Resources, Conservation & Recycling 174 (2021) 105759

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Resources, Conservation & Recycling

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/resconrec

Full Length Article

A physical allocation method for comparative life cycle assessment: A case

study of repurposing Australian electric vehicle batteries
Nicholas Wilson , Ella Meiklejohn , Brodrick Overton , Finlay Robinson , Shahjadi Hisan Farjana ,
Wen Li *, Jo Staines
Department of Mechanical Engineering, The University of Melbourne, Building 170, Parkville, Victoria 3010, Australia

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: As the World’s dependence on lithium battery technology continues its rapid growth, reserves of key
Life cycle assessment manufacturing minerals are not forecast to keep pace with demand. Repurposed electric vehicle batteries offer a
Electric vehicle viable means to reduce the number of retired lithium-ion batteries proceeding directly to landfill and prolong
Lithium-ion battery
their useful life while end of life solutions, including recycling, are developed and matured. This paper presents a
Repurposed battery
Cascading product system
novel physical allocation method based on the critical performance criteria: remaining capacity, module
Home storage system retention rate and repurposed electric vehicle battery lifetime (second life). To verify the allocation method, a
case study directly compares the emissions generated by a repurposed electric vehicle battery and a virgin
stationary storage battery of equivalent capacity in Australia. The repurposed battery has a smaller footprint
across all eight environmental impact categories, provided it operates for a minimum of six years. A sensitivity
analysis shows battery repurposing can achieve carbon reductions if the repurposed electric vehicle battery
lifetime exceeds 4.25 years. The breakeven points for remaining capacity and module retention rate at the
beginning of the second life occur at 66% and 75% respectively. In addition, a comprehensive repurposing life
cycle inventory was developed for the repurposing phase which includes all added components and processes
required to repurpose an electric vehicle battery to function as a stationary storage battery. Further analysis
discusses the influence of increased production efficiencies over time when comparing product systems, and the
need to account for these changes in allocation methodology.

1. Introduction soaring demand (Greim et al., 2020).

1.1. Context and purpose
Electric Vehicles (EVs) are forecast to play a leading role in the
decarbonization of passenger transport; by 2050, it’s estimated that 75%
of cars on Australia’s roads will be electric (ENERGEIA, 2018). Globally,
EVs are predicted to account for 30% of all car sales by 2035 (Rietmann
et al., 2020), with 17 countries now committing to phasing out internal
combustion engines by 2050 or defining 100% zero emission vehicle
targets (International Energy Agency, 2020). Energy storage systems
(ESS) have been identified as a critical element of Australia’s energy
future (Martin and Rice, 2021) to support increased penetration of re­
newables and reduced dependence on coal-fired generation. Due to the
increase of stationary storage systems, the supply of battery minerals
required to manufacture lithium-ion batteries (LIB) may not meet the
EV LIBs have a limited life span of approximately eight to ten years
(Casals et al., 2019). However, the remaining capacity of an EV LIB is
still approximately 80% (Bobba et al., 2018a; Cready et al., 2003; Richa
et al., 2017), suggesting repurposing in a less demanding application
could help to prolong the life of EV batteries. Recent literature has
confirmed that EV batteries at End-of-Life (EoL) can theoretically be
repurposed for stationary storage (Casals et al., 2019; Cusenza et al.,
2019b).
Growing demand for both ESSs and EV LIBs will produce a significant
battery waste problem, as recycling technologies are still coming to
market, and increase pressure on Australia’s waste system if significant
investment is not made in the near term. In 2018, 98% of Australia’s LIB
waste was sent to landfill (King et al., 2018) indicating a lack of infra­
structure domestically. Taking advantage of this second life option could
divert battery waste from landfill and prolong the requirement of an

* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: wen.li3@unimelb.edu.au (W. Li).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2021.105759
Received 31 January 2021; Received in revised form 1 June 2021; Accepted 14 June 2021
Available online 1 July 2021
0921-3449/© 2021 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
N. Wilson et al.
Australian’ LIB recycling industry. Furthermore, repurposing EV LIBs
retains the valuable embodied resources within the productive economy
by following the Waste Management Hierarchy embedded within
Australian State and Territory Government waste policies (Department
of the Environment and Energy, 2018).
For battery repurposing to be environmentally beneficial, the com­
bined emissions generated from battery repurposing need to be lower
than the emissions generated by manufacturing a new battery. Battery
repurposing involves a cascading product system where the emissions
produced during manufacturing must be distributed across two separate
life cycles; that of an EV LIB and a home energy storage system (HESS)
LIB (Richa et al., 2017). The distribution of emissions is called ‘alloca­
tion’ (International Organization for Standardization, 2006).
This paper performs a comparative Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) of
repurposing an EV battery as a case study to explore a novel allocation
method. A review of existing LCA literature on EV battery repurposing
highlights multiple gaps in the application of allocation procedures
(Section 1.2). To address these findings, a unique allocation method
suited to a cascading product system is presented (Section 2.3). Varia­
tions to critical allocation parameters and their consequences on the
observed results is discussed (Section 3). The paper concludes with
recommendations and implications of this work to industry stakeholders
(Section 4).
1.2. Present state of research
LCA is an industry standard method for quantifying environmental
impacts of manufacturing product systems. ISO 14044 guides these
studies. However, methodologies for cascading product systems and its
allocation are poorly defined for repurposed applications. The focus is
instead on allocation for recycling, which exists lower in the waste
management hierarchy. This poses challenges for LCA practitioners
studying complex, multifunctional product systems such as repurposed
EV LIBs.
An expanded system boundary avoids the need for allocation and
instead provides the total emissions generated over the product’s com­
bined lives (Ioakimidis et al., 2019). However, isolating a single stage of
a cascading life cycle with the system boundary is beneficial as it allows
comparisons of equivalent product systems (Bobba et al., 2018a, 2018b;
Cusenza et al., 2019b; Richa et al., 2017).
An appropriate method of allocation will fairly distribute the emis­
sions generated from mineral extraction and manufacturing across both
life cycles. For simpler products, allocation is primarily performed on a
material’s proportional mass, rather than a product system (Nicholson
et al., 2009), and often assumes numerous recycling lives, each time
returning to a single material type (Allacker et al., 2017). Neither of
these scenarios fit EV LIB repurposing, resulting in numerous allocation
methods being proposed in the literature.
Physical allocation methods based on mass or performance have
dominated the repurposing battery literature to date. Richa et al. (2017)
study explored the influence on results from multiple allocation methods
including energy storage, market price, cut-off and 50/50. Similarly,
Cusenza et al. (2019b) adopted a quality based method by deriving an
allocation coefficient based on the energy provided to the battery stor­
age system during the two lives of the battery. However, allocation
methods based on performance are recognized to be unfair due to the
change in function of the battery pack (Ahmadi et al., 2017). Instead, an
allocation method independent of the energy provided to the battery but
still based on the material input in to the second life could address these
issues with allocation. However, this method of allocation is missing
from the current body of research. Critical State of Health (SoH) vari­
ables that influence the mass of Electric Vehicle Battery Pack (EVBP)
material being passed to the second life such as remaining capacity,
module retention rate and battery life span should also be included in
the allocation equation. This allows the use phase to be placed outside
the system boundary and omits the need to obtain or simulate a complex
2
Resources, Conservation & Recycling 174 (2021) 105759
charge/discharge cycle, allowing the study to be generalized for any
battery repurposing application. A simplified functional unit of 1 kWh
can be adopted allowing the results to be scaled to any size battery. It
can also provide a minimum set of performance criteria necessary to
make battery repurposing an environmentally sound decision, aiding
policy makers and investors interested in this industry. This paper aims
to fill this research gap by proposing a new method of emissions allo­
cation for an EVBP’s cascading life cycle.
Previous EV repurposing LCA’s also differ in their study period due to
the selected battery degradation model. Such models predict a large
variety of lifespans with a range of three to thirty years for the second
life (Bobba et al., 2018a; Casals et al., 2019; Cusenza et al., 2019b). This
poses challenges for a comparative LCA, as an equal study period for
both EVBP and virgin Home Energy Battery Pack (HEBP) should be
considered. Bobba et al. (2018a) found the repurposing stage to have a
significant impact to Human Toxicity: cancer, but their study only
considered average annual emissions of each battery due to their
different predicted life spans. A better study method should compare
systems across the same period and account for the multiple repurposed
batteries required to last an equivalent life span of a virgin HEBP.
An equal study period is also important when a complete repurpos­
ing inventory is considered. The added materials and processes required
to repurpose an EVBP for home storage varies considerably between
studies (Table 2). This has resulted in an inconsistent range of impacts
generated at the repurposing stage (Ahmadi et al., 2017; Bobba et al.,
2018a; Cusenza et al., 2019b). To gain better clarity of the emissions
generated during battery repurposing, a more comprehensive inventory
is required. This paper addresses this issue by creating an extensive in­
ventory based on Australian examples of repurposed EVBPs.
While the number of comparative LCA studies of EVBP repurposing is
increasing, there are still many gaps in the research. Allocation methods
in the existing literature did not account for critical battery SoH metrics
and instead relied on specific charge/discharge profiles which limited
the usefulness of the results to real world applications. Studies that
compare product systems need to account for equivalent lifespans, as
well as a comprehensive repurposing inventory, in order to add confi­
dence to the process of repurposing as a viable solution to the growing
mass of EV battery waste.
2. Methodology/methods
2.1. Goal and scope definition
The goal of this study is to present a novel physical allocation
method. This allocation method is explored through an LCA case study
comparing the environmental impact of a repurposed ‘second life’ EVBP
and virgin HEBP in a HESS application. This paper also explores how the
allocation of manufacturing emissions between the first and second life
of the EVBP effects the viability of repurposing.
The functional unit of each product system is 1 kWh of energy
storage capacity. Cells and modules cannot perform their energy storage
function in isolation. Therefore, the functional unit is inclusive of all the
components that make up the battery pack – cells and Balance of Sys­
tems (BoS) components such as the Battery Management System (BMS),
cables and retention. The kWh unit of energy was selected as most
suitable since the function of both the EVBP and HEBP is to store energy
in a HESS. The kWh unit of storage is common to all electrical energy
storage systems. The choice of functional unit also allows results to
easily be scaled or compared to other forms of energy storage.
Table 1 provides an overview of critical aspects related to the two
product systems. To enable an accurate comparison, batteries in both
product systems are comprised of the same Lithium-ion Nickel Manga­
nese Cobalt Oxide (NMC) chemical composition. A product example of
the EVBP is a Nissan Leaf (Gen II) and for the HEBP a Tesla Powerwall 2
or LG Chem, although this study is not based on a specific product. The
NMC composition was selected as this chemistry accounts for a large
N. Wilson et al. Resources, Conservation & Recycling 174 (2021) 105759

Table 1 assumed to be identical. A bi-directional DC-AC inverter provides the

Snapshot of the two compared product systems. interconnect between the PV array, the home, and its many appliances,
Element/Factor Repurposed EVBP Virgin HEBP Unit as well as to the grid. The bi-directional inverter is physically external to
(Base Case) the battery packs and therefore, not included in the BoS. Each battery’s
Age at start of Phase 4 10 (assumed first life 0 (as new) years BoS contains a BMS to regulate the energy flow in and out of the battery
in EV) to maintain a safe operating temperature. The BoS also includes a
(Bobba et al., 2018a; purpose-built housing and battery tray that is fire-proof and protects the
Cready et al., 2003; battery from tampering and the effects of weather. The system has been
Richa et al., 2017)
Chemistry NMC NMC –
designed to meet the specifications set out in AS/NZS (2019). However,
Study length 20 20 years it is a conceptual design only and not intended for construction.
HESS lifetime 5# 10 years A cascaded product system was used to allow a direct comparison
(LG Chem, 2020; between the HESS use phase of the repurposed EVBP and virgin HEBP.
Tesla, 2016)
All stages of the mineral extraction and initial manufacturing for the
Active period of study 0 - 20 11 - 20 years
Remaining module 80 100 (as new) % new EVBP (see Phase 1, Fig. 1) and HEBP (see Phase 1, Fig. 1) are
capacity (Ahmadi et al., 2017; included in the system boundary. Also included is the EVBP repurposing
Bobba et al., 2018b; process and the mineral extraction and manufacture of any new com­
Richa et al., 2017) ponents used.
HESS capacity 13.5# 13.5 kWh
(Tesla, 2016)
The functional unit was chosen to be an intrinsic property of the
Pack size 16.875^ 13.5^(Tesla, 2016) kWh battery with no dependence on its change in function. Because the
Mass 153.74^ 122.96^ kg function of the repurposed battery changes, this study excluded the use
Allocation factor ( 25# N/A % phases from the system boundary (see Phases 2 & 4, Fig. 1) to solely
Allacker et al.,
focus on the mineral extraction, manufacturing and repurposing of the
2017)
Module retention rate 90# N/A % new and repurposed HESSs (Richa et al., 2017). Including Phase 4 would
Manufacture Manufactured in Manufactured in – require the collection of primary data (power metering), or the appli­
China# China* cation of underdeveloped degradation models. Both pathways restrict
Transport Shipped from China Shipped from China – the broader global application of this study. To account for the omission
to Australia# to Australia#
of Phase 4, this study puts forward repurposed EVBP lifetime as a critical
Repurposing Repurposed in – –
Australia# allocation parameter to model variable lifespans caused by battery
Preferred Ecoinvent China# China#
– degradation. Also excluded from the system boundary were all EoL and
process provider waste management at all stages for the two product systems. Waste was
Second choice Rest-of-World Rest-of-World –
excluded to reflect the lack of LIB EoL options currently available in
Ecoinvent process (Wedema et al., 2013) (Wedema et al., 2013)
provider (if Australia. Additionally, while it is assumed the EoL treatment of both
preferred choice is batteries would be the same, inventory data for lithium-ion battery
unavailable) recycling and disposal is not well represented in the Ecoinvent database.
Manufacturing China 2016: 73% China 2016: 73% – This adds some uncertainty to the study, but the exclusion of EoL pro­
electricity mix coal, 20% hydro, 2% coal, 20% hydro, 2%
cesses is common amongst past studies (Ioakimidis et al., 2019;
natural gas, 2% natural gas, 2%
nuclear (Ecoinvent nuclear (Ecoinvent Majeau-Bettez et al., 2011). All waste associated with Phase 1 of the
v3.6) v3.6) EVBP is allocated to the first life, placing it outside the system boundary.
Repurposing Australia 2016: 70% – –
electricity mix coal, 17% natural gas,
6% wind, 7% hydro
2.2. Manufacturing and first life inventory
(Ecoinvent v3.6)
Transport distance: 196^ 196^ kg*km
Lorry (Ecoinvent, 2020) (Ecoinvent, 2020) Life cycle inventory was sourced from literature for each phase:
Transport distance: 2135^ 2135^ kg*km EVBP and HEBP first life manufacturing; and EVBP repurposing.
Rail (Ecoinvent, 2020) (Ecoinvent, 2020) EcoInvent v3.6 was used to provide the environmental flows for all
#
Assumed. material and process inputs. All LCA modeling was conducted in
^
Calculated. OpenLCA to perform calculations and generate LCIA results.
Ellingsen’s NMC inventory formed the basis of both HEBP and EVBP
proportion of EV batteries that are approaching the end of their first life, production. It was harmonised with life cycle inventory database,
and is a popular chemistry for virgin batteries in residential storage Ecoinvent v3.6. Adjustments were made to the HEBP by removing the
applications (Gratz et al., 2014; Le Varlet et al., 2020). Each battery’s cooling system and low voltage subcomponent of the BMS as they are
capacity of 13.5 kWh (as listed in Table 1) was chosen as it is the typical rare in currently available commercial HEBPs. These changes were
capacity of current commercially available residential HEBPs (ITP Re­ accommodated in the inventory by proportionally scaling each compo­
newables, 2020; LG Chem, 2020). The number of modules and by nent based on their mass relative to the total cell mass in Ellingsen et al.
extension mass (Table 1) of the repurposed EVBP will be greater than the (Ellingsen et al., 2013):
virgin HEBP, due to the 20% capacity loss of the EVBP modules in Phase / /
mcomponent− adjusted [kg / kWh] = mcomponent mcells ∗ m80%− capacity− cells 13.5 (1)
2. By accounting for the first life degradation of modules, the capacity of
the repurposed EVBP is the equal to the HEBP at the start of Phase 4. The Where: mcomponent [kg] = the component mass from Ellingsen’s refer­
manufacture of the HEBP is assumed to occur ten years after the ence data (Ellingsen et al., 2013), mcells [kg] = the total cell mass from
manufacture of the EVBP, at the same time as the EVBP is being Ellingsen’s reference data (Ellingsen et al., 2013), m80%− capacity− cells [kg] =
repurposed. It is assumed that the manufacturing process is identical for the total mass of 80% capacity cells in 13.5 kWh.
both batteries in terms of material and energy inputs. This assumption is Assumptions for Ecoinvent process providers and electricity mixes
discussed further in Section 3.3. are detailed in Table 1. The virgin EVBP and HEBP are assumed to be
The EVBP and HEBP are installed in a HESS, connected to a Photo­ manufactured and assembled in China, then shipped to Australia for use.
voltaic (PV) array, to act as 12 V DC energy storage. Apart from the cell Transport distances for all components were assumed to be the global
design differences of the batteries, all other components of the HESS are averages as published by Ecoinvent for the ISIC product category 2700:

3
N. Wilson et al. Resources, Conservation & Recycling 174 (2021) 105759

Fig. 1. System boundary diagram of the comparative LCA study.

Other electronic devices (Ecoinvent, 2020). The distances are based on life, N = number of repurposed EVBPs used over the lifetime of the
transport statistics and methodology developed by Borken & Wedema HEBP, mEV [kg] = mass per kWh of the EV battery in Phase 1, α = allo­
(2013). cation coefficient, Rm = module retention rate (differentiated from the
module retention which is a structural component of the battery pack in
the repurposing inventory list) and Cr = remaining module capacity.
2.3. Allocation method and justification
The allocation factor α describes the theoretical physical allocation
related to the assumed emissions responsibility of each life phase. The
Allocation is the process of partitioning the emissions generated from
values were chosen to represent three possible scenarios:
the LCA inputs between multiple product systems over a cascading life
cycle (International Organization for Standardization, 2006). In the
1) Best case cut off allocation scenario: zero (α = 0) environmental im­
present study, allocation is used to distribute emissions produced during
pacts from Phase 1 of the EVBP are allocated to the repurposed EVBP.
the initial battery manufacturing and mineral extraction processes
Represents the scenario where the EV LIB is considered a waste
across the EV first life and HESS second life. A cut-off approach can be
product as it is in the EU (Bobba et al., 2018b). This scenario is used
appropriate if the product is treated strictly as a waste product, as LIBs
primarily as a comparison to scenarios 2 and 3.
have been historically in the EU (Bobba et al., 2018b). It can also be
2) Balanced case scenario: 25% (α = 0.25) of the environmental impacts
appropriate if the market for the recycled materials is well established
from Phase 1 are allocated to the repurposed EVBP, as this is not the
where the manufacture of recycled materials is driven by the demand of
“as designed” application of the EV LIB. α = 0.25 was derived from
secondary products (Nordelöf et al., 2019). The secondary product
Allacker et al (2017) “linear degressive approach” where the first life
should then account for the emissions produced during recycling, rather
is assigned the greatest proportion of emissions.
than the virgin product.
3) Worst case or 50/50 scenario: 50% (α = 0.5) of the environmental
Allocation is required in this LCA, as it is assumed the original EV LIB
impacts from Phase 1 are allocated equally between the repurposed
is manufactured with repurposing as an intended outcome. Market
EVBP and the first life EVBP. This is informed by Richa et al. (2017)
players such as Nissan are beginning to operate in this manner (Nissan
who argued both life cycles could be treated as a single cycle, equally
Motor Corporation, 2018). Therefore, the EV LIB at EoL cannot be
distributing emissions between both battery systems, albeit
treated as waste and its second life as a HESS, should carry an appro­
acknowledging this distribution as “unfair”.
priate proportion of the initial emissions generated.
Allocation is typically performed by one of three methods in order of
The module retention rate is the percentage of modules that pass
preference; physical properties such as mass, economic value, or number
inspection for any signs of physical wear, as well as signs of undesirable
of uses (International Organization for Standardization, 2006). Eco­
thermal exposure and aggressive use from the first life of the EVBP.
nomic based allocations were discredited as the current range of
Richa et al. (2017) identified cell retention as a factor largely ignored
repurposed battery price approximations can vary from 40 and 150
throughout the literature that could greatly affect the environmental
€/kWh (USD$ 43- 163 in 2021) (Madlener and Kirmas, 2017), leaving
impact results of the repurposed EVBP, analysing a cell retention range
far too much uncertainty. Rather, this study adopts a novel physical
of 10% to 100%. This study assumes that modules will be disassembled
method of allocation based on material mass and battery state of health
to cells. Including module retention rate accounts for the need of a larger
metrics (Equation 1). Cell remaining capacity and module retention rate
EV feedstock to successfully manufacture a HEBP. A refined range of
were included as critical parameters that influence the mass of repur­
60–100% was tested.
posed EV LIB material required to manufacture a repurposed HESS to a
The remaining module capacity was assumed to be 80% (20% lost
specific capacity (eg. 13.5 kWh).
during Phase 1 EV use) of the original capacity at the end of Phase 2
N⋅mEV ⋅α (Ahmadi et al., 2017; Cusenza et al., 2019b). This value is an assumed
mEVallocation [kg / kWh] = (2)
Rm ⋅Cr average and the real remaining module capacities can vary between 70
Where: mEV = allocated EVBP mass from the first to the second and 100% if a battery is removed from a car that has not yet reached its
allocation

4
N. Wilson et al. Resources, Conservation & Recycling 174 (2021) 105759

end of life. The remaining module capacity accounts for a larger mass of 2.4. Repurposing inventory
cells required from the repurposed EVBP to produce the same capacity
as the HEBP. A refined range of 50–100% was tested. This study includes a more extensive repurposing inventory than
N is defined by the number of repurposed EVBPs required to service those found in the literature (Table 2). This was a result of interviews
the ten year HEBP base case. N is calculated from the assumed lifetime with designers and owners of bespoke HESSs, who detailed all compo­
(years of service) of the EVBP. A five year lifetime was selected for the nents required for a functional system.
base case EVBP, based on literature and warranty periods (Casals et al., Similar repurposed EVBP studies identified in the literature revealed
2019; Cicconi et al., 2012; Cusenza et al., 2019b; Eaton, 2020; Richa that most researchers relied on scaling and deriving a finite number of
et al., 2017). This means (N = 2) for the base case. A refined range of one primary sources of battery manufacturing and repurposing data.
to ten years was tested due to the variation expressed in past studies. For Numerous studies used Ellingsen et al. (2014) data for HESS LCA
each new repurposed HESS, a complete replacement is assumed, research despite the inventory list being for an EVBP, not an HEBP.
including all BoS components. Ellingsen et al. inventory data formed the basis of this study’s
Another consideration for the allocation methodology was deciding repurposing inventory list. The inventory was adapted and supple­
which Phase 1 BoS embodied emissions would be allocated to Phase 4. mented to form an inventory list more representative of a HESS. Sup­
All studies identified in the literature review allocate emissions for the plementary data sources were introduced where inconsistencies were
components that are being repurposed in the second life, such as cells, identified in Ellingsen et al. (2014) EV battery inventory list, guided by
module casing and in some cases BMS and cooling system (listed in Table 2. Data was taken from Notter et al. (2010) for the data cable,
Table 2). This study aims to explore EV battery design with repurposing Cready et al. (2003) for cell testing electricity and Richa et al. (2017) for
in mind where the whole battery pack is removed and replaced in the module interconnects. As with the virgin HEBP manufacturing inventory
EV. Consequently, the allocation from mEV includes all components that list, the data collected for repurposing is scaled to the required capacity,
make up a functional battery pack, irrespective of whether they were while the cooling system and low voltage BMS subcomponent is
repurposed in the second life. This is also represented in the choice of removed to meet the requirements of both HESS systems. In the
functional unit; 1 kWh of battery pack energy storage. Repurposed EVBP, the original BMS is replaced in Phase 3 (Table 2).
This paper focusses on the Australian context and the unique situa­
tion of a geographically isolated developed nation. All virgin compo­
nents required for repurposing were assumed to be manufactured in
China and imported to Australia for assembly. Assembly is assumed to
be performed manually (Cready et al., 2003). The only datasets specific
Table 2
to Australia are testing and facility electricity mix for repurposing and
Repurposing inventory included in literature compared to what this study
includes. transport distances. All other datasets are Global or Rest-of-World.
Therefore, the results of this study are valid for other regions with
Reference Allocation Components Components Processes
similar conditions or if the testing electricity and transport distances are
Method Retained from Addedin Phase Usedin Phase
Phase 2 3 3 changed.
Ahmadi Expanded Modules Plastic Testing
et al. system Packaging Electricity 3. Results & interpretation
(2017) boundary - no Data Cable Process Heat
allocation 3 Phase Cable Eight Environmental Impact Categories (EICs) were selected based
required on their ranking in normalization (see Supplementary Material), inclu­
Richa et al. 50/50, Modules Module Testing
sion in past LCAs on battery manufacturing and to ensure that the im­
(2017) Quality- interconnects Electricity
based, Cutoff Steel Cabinet Welding pacts to the three core Endpoints (Human Health, Ecosystems and
BMS Transport Resources) were adequately covered. The ReCiPe Midpoint-Hierarchist
Module (H) method was selected to quantify six of the eight EICs. The
Retention
Midpoint-Hierarchist approach was adopted due to the uncertainties
Rate
Bobba et al. 75% first life Modules Battery Tray Testing
and the lack of available data that confidently attributes midpoint in­
(2018a, – 25% second Battery Electricity dicators of battery production and use to appropriate endpoints. USEtox
2018b) life Retention Transport was used for the two remaining EICs (Human Toxicity: cancer and
Ioakimidis N/A Battery Cells None None Ecotoxicity) due to its extensive database of chemical substances and
et al.
rigorous characterization of toxicity.
(2019)
Cusenza Own Modules Battery Testing Under the base case, EIC values for GWP (Global Warming Potential),
et al. calculation BMS Packaging Electricity TAP (Terrestrial Acidification Potential), SOP (Surplus Ore Potential),
(2019a) based on Cooling FFP (Fossil Resource Scarcity Potential) and WCP (Water Consumption)
electricity System
are lower for the repurposed EVBP than the virgin HEBP providing
provided
This Study Modules Battery Tray ( Testing &
environmental benefits for repurposing (see in Fig. 2). However, HTPc
Ellingsen et al., Facility (Human Toxicity Potential: cancer), FEP (Freshwater Eutrophication
2014) Electricity ( Potential) and FETP (Freshwater Ecotoxicity Potential) values are
Battery Cready et al., higher. For the compared 13.5 kWh HESS application, the repurposed
Retention ( 2003)
EVBP’s 15% reduction in GWP equates to a saving of 506.8 kg of CO2 eq.
Ellingsen et al., Transport (
2014) Ecoinvent,
BMS (Ellingsen 2020) 3.1. Hotspot analysis
et al., 2014) Module
Data Cable ( Retention
For both the repurposed EVBP and virgin HEBP, a hotpot analysis
Notter et al., Rate (Richa
2010) et al., 2017)) was completed to determine which process had the greatest influence on
Module each of the eight EICs. The ‘largest contributor’ was identified as the
Interconnects ( process with the greatest percentage contribution to the overall EIC
Richa et al., result.
2017)
The hotspot analysis of the repurposed EVBP was predominantly

5
N. Wilson et al.
Fig. 2. Base case repurposed EVBP vs virgin HEBP contribution to impact categories by lifecycle phase. Contributions of less than 5% have been omitted.
influenced by the embedded emissions of mineral production and
manufacture processes (Phase 1) with processes present in repurposing
(Phase 3) only ranking second in two EICs.
For the repurposed EVBP, two processes were particularly influen­
tial, Electricity – CN (China) and Copper Production. Electricity usage
for cell manufacture in China contributed over 40% of total impacts to
three EICs (i.e., GWP, FFP and WCP) and was the second largest
contributor to two others (i.e., HTPc and TAP). Copper Production was
another influential process and crucial to the impact of FETP as both the
largest and second largest contributor from two separate component
processes, and the largest contributor to FEP due to the production of the
Negative Current Collector. Cobalt Production was also a notable pro­
cess as it contributed 86.97% to Surplus Ore Potential (SOP).
An additional hotspot analysis was completed by lifecycle phase for
the repurposed EVBP to highlight the influence of the embedded emis­
sions from minerals extraction and manufacture (Phase 1), repurposing
testing electricity (Phase 3) and repurposing components (Phase 3).
Repurposing testing electricity and components were separated to show
the noticeably large influence of testing electricity within the repur­
posing phase (see in Fig. 2). Electricity for testing battery cells, prior to
their assembly in the repurposed EVBP, contributed a considerable
amount of the total electricity use required in the repurposing phase.
Notably, testing electricity made no contribution to the environmental
impact of SOP as little to no minerals are required to generate electricity.
Embedded first-life manufacturing processes for the repurposed
EVBP contribute the majority (64% minimum) to all eight EICs (Fig. 2)
due to the high resource and energy intensity of processes required for
Phase 1 manufacture compared to the relatively fewer processes
required for Phase 3 repurposing. The large proportion of embedded
emissions from Phase 1 across all eight EICs can be attributed to the
choice of allocation factor.
Overall, the environmental impact of the repurposing components
were relatively low across all impact categories. Two significant ex­
ceptions were FETP with 34% and HTPc with 30%. FETP was largely
influenced by the Module Interconnects required for repurposing. HTPc
from the repurpose components on the other hand, was a product of the
aluminium needed to construct the repurposed EVBP’s housing
structure.
The virgin HEBP hotspot analysis showed the largest contribution to
6
Resources, Conservation & Recycling 174 (2021) 105759
each EIC to be the same as the EVBP which was dominated by first life
production. However, the percentage contribution was larger due to the
absence of allocation. The influence of electricity from battery cell
production, was the largest or second largest contributor to six of the
eight EICs assessed (GWP 77%, HTPc 20%, FEP 20%, TAP 20%, FFP 5%,
WCP 69%) while Copper Production from the Negative Current Col­
lector also contributed heavily to FETP (60%) and FEP (41%).
The similarity in largest contributors occurred due to the influence of
the allocation factor on the repurposed EVBP and the fact that both
batteries have the same manufacturing inventory list. Consequently,
hotspot analysis of the virgin HEBP emphasised the necessity to perform
a sensitivity analysis on the allocation factor.
3.2. Sensitivity analysis
To establish the effects of changing parameters and test the robust­
ness of the model, a sensitivity analysis was conducted on four critical
parameters that dictate the quantity of allocated emissions. Breakeven
analysis was applied to identify the point at which the impacts of the
repurposed EVBP are equal to, less than, or greater than those of the
virgin HEBP. When the critical parameters are altered, the breakeven
analyses consider proportions of additional batteries, not a step change
caused by the increase to the whole number of batteries required.
A sensitivity analysis was performed on other main inputs. The
transport distances were doubled for every process, which resulted in
negligible changes to the overall results. Removing testing electricity to
simulate on board battery health monitoring in the EV resulted in re­
ductions to impact categories with high dependencies on energy pro­
duction, notably Fossil Resource Scarcity (5%), Freshwater
Eutrophication (14%), Global Warming Potential (6%) and Human
Toxicity: cancer (6%), all experienced decreases in EIC results.
3.2.1. Allocation factor
A breakeven lifetime was used to assess the relative impact of the
EVBPs allocation factor to the HEBP comparison. The breakeven point in
years, was considered when the EVBP emissions were less than or equal
to the HEBP emissions. For all EICs, the higher the allocation factor
(0–50%), the longer the breakeven point (Fig. 3). For the Base Case, FEP
had the longest breakeven lifetime of all EICs for the EVBP (six years).
N. Wilson et al. Resources, Conservation & Recycling 174 (2021) 105759

Fig. 3. Breakeven lifetime of the EVBP for each EIC due to allocation sensitivity.

Therefore, for repurposing to be considered environmentally better than
a virgin HEBP across all categories, it must operate for a minimum of six
years in the home.
Allocation is the most influential factor on the environmental im­
pacts of a repurposed EVBP. Allocated components and processes from
Phase 1 manufacture are always the largest contributor, providing at
least 64% in all eight selected EICs (Fig. 2). This highlights the relative
importance of ensuring allocation is implemented in a fair and equitable
manner. At first glance, it seems counterintuitive for a second life
product to carry a greater environmental burden than new products.
However, this is especially the case when an equal study period is
considered, and multiple repurposed products are required to service the
same timeframe as a new one. Therefore, allocation methods based
purely on performance, or energy stored/delivered (Cusenza et al.,
2019b) may inadequately account for all the material and energy inputs
required in a repurposed EVBP LCA.

Fig. 4. Base case breakeven points of three critical parameters.

7
N. Wilson et al.
3.2.2. Repurposed EVBP lifetime
The second lifetime of an EVBP is difficult to accurately predict.
There is significant variation within the literature, where lifespans of
three - 30 years are proposed (Casals et al., 2019; Cusenza et al., 2019b).
It is important to note that this study has not constructed or considered a
technical degradation model and has assumed a base case five-year
second lifetime (N = 2). As shown in Fig. 4(a), increasing the EVBP
lifetime reduces the number of repurposed packs (N) required to meet
the HEBP lifetime of ten years. Reducing the batteries’ lifespan is
effectively the same as increasing the degradation rate. The repurposed
EVBP lifetime was modeled in one-year increments over a range of a one
to ten years. The breakeven point occurred at approximately 4.25 years
(a). A five-year lifespan for the repurposed EVBP is likely to be a mini­
mum based on previous studies already mentioned and warranty periods
of repurposed EVBPs currently on the market (Eaton, 2020). Therefore,
provided the five-year warranty period is reached, repurposing can
provide a good solution to LIB waste.
3.2.3. EVBP remaining capacity
The remaining capacity proportionally influences the mass of cells
required to construct a repurposed HEBP with equivalent capacity to the
virgin HEBP: the lower the remaining capacity, the greater the mass.
At the lower end of the EVBP remaining capacity axis in Fig. 4(b), the
predicted lifetime is severely limited and restricts the feasibility of
repurposing the EVBP, while upper spectrum values of 90% or greater
are unlikely. The breakeven point was struck at approximately 66%
(Fig. 4(b)). It is unlikely for a repurposed battery that begins its second
life with 66% of its original capacity to last for five years due to accel­
erated non-linear degradation which sets in at approximately 60%
(Martinez-Laserna et al., 2018). However, these results indicate that
carbon reductions can be achieved for a broad spectrum of remaining
capacities if the application is designed to maximise the battery’s
lifetime.
3.2.4. EVBP module retention rate
EVBP module retention rate quantifies the proportion of EVBP
modules which are utilized in Phase 3 and included in the repurposed
EVBP. A fraction of the modules will have degraded beyond use during
their Phase 2 driving life in the EV. Previously, Richa et al. (2017)
considered a cell conversion rate of 50%. However, rapid technological
improvement in onboard EV BMSs and EOL testing could cause an in­
crease in this figure.
Similar to the EVBP remaining capacity discussed above, the EVBP
Fig. 5. Impact of a projected high renewable penetration electricity mix (China 2050) on cell manufacture, measured in Global Warming Potential (GWP).
8
Resources, Conservation & Recycling 174 (2021) 105759
module retention rate influences the mEV . It is important to note that the
Phase 1 mineral extraction and manufacture emissions of the modules
discarded in Phase 3 are allocated to the repurposed EVBP. Thus, the
consequential effect of the EVBP module retention rate is significant.
The breakeven point occurred at approximately 75% (Fig. 4(c)),
providing a benchmark for EV battery manufacturers to achieve through
good module management during the first life.
3.3. Energy mix
Cell manufacturing electricity was the largest contributor for three
EICs and the second highest for two EICs. As the world transitions to
renewable energy, the total emissions from electricity generation are
expected to reduce. To determine the sensitivity of the model to a high
penetration of renewables, the energy mixes for the two base cases were
changed to the projected Chinese electricity mix in 2050 (47% wind,
23% solar PV, 12% hydro, 6.5% coal, 6% nuclear, 2.5% biofuels, 2%
natural gas, 1% geothermal) (CNREC, 2019). The projected electricity
mix (CNREC, 2019) was modeled as a custom electricity mix using
providers in Ecoinvent v3.6. All remaining variables were held fixed.
The findings highlight the variability in results when temporal as­
pects of inventory data are included (Fig. 5). Emissions produced by the
electricity production used in cell manufacturing, under the current
energy mix, represent a larger percentage of total emissions for the
HEBP (59.2%) than the EVBP (47.2%). When a low carbon electricity
mix is applied, the emissions reduction for cell manufacture is 90% for
both batteries. The 90% reduction for the HEBP cells (151.79 kg CO2 eq)
is a larger absolute reduction than the EVBP cells (105.14 kg CO2 eq).
Due to the larger proportion of cell manufacturing emissions in the
HEBP Base Case, the reduction is 46.65 kg CO2 eq greater for the HEBP.
Initially the total GWP is 37.54 kg CO2 eq greater for the HEBP than the
EVBP. With the 2050 electricity mix applied, the total HEBP GWP is
9.06 kg CO2 eq less than the EVBP. It is important to note that every
other process and provider were held fixed at the original base case
value, meaning that this analysis does not represent the true values of a
potential 2050 model. However, it does highlight how drastically LCA
results can change when temporal changes to data are applied. Using the
physical allocation explored in this paper and the assumption that only
cell manufacturing electricity is changed, the 2050 EVBP appears to
perform worse than the 2050 HEBP from the reasoning highlighted
earlier in the paragraph. This effect is further exacerbated when
considering that in a real-world repurposing scenario, there will be a
time gap between production of the EVBP cells and the HEBP cells,
N. Wilson et al. Resources, Conservation & Recycling 174 (2021) 105759

meaning that improvements to process efficiency and the electricity mix (continued )
will only influence the HEBP. Acknowledging the high degree of as­
sumptions in this theoretical scenario, this effect can be seen through the
comparison of the EVBP: Base case (2018) and the HEBP: 2050 case in
Fig. 5, which shows the EVBP performing worse. This is an exaggerated
comparison with the time difference between products being ~40 years.
However, it is expected over ten years additional improvements to
material use and battery technology will occur and could create the
observed effect if also included.

4. Conclusions & recommendations

The goal of this study was to develop a novel physical allocation

method which can be used to quantify the environmental impact of
repurposing an EV LIB for use in a HESS and compare its emissions to a
virgin battery pack. Through an LCA case study, it was shown that the
embodied emissions of repurposed batteries are lower than virgin bat­
teries if critical performance criteria are met. Independently, remaining
capacity, module retention rate and EVBP battery lifetime require a
minimum performance of 66%, 75% and 4.25 years respectively to
reduce environmental impact.
The allocation method proposed offers a unique approach, encom­
passing critical SoH parameters which dictate the quantity of modules
and added components required to repurpose an EVBP for stationary
energy storage. The method also offers a generalized approach for
calculating allocation of life cycle emissions while excluding the use
phases of product systems, due to the large number of assumptions and
variables required.
This study focused on a residential Australian context for the
repurposing inventory, however, the results can easily be translated and
scaled to any geographic region and battery pack size, as the simple kWh
functional unit is agnostic to the use profile. The critical allocation pa­
rameters define performance benchmarks for producing positive envi­
ronmental outcomes to stakeholders in the battery manufacturing and
repurposing market.
The results stress the importance for future EVBP repurposing studies
to be performed across an equal study period to account for the use of
multiple repurposed batteries during the lifetime of the compared virgin
product, a consideration shown to be overlooked in previous studies.
The temporal sensitivity analysis reveals the need for further
research into the inclusion of provisions to account for improvements in
technology and efficiency over extended lifespans in allocation pro­
cedures. The allocation method used in this study and other literature
can result in seemingly counterintuitive results where the repurposed
product has higher emissions than a new product, due to the decar­
bonization of the electricity mix at point of manufacture during the
repurposed product’s lifetime. The adoption of a correction factor
within allocation could acknowledge that the emissions of the repur­
posed product have already been produced, and by reusing the product,
the generation of new emissions is avoided. This is particularly prevalent
during a global carbon reduction pathway.
The requirement for robust allocation methodology stands to in­
crease as the repurposing of electric vehicle batteries gains popularity as
the world transitions to a green economy, guided by market forces and
the waste management hierarchy. The allocation method presented in
this paper integrates the complexities of performance, state of health
and repurposing emissions, and can serve as a template for future
studies.
Author contribution
(continued on next column)
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
the work reported in this paper.
Supplementary materials
Supplementary material associated with this article can be found, in
the online version, at doi:10.1016/j.resconrec.2021.105759.
References
Ahmadi, L., Young, S.B., Fowler, M., Fraser, R.A., Achachlouei, M.A., 2017. A cascaded
life cycle: reuse of electric vehicle lithium-ion battery packs in energy storage
systems. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 22, 111–124. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-
015-0959-7.
Allacker, K., Mathieux, F., Pennington, D., Pant, R., 2017. The search for an appropriate
end-of-life formula for the purpose of the European commission environmental
footprint initiative. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 22, 1441–1458. https://doi.org/
10.1007/s11367-016-1244-0.
AS/NZS, 2019. AS/NZS 5139:2019 Electrical installation - Safety of Battery Systems For
Use With Power Conversion Equipment. Standards Australia.
Bobba, S., Mathieux, F., Ardente, F., Blengini, G.A., Cusenza, M.A., Podias, A., Pfrang, A.,
2018a. Life cycle assessment of repurposed electric vehicle batteries: an adapted
method based on modelling energy flows. J. Energy Storage 19, 213–225. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.est.2018.07.008.
Bobba, S., Podias, A., Di Persio, F., Messagie, M., Tecchio, P., Cusenza, M.A., Eynard, U.,
Mathieux, F., Pfrang, A., 2018b. Sustainability Assessment of Second Life
Application of Automotive Batteries (SASLAB). https://doi.org/10.2760/53624.
Borken-Kleefeld, J., Weidema, B., 2013. Global default data for freight transport per
product group. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess.
Casals, L.C., Amante García, B., Canal, C., 2019. Second life batteries lifespan: rest of
useful life and environmental analysis. J. Environ. Manag. 232, 354–363. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2018.11.046.
Cicconi, P., Landi, D., Morbidoni, A., Germani, M., 2012. Feasibility analysis of second
life applications for Li-Ion cells used in electric powertrain using environmental
indicators. In: Proceedings of the IEEE International Energy Conference and
Exhibition, ENERGYCON 2012, pp. 985–990. https://doi.org/10.1109/
EnergyCon.2012.6348293.
CNREC, 2019. The Energy System For Beautiful China 2050. CNREC.
Cready, E., Lippert, J., Pihl, J., Weinstock, I., Symons, P., Jungst, R.G., 2003. Technical
and Economic Feasibility of Applying Used EV Batteries in Stationary Applications: A
Study For the DOE Energy Storage Systems Program. Sandia National Laboratories.
Cusenza, M.A., Guarino, F., Longo, S., Ferraro, M., Cellura, M., 2019a. Energy and
environmental benefits of circular economy strategies: the case study of reusing used
batteries from electric vehicles. J. Energy Storage 25, 100845. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.est.2019.100845.
Cusenza, M.A., Guarino, F., Longo, S., Mistretta, M., Cellura, M., 2019b. Reuse of electric
vehicle batteries in buildings: an integrated load match analysis and life cycle

9
N. Wilson et al.
assessment approach. Energy Build. 186, 339–354. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
enbuild.2019.01.032.
Department Of The Environment And Energy, 2018. National Waste Report 2018. Blue
Environment Pty Ltd.
Eaton, 2020. Energy Storage Catalogue [WWW Document]. Eaton. URL. https://www.
eaton.com/gb/en-gb/catalog/energy-storage/xstorage-home.html.
Ecoinvent, 2020. Default Transport Assumptions [WWW Document]. Ecoinvent. URL.
https://www.ecoinvent.org/support/documents-and-files/documents-and-files.htm
l.
Ellingsen, L.A.W., Majeau-Bettez, G., Singh, B., Srivastava, A.K., Valøen, L.O.,
Strømman, A.H., 2014. Life cycle assessment of a lithium-ion battery vehicle pack.
J. Ind. Ecol. 18, 113–124. https://doi.org/10.1111/jiec.12072.
Ellingsen, L.A.W., Majeau-Bettez, G., Singh, B., Srivastava, A.K., Valøen, L.O.,
Strømman, A.H., 2013. Life cycle assessment of a lithium-ion battery vehicle pack.
J. Ind. Ecol. 17, 158–160. https://doi.org/10.1111/jiec.12011.
ENERGEIA, 2018. Australian Electric Vehicle Market Study. [WWW Document].
ENERGEIA. ARENA URL https://arena.gov.au/assets/2018/06/australian-ev-
market-study-report.pdf.
Gratz, E., Sa, Q., Apelian, D., Wang, Y., 2014. A closed loop process for recycling spent
lithium ion batteries. J. Power Sources 262, 255–262. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jpowsour.2014.03.126 https://doi.org/.
Greim, P., Solomon, A.A., Breyer, C., 2020. Assessment of lithium criticality in the global
energy transition and addressing policy gaps in transportation. Nat. Commun. 11,
1–11.
International Energy Agency, 2020. Global EV Outlook 2020. IAE.
International Organization for Standardization, 2006. International Standard ISO 14044:
Environmental management — Life cycle Assessment — Requirements and
Guidelines. International Organization for Standardization.
Ioakimidis, C.S., Murillo-Marrodán, A., Bagheri, A., Thomas, D., Genikomsakis, K.N.,
2019. Life cycle assessment of a lithium iron phosphate (LFP) electric vehicle battery
in second life application scenarios. Sustain 11. https://doi.org/10.3390/
su11092527 https://doi.org/.
ITP Renewables, 2020. Public Report 8 Lithium-Ion Battery Testing. ITP Renewables.
King, S., Boxall, N.J., Bhatt, A.I., 2018. Lithium Battery Recycling in Australia: Current
status and Opportunities For Developing a New Industry. Australia.
Le Varlet, T., Schmidt, O., Gambhir, A., Few, S., Staffell, I., College, I., South, L.,
Campus, K., 2020. Comparative life cycle assessment of lithium-ion battery
chemistries for residential storage. J. Energy Storage 28, 101230. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.est.2020.101230 https://doi.org/.
LG Chem, 2020. LG chem lithium-ion battery limited warranty [WWW Document]. URL
https://www.infiniteenergy.com.au/warranty_docs/lgchem.pdf.
10
Resources, Conservation & Recycling 174 (2021) 105759
Madlener, R., Kirmas, A., 2017. Economic viability of second use electric vehicle
batteries for energy storage in residential applications. Energy Procedia 105,
3806–3815. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egypro.2017.03.890 https://doi.org/.
Majeau-Bettez, G., Hawkins, T.R., StrØmman, A.H., 2011. Life cycle environmental
assessment of lithium-ion and nickel metal hydride batteries for plug-in hybrid and
battery electric vehicles. Environ. Sci. Technol. 45, 4548–4554. https://doi.org/
10.1021/es103607c https://doi.org/.
Martin, N., Rice, J., 2021. Power outages, climate events and renewable energy:
reviewing energy storage policy and regulatory options for Australia. Renew.
Sustain. Energy Rev. 137, 110617 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2020.110617
https://doi.org/.
Martinez-Laserna, E., Sarasketa-Zabala, E., Villarreal Sarria, I., Stroe, D.I.,
Swierczynski, M., Warnecke, A., Timmermans, J.M., Goutam, S., Omar, N.,
Rodriguez, P., 2018. Technical viability of battery second life: a study from the
ageing perspective. IEEE Trans. Ind. Appl. 54, 2703–2713. https://doi.org/10.1109/
TIA.2018.2801262 https://doi.org/.
Nicholson, A.L., Olivetti, E.A., Gregory, J.R., Field, F.R., Kirchain, R.E., 2009. End-of-life
LCA allocation methods: open loop recycling impacts on robustness of material
selection decisions. In: In: Proceedings of the IEEE International Symposium on
Sustainable Systems and Technology. https://doi.org/10.1109/
ISSST.2009.5156769.
Nissan Motor Corporation, 2018. Nissan LEAF Batteries to Light Up Japanese town
[WWW Document]. Nissan Motor Corporation. URL. https://global.nissannews.
com/en/releases/180322-01-e?lang=en-US&la=1&downloadUrl=%2Freleases%
2F180322-01-e%2Fdownload.
Nordelöf, A., Poulikidou, S., Chordia, M., Oliveira, F.B.De, Tivander, J., Arvidsson, R.,
2019. Methodological approaches to end-of-life modelling in life cycle assessments
of lithium-ion batteries. Batteries 5, 15.
Notter, D.A., Gauch, M., Widmer, R., Wäger, P., Stamp, A., Zah, R., Althaus, H.J., 2010.
Contribution of Li-ion batteries to the environmental impact of electric vehicles.
Environ. Sci. Technol. 44, 6550–6556. https://doi.org/10.1021/es903729a https://
doi.org/.
Richa, K., Babbitt, C.W., Nenadic, N.G., Gaustad, G., 2017. Environmental trade-offs
across cascading lithium-ion battery life cycles. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 22, 66–81.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-015-0942-3 https://doi.org/.
Rietmann, N., Hügler, B., Lieven, T., 2020. Forecasting the trajectory of electric vehicle
sales and the consequences for worldwide CO2 emissions. J. Clean. Prod. 261,
121038 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.121038 https://doi.org/.
Tesla, 2016. Tesla Powerwall Limited Warranty. Tesla.
Wedema, B.P., Bauer, C., Hischier, R., Mutel, C., Nemecek, T., Reinhard, J., Vadenbo, C.
O., Wenet, G., 2013. Overview and methodology: Data quality Quideline For the
Ecoinvent Database Version 3. Swiss Center For Life Cycle Inventories.