δp:
n_
Ppump = V_ Δp = f R Δp
cR
The factor f is a reasonably chosen multiple, e.g., tenfold, of the theoretically

required flow rate in order to maintain approximately constant concentrations in both
half-cells, while the pressure drop is usually calculated with Darcy’s law.
With the quantities given above, one can also calculate the energy efficiency of
the FB cell stack or system:
Pdischarge - Ppump
ηE = = ηC ηV
- Pcharge
Here, the coulombic efficiency ηC and the voltage efficiency ηV of the cell are
defined as the ratio of discharge and charge voltage, respectively. The coulombic
efficiency is mainly affected by side reactions and crossover processes and usually
has values above 95%. On the other hand, the voltage efficiency is determined by the
current density-dependent losses with typical values in the range of 80% for properly
chosen current densities.
270 C. Minke
15.1.2 Component Costs of Flow Batteries
The key components of FBs are the electrolyte containing the redox-active species
and the core elements of the stack, i.e., membrane, bipolar plates (BPPs), and
electrodes.
Detailed techno-economics of membranes have been provided in previous work
[13]. It has been shown that for cation exchange membranes with relatively high
price, i.e., NafionTM, the membrane has a significant impact on total costs. More-
over, given the complex production process and the costly raw materials, it is
unlikely that these prices will fall significantly. Alternatives are cost-effective
membranes based on sulfonated poly ether ether ketone (SPEEK) or other
low-cost materials [3] or even more cost-effective nanoporous separators. However,
the enhanced convective flow compared to dense membranes would require an
effective control of the pressure difference between the two half-cells [20].
BPPs show the second highest impact on costs as demonstrated in techno-
economics of carbon-polymer BPPs [10]. In particular, the choice of graphite raw
materials determines the processability of the compound, the production costs, and
the electrochemical performance. A remaining challenge is the manufacturing of
large-area BPPs. For square meter size, standard methods, i.e., injection molding, are
no longer applicable, and appropriate extrusion techniques have yet to be developed
for commercial applications [12].
Considering that two electrodes are required per unit cell, the electrode costs for
the carbon electrodes can be set at about the same level as the costs for BPPs.
However, considerable differences might occur depending on the raw materials used
for the carbon electrode production [11].
Last but not least, the electrolyte shows very high significance for the overall FB
costs. A detailed analysis for the most advanced all-vanadium flow battery (VFB)
system has shown that depending on the E/P ratio of the battery, up to 50% of the
overall costs can be attributed to the vanadium raw material [14]. Huge problems in
this context are the strongly fluctuating vanadium prices and the uncertain future
prospects for the price development. In spite of the possible development of more
cost-effective electrolyte production processes based on vanadium pentoxide [5, 8],
the raw material costs for VFB will remain high.
For this reason, the development of FB technologies based on (potentially) more
inexpensive redox-active components has been recently intensified. One prominent
example is the all-iron FB with very low electrolyte costs [19]. Other researchers
have proposed organic redox-active components such as quinones [7]. However, in
contrast to inorganic energy carriers with practically unlimited lifetime, these
organic substances are prone to chemical and electrochemical degradation. Thus,
the stability of these materials is a key parameter for their cost-effectiveness [2, 6].
The calculation of the required quantity of key components is straightforward for
a FB with given nominal power P and energy content E [12]:
• The number of membranes is equal to the number of cells N.
• The number of BPPs is equal to the sum of cells and stacks (N + Nstack).
• The number of electrodes is twice the number of cells (2N ).

• The total electrolyte volume is the sum of positive and negative electrolyte
volume (VPE + VNE).
15.1.3 System Costs of Flow Batteries
The system description may be defined individually. Nevertheless, a linear and

comprehensive system definition is highly recommended for accuracy and transpar-
ency of techno-economic studies. In Fig. 15.2, a detailed technical system definition
for a flow battery is illustrated.
It is structured in the energy subsystem with the key component electrolyte, the
power subsystem with the cell stacks, the power electronics, and balance of plant
components. Other aspects, e.g., building and site, are usually not considered in
detail in a technical model but may be included within a full-system definition in the
techno-economic model.
15.2 Data Basis and Quality in Techno-economics
The quality of input data is crucial for any quantitative assessment. Input data consist
of technical and economic data. Data quality covers the nature and origin of data
(primary, secondary, estimate) combined with aspects of uncertainty (accuracy,
validity, time dependency).
15.2.1 Input Data
Input data is required in terms of technical and economic figures. Technical data
should at least include the following key figures:
• Nominal power P in kW
• Energy-to-power ratio E/P in h
• System efficiency η
In a preferably more detailed technical description, the list of key figures is
completed with:
• Depth of discharge DOD
• Current density i in mA cm-2
• Single cell area Acell in m2
• Number of cells N and stacks Nstack in a system
• Active material concentration in electrolyte cR in mol l-1
272 C. Minke
FB
Energy Power Power

Balance of plant
subsystem subsystem electronics
Power control
Electrolyte Tanks Stacks Pumps
system
Active material Manufacturing Membranes Transformers Pipes
Sulfuric acid Freight Electrodes Cabling Valves
Heat
Water Bipolar plates Assembly
exchangers
Current
Additives Assembly
collectors
Manufacturing
End plates
of electrolyte
Cell frames
Gaskets
Stack frames
Bolts
Assembly
Fig. 15.2 Detailed technical system definition of a flow battery. (Source: Christine Minke)
Considering the manufacturing of a battery system, data on materials, cell

geometries, and manufacturing processes, including energy demand, should be
provided. The battery operation requires detailed data derived from electrochemical
measurements in order to give a quantitative description of performance, lifetime,
and cycle life.
Economic input data has to be provided in analogy to the technical bottom-up
system description. Thus, in a first processing step, price data has to be adapted to the
technical component description, which is for FB typically specified areal or power
specific and volume or energy specific. Price data for materials, components, or
systems are usually complemented by manufacturing or at least assembly costs.
Furthermore, detailed cost data are often limited to key components, whereas costs
of further system components, e.g., BOP, are calculated using supplement factors.
15.2.2 Data Quality
Input data may be derived from primary or secondary sources. Primary data is a type
of data that is procured directly from main sources, i.e., specific manufacturing
processes or specific batteries at operation sites. It is rarely possible to collect all
data as primary data. Therefore, secondary or generic data are widely used. These
include data from literature, databases, or handbooks. In case of any data gaps,
estimates and analogies may be used and carefully documented. By their very nature,
estimates have the lowest data quality. To conclude, data quality is closely linked to
data availability.
A reasonable exception of this data quality ranking is price data. Price data may
be highly volatile over time due to complex market and socioeconomic develop-
ments. Thus, discrete primary data in the form of specific price information from a
vendor might be less reliable. In this perspective, generic data derived from a
database with reasonable technical, geographic, and temporal assessment limits are
preferable.
Aspects of uncertainty cover accuracy, validity, and time dependency of data.
Accuracy addresses reliability and completeness of data. Additionally, a balance in
accuracy for all system components is preferable in order to prevent asymmetries
within the model. Validity and time dependency refer to the applicability and
temporal correlation of data to the date of study. It is not uncommon for input data
to be recited while the design of the battery is being adjusted, e.g., a scale-up from
kilowatt to megawatt scale. Temporal correlations are especially important in pro-
spective techno-economics aiming on the prediction of future developments. These
are generally subject to uncertainties which have to be appropriately reflected by
means of sensitivity analyses.
274 C. Minke
15.3 Target Figures in Techno-economics
In this section, economic modeling approaches for five widely used economic target
figures in techno-economics of open battery systems are presented. These are
production costs C, capital and operational expenditures CAPEX and OPEX, and
derived total cost of storage as well as levelized cost of storage LCOS.
15.3.1 Capital Costs
A common goal of a techno-economic assessment is the calculation and sensitivity

analysis of capital costs C (synonyms are system costs or production costs) of FB
systems. For this purpose, an accurate and detailed bottom-up modeling approach in
combination with high-quality input data is favorable. A common level of detail is an
inventory of component listing mass-, volume-, area-, or unit-specific costs. In
literature, a wide variety in the level of detail can be found. On the one hand, the
inventory may be limited to key components. On the other hand, each production
process of any component may be described in a detailed process model covering
input materials, machining, and labor, in order to provide a maximum detail degree.
Capital costs C may be expressed as absolute costs in EUR (or any other
currency) per FB or in the form of specific costs. These may be power- or energy-
specific costs, usually related to nominal system power (EUR/kW) or nominal
energy capacity (EUR/(kWh)). In any techno-economic model, the dependence of
results on the E/P ratio cannot be overemphasized. Thus, the cost structure in techno-
economic assessments does usually reflect the independent scalability of energy
E and power P. Two different approaches are commonly used [14]. In one approach,
all items are allocated to either a predefined power or energy subsystem. This leads
to a mathematical equation describing total system costs C in EUR as the sum of
power and energy subsystem costs:
C = P cP,sub þ E cE,sub
with cost rates of power and energy subsystem cP,sub in EUR/kW and cE,sub in
EUR/(kWh), respectively. The individual summands of cP,sub and cE,sub are costs of
components listed in Fig. 15.2.
In another approach, fixed costs Cfix are added to the equation following the idea
that not everything can be allocated to the energy and power subsystems:
C = P cP,sub þ E cE,sub þ Cfix
In order to calculate specific system costs in EUR/kW and EUR/(kWh), total

system costs may be divided by nominal system power cP = C/P or energy capacity
cE = C/E.
The informative value of these figures is limited and must always be considered in
the context of the E/P ratio. An illustrative example is the application to VFB in a
power range of 10 to 1000 kW providing energy for E/P = 2 to 10 h:
CVFB = P 1000 EUR=kW þ E 300 EUR=ðkWhÞ
This empirical formula is based on a detailed qualitative and quantitative analysis

of literature and prices [12].
15.3.2 Total Cost of Storage
Total cost of storage is a common term in techno-economics, especially in compar-

ative studies on different energy storage technologies. Nevertheless, this term is not
standardized in the form of an appropriate mathematical definition. In general, seen
from a user’s perspective, it includes all expenses associated with purchasing and
using the battery system.
A more standardized term in this context is levelized cost of storage (LCOS). It is
defined and applied in analogy to levelized cost of energy (LCOE) which is
calculated for electric energy generation technologies, e.g., photovoltaic systems.
The basic idea is to calculate the price of a kilowatt hour of energy emitted by the
system. Thus, LCOS is defined as the total cost of ownership over the investment
period divided by the energy delivered by the energy storage system.
In order to calculate LCOS, the above-described capital cost assessment approach
may be extended in two ways: first, by considering additional cost items for CAPEX
and thus for the investment and, second, by considering the operation phase with
associated OPEX. LCOS are expressed in EUR/(kWh) of energy E emitted by the
FB over its lifetime in a total number of charge-discharge cycles Ncycle. Thus, LCOS
is dependent on the system’s energy efficiency, DOD, lifetime, and the electricity
price. A simplified mathematical description of these interrelations is:
CAPEX þ OPEX
LCOS =
E N cycle
Referring to the nature of an extended capital value method, the full mathematical
equation including time dependency of monetary values is formulated as follows:
n CAPEXt - Rt þ OPEXt þ cel,t Eηt

LCOS =
t=0 ð1 þ iÞt Et
with considered lifetime from t = 0 to year n, residual value R of storage components

at their end of life, electricity price cel, energy emitted from the battery in each year
Et, system energy efficiency η, and discount rate i.
276 C. Minke
Additional cost items for the calculation of CAPEX are interest rates and other
costs incurred in connection with borrowing of funds and asset management as well
as freight and installation costs for FB components and systems.
OPEX usually include operating and maintenance rates as well as costs of energy
that is fed into the battery. These have to be divided by the system efficiency in order
to calculate the amount of energy that can be discharged from the system. Resulting
energy losses are considered in techno-economics when it comes to profitability
assessments, where CAPEX and OPEX are compared to revenues over lifetime.
Some examples for economic parameters used in techno-economics of FBs [18] are
listed below:
• Freight cost in USD/mile
• Effective income tax rate in %
• Cost of capital in %
• Annual taxes and insurance premiums as fraction of capital investment in %
• Fixed charge rate in %
• Capital recovery factor in %
• Rate of general inflation in %
• Escalation rate for capital costs and operating and maintenance costs in %
This key figure is very complex, so some sample figures for VFB are given below
for reference. In analogy to the considerations in the previous section on capital
costs, for an E/P ratio between 2 and 10 h, LCOS = 0.05 to 0.30 EUR/(kWh) are
calculated, decreasing with increasing E/P [17]. Two comparable studies consider
VFBs with E/P = 4 h [9, 18]. These three independent studies show a consensus on a
probable range of LCOS = 0.10 to 0.25 EUR/(kWh). However, when considering
maintenance costs in order to increase the service life of VFB, higher LCOS in a
range of 0.15 to 0.35 EUR/(kWh) are assumed, increasing with increasing mainte-
nance efforts [9].
15.4 Conclusion
To conclude, there are no standards defined on scope or level of detail concerning

techno-economics for FBs. This subchapter provides an assessment framework for
techno-economics of emerging technologies that are usually subject to uncertainties.
FBs are developed in many variants covering a wide range of active species, nominal
power, energy capacity, cell geometry, choice of materials, and operation strategies.
With this degree of complexity, detailed and transparent techno-economics are all
the more important.
In consequence, a special emphasis should be put on the highly complex technical
dimension of FBs. The technical model may be kept quite simple but should at least
include key figures, i.e., E/P ratio, overall ohmic cell resistance, current density,
system energy efficiency, and lifetime of components and system.
Techno-economics with transparent technical data lead to more relevant results,

especially when validated by measurement data.
References
1. Arenas LF, Ponce de León C, Walsh FC (2019) Redox flow batteries for energy storage: their
promise, achievements and challenges. Curr Opin Electrochem 16:117–126
2. Brushett FR, Aziz MJ, Rodby KE (2020) On lifetime and cost of redox-active organics for
aqueous flow batteries. ACS Energy Lett 5(3):879–884
3. Düerkop D, Widdecke H, Schilde C, Kunz U, Schmiemann A (2021) Polymer membranes for
all-vanadium redox flow batteries: a review. Membranes 11(3)
4. Hayer N, Kohns M (2020) Thermodynamically rigorous description of the open circuit voltage
of redox flow batteries. ECS Trans 167(11):110516
5. Kazacos M, Skyllas-Kazacos M (2006) High energy density vanadium electrolyte solutions,
methods of preparation thereof and all-vanadium redox cells and batteries containing high
energy vanadium electrolyte solutions US6468688B2
6. Kwabi DG, Ji Y, Aziz MJ (2020) Electrolyte lifetime in aqueous organic redox flow batteries: a
critical review. Chem Rev 120(14):6467–6489
7. Lin K, Chen Q, Gerhardt MR, Tong L, Kim SB, Eisenach L, Valle AW, Hardee D, Gordon RG,
Aziz MJ, Marshak MP (2015) Alkaline quinone flow battery. Science (New York, N.Y.)
349(6255):1529–1532
8. Martin J, Schafner K, Turek T (2020) Preparation of electrolyte for vanadium redox-flow
batteries based on vanadium pentoxide. Energy Technol 8(9):2000522
9. Minke C, Dorantes Ledesma MA (2019) Impact of cell design and maintenance strategy on life
cycle costs of vanadium redox flow batteries. J Energy Storage 21:571–580
10. Minke C, Hickmann T, dos Santos AR, Kunz U, Turek T (2016) Cost and performance
prospects for composite bipolar plates in fuel cells and redox flow batteries. J Power Sour
305:182–190
11. Minke C, Kunz U, Turek T (2017a) Carbon felt and carbon fiber – a techno-economic
assessment of felt electrodes for redox flow battery applications. J Power Sour 342:116–124
12. Minke C, Kunz U, Turek T (2017b) Techno-economic assessment of novel vanadium redox
flow batteries with large-area cells. J Power Sour 361:105–114
13. Minke C, Turek T (2015) Economics of vanadium redox flow battery membranes. J Power Sour
286:247–257
14. Minke C, Turek T (2018) Materials, system designs and modelling approaches in techno-
economic assessment of all-vanadium redox flow batteries – a review. J Power Sour 376:66–81
15. Perry ML, Saraidaridis JD, Darling RM (2020) Crossover mitigation strategies for redox-flow
batteries. Curr Opin Electrochem 21:311–318
16. Rudolph S, Schröder U, Bayanov IM (2013) On-line controlled state of charge rebalancing in
vanadium redox flow battery. J Electroanal Chem 703:29–37
17. Skyllas-Kazacos M (2019) (Invited) performance improvements and cost considerations of the
vanadium redox flow battery. ECS Trans 89(1):29–45
18. Viswanathan V, Crawford A, Stephenson D, Kim S, Wang W, Li B, Coffey G, Thomsen E,
Graff G, Balducci P, Kintner-Meyer M, Sprenkle V (2014) Cost and performance model for
redox flow batteries. J Power Sour 247:1040–1051
19. Zhang H, Sun C (2021) Cost-effective iron-based aqueous redox flow batteries for large-scale
energy storage application: a review. J Power Sour 493(2):229445
20. Zhou XL, Zhao TS, An L, Zeng YK, Wei L (2016) Modeling of ion transport through a porous
separator in vanadium redox flow batteries. J Power Sour 327:67–76
278 C. Minke
Chapter 16
Social Implications
Viera Pechancová, Petr Sáha, and Drahomíra Pavelková
Contents
16.1 Battery Industry Vulnerabilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 279
16.2 Acceptance Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 282
16.3 Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 286
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 287
16.1 Battery Industry Vulnerabilities
Professor Stanley Whittingham, the Nobel Prize laureate, states in his article [1], ‘our
efforts have emphasized better and better batteries, higher energy, higher power,
longer life, and lower cost. We have neglected to investigate the afterlife of batteries
and the devices they are in’. In the meanwhile, these and similar thoughts have
leaked into strategic documents, such as the Vision for a Sustainable Battery
Value Chain by the World Economic Forum and Global and Battery Alliance [2].
Based on the Paris Agreement target 2 °C scenario, ‘a circular battery value
chain’ should create 10 million safe, fair and good-quality jobs globally by 2030. In
addition, the battery industry should envisage safeguarding human rights, foster just
energy transition and economic development and be in line with the UN Sustainable
Development Goals (SDGs). Last, but not least, the battery industry is estimated to
V. Pechancová (✉) · P. Sáha

University Institute, Tomas Bata University in Zlín, Zlín, Czech Republic
D. Pavelková
Faculty of Management and Economics, Tomas Bata University in Zlín, Zlín, Czech Republic

280 V. Pechancová et al.
provide 600 million people with access to electricity, reducing the gap of households
without electricity by 70% before 2030.
Energy storage represents key enabling technology in the energy transition,
especially with batteries being promising technology for the zero pollution ambi-
tions of the European Green Deal. The Strategic Action Plan on Batteries was
adopted in 2018 and is a comprehensive set of measures to develop an innovative,
sustainable and competitive battery ‘ecosystem’ in Europe. Batteries are considered
key components in mobile and stationary energy storage systems. They enable the
transition to smart energy systems by compensating for the variability of supply and
demand.
Although there are relevant energy and environmental benefits in the battery
operation phase, the exploitation of critical raw materials, such as cobalt, lithium,
manganese, nickel and graphite, needed to produce batteries, involves not negligible
impacts. Recently, the European Commission put forth a new battery regulation that
includes compulsory sustainability requirements, requiring supply chain due dili-
gence for minerals utilised in batteries.
Battery-driven low-carbon transition bears impacts and risks in several directions.
What the authors call ‘decarbonisation divide’, the battery industry vulnerabilities
might be divided into (i) environmental risks, (ii) gender discrimination, (iii) child
labour and (iv) geopolitics and ethnics [3].
The environmental and public health risks concern the resource depletion,
human toxicity and ecotoxicity, mainly associated with copper, cobalt, nickel,
thallium and silver, with partial results for lithium and aluminium [4]. As an
example, raw material mining is connected with environmental pollution, but serious
health impacts could be identified along the whole battery supply chains and life
cycles [5].
Gender discrimination and the marginalisation of women relate to the
diversity-specific issues. Some examples of gender-specific acceptance research
include lab-on-skin or telemedicine platforms for wearable biosensors [6, 7]. Another
research study found significant differences in attitudes, perceptions and values
regarding BEVs between males and females, which could be potentially useful for
designing more effective policy measures [8]. The integration of gender analysis into
materials research and engineering is crucial to address the gender-related implica-
tions of wearable electronics with bio-related applications. Yet another gender
perspective offered by the International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA) and
the International Labour Organization (ILO) is that women account for only 32% of
the overall renewable energy workforce [9].
It is often the case that no existing labour regulations restricting child labour and
exploitation are present in the originating countries [10]. An estimated 23% of
children in the Democratic Republic of Congo, many of whom are orphans, work
within cobalt mining where they are exposed to physical, physiological and sexual
abuse in order to provide food for themselves and their families. Despite moving
towards less cobalt content in batteries, Fig. 16.1 shows cobalt content of the
NMC811 cathode battery (6.6 kg for 75 kWh battery pack), assuming production
16 Social Implications 281
~26 EVs produced ~6.6 kg cobalt ~25,000 children mining

globally per year by 2030 needed per EV with by hand for 10 hours per
NMC811 cathode day in the Democratic
Republic of Congo
Fig. 16.1 The consequences of a cobalt-containing cathode production. (Used with permission of
Royal Society of Chemistry from [11]; permission conveyed through Copyright Clearance Center,
Inc.)
of 26 million BEVs by 2030, which will result in 25,000 children working 10 hours
per day [11].
Subjugation of ethnic groups and geographical issues point out the situation of
dominance and control of raw material (cobalt) mining and e-waste treatment
leading to lock-in of ethnic group inequalities, ethnic discrimination and refugees/
migratory workers. The vulnerabilities are highly geographically concentrated with a
lot of focus on China, which claims most of the energy sector employment growth,
predicted to target in total 122 million in 2050 under the 1.5 °C pathway, compared
to 114 million under present policies [9]. Speaking of the geographical spread,
several countries, such as the USA, Japan or the Netherlands, were more successful
in BEV adoption than others, e.g. South Korea or China [12].
The successful achievement of the renewable energy sources (RES) targets and
other energy-related ambitions amplifies therefore the importance of questions
related to the social aspects of the energy technology transitions [3]. Nevertheless,
the energy transitions seem to suffer from a vicious cycle syndrome – consumers are
not interested in less developed technologies, which are then priced higher, and
investors are less interested to invest in a product with low demand. The clean energy
transition technologies, including battery electric vehicles (BEVs), are still seen
as somewhat innovative and therefore might be perceived as immature or risky [13].
As demand for the critical resources, such as metals, minerals, land and water,
continues to lever up, just transitions, and specifically just energy transition, span
throughout different disciplines including critical resource geography, a subfield of
human-environment geography transitions [14]. According to [15], the emerging
landscapes of energy storage consider site-specific environmental justice concerns,
such as mineral mining, extraction and toxicity during production and disposal of
devices. Moreover, increased use of key strategic minerals and metals imposes
spatial consequences and political and justice dilemmas. As a consequence, concepts
such as resource nexus thinking [16] and social engineering of extraction [17] are
being brought into discussions.
In the context of environmental, social and governance (ESG) development of
sustainable energy materials, priority has been recently given to nickel-rich cathode
materials, and efforts continue for the development of organic/green batteries
[18]. To sum up, the key sustainability challenges of the battery sector might be
summarised as follows:
1. Battery production has non-negligible GHG emissions.
2. The battery value chain bears also significant social risks.
3. The viability of battery-supported applications is uncertain [9].
Balance needs to be found between the needs of modern society, social aspects
and environmental conservation [5]. Advanced battery technologies need to be
assessed via a combination of techno-economic simulation tools, cost-benefit anal-
ysis and business model innovation, including the social and socio-economic
impacts on workers, local community and the society.
The following Sect. 16.2 addresses these issues with the technology acceptance
lenses concentrating on battery applications in e-mobility, grid storage and in the
context of social innovations. The same issues are addressed also in the next
Chap. 17 focused on the social impact assessment method s-LCA, which gained a
lot of attention with scholars recently due to the need for more sustainable battery life
cycle from ‘cradle to grave’. Both approaches, type I s-LCA and type II s-LCA, are
explained and compared in Chap. 17.
16.2 Acceptance Issues
The technology adoption and diffusion are associated not only with the performance
and cost, but there are social factors entering the adoption process as well. Several
theories might be useful to explain these inter-relations; however, the theory of
social acceptance and diffusion of new technologies play a central role. The
technology acceptance studies on users’ adoption of specific technologies and
products are built, among others, on the technology acceptance model, which
emphasises the primary role of the perceived usefulness and the perceived ease of
technology use as predictors of an individual’s attitude towards using and
behavioural intention to use a technology [19].
In broad terms, acceptance refers to the passive or active approval of socio-
political and community stakeholders towards large-scale energy technologies or
related policy strategies, encompassing their willingness to embrace or support such
initiatives [20]. According to the seminal work introduced by [21], there are three
dimensions of social acceptance in the field of renewable energy innovations:
socio-political, market and community acceptance (Fig. 16.2). The socio-political
acceptance relates to the governmental decision-making processes and adoption of
energy policies. NIMBY (not in my backyard) effects and people’s motives are
attributed to the second dimension – community acceptance. Finally, the market
dimension, being a consequence of market adoption of technologies, is helping to
overcome barriers to larger diffusion.
When speaking about the social acceptance of energy storage technologies
specifically, the clustering across applications and sectors is helpful. These clusters
Socio-political acceptance
• Of technologies and policies

• By the public
• By key stakeholders
• By policy makers
Community acceptance Market acceptance
• procedural justice • Consumers

• Distributional justice • Investors
• Trust • Intra-firm
Fig. 16.2 The triangle of social acceptance of renewable energy innovation. (Reprinted from
Wüstenhagen et al. [21], with permission from Elsevier)
include especially RES for stationary applications, e-mobility and portable/wearable

electronics to a certain extent, which will be elaborated in the following sections.
16.2.1 E-Mobility and the Range Anxiety Phenomenon
The IRENA and ILO (2021) indicated that about 11% of GHGs were generated
globally by the road transportation sector, with 5.8 Gt CO2eq in total. Furthermore,
sales predictions suggest that more than 50% of new passenger cars sold by 2035
will be electric [22]. BEVs are thus considered to be important element in the clean
energy transition, whereby battery represents key technology affecting technical
performance and cost factors.
Despite the urgent need for the transportation sector decarbonisation, several
studies have indicated barriers to the EV diffusion. The BEV cost, limitations in the
battery capacity and vehicle weight represent just a few of the obstacles to full BEV
commercialisation [23, 24]. On the other hand, higher driving range, more frequent
charging infrastructure, lower prices and pro-environmental attitudes represent fac-
tors facilitating the BEV adoption based on the scientific studies (see Fig. 16.3).
Although the environmental perspective is crucial with respect to the low-carbon
transport systems, the social perspective started to gain attention among scholars as
Electric mobility‘s benefits

• Independence from oil imports
• Saving resources
• Environmentally friendly due to
reduced emissions
• High efficiency in well-to-wheel
process
• More efficient energy use
Electric mobility‘s barriers

• Expensive energy storage
• High acquisition costs
• Insecurity in dealing with
accidents
• Limited range
• Long charging time
• Poorly developed charging
infrastructure
Fig. 16.3 Electric mobility’s benefits and barriers [25], distributed under the terms and conditions
of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license
well. Consequently, hand in hand with the technical improvements, the users’
experience (satisfaction, usefulness and attitude) has attracted scholarly interest
including the phenomenon of range anxiety [25]. In addition to that, there are
determinants of acceptance identified, such as contextual (charging availability),
cost (purchase, operation), attitudinal and behavioural (travel habits), BEV experi-
ence (familiarity), sociodemographic (income, education) and social (norms).
The charging limitations (both the infrastructure network and charging time) are
the main barriers of electric mobility nowadays. Based on some studies, the con-
sumers are willing to wait more than 6 hours when the BEV is charged at home,
while charging outside should be done in less than 30 minutes. Furthermore, based
on a Flemish acceptance study of various charging infrastructure systems, con-
sumers expressed interest in inductive charging as long as the cost of the system
does not exceed that of conventional charging methods [26].
Nevertheless, certain studies have revealed that the negative association between
battery electric vehicle (BEV) acceptance and cost-related drawbacks, such as high
purchasing costs or limited driving range, is influenced by social identity variables,
which carry significant weight [27, 28]. These findings emphasise the need to
consider factors beyond individual cost/benefit considerations and focus on social
identity elements like social norms and collective efficacy [29].
To conclude, most consumers concerned about the driving range have had no user
experience with BEVs. One of the solutions could be the smart charging systems for
BEVs, once technical reliability is improved and access to smart charging from other
devices is provided, as well as improvements of technical performance of BEV are
done [30].
16.2.2 Social Aspects of Grid Storage
Although energy mix is shifting towards intermittent renewables across most mar-
kets, the power sector accounted still for considerable 23% of global GHG emissions
in 2017 totalling 11.9 Gt CO2eq [9].
The definition of social acceptance of energy infrastructure elucidates what
factors contribute to the social acceptance of the three types of infrastructure (wind,
transmission lines and pump hydro-storage as examples), i.e. ‘social acceptance of
new infrastructure occurs when the welfare decreasing aspects of the project are
balanced by welfare increasing aspects of the project to leave each agent at worst
welfare neutral and indifferent to the completion of the project, or better off and
supportive of the project’ [31].
[32] works with four factors in their assessment: general vs. local acceptance,
public concerns, trust in stakeholders and attitudes towards financial support/
funding. Although social acceptance of RES has been assessed as relatively high
across Europe, differences exist between general social acceptance and local social
acceptance. The factors include trust in public authorities, distribution of quality
information, public involvement and economic benefits [33]. In the latter case, the
challenge is that the cost-benefit analysis (CBA) of smart batteries overlooks usually
nonfinancial drivers. Some consumers are dissatisfied with the technology even with
a favourable CBA [34].
In nations where there is generally high public acceptance of various energy
technologies, the lack of local community acceptance, particularly in areas directly
affected by the construction of renewable energy plants, can lead to the failure of
otherwise promising renewable energy projects. This highlights the importance of
considering local community attitudes as both drivers and barriers to acceptance in
the successful implementation of renewable energy initiatives [35, 36].
Although research results on the acceptance of grid-scale stationary battery
storage systems, which are likely to play an increased role in smoothing the
supply-demand curves, are scarce, the majority of respondents point to the overall
positive attitudes [37–39]. Some examples of battery storage local barriers to
acceptance include some landscapes, loss of living space, the risk of fire and
explosion as safety concerns [39].
Another perspective to the social role of grid-level storage has its background in a
price suppressing effect, decreasing the probability of remaining in the high price
regime during peak hours and the probability increase of remaining in the standard
regime during off-peak hours [40]. Yet a different social perspective is represented
by the so-called platformisation, enabling new ways of energy provisioning and
consumption [41]. The worldwide increase in using digital platforms for energy
exchange raises, namely, new questions such as how the interactions of people with
energy infrastructures will look like in the future.
16.2.3 Social Innovation and Neighbourhood Batteries
Social innovation in energy is linked to a variety of concepts ranging from commu-

nity energy, business models, energy self-sufficiency and savings to energy nudging.
Avelino et al. [42] characterise social innovations as concepts, objects and/or actions
that bring about changes in social relationships, encompassing novel approaches to
energy utilisation, thinking and organisation. Examples include social practices of
charging and managing the power of portable electronics (mobile phones) [43],
connection of PV and batteries [40] and also adoption of home batteries [44].
Neighbourhood batteries represent new dimension of energy storage (alterna-
tively community energy storage) building on the collaboration between a network
operator and renewable energy initiatives. Neighbourhood batteries have the poten-
tial to reflect societal values responsibly, in line with principles of energy justice and
in the context of responsible research and innovation [45]. The idea of a
neighbourhood battery entails making strategic decisions, and potentially strategic
innovations, whose transformative impact largely relies on the perceptions and
actions of the individuals involved [46]. To tackle these challenges, it is imperative
to integrate social aspects into materials research and engineering, promoting tech-
nology advancements that are inclusive and equitable [47].
16.3 Conclusions
In conclusion, this chapter presents insights into vulnerabilities and sustainability

challenges within the battery industry, emphasising the crucial role of social issues.
It highlights the historical emphasis on battery performance and cost, neglecting the
afterlife of batteries and the social implications of their production and usage. The
adoption of a circular battery value chain aligned with the Paris Agreement 2 °C
scenario holds significant promise for creating safe, fair and quality job opportunities
while driving economic development and promoting just energy transitions. How-
ever, the exploitation of critical raw materials raises environmental concerns and
poses risks such as resource depletion, human toxicity and child labour.
Addressing these challenges necessitates incorporating social aspects into mate-
rials research and engineering to ensure inclusive and equitable technological devel-
opments. Gender-specific research has shed light on differences in attitudes and
perceptions towards battery electric vehicles (BEVs) and wearable biosensors,
calling for more effective policy measures that consider diverse perspectives. Fur-
thermore, social acceptance plays a pivotal role in the widespread adoption of
renewable energy technologies and energy storage systems. Understanding factors
that influence the acceptance of battery technologies, such as charging infrastructure
limitations, range anxiety and economic considerations, is essential for driving
successful energy transitions.
The discussion on grid storage underscores the need to strike a balance between
general and local acceptance, considering the impact of renewable energy projects
on communities. Smart battery solutions, local collaboration and responsible
research and innovation are potential pathways to enhance social acceptance and
advance energy justice. Overall, the pursuit of advanced battery technologies should
go hand in hand with a thorough assessment of their social and socio-economic
impacts. Efforts must be made to align the needs of modern society with environ-
mental conservation, enabling a sustainable and equitable energy future. By foster-
ing an inclusive approach and embracing social innovation, the battery industry can
become a powerful driver of positive change, leading us towards a greener, more
resilient and socially responsible energy landscape.
References
1. Whittingham MS (2020) beyond the nobel recognition – to a cleaner sustainable future. J Power
Sour 473:228574. Page 1. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpowsour.2020.228574
2. World Economic Forum and Global and Battery Alliance (2019) A Vision for a Sustainable
Battery Value Chain in 2030. https://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_A_Vision_for_a_
Sustainable_Battery_Value_Chain_in_2030_Report.pdf
3. Sovacool BK, Hook A, Martiskainen M, Brock A, Turnheimn B (2020) The decarbonisation
divide: contextualizing landscapes of low-carbon exploitation and toxicity in Africa. Glob
Environ Change 60:102028. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2019.102028
4. Kang DH, Chen M, Ogunseitan OA (2013) Potential environmental and human health impacts
of rechargeable lithium batteries in electronic waste. Environ Sci Technol 10:5495–5503.
https://doi.org/10.1021/es400614y
5. Dühnen S, Betz J, Kolek M, Schmuch R, Winter M, Placke T (2020) Toward green battery
cells: perspective on materials and technologies. Small Methods 4(7):2000039. https://doi.org/
10.1002/smtd.202000039
6. Pandey S, Chawla D, Puri S, Jeong LS (2021) Acceptance of wearable fitness devices in
developing countries: exploring the country and gender-specific differences. J Asia Bus Stud
16(4). https://doi.org/10.1108/JABS-11-2020-0456
7. Pollitzer E (2021) Why gender is relevant to materials science and engineering. MRS Commun
11(5):656–661. https://doi.org/10.1557/s43579-021-00093-1
8. Wang XW, Cao YM, Zhang N (2021) The influences of incentive policy perceptions and
consumer social attributes on battery electric vehicle purchase intentions. Energy Policy 151:
112163. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2021.112163
9. IRENA and ILO (2021) Renewable energy and jobs – annual review 2021. International
Renewable Energy Agency, International Labour Organization. https://www.irena.org/
publications/2021/Oct/Renewable-Energy-and-Jobs-Annual-Review-2021
10. St D, Adriano DC (1997) Environmental impacts of metal ore mining and processing: a review.
J Environ Qual 26(3):590–602. https://doi.org/10.2134/jeq1997.00472425002600030003x
11. Sharma SS, Manthiram A (2020) Towards more environmentally and socially responsible
batteries. Energy Environ Sci 13(11):4087–4097. https://doi.org/10.1039/d0ee02511a
12. Eunil P, Lim J, Cho Y (2018) Understanding the emergence and social acceptance of electric
vehicles as next-generation models for the automobile industry. Sustainability 10(3):662.
https://doi.org/10.3390/su10030662
13. Boon FP, Dieperink C (2014) Local civil society based renewable energy organisations in the
netherlands: exploring the factors that stimulate their emergence and development. Energy
Policy 69:297–307. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2014.01.046
14. Heffron RJ, McCauley D, Sovacool BK (2015) Resolving society’s energy trilemma through
the energy justice metric. Energy Policy 87:168–176. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2015.
08.033
15. Turley B, Cantor A, Berry K, Knuth S, Mulvaney D, Vineyard N (2022) Emergent landscapes
of renewable energy storage: considering just transitions in the Western United States. Energy
Res Soc Sci 90:102583. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2022.102583
16. Williams J, Bouzarovski S, Swyngedouw E (2019) The urban resource nexus: on the politics of
relationality, water–energy infrastructure and the fallacy of integration. Environ Plann C Polit
Space 37(4):652–669. https://doi.org/10.1177/0263774X18803370
17. Verweijen J, Dunlap A (2021) The evolving techniques of the social engineering of extraction:
introducing political (re)actions “from above” in large-scale mining and energy projects. Polit
Geogr 88:102342. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.polgeo.2021.102342
18. Murdock BE, Toghill KE, Tapia-Ruiz N (2021) A perspective on the sustainability of cathode
materials used in lithium-ion batteries. Adv Energy Mater 11(39):2102028. https://doi.org/10.
1002/aenm.202102028
19. Davis FD (1989) Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of informa-
tion technology. MIS Q 13(3):319–340. https://doi.org/10.2307/249008
20. Bertsch V, Hall M, Weinhardt C, Fichtner W (2016) Public acceptance and preferences related
to renewable energy and grid expansion policy: empirical insights for Germany. Energy 114:
465–477. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2016.08.022
21. Wüstenhagen R, Wolsink M, Bürer MJ (2007) Social acceptance of renewable energy innova-
tion: an introduction to the concept. Energy Policy 35(5):2683–2691. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
enpol.2006.12.001
22. Castelvecchi D (2021) Electric cars and batteries: how will the world produce enough? Nature
596(7872):336–339. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-021-02222-1
23. Axsen J, Kurani KS, Burke A (2010) Are batteries ready for plug-in hybrid buyers? Transp
Policy 17(3):173–182. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tranpol.2010.01.004
24. Sovacool BK, Hirsh RF (2009) Beyond batteries: an examination of the benefits and barriers to
plug-in hybrid electric vehicles (PHEVs) and a vehicle-to-grid (V2G) transition. Energy Policy
37(3):1095–1103. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2008.10.005
25. Burkert A, Fechtner H, Schmuelling B (2021) Interdisciplinary analysis of social acceptance
regarding electric vehicles with a focus on charging infrastructure and driving range in
Germany. World Electr Vehicle J 12(1):25. https://doi.org/10.3390/wevj12010025
26. Sylvia H, Omar H, Thierry C, Joeri VM (2014) Social acceptance of wireless battery charging
systems: Belgium case study. 2014 IEEE International Electric Vehicle Conf (IEVC). https://
doi.org/10.1109/IEVC.2014.7056075
27. Krupa JS, Rizzo DM, Eppstein MJ, Lanute DB, Gaalema DE, Lakkaraju K, Warrender CE
(2014) Analysis of a consumer survey on plug-in hybrid electric vehicles. Transp Res Part A
Policy Pract 64:14–31. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2014.02.019
28. Barth M, Jugert P, Fritsche I (2016) Still underdetected – social norms and collective efficacy
predict the acceptance of electric vehicles in Germany. Transp Res Part F Traffic Psychol Behav
37:64–77. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trf.2015.11.011
29. Burghard U, Scherrer A, Dütschke E, Globisch J (2020). Social acceptance of electric mobility
in Germany. Working paper sustainability and innovation.
30. Schmalfuß F, Mair C, Döbelt S, Kämpfe B, Wüstemann R, Krems JF, Keinath A (2015) User
responses to a smart charging system in Germany: battery electric vehicle driver motivation,
attitudes and acceptance. Special Issue on Smart Grids and the Social Sciences 9:60–71. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2015.08.019
31. Cohen J, Reichl J, Schmidthaler M (2014) Re-focussing research efforts on the public accep-
tance of energy infrastructure: a critical review. Energy 76:4–9. Page 5. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.energy.2013.12.056
32. Baur D, Emmerich P, Baumann MJ, Weil M (2022) Assessing the social acceptance of key
technologies for the german energy transition. Energy Sustain Soc 12(1):4. https://doi.org/10.
1186/s13705-021-00329-x
33. Segreto M, Principe L, Desormeaux A, Torre M, Tomassetti L, Tratzi P, Paolini V, Petracchini

F (2020) Trends in social acceptance of renewable energy across europe—a literature review.
Int J Environ Res Public Health 17(24):9161. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17249161
34. Hann V (2020) Transition to decentralised electricity storage: the complexities of consumer
decision-making and cost-benefit analyses. Energy Policy 147:111824. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.enpol.2020.11182
35. Capodaglio AG, Callegari A, Virginia Lopez MV (2016) European framework for the diffusion
of biogas uses: emerging technologies, acceptance, incentive strategies, and institutional-
regulatory support. Sustainability. 8(4):298. https://doi.org/10.3390/su8040298
36. Jobert A, Laborgne P, Mimler S (2007) Local acceptance of wind energy: factors of success
identified in french and german case studies. Energy Policy 35(5):2751–2760. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.enpol.2006.12.005
37. Emmerich P, Hülemeier AG, Jendryczko D, Baumann MJ, Weil M, Baur D (2020) Public
acceptance of emerging energy technologies in context of the german energy transition. Energy
Policy. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2020.111516
38. Gaede J, Jones CR, Ganowski S, Rowlands IH (2020) Understanding lay-public perceptions of
energy storage technologies: preliminary results of a questionnaire conducted in Canada.
Energy Rep 6:249–258. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egyr.2020.03.031
39. Jones CR, Gaede J, Ganowski S, Rowlands IH (2018) Understanding lay-public perceptions of
energy storage technologies: results of a questionnaire conducted in the UK. Energy Proc 151:
135–143. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egypro.2018.09.038
40. Fett D, Dehler-Holland J, Schmutz M (2021) A survey on the user acceptance of pv battery
storage systems. Sustainability Management Forum | Nachhaltigkeits Management Forum
29(2):161–171. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00550-021-00513-9
41. Kloppenburg S, Boekelo M (2019) Digital platforms and the future of energy provisioning:
promises and perils for the next phase of the energy transition. Energy Res Soc Sci 49:68–73.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2018.10.016
42. Best R, Li H, Trück S, Truong C (2021) Actual uptake of home batteries: the key roles of capital
and policy. Energy Policy 151:112186. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2021.112186
43. Horta A, Fonseca S, Truninger M, Nobre N, Correia A (2016) Mobile phones, batteries and
power consumption: an analysis of social practices in Portugal. Energy Res Soc Sci 13:15–23.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2015.11.010
44. Ransan-Cooper H, Shaw M, Sturmberg BCP, Blackhall L (2022) Neighbourhood batteries in
australia: anticipating questions of value conflict and (in)justice. Energy Res Soc Sci 90:
102572. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2022.102572
45. Proka A, Hisschemöller M, Loorbach D (2020) When top-down meets bottom-up: is there a
collaborative business model for local energy storage? Energy Res Soc Sci 69:101606. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2020.101606
46. Wittmayer JM, Hielscher S, Fraaije M, Avelino F, Rogge K (2022) A typology for unpacking
the diversity of social innovation in energy transitions. Energy Res Soc Sci 88:102513. Page
3 ff. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2022.102513
47. Robison R, Skjølsvold TM, Hargreaves T, Renström S, Wolsink M, Judson E, Pechancová V,
Demirbağ-Kaplan M, March H, Lehne J, Foulds C, Bharucha Z, Bilous L, Büscher C, Carrus G,
Darby S, Douzou S, Drevenšek M, Frantál B, Pereira AG, Karvonen A, Katzeff C, Kola-
Bezka M, Laakso S, Lettmayer G, Parag Y, Sáfián F, Swora M, Tjørring L, van der Werff E, van
Vliet B, Wallenborn G, Wyckmans A (2023) Shifts in the smart research agenda? 100 priority
questions to accelerate sustainable energy futures. J Cleaner Prod 419:137946. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.jclepro.2023.137946
Chapter 17
Social Life Cycle Assessment of Batteries
Maurizio Cellura, Anna Irene De Luca, Nathalie Iofrida,

and Marina Mistretta
Contents
17.1 Guidelines for Social Life Cycle Assessment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 291
17.2 Experiences in the s-LCA of Batteries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 296
17.3 Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 303
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 304
17.1 Guidelines for Social Life Cycle Assessment
Managing social issues requires the implementation of specific evaluation tools. Life
cycle methodologies have gained great consensus among academics and practi-
tioners for the assessment of the impacts of the whole life cycle of a product or
service. Among them, social life cycle assessment (s-LCA) is the latest methodology
developed, specifically devoted to the evaluation of potential positive and negative
social impacts of a product or service, taking into account all activities that are
related to the extraction and processing of raw materials, manufacturing, distribu-
tion, use, maintenance, recycling and final disposal. The life cycle approach can
M. Cellura (✉)
University of Palermo, Palermo, Italy
A. I. De Luca · N. Iofrida
Department of Agriculture, University Mediterranea of Reggio Calabria, Reggio Calabria, Italy
M. Mistretta
Department of Information, Infrastructure and Sustainable Energy, University Mediterranea of
Reggio Calabria, Reggio Calabria, Italy

292 M. Cellura et al.
prevent the shifting of burdens between geographical areas, supply chain steps or life
cycle phases when evaluating impacts, as well as highlighting possible hotspots.
S-LCA methodology is similar to the environmental LCA methodology, as both
methods are based on the ISO 14040 framework. However, while the procedures of
goal and scope definition, inventory analysis, impact assessment and interpretation
are common, s-LCA differs in the data that is collected. S-LCA highlights the social
consequences of the activities and assesses their organisational and societal context
in the supply chain.
Social impacts are considered as the effects on the different typologies of
stakeholders involved, such as workers, local communities, value chain actors,
consumers, societies and children [1]. S-LCA seeks to improve the product’s supply
chain by providing information on social aspects for decision-makers. Its specific
objective is to assess social impacts in the same way environmental LCA does it for
environmental ones. But, while LCA is regulated by specific ISO standards (14040-
44:2021, in the updated version), about s-LCA there is not still a standardised
methodology, and the most diverse methodologies have been proposed in the
literature. The s-LCA guidelines from UNEP [1] are based on social and socio-
economic impact categories (e.g. human rights, working conditions, health and
safety, etc.) with 40 subcategories and five stakeholder groups (society, worker,
consumer, value chain actors and local community) and on context-dependent
inventory indicators. The UNEP guidelines do not provide an agreed and
standardised framework for social indicators that reflect and measure the social
impacts of technologies and processes along product life cycles and supply chains.
However, they represent the present landmark in the field.
Presently, a specific ISO standard, the 14075 ‘Principles and framework for social
life cycle assessment’, is under development (in the preparatory phase), and recently
UNEP (2020) updated the Guidelines for s-LCA and the Methodological Sheets for
subcategories in s-LCA [2], providing a methodological overview for practitioners
about possible evaluation procedures. According to them, there are two main impact
assessment approaches, and each of them responds to different practical
research aims: the reference scale approach (type I) and the impact pathway
approach (type II). The Methodological Sheets provide a list of possible stakeholder
groups to be considered in the evaluation processes, namely, workers, local com-
munities, value chain actors, consumers, society and children; for each of them,
subcategories of assessment are suggested (40 in total).
17.1.1 The Reference Scale Approach
Type I s-LCA assesses the social performance or risks of companies or organisations

involved in the product system, by comparing their behaviour to a reference scenario
(e.g. specific legal regulations or norms). The comparison is made according to
specific primary or secondary data and information or stakeholders’ opinions, and
therefore the evaluation consists in the description of a current status (in the short
17 Social Life Cycle Assessment of Batteries 293
term) and not in the accounting of the links between the activity and long-term
impacts. Therefore, the characterisation process is mainly based on interpretation.
Results are expressed in performance reference points (PRPs), which are ‘thresholds,
targets, or objectives that set different levels of social performance or social risk’
[1]. PRPs consent estimating the magnitude and significance of potential social
impacts associated with organisations in the product system, but they are context-
dependent, often based on international standards, local legislation or industry best
practices and, therefore, not generalisable.
Type I s-LCA methodology suffers many issues because it comprises a multi-
plicity of qualitative approaches in terms of data collected and their significance,
the use of the functional unit (FU) to scale inventory input is very often optional and
the characterisation step consists in an implicit or explicit value judgement on the
collected data [3, 4]. Furthermore, studies framed within this typology often disre-
gard the main typical elements of life cycle studies such as the system boundaries,
the time boundaries, the cutoff criteria and the evaluation of each single life cycle
phases. They provide a qualitative assessment of the social performance of behav-
iours and activities linked to a product or service system [5], by means of value
judgements made on collected data and result characterisation made with different
relative weights [3, 4]. The most used characterisation methods applied within type I
s-LCA found in literature are based on comparisons to norms and best practices,
socio-economic contexts, stakeholders’ judgements on companies’ compliance,
experts’ evaluations or comparison of alternatives [5]. Moreover, weighting is
mainly conducted to give a relative importance judgement to specific categories of
impact or stakeholder group, sometimes by means of multicriteria methods or other
participative approaches.
Some specific databases are available for type I s-LCA, such as PSILCA (Product
Social Impact Life Cycle Assessment), which provides information on social aspects
of products over their life cycles, for almost 15,000 industry sectors and commod-
ities and for 69 qualitative and quantitative indicators, considering global supply
chains and services, and to detect social hotspots. Similarly, the Social Hotspots
Database (SHDB) consists of a multiregional economic input-output data which
provides local and global supply chains and links these to a broad range of social
metrics aligned per sector and per country. It is a tool to help companies
and organisations to manage their social responsibility; it enables quick identifica-
tion and prioritisation of social risks in supply chains through data classified by
country and sector, as well as a methodology for quantifying social impact. They are
effective to identify social impacts at the country level but only by means of
aggregated data showing averages across different technologies and geographical
areas; therefore, these databases are of limited value in distinguishing between
alternative operations and locations for products and services [6].
17.1.2 The Impact Pathway Approach
Type II s-LCA is aimed at predicting the consequences of the product system, and it
evaluates actual or potential social impacts through causal or correlation/regression-
based relationships (the impact pathways) between the product or service life cycle
and social impacts in the short or long term. The characterisation process is based on
an analytical and quantifiable identification of the consequences of the life cycle.
According to [7] and [1], type II s-LCA is epistemologically and methodologi-
cally in line with environmental LCA, where inventory inputs are quantitatively
linked with environmental impacts. To harmonise all the life cycle approaches (life
cycle assessment and life cycle costing), a type II s-LCA methodology could be
more suitable, because it allows:
– an objective assessment of potential impacts aligned with ISO norms 14040-44:
2021.
– Connecting quantitatively inventory input to possible impacts.
– A rational use of elements such as the functional unit, the setting of system
boundaries and the rational choice of cutoff criteria, which are often blurred and
confused in type I s-LCA approaches.
– Generalising the insights to similar productive sectors.
Many methods have been proposed within this group. [8] reviewed 28 studies and
highlighted three main paths to include impact pathways in s-LCA:
(i) applying more variables composing impact pathways, or frameworks gathering
several pathways.
(ii) Using and testing already existing pathways empirically (mainly linking
income data with health impacts at a macroscale).
(iii) Applying known and already quantified characterisation models or factors from
other research works to case studies.
Examples of impact pathways can be found in the work [9], which proposed the
Preston pathway to assess the social impacts of banana industry in terms of relations
between the increased economic activity and the growth in income, which leads to
improvements in the health of a country’s population.
[10] proposed the Wilkinson pathway to assess the anticipated change in the
infant mortality rate caused by a change in income distribution in the population of a
country, itself generated by an important change in a life cycle.
Recently, the psychosocial risk factor (PRF) impact pathway [11] has been
proposed to assess the social impacts of a product life cycle by quantifying the
risk of psychosocial impacts on different typologies of stakeholders, according to the
duration of exposure to certain living and working conditions that can lead to health
issues. According to the definition by [12], PRFs are the aspects and characteristics
of work planning and management that can potentially lead to physical or psycho-
logical damage. The psychosocial risks are measured in odds ratios (ORs), a
statistical measure of the intensity of association between two variables, e.g. as the
ratio between the odds of exposure for people with a disease and the odds of
exposure for healthy people [13]. Measuring the psychosocial risks with the ORs
is a retrospective analysis of a phenomenon, expressed with a nondimensional value,
and it can assume values between 0 and + 1. A value of 1 indicates that there is no
association between disease and exposure, while values >1 indicate a positive
association (the risk factor can provoke the disease/disorder); higher values show a
stronger association between exposure and disease [14].
Data are retrieved from previous scientific studies that analysed the relationships
between specific living and working conditions and diseases (or disorders), for
example, the association between low income and myocardial infarction (OR:
3.53) and stroke (OR: 3.73) [15] or long working hours and metabolic syndrome
(OR: 1.66) [16].
All possible stakeholder groups can be potentially covered: workers (from entre-
preneurs to labourers), consumers, local communities’ members, citizens, value
chain actors and children.
Operatively, s-LCA is divided into four steps, the same as indicated in the ISO
norms 14040-44 [17, 18]:
1. Goal and scope: definition of the system boundaries, categories of impact,
functional unit, cutoff criteria, foreground and background processes, taking
into account all possible phases of the system under study.
2. Inventory analysis: data collection can be conducted both using primary sources
(surveys, interviews, participatory approaches) and secondary sources (scientific
and grey literature). All required data should be properly allocated to their life
cycle phases (e.g. planning, manufacturing, transport, use and disposal).
3. Impact assessment: it consists in choosing the most appropriate impact assess-
ment method, according to the objective of the study. Qualitative and quantitative
methods are available. As mentioned in the previous paragraphs, it is possible to
pay attention to the companies’ behaviour as well as to the functioning of the
product’ or service’s life cycle.
4. Interpretation of results obtained, retrieving insights useful for stakeholders
(private or public ones), practitioners and academics.
This methodological diversity in s-LCA studies is due to the specific character-
istics of social sciences, which are multiparadigmatic, and many worldviews can
be held: indeed, many scientific methods are available for the assessment of social
phenomena, such as quantitative, qualitative and mixed methods [7]. Therefore, up
to now, both interpretivist and post-positivist epistemological positions have been
applied in the s-LCA scientific literature [7]. Most of the studies published have been
evaluating in a qualitative or normative way a wide range of impact categories
mostly linked to companies’ behaviour (e.g. child labour, corruption, fair wages,
safety, etc.), rather than to the life cycle functioning; few studies can be found in
literature quantifying cause-effect relationships between life cycle functioning and
areas of protection (AoP) in an objective and generalisable way [7].
Further efforts should be made on standardisation possibilities and the alignment

to other life cycle methodologies, and testing of methods is necessary to overcome
present obstacles and increase the applicability and interpretability results [19].
17.2 Experiences in the s-LCA of Batteries
While literature is rich of studies focused on the environmental impacts of battery

production, the social aspects have been little investigated or are limited to social
acceptance.
Indicators for s-LCA are often based on qualitative information rather than
quantitative, given the nature of the social aspects under assessment. No
standardised set of social indicators exists; thus, the choice of social indicators in
s-LCA is challenging and possibly subjected to bias.
The typology of s-LCA methodology (type I or type II) strongly influences the
typology of data to be collected, as well as the results to be obtained. In the case of
type I, site-specific data should be collected, and the social impacts retrieved would
be mainly linked to the company’s conduct in a specific geographic and sociocultural
context. In the case of type II, both primary and secondary data can be collected, and
social impacts are quantifiable and directly linked to the life cycle processes.
Identifying the social impacts of battery supply chain must necessarily include all
life cycle phases, such as the extraction and processing of raw materials, the
production of intermediates, the production of battery cells, the assembly of the
battery pack as final product and the disposal or recycling. Raw materials come from
different mining sites, often concentrated in few countries. For example, cobalt is
mainly extracted in Congo (about 60%), followed by Russia and Australia, from
where lithium predominantly comes from. China is the largest producer of alumin-
ium and graphite but also copper and manganese.
To review the specific literature on the topic, a search on the principal scientific
research engine (e.g. Scopus, Web of Science) has been made using the keywords
‘social life cycle assessment’ or ‘SLCA’ and ‘batteries’. Eight contributions have
been found (Table 17.1), mostly published since 2019. Only three of them are
focused specifically and solely on the assessment of social impacts [20–22], while
all the other papers make a multidimensional assessment, taking into account more
sustainability dimensions, and therefore combining more methods, in some cases by
means of multicriteria decision-making (MCDM) methods [23–26]. Among the
studies reviewed, three analyse specifically the production sustainability of batteries
[21, 23, 24], three are focused on the production of battery electric vehicles (BEV)
[20, 25, 26] and two are devoted to the assessment of the mining phase
[22, 27]. Indeed, it is widely shared among reviewed papers that significant risks
originate from raw material extraction [21, 22, 27].
All the studies reviewed had the goal of proposing an assessment framework able
to address decision-making towards more sustainable solutions, since early phases of
the product or project. The most recurring impact category concerns workers’
Table 17.1 Review of social life cycle assessment of batteries
17
Field of Social categories or Affected

Author application Objectives Methods indicators Involved actors stakeholders Main results
Egbue Electric To assess the social s-LCA Not available Not available Society, Understanding and
[20] vehicle (EV) and socio-economic workers, local tracking impacts of
Li-ion impacts along some communities lithium for EV bat-
batteries parts of the lithium teries over some of
life cycle, in partic- its life cycle pro-
ular extraction and cesses. s-LCA can
production impacts be used by engi-
neering managers
to improve social
and socio-
economic condi-
tions of production
and consumption
of lithium
Sansa Batteries Proposing a new Environmental Experts, involved to Employees, The design option
et al. model for the selec- LCA (ELCA), eco- confirm results consumers, PDO1 (lithium iron
[23] tion of sustainable nomic LCA managers, phosphate, 2 volts,
design options, able (EcLCA), s-LCA governors durability of
to deal with the and the fuzzy ana- 1000–2000 cycles
uncertainties and the lytic network and specific energy
imprecisions due to process of 90–120 Wh/kg)
the technological is considered the
choices and their most suitable for
potential impacts the design of the
since early design product since it
phase of the product generates the mini-
mum impacts
through all the life
cycle phases
297
(continued)
Table 17.1 (continued)
298

Guo [24] Lead-acid Developing a life LCA, LCC, s-LCA Social acceptance, Five top-tier experts Society Result indicates the
battery, cycle sustainability and two MCDM electric power sys- of energy storage Li-ion battery has
Li-ion bat- decision-making methods: Bayesian tem reserve capacity including three pro- the best life cycle
tery, Nas framework for the best-worst method reduction fessors and two sustainability per-
battery and prioritisation of (BWM) and fuzzy practitioners, formances
NiMH electrochemical TOPSIS (technique involved in the according to eight
battery energy storage of order preference weighting process sustainability
under uncertainties similarity to the criteria from four
by combining ideal solution) pillars: economy,
MCDM method and environment, soci-
life cycle sustain- ety and technology
ability assessment
Thies Lithium-ion Assessing the social s-LCA: Social Child labour, cor- Not available Children, The Germany-
et al. batteries sustainability Hotspots Database ruption, occupa- workers, focused production
[21] hotspots of lithium- in openLCA tional toxics and society entails much lower
ion batteries with a hazards, poverty risks in the cell
spatially differenti- production and
ated resource flow pack assembly
model of the supply stage compared to
chain. Comparing the China-focused
three supply chain production. The
configurations results confirm that
significant risks
originate from the
production of raw
materials, with
graphite produc-
tion, cobalt sul-
phate production
M. Cellura et al.
17
and nickel sulphate

production being
the main contribu-
tors based on actual
production shares
Wang BEVs To assess the life LCA, LCC, s-LCA, Freedom of associa- Questionnaires and Workers, A comparison of
et al. cycle sustainability TOPSIS tion and collective on-site interviews consumers, BEVs and ICEVs.
[25] of BEVs in China, bargaining, with stakeholders in local commu- The study found
and the results child labour, fair the three nity, society, that the life cycle
obtained by com- salary, phases of government sustainability of
parison with internal forced labour, equal manufacturing, ICEVs in China
combustion engine opportunities/dis- operation and was better than that
vehicles (ICEVs) crimination, health recycling of the of BEVs
will be used to ana- and safety vehicles for data
lyse the develop- for workers and gathering
mental advantages consumers, feed-

and problems of back mechanism,
BEVs access to material
resources, local
employment, contri-
bution to economic
development, tech-
nology develop-
ment, policy and
subsidy
Wilken Electric Presenting a novel LCA, LCC, The social assess- To exclude bias and Car owners or The weights and
et al. vehicles and approach to analyse PROMETHEE ment was realised keep the assessment users preference thresh-
[26] internal ICEV-, BEV- and (Preference Rank- through the applica- feasible, neither olds only margin-
combustion FCEV-type (fuel ing Organization tion of specific stakeholder repre- ally affect the
engine cell electric vehicle) Method for Enrich- weighting scenarios sentatives nor rankings: the BEV
vehicles passenger cars on a ment Evaluations) as part of the ‘experts’ were alternatives based
MCDM process on renewable
299
(continued)
300

multidimensional involved in this electricity
basis study (i.e. BEV_wind/
PV) share the
upper ranks with
the conventional
vehicles
(i.e. ICEV_diesel/
gas) in the majority
of scenario combi-
nations, whereas
BEV_EU-mix and
all of the FCEV
alternatives are
mostly ranked
lower
Mancini Responsible Comparing the situ- OECD Guidance, Local community: Interviews to Local com- Results show that
et al. sourcing ini- ation of two pilot CCCMC (China health and safety, miners, miners’ rep- munities, the systems
[27] tiatives for projects about the Chamber of Com- local employment resentatives, pilot workers analysed are rather
cobalt general situation at merce of Metals, and economy, social initiative implemen- effective in
cobalt small-scale Minerals and benefits/losses, cul- ters, ex-child implementing the
mining sites in Chemicals tural heritage and workers for data changes that they
Congo (DRC). Pro- Importers and land rights, gathering are designed to
viding the basis to Exporters) guid- discrimination, make, especially in
discuss the lessons ance, IFC (Interna- forced migration/ the case of life-
learned for the tional Finance resettlement and threatening work-
assessment and Corporation) Per- land rights and pov- ing conditions,
monitoring of formance Stan- erty child labour and
responsible sourc- dards, s-LCA Workers: health and corruption. How-
ing programmes and social well-being, ever, the risk
M. Cellura et al.
17
of due diligence wages, social bene- categories

schemes and possi- fits, working condi- addressed by these
ble implications for tions, discrimina- projects are dic-
policy tion, freedom of tated by down-
association and col- stream expecta-
lective bargaining, tions and do not
training and educa- necessarily corre-
tion, spond to the
job satisfaction and demands of the
engagement miners they are
designed to protect.
For instance, price
calculation and
income as well as
gender consider-
ations are particu-

larly salient aspects
and are not cap-
tured by responsi-
ble sourcing
programmes but
are part of the
s-LCA framework
Muller Flexible and The goal of this s-LCA (PSILCA Society: Interviews with Society, local Switching the elec-
et al. modular study is to assess the v2.0 database) contribution to eco- members of the pro- communities, tricity supply sys-
[22] mining plant social implications nomic development, ject in charge of the workers, tem increases the
(MMP) of a new mining value chain actors, MMP development, children overall risk due to
paradigm, small- corruption, fair deployment and the increase in
scale ‘switch-on competition and operations potential impacts
switch-off’ (SOSO) promoting social occurring on the
mining, which is responsibility renewable energy
based on the design Local community: supply chain
301
(continued)
302

of a flexible and access to raw mate- (e.g. battery
modular mining rial resources, safe manufacturing).
plant (MMP) and and healthy living When switching
aims at exploiting conditions, local the country of
quickly and safely employment and operation to
European small migration, Greece, the overall
high-grade deposits respect of indige- potential impacts
of raw materials, nous rights are predicted to
including critical Workers: decrease
health and safety,
fair salary, social
benefits, working
time, child labour
and freedom of
association
M. Cellura et al.
conditions, especially in terms of health and safety, freedom of collective bargaining,

fair wages and child labour. Of studies, 50% also take into consideration local
communities and 62% also the whole society. Lithium-ion battery production is
the most assessed scenario.
Concerning results [23] affirmed that batteries with lithium iron phosphate,
voltage of 2 V, durability of 1000–2000 cycles and specific energy of 90–120 Wh/
kg can be considered the most suitable for the design of the product because of lower
impacts through all the life cycle phases. [24] compared different typologies of
batteries and concluded that lithium-ion battery has the best life cycle sustainability
performances according to eight sustainability criteria from four pillars (economy,
environment, society, technology). [21] highlighted that when the cell production
and pack assembly stage is conducted in Europe (Germany, in their case study), it
entails much lower risks compared to the China-focused production: they confirm
that significant risks originate from the production of raw materials, with graphite
production, cobalt sulphate production and nickel sulphate production being the
main contributors based on actual production shares. Concerning the production of
the vehicles, contrasting results are obtained in [25, 26], which both applied
multicriteria decision-making methods. In the first case, comparing battery electric
vehicles and internal combustion engine vehicles (ICEVs), the authors found that the
life cycle sustainability of ICEVs in China was better than that of BEVs. In the
second study, [26], weights and preference thresholds only marginally affected the
rankings. BEV alternatives based on renewable electricity (i.e. wind or photovoltaic
plants) share the upper ranks with conventional vehicles (i.e. diesel/gas) in many
scenario combinations, whereas BEV with electricity from the European Union
(EU) 2012 electricity mix (BEV_EU-mix) and all the fuel cell electric vehicle
alternatives are mostly ranked lower.
17.3 Conclusions
Results from the literature review on the batteries or electric vehicle supply chain
showed that, while the environmental impacts are mainly and regularly investigated
by scholars, the social repercussions of this production process are very poorly
considered or are limited to social acceptance. Probably this is due to the difficulty
with the different s-LCA methodologies, not yet standardised in one unique
approach, the complexity of the indicators’ choice and the obstacles to obtaining
data from the specific production sector and for all life cycle phases. This is
especially for raw material extraction and processing which seems to be the riskiest
stage in terms of impacts but also the production of intermediates, the production of
battery cells, the assembly of the battery pack as final product and the disposal or
recycling. It is interesting to note that although social is little applied to the sector
analysed, most existing studies prefer to conduct integrated analyses with other
impact assessment methodologies, in the light of a multiperspective approach, by
confirming the need to conduct analyses to assess the sustainability of production
processes as holistically as possible. On the other hand, from an exclusive social

point of view, the inclusion in the same investigation of impact evaluations on
different types of stakeholders remains a very challenging issue; in fact, those
most analysed are always the workers’ group, with the recurring impact category
on work conditions (health and safety, freedom of collective bargaining, fair wages
and child labour). The major conclusions that can be retrieved are about the necessity
of more research to clearly define the possible social impacts of batteries, especially
objective analyses that can clearly quantify the impacts deriving from the life cycle
phases and that allow comparisons among different scenarios, which can be highly
variegated.
References
1. Benoît Norris C, Traverso M, Neugebauer S, Ekener E, Schaubroeck T, Russo Garrido S,

Berger M, Valdivia S, Lehmann A, Finkbeiner M, Arcese G (2020) Guidelines for social life
cycle assessment of products and organizations. United Nations Environment Programme
(UNEP)
2. Traverso M, Valdivia S, Luthin A, Roche L, Arcese G, Neugebauer S, Petti L, D’Eusanio M,
Tragnone BM, Mankaa R, Hanafi J, Benoît Norris C, Zamagni A (2021) Methodological sheets
for subcategories in social life cycle assessment (S-LCA) 2021. United Nations Environment
Programme (UNEP)
3. Russo Garrido S, Parent J, Beaulieu L, Revéret JP (2018) A literature review of type I SLCA—
making the logic underlying methodological choices explicit. Int J Life Cycle Assess 23:432–
444. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-016-1067-z
4. Huertas-Valdivia I, Ferrari AM, Settembre-Blundo D, García-Muiña FE (2020) Social life-
cycle assessment: a review by bibliometric analysis. Sustainability 12:1–25. https://doi.org/10.
3390/su12156211
5. Tennes do Carmo BB, Margni M, Baptiste P (2017) Customized scoring and weighting
approaches for quantifying and aggregating results in social life cycle impact assessment. Int
J Life Cycle Assess 22:2007–2017. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-017-1280-4
6. Du C, Ugaya C, Freire F, Dias LC, Clift R (2019) Enriching the results of screening social life
cycle assessment using content analysis: a case study of sugarcane in Brazil. Int J Life Cycle
Assess 24:781–793. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-018-1490-4
7. Iofrida N, De Luca AI, Strano A, Gulisano G (2018) Can social research paradigms justify the
diversity of approaches to social life cycle assessment? Int J Life Cycle Assess 23:464–480.
8. Sureau S, Neugebauer S, Achten WMJ (2020) Different paths in social life cycle impact
assessment (S-LCIA)—a classification of type II impact pathway approaches. Int J Life Cycle
Assess 25:382–393. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-019-01693-9
9. Feschet P, Macombe C, Garrabé M, Loeillet D, Saez AR, Benhmad F (2013) Social impact
assessment in LCA using the Preston pathway. The case of banana industry in Cameroon. Int J
Life Cycle Assess 18:490–503. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-012-0490-z
10. Bocoum I, Macombe C, Revéret JP (2015) Anticipating impacts on health based on changes in
income inequality caused by life cycles. Int J Life Cycle Assess 20:405–417. https://doi.org/10.
1007/s11367-014-0835-x
11. Iofrida N, De Luca AI, Silveri F, Falcone G, Stillitano T, Gulisano G, Strano A (2019)
Psychosocial risk factors’ impact pathway for social life cycle assessment: an application to
citrus life cycles in South Italy. Int J Life Cycle Assess 24(4):767–780. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s11367-018-1482-4
12. Cox T, Griffiths A, Rial-Gonzalez E (2000) Research on work-related stress. Office for Official
Publications of the European Communities
13. Szumilas M (2010) Explaining odds ratios. J Can Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry 19:227–229.
https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.c4414
14. Bottarelli E, Ostanello F (2011) Epidemiologia. Teoria ed esempi di medicina veterinaria.
Edagricole, Milano, p 228
15. Min YI, Anugu P, Butler KR, Hartley TA, Mwasongwe S, Norwood AF, Sims M, Wang W,
Winters KP, Correa A (2017) Cardiovascular disease burden and socioeconomic correlates:
findings from the Jackson heart study. J Am Heart Assoc 6(8). https://doi.org/10.1161/JAHA.
116.004416
16. Kobayashi T, Suzuki E, Takao S, Doi H (2012) Long working hours and metabolic syndrome
among Japanese men: a cross-sectional study. BMC Public Health 12(1):395. https://doi.org/10.
1186/1471-2458-12-395
17. ISO 14040:2021 (2021a) Environmental management - life cycle assessment – principles and
framework. International Organization for Standardization, Geneva
18. ISO 14044:2021 (2021b) Environmental management – life cycle assessment – requirements
and guidelines. International Organization for Standardization, Geneva
19. Pollok L, Spierling S, Endres HJ, Grote U (2021) Social life cycle assessments: a review on past
development, advances and methodological challenges. Sustainability 13:1–29. https://doi.org/
10.3390/su131810286
20. Egbue O (2012) Assessment of social impacts of lithium for electric vehicle batteries. In:
Proceedings of the Institute of Industrial Engineers Annual Conference. Norcross (2012), pp
1–7
21. Thies C, Kieckhäfer K, Spengler TS, Sodhi MS (2019) Assessment of social sustainability
hotspots in the supply chain of lithium-ion batteries. Procedia CIRP 80:292–297. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.procir.2018.12.009
22. Muller S, Beylot A, Sydd O, Doyle K, Bodin J, Villeneuve J (2021) Applying social life cycle
assessment in the early stages of a project development – an example from the mining sector. Int
J Life Cycle Assess 26(12):2436–2456. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-021-01995-x
23. Sansa M, Badreddine A, Ben Romdhane T (2017) A multi-leveled ANP-LCA model for the
selection of sustainable design options. IFIP Adv Inf Commun Technol 517:473–486. https://
doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-72905-3_42
24. Guo S (2019) Life cycle sustainability decision-making framework for the prioritization of
electrochemical energy storage under uncertainties. In: Life cycle sustainability assessment for
decision-making: methodologies and case studies. Elsevier Inc. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-
0-12-818355-7.00014-2
25. Wang Y, Zhou G, Li T, Wei X (2019) Comprehensive evaluation of the sustainable develop-
ment of battery electric vehicles in China. Sustainability (Switzerland) 11(20). https://doi.org/
10.3390/su11205635
26. Wilken D, Oswald M, Draheim P, Pade C, Brand U, Vogt T (2020) Multidimensional
assessment of passenger cars: comparison of electric vehicles with internal combustion engine
vehicles. Procedia CIRP 90:291–296. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procir.2020.01.101
27. Mancini L, Eslava NA, Traverso M, Mathieux F (2021) Assessing impacts of responsible
sourcing initiatives for cobalt: insights from a case study. Resour Policy 71(October 2020):
102015. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resourpol.2021.102015
Chapter 18
Multicriteria Decision Analysis
for Sustainability Assessment for Emerging
Batteries
Laura Mesa Estrada, Martina Haase, Manuel Baumann, and Tim Müller
Contents
18.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 307
18.2 MCDA for Sustainability Assessment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 308
18.3 Properties of MCDA Methods for Sustainability Assessment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 313
18.4 MCDA Software . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 314
18.5 MCDA for Sustainability Assessment in the Field of Batteries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 316
18.6 Use Case MCDA Sustainability Assessment for Early-Stage Cathode Materials
for Sodium Ion Batteries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 316
18.7 Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 328
18.8 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 330
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 330
18.1 Introduction
The origin of the concept of sustainability is commonly associated with the defini-
tion of sustainable development given by the Brundtland Report and the Rio
Conference “Environment and Development” in 1992: “Sustainable development
meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future genera-
tions to meet their own needs.” From this, different concepts emerged to give better
L. M. Estrada (✉) · M. Haase · M. Baumann

Karlsruhe Institute of Technology – Institute for Technology Assessment and System Analyses
(ITAS), Karlsruhe, Germany
T. Müller
Karlsruhe Institute of Technology – Institute for Thermal Energy Technology and Safety
(ITES), Karlsruhe, Germany

308 L. M. Estrada et al.
understanding to sustainability such as the triple bottom-line model [3], the Sustain-
able Development Goals (SDGs) [54], the Integrative Concept of Sustainable
Development (ICoS) [32], etc.
However, defining and assessing sustainability in a specific context is a challeng-
ing task. Considering different dimensions and perspectives results in conflicting
goals when trying to select the best solution. In the context of batteries, the
development and implementation of sustainable technologies is especially chal-
lenged by aspects such as materials availability (resources and geographical loca-
tion), economic feasibility, and technology readiness levels.
Going beyond techno-economic factors, these challenges require methodologies
that comprehensively analyze the sustainability issues and allow discussion and
interaction among relevant stakeholders, e.g., researchers, technology developers,
and policymakers. Multicriteria decision analysis methods are an adequate tool to
assess sustainability in different contexts given their flexibility and capability to
integrate stakeholders in decision-making processes. The process of conducting
MCDA sustainability assessment has important implications regarding the identifi-
cation of sustainability criteria and indicators, selection of MCDA methods, and
identification of stakeholders and their involvement in the assessment. The aim of
this chapter is to provide an overview of the MCDA methodology and how this can
be applied in the context of sustainability assessment of emerging batteries. First, the
definition of important concepts in MCDA sustainability assessment is given. This is
followed by a review of MCDA studies in the field of battery storage. Then, a use
case for cathode material selection for sodium ion batteries is presented as example
for the use of PROMETHEE II. Discussion on the results with a focus on the
methodology and their meaning is presented. The chapter ends with conclusion
and outlook for MCDA sustainability assessment for emerging storage technologies.
18.2 MCDA for Sustainability Assessment
Multiple criteria decision analysis (MCDA) is a technique that supports decision-

making processes through the comparison of potential solutions or alternatives using
relevant, often conflicting, criteria. The process of MCDA generally consists of the
following steps: identification and involvement of stakeholders, problem definition,
selection of criteria (and indicators), definition of alternatives, preference modeling
(criteria weighting and aggregation), comparison and evaluation of alternatives,
sensitivity/robustness analysis, and problem resolution [21].
The three main challenges for the application of MCDA methods in sustainability
assessment are stakeholders’ integration, selection of sustainability criteria and
indicators, and selection of MCDA methods. They are briefly described in the
following paragraphs.
18 Multicriteria Decision-Making for Sustainability Assessment. . . 309
18.2.1 Stakeholder Integration
Identification and involvement of relevant (and diverse) stakeholders is of great

importance for MCDA sustainability assessment. Stakeholders should be involved
in the construction of the model from definition of the problem and identification of
sustainability issues to the evaluation of the results [33]. In practice, this has some
drawbacks since it demands high amount of resources such as time, people, and
money. Therefore, it is common to find applications or models in which stake-
holders’ integration is limited to weighting using different formats again depending
on the resources available, e.g., workshops, online surveys, and interviews.
18.2.2 Sustainability Criteria and Indicators
Guidelines for general applications of MCDA methods indicate that criteria/indica-

tors are required to be unambiguous, comprehensive, operational, and understand-
able [31]. In the context of sustainability assessment, they should as well reflect the
concept of sustainability used (e.g., triple bottom-line model) and the sustainability
issues related to the object of study [4, 22, 48]. At this point, the integration of
stakeholders facilitates and strengthens the process of identifying sustainability
issues. It is also important to consider the nature of the criteria/indicators for
sustainability assessment. It is recommended that they include a life cycle perspec-
tive “not to divert some negative impacts from one stage to the other” [12].
18.2.3 Selection of MCDA Method
This subchapter is divided into two sections. First, a general description of MCDA
methods is presented, including more detailed information about three selected
methods to illustrate their capacities and differences. Second, the presentation and
description of the requirements of the MCDA methods to conduct sustainability
assessment and a brief comparison of how those three methods perform on these
requirements.
18.2.4 Classification of MCDA Methods
MCDA methods can be distinguished into multi-objective decision-making

(MODM), multi-attribute decision-making (MADM), and combinations of
MODM and MADM [35]. MADM methods can be categorized into (i) elementary
methods (e.g., weighted sum method), (ii) single synthesizing criterion (e.g.,
TOPSIS, AHP), (iii) outranking methods (e.g., PROMETHEE, ELECTRE), and

(iv) mixed methods [23]. These methods have different strengths and weaknesses,
and their application depends on the decision problem and type of information
available [35]. For example, Cinelli, Kadzinski, Gonzalez, and Roman [13] and
Wątróbski, Jankowski, Ziemba, Karczmarczyk, and Zioło [56] present “guidelines”
to help users to select the most adequate method based on categories such as criteria
structure (flat, hierarchical), capacity to handle missing information, and easiness of
use. The following paragraphs include a brief description of three methods (WSM,
TOPSIS, and PROMETHEE) commonly used in the context of energy management.
18.2.5 WSM
The WSM (weighted sum method) is a way to combine criterion values according to
their preferences into a ranking value for each alternative. Its main advantage lies in
its simplicity, allowing stakeholders without background knowledge to understand
how the ranking is achieved. WSM requires unitless criterion values of comparable
scale and therefore usually operates on normalized criterion values, weighting them
by normalized preference values and summing them up:
Rj = wi ∙ N i ðC i Þ for i
where Rj is the ranking value for alternative j, wi the normalized weight for criterion
i, and Ci the normalized criterion value for criterion i. The normalized criterion
values must be profit oriented, i.e., higher values are better than lower ones. If this is
not the case as for, e.g., costs, this can be achieved by an according normalization.
WSM is frequently chosen because it feels obvious and comes to stakeholders
naturally.
18.2.6 TOPSIS
The Technique for Order Preference by Similarity to Ideal Solution (TOPSIS) starts
with the normalization and weighting of the input data [10]. With the normalized and
weighted input data, the different alternatives can be interpreted as points depending
on the chosen criteria. Besides, two theoretical points are calculated: a point that
corresponds to the best values in each category over all considered alternatives
(theoretical best alternative) and a point which corresponds to the worst value over
all alternatives (theoretical worst alternative). With TOPSIS, the best alternative is
calculated based on the shortest and farthest Euclidean distances from the theoretical
best and the theoretical worst alternative, respectively (cf. Hwang and Yoon [28] and
García-Cascales and Lamata [18]). To determine the so-called performance value Pi

of an alternative, the named distances are determined and related to each other:
Pi = Si - =ðSi þ þ Si - Þ
where Si- is the distance to the theoretical worst alternative and Si+ is the distance to
the theoretical best alternative. TOPSIS requires a limited subjective input compared
to other approaches, e.g., PROMETHEE. Its logic is rational and understandable,
and the computation processes are straightforward [18].
18.2.7 PROMETHEE
The PROMETHEE family of outranking methods includes several versions which

are suitable for different decision-making situations: PROMETHEE I and II, for
partial and complete rankings, PROMETHEE III for interval order, PROMETHEE
IV for continuous extensions, PROMETHEE V for problems with segmentation
constraints, PROMETHEE VI for the human brain representation, and
PROMETHEE Group Decision Support Systems (GDSS) for group decision-
making [9]. The principle of PROMETHEE is based on pairwise comparisons of
alternatives along each criterion. These pairwise comparisons depend on preference
functions assigned to each criterion with the aim of translating the difference
between two alternatives from the criterion scale to a 0–1 degree of preference.
PROMETHEE I provides partial rankings of the alternatives with the outranking
flows Ф + and Ф-. The higher Ф + and the lower Ф- are, the better is the overall rank
of the analyzed option. PROMETHEE II adds a step to derive a complete ranking of
the alternatives (outranking flow Ф) by calculating the difference between the two
flows. The challenge or complexity associated with this method when compared to
elementary or single synthetizing methods relies on the cognitive effort by the
decision-maker to define parameters associated with the preference functions. The
next paragraphs describe weighting and preference function selection for
PROMETHEE II.
(a) Weighting
There is no specific methodology to determine the weights in PROMETHEE II,
and commonly other methods are used for this task. An important consideration for
the selection of weighting methods is that in PROMETHEE II the weights represent
importance coefficient, i.e., the voting power of the criteria in the decision
problem [11].
(b) Preference Function and Parameters
The selection of preference functions allows to identify the degree of preference
among alternatives where 0 means indifference and 1 strict preference. Depending
Table 18.1 PROMETHEE preference functions [38]

Graphical
Preference function Thresholds representation
Type I – Usual None
Type II – U-shape q– Indifference
Type III – V-shape p– Preference
Type IV – Level q,p
Type V – V-shape with indifference (linear) q,p
Type VI – Gaussian S – Gaussian threshold
on the type of function selected, preference thresholds (p) and/or indifference

thresholds (q) can be defined. Q indicates the largest difference that can be neglected
and p the smallest difference that represent a total preference [38]. Table 18.1 shows
the six preference functions in PROMETHEE. PROMETHEE II is equivalent to the
WSM when all criteria have the type III–V-shape preference function and the same
value for the preference threshold P [19, 37].
The selection of the preference parameters P and Q is meant to be done by the
decision-makers based on their perceptions on the decision problem [51]. However,
this is commonly not a simple task, and several strategies or approaches have been
proposed to simplify this in different contexts, e.g., uncertainty of life cycle impact
assessment (LCIA) [58], and using the difference between the maximum and mini-
mum value of each criterion and making then p and q equal to 10–30% and 5–15%
of this difference, respectively [34].
18.3 Properties of MCDA Methods for Sustainability

Assessment
In the context of sustainability assessment, there is a set of desirable properties when

selecting an MCDA method [12, 45]:
• Handling qualitative and quantitative data: when conducting sustainability
assessment, different information can be obtained in different forms, i.e., ordinal,
cardinal, or mixed.
• Type of weights: within an MCDA model, there are two types of weights: trade-
offs when the weights reflect intensity of preference and importance coefficients
which represent voting power [44]. In the case of sustainability assessment, the
weights should be modeled as importance coefficients. Therefore, special atten-
tion should be paid when selecting the methods for preference elicitation.
• Partial/null compensation between criteria: compensation implies the existence of
trade-offs in the aggregation of criteria, i.e., the extent to which bad performance
of one criterion can be offset by good performance of another. Compensation is
associated with the concept of weak sustainability and low compensation with
strong sustainability (a more detailed description can be found in Ziemba [60]).
• Threshold values: these can be useful in complex preference models where not all
preferences have the same intensity or relevancy.
• Ease of use: simple structure facilitates the experience of the users. Some methods
are commonly preferred because of their simplicity. For example, full compen-
satory methods such WSM are easier to implement compared to
low-compensatory methods that could require high cognitive effort such
ELECTRE III or PROMETHEE II. However, it is a task of the analyst to properly
understand the methods and be able to explain it to stakeholders.
• Handling uncertainty: sustainability issues are inherently related to uncertainty. In
order to account for this imprecision or vagueness in the information, the
multicriteria evaluation needs to either model the uncertainty of the input data,
i.e., stochastic analysis, or include sensitivity analysis [42].
• Software support and graphical representation: several software exist that facil-
itate the implementation of different MCDA methods. Given their importance on
the implementation of MCDA methods, an additional subchapter is dedicated to
this topic.
Table 18.2 presents the performance of commonly used MCDA methods related
to the desired properties for sustainability assessment in the context of energy
technologies. It can be seen why outranking methods are more suitable for
sustainability-related decision-making problems. Their ability to offer thorough
understanding of how the problem is structured to accurately represent the deci-
sion-maker’s preferences, and to account for uncertain information using techniques
like probability distributions, fuzzy sets, and threshold values, makes them highly
valuable [25].
Table 18.2 MCDA method performance with respect to the desired properties for sustainability
assessment [12, 14]
MADM methods
Elementary Single synthesizing
methods criteria Outranking methods
Properties/charac- WSM TOPSIS PROMETHEE II
teristics for sustain-
ability assessment
Handle qualitative Quantitative Quantitative Quantitative, qualitative
and quantitative
data
Weights as impor- Trade-offs Trade-offs Relative importance
tance coefficients coefficients
Threshold values No No Preference, indifference
Partial/null com- Full Full Null, partial
pensation between
criteria
Handling Yes Yes Yes
uncertainty
Ease of use High High Medium
Software support Definite [30], Triptych, PyTOPS Visual PROMETHEE [39],
and graphical MCDA KIT Tool [59], MCDA KIT D-Sight [27], MCDA KIT
representation [43], diviz [41] Tool [43], diviz [41] Tool [43], diviz [41]
18.4 MCDA Software
MCDA software supports users through decision-making processes by providing

different methods. High diversity of MCDA software is available to match the
various needs of the different users which could depend on characteristics such as
MCDA methods available, structuring of preferences, graphical representation,
usability, platform (desktop, website), and last but not least type of license (com-
mercial, free). Inventory of some available MCDA software can be found in
Beekman [8], International Society on MCDM [29], and Weistroffer and Li
[57]. Commercial MCDA software stand out for offering good technical support
and documentation. However, a great deal of MCDA software has been developed
by the scientific community to meet specific needs (e.g., specific MCDA methods,
context-based software) or simply to eliminate the barriers that licenses impose. The
following subchapter presents the freely available software MCDA KIT tool, orig-
inally developed by the Karlsruhe Institute of Technology to support decision-
making processes in the context of nuclear emergency management, yet with the
original goal to avoid specific constraints and to provide a broadly applicable tool for
both the scientific and the operational communities. This tool is still continuously
improved in the context of the projects where it is applied, e.g., by adding a specific
plug-in to meet the requirements of sustainability assessment.
18.4.1 MCDA KIT Tool
The MCDA KIT tool is a standalone java desktop application with the goals to teach
and demonstrate multiple available MCDA methods as well as to apply MCDA in an
operational environment. The former manifests in a flexible design which allows for
easy and fast integration of new methods resulting in an already comprehensive
collection. The latter leads to a clear and user-friendly graphical interface, displaying
analyses and results in various ways. The MCDA KIT tool provides many interac-
tive possibilities to edit and analyze an MCDA task. Figure 18.1 shows some of the
more common interactions beginning from top left rank bar chart, normalization,
report, stability analysis, values, and direct weighting.
The tool is designed in a modular and most generic way to allow combination and
comparison of the different methods of the MCDA process. Many different algo-
rithms have been implemented for the various tasks. Weights can be determined by
the use of direct weighting, SMART, SWING, and AHP (analytical hierarchy
process). Normalization is possible by many methods, starting with simple linear
min-max functions up to nonlinear methods like Softmax or piecewise linear. So far,
the method for aggregation can be chosen from WSM (weighted sum), WPM
(weighted product), some voting methods, VIKOR, TOPSIS, or PROMETHEE.
By design, other algorithms can be added easily, expanding the collection of
methods over the course of time.
The software is also capable to address uncertainties, both in weights and values,
by evaluation of ensembles. Uncertainties can be defined as histogram distributions,
naturally supporting stakeholder surveys, or probability distributions with the need
to specify the distributions and their parameters. Furthermore, the software features
Fig. 18.1 Screenshot of MCDA KIT tool

the generation of documents which textual outline the input conditions, the applied
MCDA methods and parameters, and the results as well as analyses like stability
estimates and potential correlations. Several import and export methods allow to
connect to other tools like MS Excel. A plug-in interface allows third parties to easily
add functionality. The tool is also translated in several languages and provides
different modes to address color blindness.
18.5 MCDA for Sustainability Assessment in the Field

of Batteries
There are several MCDA studies available in the field of batteries, aiming at different
technologies (different Li-based chemistries, redox-flow, or high-temperature batte-
ries), as well as different applications reaching from stationary to mobile applica-
tions. Depending on the specific scope, corresponding methods and criteria are
selected for the assessment of batteries as indicated in Table 18.3. This is not
intended to be an exhaustive review but to provide some example of applications
and perhaps identify common practices. A wide range of MCDA methods are
applied in the selected studies, including mostly compensatory approaches. Criteria
selected include mostly LCA indicators. In addition to that, some studies include a
wide set of stakeholders, while others do not include any in their assessments. A
major factor that should also be kept in mind is that technologies that are being
compared might have different technology readiness levels. This can be challenging
as some technologies already experienced a large learning curve, while others are
just being presently developed. Having this heterogeneity in mind makes it difficult
to directly compare the results of different studies. Consequently, it is not possible to
determine the best technology via a single study.
18.6 Use Case MCDA Sustainability Assessment

for Early-Stage Cathode Materials for Sodium Ion
Batteries
In this chapter, the MCDA process (problem definition, selection of criteria, defini-
tion of alternatives, and preference modeling) for sustainability assessment is illus-
trated based on an example of early-stage cathode material screening for sodium ion
batteries. The assumptions and calculations here presented correspond to the ones
made by the authors in the original publication [6], except for the application of the
MCDA method for which PROMETHEE II is used instead of WSM. More details on
the made assumptions, considered chemistries, and used data can be found in
Baumann et al. [6].
18
Table 18.3 Overview of selected MCDA studies in the field of battery storage with different chemistries, applications, criteria, and stakeholder involvement
Number and
categories of
MCDA methods stakeholders involved
Technologies / (w = weighting, (participant/category
Source alternatives Application Criteria a = aggregation) description) Results
Haase et al. Battery electric vehi- Electric vehicles Environmental (LCA) TOPSIS (a) None Under given
[24] cle (BEV), fuel cell Economic (total assumptions, the
electric vehicle costs) BEV with wind
(FCEV), internal Social (domestic power was assessed
combustion engine value added) as most sustainable
vehicle (ICEV) option in 2020 as
well as in 2050
Domingues, BEV, FCEV, ICEV, Electric vehicles Life cycle impact ELECTRE TRI None BEV and PHEV are
Marques, plug-in hybrid assessment (a) the only vehicles that
Garcia, (PHEV) can achieve the top
Freire, and class
Dias [16]
Baumann, Lithium–iron–phos- Utility scale Environmental (dam- AHP (w), 72 people/civil soci- LIBs seem to be the
Peters, and phate (LFP), lithium– Battery storage tech- age to ecosystem DE, TOPSIS (a) ety, regulation, most
Weil [7] iron–phosphate/lith- nologies: Primary damage to human policymakers, Recommendable
ium titanate (LFP– regulation, energy health DHH, damage researchers (univer- technology among
Multicriteria Decision-Making for Sustainability Assessment. . .
LTO), lithium–man- time shifting, wind of resources avail- sity), municipal util- the evaluated BESS
ganese oxide (LMO), energy support, ability DRA) ity, network operator, for most application
nickel–cobalt–alumi- decentralized grid Economic (life cycle utility company, RES areas (with exception
num oxide (NCA), costs LCC) production/retail, of the LIB–LTO,
and nickel–cobalt– Social (socioeco- automotive sector, which is only suit-
manganese oxide nomic values, accep- battery manufacturer, able for low E/P
(NMC) tance, regulation, and energy storage ratios)
frame) business
Technological (matu-
rity, technology per-
317
formance, tech.
flexibility)
(continued)
318
Number and
categories of
Ma et al. Nas battery, lead-acid Electrochemical Environmental (CO2 Bayesian BMW Five people/experts LIB is the optimal
[36] (LA) battery, NiMH energy storage for intensity) (w), TOPSIS (a) solution
battery, and Li-ion renewable energy- Economic (capital
battery (LIB) based power genera- intensity and opera-
tion stations tion cost)
Social (social accep-
tance and electric
power system reserve
capacity reduction)
Technological (cycle
life, energy effi-
ciency, and self-
discharge rate)
Albawab, LA batteries, LIBs, Not given Environment (area Extended Three people/experts Ranking: (1) thermal
Ghenai, super-capacitors, and material intensi- SWARA (w)/ from engineering, energy
Bettayeb, hydrogen storage, ties, energy, CO2, and ARAS (a) energy storage, sus- storage, (2) com-
and Janajreh compressed air capital intensities of tainability, energy and pressed air, (3) LIBs,
[1] energy storage, the construction, life climate change, (4) pumped hydro,
pumped hydro, and cycle greenhouse gas renewable energy (5) LA batteries,
thermal energy emissions) (6) hydrogen storage
storage Economic (operating (onboard), and
cost, current installed (7) supercapacitors
capacity, growth rate)
Social indicators
(health and safety
issues)
L. M. Estrada et al.
18
Technological: cycle
lifetime, cycle effi-
ciency, discharge time
at rated power, and
adaptability for
mobile systems
Resource (specific
energy, specific
power, energy
density)
Salameh PV-BES based on PV/battery technol- SDG 7: Affordable TOPSIS, WSM, None The PV-LIB at 50%
et al. [49] nickel–iron (Ni–Fe), ogy microgrid system and clean energy NEW (a) DOD was the best
LIB, and LA battery for a desalination (round-trip efficiency, option among all
technologies at differ- plant energy density, num- cases
ent depths of dis- ber of life cycles,
charges (DOD) lifetime years, storage
duration)
SDG 8: Decent work
and economic growth
SDG 15: Life on land
(environmental
impact)
Economic (annual
levelized cost,
levelized cost of
energy)
Size: NPV, NBAT
(continued)
319
320
Number and
categories of
Murrant and Power to gas, a dis- Energy storage Environmental MAVT (w,a) 18 people/local and Top-ranking project:
Radcliffe tributed battery sys- projects co-benefits national businesses, Battery storage inte-
[46] tem, battery storage Economic growth academia, community grated with solar PV
integrated with solar (innovation), eco- energy groups, and and demand from an
PV and demand from nomic viability, CC airport
an airport, liquid air increasing self-
energy storage, bat- consumption, eco-
tery storage integrated nomic co-benefits
with wave energy, Deferral of grid
and thermal energy upgrades, technology
storage at a new resi- viability
dential development
18.6.1 Stakeholder Integration
Material researchers from KIT were selected as relevant stakeholders given the
scope of the analysis (screening of early-stage cathode materials). Their integration
includes the stages of problem definition, selection of criteria, and alternatives and
excludes weighting of criteria. In the following subchapters, these will be referred as
stakeholders.
18.6.2 Problem Definition
Sodium ion batteries (SIBs) are considered as promising, sustainable alternative to

lithium ion batteries (LIBs) regarding the use of critical and expensive materials and
the high carbon footprint of the same [6]. Although there is a wide set of different
cathode active materials (CAMs) available for SIB, they are considered to be in a
lower technology readiness level (TRL) than CAMs for LIB, which are a state-of-
the-art technology. Under these uncertainties, how to determine the most sustainable
cathode types that are under development and to prioritize certain electrodes types
becomes a challenge.
18.6.3 Selection of Criteria
The MCDA is based on a comprehensive bottom-up screening approach using three

different criteria: (1) CAM cost, (2) raw material criticality, and (3) carbon footprint.
These were selected considering the sustainability issues mentioned in Sect. 18.6.2, a
literature review and workshops with stakeholders. Table 18.4 presents the infor-
mation related to the criteria, indicators, and sources of the data.
18.6.4 Definition of Alternatives
The alternatives consist of 49 CAMs selected using literature screening and from
workshops conducted with stakeholders. An overview of the used SIB CAMs and
their properties as well as results for the three different criteria is provided in
Table 18.5. Here, each SIB CAM chemistry is benchmarked to eight selected LIB
CAMs (Nos. 1 to 7 and No. 30 in Table 18.4). From this, lithium–nickel–
manganese–cobalt (No. 5) and lithium–iron–phosphate (No. 30) are among the
most prominent CAMs. All CAMs are separated into oxidic and polyanionic cathode
types for a more differentiated comparison.
Table 18.4 Overview of used criteria for SIB cathode evaluation

Methods for
Sustainability quantification/
issues Criteria Indicator Unit Description source of data
Resource man- Raw mate- Supply SREU/ Collective term SR for Europe
agement (global rial criti- risk kWh describing the [17]
supply concentra- cality (SR) for economic value
tion, country gov- (criticality) the EU and dependency
ernance, import on certain mate-
reliance, trade rials as well as the
restriction, probability of
recycling) supply chain dis-
ruptions [50]
Global warming, Carbon GHG kg Greenhouse gas LCA
emissions to air footprint emissions CO2eq./ emissions of the
and water (CF) Wh CAM precursors
and their synthesis
process
Competitiveness CAM cost Costs €/kWh Costs of raw Literature and
(cost) materials and pre- market search
cursor materials inflations and
inflation adjusted
median values of
costs from the
last 11 years
A major challenge is to gather the specific mass composition of all cathodes on a

common functional unit, here the specific energy of the CAM without an anode. This
was realized via a literature review, complemented by laboratory data and stoichio-
metric calculations for a reference case without anode. All criteria are calculated on a
Wh base.
18.6.5 Preference Modeling
PROMETHEE II is selected to model preferences in this chapter based on the

description and requirements for sustainability assessment presented in Table 18.2.
18.6.6 Weighting
There is no direct involvement of stakeholders for the weighting process as stake-

holders preferred the use of equal weights in combination with a sensitivity analysis
with different weighting sets.
Table 18.5 Overview of assessed CAM and corresponding results for the three assessment criteria
18
CF
Theoretic Reversible Reversible specific energy Cost (€/ Criticality (kg CO2eq.-
No. CAM name capacity (mAh/g) capacity (mAh/g) without anode (Wh/kg) kWh) (SREU/kWh) kWh)
Layered oxide materials
1 LiCoO2 274 150 585 39.45 2.77 72.19
2 LiNi0.8Co0.15Al0.05O2 279 188 696 20.06 0.86 27.39
(NCA)
3 LiNi0.5Mn0.5O2 280 150 585 15.98 0.90 16.51
4 LiNi0.33Mn0.33Co0.33O2 278 160 592 23.62 1.51 34.92
(NMC111)
5 LiNi0.6Mn0.2Co0.2O2 276 170 629 21.25 1.12 29.40
(NMC622)
6 LiMn2O4 (LMO) 148 110 472 8.01 1.29 5.04
7 LiNi0.5Mn1.5O4 (LNMO) 147 140 644 10.33 0.67 10.62
8 P2-Na0.67CoO2 168 115 369 44.06 3.76 99.05
9 a-NaMnO2 244 185 509 1.97 0.88 2.16
10 ß-NaMnO2 244 190 523 1.92 1.14 2.77
11 Na0.44MnO2 122 120 336 3.22 1.52 2.86
12 P2-Na0.67MnO2 175 175 490 2.14 0.99 2.08
13 P2-Na0.67Mn0.72Mg0.28O2 191 220 572 1.74 1.16 2.23

14 P2-Na0.67Mn0.95 Mg0.05 177 175 455 2.29 1.13 2.33
O2
15 P2-Na0.67Mn0.5 Fe0.5O2 174 190 523 1.26 0.72 1.51
16 O3-NaMn0.5Fe0.5O2 243 110 303 2.12 1.16 2.92
17 P2-Na0.67Ni0.33 Mn0.67O2 173 161 596 5.16 0.69 7.78
18 P2-Na0.8Li0.12Ni0.22 214 118 415 7.14 0.97 9.26
Mn0.66O2
(continued)
323
324
CF
Theoretic Reversible Reversible specific energy Cost (€/ Criticality (kg CO2eq.-
No. CAM name capacity (mAh/g) capacity (mAh/g) without anode (Wh/kg) kWh) (SREU/kWh) kWh)
19 P2-Na0.83Li0.07 214 140 490 6.60 0.80 9.40
Ni0.31Mn0.62O2
20 P2-Na0.83Li0.25 Mn0.75 O2 237 185 500 4.35 0.85 3.54
21 O3-NaFe0.5Co0.5O2 238 160 502 15.61 1.55 35.18
22 O3-NaNi0.33Co0.33 238 165 487 15.12 1.24 31.68
Fe0.33O2
23 O3-NaNi0.5Mn0.5O2 240 125 377 10.13 0.93 16.28
24 Na[Mn0.4Fe0.5Ti0.1]O2 244 110 308 2.38 1.18 6.30
25 NaMn0.33Fe0.33Ni0.33O2 240 100 481 5.51 0.66 9.00
26 Na0.6Fe0.11Mn0.66Ni0.22O2 159 120 324 7.25 1.29 10.50
27 NaMn0.3Fe0.4Ni0.3O2 241 130 390 6.19 0.80 10.16
28 P2-Na0.6Fe0.2 158 200 620 2.97 0.67 4.16
Mn0.65Ni0.15O2
29 Na0.6Ni0.22Al0.11Mn0.66O2 164 225 675 3.63 0.62 5.33
Polyanionic materials
30 LiFePO4 (LFP) 170 165 569 5.70 0.81 5.08
31 Na3V2(PO4)3 118 110 381 15.33 1.59 34.99
32 Na4MnV(PO4)3 111 110 380 a) 8.01 1.30 18.79
33 Na3MnTi(PO4)3* 117 114 410a 1.87 1.14 5.55
34 Na3MnTi(PO4)3** 176 172 506b 1.51 0.93 4.50
35 Na3MnZr(PO4)3 107 110 402b 1.41 1.12 3.23
36 NaFePO4 154 152 410 0.57 0.87 3.06
37 Na1.702Fe3(PO4)3 87 140 406 0.55 0.93 2.95
38 Na4Fe3(PO4)P2O7** 152 129 406 0.62 0.87 3.27
18
39 Na2MnPO4F* 249 178 651 0.99 0.76 2.29

40 NaV(PO4)F 143 82 303 23.42 2.52 51.79
41 Na1.5VPO4.8F0.7 130 134 509 12.69 1.30 28.27
42 Na2Fe(PO4)F 124 110 360 0.78 1.09 3.52
43 Na3MnPO4CO3* 192 125 490 1.08 0.61 2.80
44 Na2MnFe(CN)6* 171 140 490 1.32 0.50 2.06
45 Na0.61Fe[Fe(CN)6]0.941 61 170 493 0.80 0.58 2.06
46 Na0.81Fe[Fe(CN)6]0.791 90 149 447 0.88 0.46 1.67
47 Na2FeSiO4* 276 181 724 0.87 0.44 3.14
48 Na2MnSiO4* 278 210 630 1.66 0.68 4.00
49 Na2Fe2(SO4)3* 120 102 418 0.40 0.45 0.87
Data based on Baumann et al. [6]
a
Specific energy is directly from the literature and the average potential is calculated
b
Specific energy is calculated from the integration of the potential capacity
*2Na exchange; **3Na exchange; 1Prussian blue analogs
325
Table 18.6 Preference function and parameters selected for use case
Criteria Cost (€/kWh) Criticality (SREU/kWh) CF (kg CO2eq.-kWh)
Preference function Linear Linear Linear
Maximum value 44.06 3.76 99.05
Minimum value 0.40 0.44 0.87
Q 0 0 0
P 0.89 0.07 2
18.6.7 Preference Function and Parameters
In this example, we use the type V-shape with indifference function (linear prefer-
ence function) for each of the three criteria since they all have a continuous
numerical scale, and while comparing them, very small differences can be neglected.
P and Q are defined as suggested in Haralambopoulos and Polatidis [25], P being
equal to the difference between the maximum and the minimum value for each
criterion divided by n (49 CAMs) and Q being equal to zero (Table 18.6).
18.6.8 Results
In this section, the results of using the MCDA method PROMETHEE II for the
aggregation of criteria and ranking of materials are presented. Additionally, sensi-
tivity analyses of weights are carried out. All calculations are carried out using the
MCDA KIT tool (see Sect. 18.2.4).
18.6.9 Comparison and Evaluation of Alternatives (Ranking)
In Fig. 18.2, the resulting net flows of materials using the method PROMETHEE II
are displayed for equal weighting of the three considered criteria. The higher the
resulting net flow, the better the alternatives perform from a sustainability point of
view. In Fig. 18.2a, alternatives are sorted from left to right according to their CAM
number (see Table 18.5), whereas, in Fig. 18.2b, alternatives are sorted from left to
right according to their net flows, i.e., ranking. Some trends can be observed in the
ranking. First ranks are achieved by polyanionic SIB CAMs (Nos. 49, 46, 45, 47),
from which Nos. 45 and 46 correspond to Prussian blue analogues (PBAs), and Nos.
49 and 47 to Si- and S-containing SIBs. Most LIB layered oxide materials (CAM
Nos. 1–7) show negative net flows (ranks 32 and higher). Only LIB CAM LFP
(CAM No. 30) has a positive net flow. CAMs containing cobalt or vanadium
perform lower in the rank, whereas those that contain Mn show preferable rankings.
A detailed overview on the results can be found in Baumann et al. [6]. It is important
to notice that varying the energy densities can have a high impact on the results.
Also, the performance on a cell level can be very different and has thus to be
analyzed in detail for further assessments.
A
Layered oxide materials Polyanionic materials
Co
Vanadium
Mn
B
LIB - LFP
SIB
Fig. 18.2 Resulting net flows and rankings of CAMs using PROMETHEE with equal weighting of
criteria, sorted according to material numbers (a) and rankings (b)
18.6.10 Sensitivity Analysis
Table 18.7 presents the rankings with different importance coefficients (weights) up
to the 15th place for the cases of (i) equal weights for all criteria, (ii) higher
importance to costs (25% criticality and 25% CF), (ii) higher importance to critical-
ity (25% costs and 25%CF), and (iii) higher importance to CF (25% criticality and
25% costs). There is low variation in the ranking when considering different
importance coefficients for the criteria.
Table 18.7 Net flows of cathode materials of first 15 ranks

Sensitivity analysis
50% 50% 50%
Equal weights (original case) costs criticality CF
Net CAM
Rank flow No. CAM name CAM No.
1 0.921 49 Na2Fe2(SO4)3 49 49 49
2 0.818 46 Na0.81Fe[Fe(CN)6] 46 46 46
0.79a
3 0.757 45 Na0.61Fe[Fe(CN)6] 45 47 45
0.94a
4 0.713 47 Na2FeSiO4 47 45 44
5 0.710 44 Na2MnFe(CN)6 44 44 15
6 0.647 43 Na3MnPO4CO3 43 43 47
7 0.638 15 P2- 15 15 43
Na0.67Mn0.5Fe0.5O2
8 0.593 39 Na2MnPO4F 39 39 39
9 0.492 36 NaFePO4 36 48 36
10 0.473 38 Na4Fe3(PO4)P2O7 38 36 38
11 0.443 37 Na1.702Fe3(PO4)3 37 38 37
12 0.399 48 Na2MnSiO4 42 28 9
13 0.365 9 a-NaMnO2 48 29 12
14 0.294 42 Na2Fe(PO4)F 9 37 48
15 0.276 28 P2-Na0.6Fe0.2 35 9 13
Mn0.65Ni0.15O2
a
Prussian blue analogs
18.7 Discussion
As the intention of this exercise is to reflect on the application of MCDA on

sustainability assessment for emerging technologies, only a brief analysis on the
results will be presented, and the main attention relies on the process. For a deeper
analysis about the results (although using a different MCDA method), the original
publication can be consulted [6].
18.7.1 Meaning of Results
The results presented provide insights into the process of CAM selection for SIBs
according to MCDA-assisted sustainability assessment. The ranking of CAMs can
be understood only as indicative for research and development trends on the material
level and cannot be extrapolated into the cell level. Having this in mind, it can be said
that the ranking suggests that considering the criteria CF, criticality, and costs, the
most promising CAMs for SIBs could be Prussian blue analogs and Si- and
Mn-based chemistries. Some of these CAMs perform even better than commercial
LIB CAMs used as benchmark here.
18.7.2 MCDA Procedure
The challenges of conducting MCDA sustainability assessment (see Chap. 2)

sharpen when dealing with early-stage technologies. The following paragraphs
elaborate on them.
Selection of Criteria The experience with existing energy technologies facilitates
the identification of the sustainability issues associated with this decision problem,
e.g., high CO2 emissions, social acceptance, and resources availability. In this use
case, this task is limited by the availability of data to compare the impacts of the
energy technologies shrinking the potential set of criteria to the mentioned three.
Values taken from literature were used to perform calculations, e.g., specific energy
values and CAM production costs taken from the literature and estimation of
precursor price via stoichiometric calculations. High effort was required for this
task, and yet the uncertainty of the results is still very high due to the low TRL of the
technologies and lack of robust primary data. Non-existing LCA, unknown social
impacts, and volatile market prices challenge the application of MCDA for emerging
technologies. Existing methods like prospective LCA could play an important role in
this task [26, 47, 53], providing a systematic methodology for obtaining data.
MCDA Method Selection The use case demonstrates that the application of
low-compensatory methods such as PROMETHEE II can be facilitated through
the use of software and existing approaches to (initially) determine threshold values
(preference parameters, p and q). In this type of problem, uncertainty analysis should
be conducted carefully. The approach used here represents a deterministic MCDA
with sensitivity analysis. However, sustainability assessment of emerging materials/
technologies might require stochastic MCDA methods ([42]; [55]). When searching
MCDA methods that fit to the sustainability assessment requirements and account
for the uncertainty in the performance data (using Cinelli, Kadziński, Miebs,
Gonzalez, and Słowiński [14]), the following candidates result: fuzzy
PROMETHEE II [20], PANSEM II [2], SMAA III (stochastic multicriteria accept-
ability analysis) [52], and SMAA-PROMETHEE [15]. Van Schoubroeck et al. [55]
present an example of application of SMAA-PROMETHEE for sustainability
assessment of emerging biotechnologies.
Stakeholder Integration The integration of material researchers (experts) within
the MCDA process was very important for the identification of alternatives and
accessing the laboratory data. However, the low diversity within the group of
stakeholders hinders deeper reflections on sustainability. Integration of a diverse
group of stakeholders is not only relevant for sustainability but also for technology
development [40]. To the best of the author’s knowledge, there are not so many
studies on applications of MCDA approaches to emerging technologies. Some

examples found show the integration of stakeholders from academia, government,
and industry [5, 55]. Further research should be conducted on determining how
diverse the group of stakeholders within sustainability assessment of emerging
technologies could be.
18.8 Conclusion
In this chapter, we have presented the general requirements for MCDA sustainability
assessment and an overview of their application in the field of batteries. Some recent
applications of MCDA in the field of batteries show diverse approaches with a trend
for deterministic, compensatory MCDA methods and inclusion of stakeholders.
Available data from a use case of early-stage cathode material screening for sodium
ion batteries was selected to illustrate and analyze the suitability of MCDA for
assessing emerging battery technologies. In this type of decision problems, identi-
fying the sustainability criteria is not as challenging as evaluating the performance of
the alternatives. The lack and/or the high uncertainty of the performance data, e.g.,
laboratory data, calculations based on literature values, makes it difficult not only to
evaluate but to derive concrete conclusions after conducting MCDA. However, the
results obtained can be used as indicative to identify promising materials/technolo-
gies that could potentially be taken forward in their TRL.
Further development or improvement of the presented model would include
exploring different alternatives to address uncertainty in weights and values, such
as evaluation of ensembles, probability distributions, or using suitable stochastic
MCDA methods (e.g., SMAA- and fuzzy PROMETHEE). Expanding the categories
of stakeholders and its participation on the MCDA sustainability assessment is
needed to improve the task of preference modeling.
In the context of sustainability assessment, it is very important to understand
MCDA as an iterative process in which information, priorities, and stakeholders
(categories) are constantly changing. The use of systematic approaches and special-
ized MCDA software is very important to keep pace with this task.
References
1. Albawab M, Ghenai C, Bettayeb M, Janajreh I (2020) Sustainability performance index for

ranking energy storage technologies using multi-criteria decision-making model and hybrid
computational method. J Energy Storage 32:101820. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.est.2020.101820
2. Alinezhad A, Khalili J (2019) Pamssem I & Ii. In: Alinezhad A, Khalili J (eds) New methods
and applications in multiple attribute decision making (MADM). Springer International Pub-
lishing, Cham, pp 157–165
3. Aras G, Crowther D (2013) Sustainable practice: the real triple bottom line. Dev Corporate Gov
Responsib 5:1–18. https://doi.org/10.1108/S2043-0523(2013)0000005004
4. Azapagic A, Perdan S (2005) An integrated sustainability decision-support framework part I:

problem structuring. Int J Sustain Dev World Ecol 12(2):98–111. https://doi.org/10.1080/
13504500509469622
5. Bates ME, Grieger KD, Trump BD, Keisler JM, Plourde KJ, Linkov I (2016) Emerging
Technologies for Environmental Remediation: integrating data and judgment. Environ Sci
6. Baumann M, Häringer M, Schmidt M, Schneider L, Peters JF, Bauer W et al (2022) Prospective
sustainability screening of sodium-ion battery cathode materials. Adv Energy Mater 12(46):
2202636. https://doi.org/10.1002/aenm.202202636
7. Baumann M, Peters J, Weil M (2020) Exploratory multicriteria decision analysis of utility-scale
battery storage Technologies for Multiple Grid Services Based on life-cycle approaches. Energ
Technol. https://doi.org/10.1002/ente.201901019
8. Beekman J (2020) Decision analysis software survey. Retrieved from OR/MS Today. https://
pubsonline.informs.org/do/10.1287/orms.2020.06.04/full/
9. Behzadian M, Kazemzadeh RB, Albadvi A, Aghdasi M (2010) PROMETHEE: a comprehen-
sive literature review on methodologies and applications. Eur J Oper Res 200(1):198–215.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2009.01.021
10. Bilbao-Terol A, Arenas-Parra M, Cañal-Fernández V, Antomil-Ibias J (2014) Using TOPSIS
for assessing the sustainability of government bond funds. Omega 49:1–17. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.omega.2014.04.005
11. Cinelli M, Burgherr P, Kadziński M, Słowiński R (2022a) Proper and improper uses of MCDA
methods in energy systems analysis. Decis Support Syst 163:113848. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
dss.2022.113848
12. Cinelli M, Coles SR, Kirwan K (2014) Analysis of the potentials of multi criteria decision
analysis methods to conduct sustainability assessment. Ecol Indic 46:138–148. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.ecolind.2014.06.011
13. Cinelli M, Kadzinski M, Gonzalez M, Roman S (2020) How to support the application of
multiple criteria decision analysis? Let us start with a comprehensive taxonomy. Omega 96:
102261. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.omega.2020.102261
14. Cinelli M, Kadziński M, Miebs G, Gonzalez M, Słowiński R (2022b) Recommending multiple
criteria decision analysis methods with a new taxonomy-based decision support system. Eur J
Oper Res 302(2):633–651. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2022.01.011
15. Corrente S, Figueira JR, Greco S (2014) The SMAA-PROMETHEE method. Eur J Oper Res
239(2):514–522. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2014.05.026
16. Domingues AR, Marques P, Garcia R, Freire F, Dias LC (2015) Applying multi-criteria
decision analysis to the life-cycle assessment of vehicles. J Clean Prod 107:749–759. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.05.086
17. European Commission; Directorate-General for Internal Market, I., Entrepreneurship and
SMEs; Blengini, Gian Andrea; El Latunussa, Cynthia; Eynard, Umberto; Torres De Matos,
Cristina; Wittmer, Dominic Georgitzikis, Konstantinos; Pavel, Claudiu Carrara, Samuel; Man-
cini, Lucia Unguru, Manuela; Blagoeva, Darina; Mathieux, Fabrice; Pennington, David (2020)
Study on the EU’s list of critical raw materials (2020) : final report. Publications Office
18. García-Cascales MS, Lamata MT (2012) On rank reversal and TOPSIS method. Math Comput
Model 56(5):123–132. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mcm.2011.12.022
19. Geldermann J, Schöbel A (2011) On the similarities of some multi-criteria decision analysis
methods. J Multi-Criteria Decis Anal 18(3–4):219–230. https://doi.org/10.1002/mcda.468
20. Geldermann J, Spengler T, Rentz O (2000) Fuzzy outranking for environmental assessment.
Case study: iron and steel making industry. Fuzzy Sets Syst 115(1):45–65. https://doi.org/10.
1016/S0165-0114(99)00021-4
21. Greco S, Figueira J, Ehrgott M (2016) Multiple criteria decision analysis: state of the art
surveys, vol Vol. 37. Springer
22. Grunwald A, Rösch C (2011) Sustainability assessment of energy technologies: towards an
integrative framework. Energy Sustain Soc 1(1):3. https://doi.org/10.1186/2192-0567-1-3
23. Guitouni A, Martel J-M (1998) Tentative guidelines to help choosing an appropriate MCDA
method. Eur J Oper Res 109(2):501–521
24. Haase M, Wulf C, Baumann M, Ersoy H, Koj J, Harzendorf F, Mesa Estrada L (2022) Multi-
criteria decision analysis for prospective sustainability assessment of alternative technologies
and fuels for individual motorized transport. Clean Techn Environ Policy 24, 3171–3197.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10098-022-02407-w
25. Haralambopoulos DA, Polatidis H (2003) Renewable energy projects: structuring a multi-
criteria group decision-making framework. Renew Energy 28(6):961–973. https://doi.org/10.
1016/S0960-1481(02)00072-1
26. Haupt J, Kononova N, Cerdas F, Zellmer S, Herrmann C (2023) Challenges of prospective life
cycle assessment of emerging recycling processes: case study of battery materials recovery.
Procedia CIRP 116:23–28. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procir.2023.02.005
27. Hayez Q, De Smet Y, Bonney J (2012) D-sight: a new decision making software to address
multi-criteria problems. Int J Decis Support Syst Technol (IJDSST) 4(4):1–23
28. Hwang C-L, Yoon K (1981) Methods for multiple attribute decision making. In: Hwang C-L,
Yoon K (eds) Multiple attribute decision making: methods and applications a state-of-the-art
survey. Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin/Heidelberg, pp 58–191
29. International Society on MCDM (2022) Software related to MCDM. Retrieved from https://
www.mcdmsociety.org/content/software-related-mcdm-0
30. Janssen R, Van Herwijnen M (2006) Decision support for discrete choice problems: the
DEFINITE program. https://research.vu.nl/en/publications/decision-support-for-discrete-
choice-problems-the-definite-progra-2
31. Keeney R, Gregory R (2005) Selecting attributes to measure the achievement of objectives.
Oper Res 53:1–11. https://doi.org/10.1287/opre.1040.0158
32. Kopfmüller J, Brandl V, Jörissen J, Paetau M, Banse G, Coenen R, Grunwald A (2001)
Nachhaltige Entwicklung integrativ betrachtet : Konstitutive Elemente, Regeln, Indikatoren,
vol 1. edition sigma
33. Kopfmüller J, Rösch C (2021) 4.2 Integrative Nachhaltigkeitsbewertung. In: Böschen S,
Grunwald A, Krings B-JMA, Rösch C (eds) Technikfolgenabschätzung: Handbuch für Wis-
senschaft und Praxis, 1st edn. Nomos Verlagsgesellschaft mbH & Co. KG, Baden-Baden, pp
286–305
34. Kourmpanis B, Papadopoulos A, Moustakas K, Kourmoussis F, Stylianou M, Loizidou M
(2008) An integrated approach for the management of demolition waste in Cyprus. Waste
Manag Res 26(6):573–581. https://doi.org/10.1177/0734242X08091554
35. Kumar A, Sah B, Singh AR, Deng Y, He X, Kumar P, Bansal R (2017) A review of multi
criteria decision making (MCDM) towards sustainable renewable energy development. Renew
Sust Energ Rev 69:596–609
36. Ma X, Li N, Tao X, Xu H, Peng F, Che Y, Guo S (2019) The optimal selection of electro-
chemical energy storage using Bayesian BWM and TOPSIS method. Paper presented at the
2019 6th International Conference on Information Science and control engineering (ICISCE)
37. Mareschal B (2015) Some properties of the PROMETHEE net flow. https://doi.org/10.13140/
RG.2.1.3563.7607
38. Brans J-P, De Smet Y (2016) PROMETHEE Methods. In: Greco S, Ehrgott M, Figueira JR
(eds) Multiple criteria decision analysis: state of the art surveys. Springer, New York, NY, pp
187–219
39. Mareschal B, Smet YD (2009) Visual PROMETHEE: developments of the PROMETHEE &
GAIA multicriteria decision aid methods. Paper presented at the 2009 IEEE international
conference on industrial engineering and engineering management
40. Mendoza N, Mathai T, Boren B, Roberts J, Niffenegger J, Sick V et al (2022) Adapting the
technology performance level integrated assessment framework to low-TRL technologies
within the carbon capture, utilization, and storage industry, Part I. Front Climate 4. https://
doi.org/10.3389/fclim.2022.818786
41. Meyer P, Bigaret S (2012) Diviz: a software for modeling, processing and sharing algorithmic
workflows in MCDA. Intell Decis Technol 6. https://doi.org/10.3233/IDT-2012-0144
42. Müller T, Bai S, Raskob W (2020) MCDA handling uncertainties. Radioprotection 55:S181–
S185. https://doi.org/10.1051/radiopro/2020030
43. Müller T, Raskob W (2022) MCDA-KIT – multi criteria decision analysis at Karlsruhe Institute
of Technology. In version 9.4. Online
44. Munda G (2005a) “Measuring sustainability”: a multi-criterion framework. Environ Dev
Sustain 7(1):117–134. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-003-4713-0
45. Munda G (2005b) Multiple criteria decision analysis and sustainable development. In:
Figueira J, Greco S, Ehrogott M (eds) Multiple criteria decision analysis: state of the art surveys.
Springer New York, New York, pp 953–986
46. Murrant D, Radcliffe J (2018) Assessing energy storage technology options using a multi-
criteria decision analysis-based framework. Appl Energy 231:788–802. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.apenergy.2018.09.170
47. Peters JF, Baumann M, Binder JR, Weil M (2021) On the environmental competitiveness of
sodium-ion batteries under a full life cycle perspective – a cell-chemistry specific modelling
approach. Sustain Energy Fuels 5(24):6414–6429. https://doi.org/10.1039/D1SE01292D
48. Sala S, Ciuffo B, Nijkamp P (2015) A systemic framework for sustainability assessment. Ecol
Econ 119:314–325. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2015.09.015
49. Salameh T, Kumar PP, Olabi AG, Obaideen K, Sayed ET, Maghrabie HM, Abdelkareem MA
(2022) Best battery storage technologies of solar photovoltaic systems for desalination plant
using the results of multi optimization algorithms and sustainable development goals. J Energy
Storage 55:105312. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.est.2022.105312
50. Schrijvers D, Hool A, Blengini GA, Chen W-Q, Dewulf J, Eggert R et al (2020) A review of
methods and data to determine raw material criticality. Resour Conserv Recycl 155:104617
51. Shih H-S (2021) Threshold-enhanced PROMETHEE group decision support under uncer-
tainties. Math Probl Eng 2021:1–21. https://doi.org/10.1155/2021/5594074
52. Tervonen T, Figueira JR, Lahdelma R, Salminen P (2008) SMAA-iii, Dordrecht
53. Thonemann N, Schulte A, Maga D (2020) How to conduct prospective life cycle assessment for
emerging technologies? A systematic review and methodological guidance. Sustainability
12(3):1192
54. United Nations (2016) The sustainable development goals report. United Nations, New York
55. Van Schoubroeck S, Thomassen G, Van Passel S, Malina R, Springael J, Lizin S et al (2021) An
integrated techno-sustainability assessment (TSA) framework for emerging technologies. Green
Chem 23(4):1700–1715. https://doi.org/10.1039/D1GC00036E
56. Wątróbski J, Jankowski J, Ziemba P, Karczmarczyk A, Zioło M (2019) Generalised framework
for multi-criteria method selection: rule set database and exemplary decision support system
implementation blueprints. Data Brief 22:639–642. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dib.2018.12.015
57. Weistroffer H, Li Y (2016) Multiple criteria decision analysis software, vol 233, pp 1301–1341
58. Wulf C, Zapp P, Schreiber A, Kuckshinrichs W (2021) Setting thresholds to define indiffer-
ences and preferences in PROMETHEE for life cycle sustainability assessment of European
hydrogen production. Sustainability 13(13):7009
59. Yadav V, Karmakar S, Kalbar PP, Dikshit AK (2019) PyTOPS: a python based tool for
TOPSIS. SoftwareX 9:217–222. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.softx.2019.02.004
60. Ziemba P (2019) Towards strong sustainability management—a generalized PROSA method.
Sustainability 11(6):1555
Index
B Electric vehicles (EVs), 4–10, 17, 19–21,

Batteries, 4, 13, 29, 54, 70, 85, 104, 121, 143, 29–31, 34, 36–38, 40, 42–46, 48–50, 70,
173, 214, 226, 243, 259, 267, 279, 74, 75, 77, 78, 86, 88–91, 94, 104, 110,
296, 308 130, 135, 138, 144–147, 151, 157,
Battery energy storage, 30–35, 37–42, 44, 50, 159–161, 163, 165, 228, 229, 235, 237,
69–71 244–246, 253–255, 265, 281, 284, 286,
Battery grid integration, 72–74, 90 296, 297, 299, 303, 317
Battery market, 86, 100, 103–108, 122 Electricity integration, 54, 63
Battery technology, 4, 6, 18, 44–46, 53–66, 85, Electricity storage, 29, 32, 33, 45, 49, 69, 90,
86, 90–94, 96, 99, 100, 104, 106, 108, 106, 116
109, 112, 115, 124, 126–131, 136, 138, E-mobility, 4–7, 125, 282, 283
139, 186–187, 193–200, 226–228, 230, Energy, 5, 14, 53, 69, 86, 106, 121, 145,
235, 243–246, 250, 254, 255, 282, 180, 214, 227, 243, 262, 267, 279,
286, 287 303, 310
Beyond lithium batteries, 109, 110, 112 Energy density, 19, 45, 46, 48, 49, 56–58, 70,
88, 91, 93–99, 106, 109, 112–114, 116,
123–134, 136–138, 145, 147, 149, 158,
C 173, 179, 193, 195–197, 199, 214,
Circular economy, 13–23, 124, 144, 160, 166 216–220, 230, 244, 246, 248–250, 253,
Cost, 4, 14, 30, 58, 70, 85, 107, 122, 145, 179, 254, 259, 261–265, 319, 326
214, 229, 255, 260, 267, 279, 310 Energy storage, 17, 30, 53, 69, 87, 122,
Cost assessment, 230, 275 147, 193, 219, 244, 261, 275, 280,
Critical minerals, 30, 41, 44, 47, 49, 50 298, 317
Environmental impacts, 4, 5, 9, 13, 14, 17–20,
22, 78, 131, 144, 179, 190, 228, 230,
E 234–237, 243–255, 294, 296, 303, 319
Ecological footprint, 55, 115
Efficiency, 7, 14, 20, 22, 34, 55–57, 59, 60,
62–66, 71, 73, 77, 88, 97, 98, 114–116, F
124, 126, 135, 137, 144, 151, 157, 160, Flow battery (FB), 48, 49, 61, 70, 71, 214,
174, 185, 189–192, 194, 198, 200, 216, 251–253, 268–271, 273, 274, 276
218, 231, 232, 248, 250, 251, 263, 269, Future trends in e-mobility, 5–7
271, 275, 276, 318, 319
© The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s) 2024 335

https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-48359-2
336 Index
I N
Indicators, 38, 131, 150, 164, 245, 247–255, New technologies, 3, 107, 230
292, 293, 296, 302, 303, 308, 309, 316, Non-battery technologies, 90–91
318, 321, 322
Influencing factors, 56, 90, 104, 106, 107
Inventory data, 229–232 P
Performance, 5, 21, 46, 71, 77, 79, 94, 99, 109,
114, 115, 121–139, 145, 151, 164, 173,
J 179, 181, 186, 188–193, 195, 198, 199,
Just transition, 281 214, 216, 218, 230, 232, 235, 244, 249,
250, 260–262, 264, 267, 268, 270, 273,
282–284, 286, 292, 293, 298, 300, 303,
K 311, 313, 314, 317, 326, 329, 330
KPIs, 86, 106, 108–114, 116 Portable, 17, 21, 22, 86, 99–100, 125, 132–134,
283, 286
Post-lithium batteries, 125, 127
L Power system flexibility, 30, 33, 37–41, 50
Legislation, 15, 43, 89, 98, 144, 160, 161, Power-to-X, 54, 55
166, 293 Price, 6, 33, 41, 46, 48, 49, 72, 88, 93, 98, 99,
Life cycle assessment (LCA), 227, 228, 230, 123, 130, 144, 148, 150, 219, 260,
232–237, 243–255, 291–299, 316, 317, 262–264, 270, 273, 275, 283, 285,
322, 329 301, 329
Lithium-ion, 70, 79, 96, 99, 109, 121, 129,
131, 146
Lithium-ion batteries (LIBs), 17, 20, 22, 36, 40, R
41, 44–48, 62, 70, 99, 100, 112–113, Recycling, 14, 15, 17–23, 49, 56, 57, 59, 60, 62,
115, 126, 127, 129–131, 138, 143–147, 64–66, 112, 115, 116, 122, 124, 125,
149–166, 176, 179, 186–188, 190–192, 133, 143–166, 291, 296, 299, 303, 322
194–196, 198, 199, 218, 220, 228, 230, Redox flow batteries (RFBs), 114, 116, 136,
244–251, 253, 254, 259–264, 298, 137, 213–217, 220, 251
317–319, 321, 326, 329 Remanufacturing, 16, 21
Lithium metal anode, 46, 127, 173, 181–183, Resources, 13, 14, 16–19, 33, 40, 41, 44–49,
246, 247 72, 147, 243, 246–248, 250, 252, 253,
255, 259, 280, 281, 286, 298, 299, 302,
308, 309, 317, 319, 322, 329
M Reuse, 15, 16, 19, 21, 49, 144
Market outlook, 104–108
Market segments, 86, 91–94, 96–100, 105, 106,
108–112 S
Materials, 13, 38, 54, 70, 106, 122, 143, 173, Safety, 8, 10, 13, 20, 45, 46, 60, 62, 71, 86,
214, 227, 243, 259, 270, 280, 291, 308 96–98, 112, 113, 115, 122, 125, 128,
Metal–O2 (air) batteries, 114, 130, 214, 131, 137, 144, 145, 151, 161, 163, 165,
217–219, 250, 251, 253–255 166, 179, 185, 192, 196, 220, 251, 259,
Mobile, 8, 86, 91–100, 111, 133, 145, 157, 162, 263, 285, 292, 295, 299, 302–304, 318
180, 181, 185, 247, 249, 260, 280, 286, Second life batteries, 78, 79, 90
316, 319 Social acceptance, 282, 283, 285–287, 296,
Mobility, 3–10, 13, 17, 19, 54, 74, 75, 91–94, 298, 303, 318, 329
110–112, 114–116, 123, 125, 138, 178, Social impacts, 126, 161, 225, 226, 282,
181, 184, 260 291–294, 296, 304, 329
Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA), Social life cycle assessment (Social LCA), 282,
308–330 291–304
Index 337
Sodium-ion, 47, 93, 106, 109, 112, 131, 138, T

186, 230, 248, 249, 253, 259, 260, 262, Techno-economics, 232, 267–276, 308
263, 308 Techno-economics analysis, 259–265
Solid-state electrolytes, 128, 179, 193, 197, 245 Technologies, 3, 14, 30, 54, 69, 86, 104, 121,
Stakeholders, 78, 161, 226, 228, 237, 282, 285, 144, 174, 218, 225, 243, 260, 267, 280,
292–295, 299, 302, 304, 308–310, 313, 292, 308
315–317, 320–322, 329, 330
Standardization, 125
Stationary, 13, 17, 19, 20, 34, 35, 38–40, 44, 45, U
49, 50, 78, 85–91, 106, 110–112, Uncertainty, 46, 104, 106, 108, 109, 116, 227,
114–116, 135, 136, 138, 157, 165, 220, 231–235, 237, 246, 253, 264, 271, 273,
246, 247, 260, 263, 264, 280, 283, 276, 297, 298, 312–315, 321, 329, 330
285, 316 Upscaling, 109, 229–232, 234, 235, 237
Sustainability, 3, 5, 23, 89, 96, 112, 115–116,
122, 137, 158, 160, 190, 192, 196, 226,
234, 280, 282, 286, 296, 298, 299, 303, V
307–309, 313, 314, 316, 318, 321, 322, Vehicle-to-grid (V2G), 75, 76
326, 328–330

Emerging Battery Technologies To Boost The Clean Energy Transition

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Emerging Battery Technologies To Boost The Clean Energy Transition

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Materials Research Society Series

Stefano Passerini · Linda Barelli ·

Manuel Baumann Jens F. Peters

ISSN 2730-7360 ISSN 2730-7379 (electronic)

Paper in this product is recyclable.

Rome, Italy Stefano Passerini

Part I Batteries for the Clean Energy Transition

Part II System Perspective for a Clean Energy Transition

Part III Battery Markets

Part IV Economics and Materials of Present Batteries

9 Raw Materials and Recycling of Lithium-Ion Batteries . . . . . . . . . 143

Part V Emerging Battery Chemistries

Part VI Prospective Assessments of Emerging Batteries

Abdur-Rahman Ali Chair of Sustainable Manufacturing & Life Cycle Engineer-

Amrita Dasgupta International Energy Agency (IEA), Paris, France

Michela Longo Department of Energy, Politecnico di Milano, Milan, Italy

Max Schönﬁsch International Energy Agency (IEA), Paris, France

Seyed Mahdi Miraftabzadeh, Michela Longo, and Federica Foiadelli

S. M. Miraftabzadeh · M. Longo (✉) · F. Foiadelli

© The Author(s) 2024 3

1.2 Toward the Electriﬁcation of Mobility

Fig. 1.1 Factors driving mobility electriﬁcation

1.3 E-Mobility and Future Trends

E-mobility refers to any means of transportation (electric vehicles, electric bikes,

E-mobility is a promising solution for decreasing harmful pollutants and green-

Fig. 1.2 Expected future

1.4 Electromobility Charging Infrastructure

Table 1.1 Different types of charging infrastructure

1.5 5G Application in Mobility

• In-vehicle experiences: 5G networks enable faster and more dependable connec-

1.6 Future Trends

10. Bloomberg NEF (2020) Electric vehicle outlook https://about.bnef.com/electric-vehicle-

Christoph Helbig and Martin Hillenbrand

2.1 Deﬁnition of Circular Economy

C. Helbig (✉) · M. Hillenbrand

© The Author(s) 2024 13

2.2 R-Imperatives of the Circular Economy

extraction to waste management, and ten corresponding R-imperatives along these

Batteries of electric vehicles can still be used in stationary applications if their

2.3 Battery Material Flows

mid-century simply because of the massive demand for electriﬁcation in mobility

2.4 Battery Design for Circularity

pyrometallurgical process is expensive because of its high energy consumption and

2.5 Circular Economy in the EU Battery Regulation

Max Schönﬁsch, Amrita Dasgupta, and Brent Wanner

Long-term projections of the development of the global energy system foresee a

M. Schönﬁsch (✉) · A. Dasgupta · B. Wanner

© The Author(s) 2024 29

3.3 Development of Demand for Battery Energy Storage

3.3.1 Electricity Sector

Energy storage, in particular battery energy storage, is projected to play an increas-

3.3.1.1 Development of Stationary Battery Energy Storage

3.3.2 Transport Sector

Installed capacity (GW)

3.3.2.1 Deployment of Battery Electric Vehicles

3.4 Drivers of Demand for Battery Energy Storage

As shown above, demand for batteries is projected to increase substantially until

3.4.1 Electricity Sector

3.4.1.1 Rising Electricity System Flexibility Needs

Electricity system ﬂexibility needs are projected to increase signiﬁcantly compared

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80%

3.4.1.2 Contribution to System Adequacy