Chemistry | Cathode | Anode | Application | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
NMC | Lithium Nickel Manganese Cobalt Oxide | LiNiMnCoO2 | Graphite | BEVs BEV denotes “battery electric vehicle” – vehicles that solely use electric motors for propulsion. E-bikes |
LFP | Lithium Iron Phosphate | LiFePO4 | Graphite | Lower range BEVs HEV buses HEV denotes ‘hybrid electric vehicle’ – vehicles that use a combination of electric motors and internal combustion engines for propulsion (plug-in hybrids, EV’s with combustion engine range extenders, self-charging hybrids, etc.) |
NCA | Lithium Nickel Cobalt Aluminium Oxide | LiNiCoAlO2 | Graphite | Electric cars, e-scooters |
Technology Readiness Level A technology readiness level (TRL) is a scale used to describe the maturity of a technology while it is being researched (TRLs 1-3), developed (TRLs 4-6) and deployed (TRLs 7-9). | 9 – This technology is mature. There are commercial plants producing high volumes of NMCs. |
Risks | Higher initial cost – The major drawback of NMC batteries is the high cost due to the cobalt content, a material that is extremely expensive compared to the other materials found in most batteries. Shorter cycle life – NMC batteries have a shorter cycle life when compared to other chemistries, particularly lithium iron phosphate (LFP) – around 2000–2500 charge-discharge cycles compared to 5000. Murden, D. (2023). Lithium NMC Vs LiFePO4 – How to Choose The Best One For Your Needs. Retrieved from: https://ecotreelithium.co.uk/news/lithium-nmc-vs-lifepo4/ Safety – NMC batteries are more prone to thermal runaway compared to most other battery chemistries, and as a result require greater precautionary measures to ensure safety. |
Emissions | Compared to the other battery technologies presented in this section, NMC batteries, alongside NCAs (section 4.1.2), currently account for the majority of the carbon emissions associated with the EV battery manufacturing market due to the two types of battery making up the vast majority of the global EV battery demand – about 68% as of 2022. International Energy Agency (2023) Global EV Outlook 2023: Trends in batteries. Retrieved from: https://www.iea.org/reports/global-ev-outlook-2023/trends-in-batteries The use of larger quantities of cobalt compared to other chemistries will also cause this type of battery to pose a higher environmental risk due to its toxic nature – there will always be a risk of harm to the environment in the case of accidents/chemical spills. However, ongoing research for this type of battery is extensive and the associated environmental impacts are expected to reduce over time. The production of NMC batteries also has several other harmful byproducts associated with it. Nickel is also a heavy metal that is toxic to humans and wildlife, but to a lesser extent when compared to cobalt – both metals may leach into nearby soil or wastewater if the production process is not properly regulated. The same applies to volatile organic compounds (VOCs), which are generated in battery production and are dangerous to humans when inhaled in quantities over an extended period, potentially also forming smog. An example of a VOC produced during NMC battery production is hydrogen fluoride. Anguil Environmental Systems (2023) From Mining to Recycling: The Road to Responsible Battery Manufacturing. Retrieved from: https://www.azocleantech.com/article.aspx?ArticleID=1736 |
Strengths | Mature manufacturing – Manufacturing techniques for NMC batteries are well established and scalable. Large automated production lines are common, keeping costs lower compared to newer battery types. High energy density – NMC batteries have a high energy density compared to most other well-established lithium-ion technologies, allowing them to save space and weight when used in EVs. High discharge rate – NMC batteries can deliver high currents and have a high discharge rate, making them well suited for devices requiring short, powerful bursts of energy; this makes them ideal for designing more high performance EVs. Temperature tolerance – NMC batteries operate well in hot and cold temperatures, unlike some lithium-ion batteries. They can also be charged at freezing temperatures. |
Barriers to circularity | Design and diversity – Batteries are not consistently designed for disassembly and recycling. There are also many different NMC chemistries and formats that are used for EVs, given that they are the most used type of battery in EVs currently. This can end up complicating recycling processes by having so many variations in the chemistry. However, as recycling processes become more mature and refined for different battery chemistries, this should be much less of an issue. Cobalt use – While a benefit of NMC batteries is a lower dependence on cobalt when compared to traditional lithium-ion batteries, they still use the rare and toxic metal – unlike LFP batteries, which omit cobalt use entirely. There are still concerns over the ethical issues associated with cobalt mining and its lack of circularity if recycling processes are not further optimised. |
Applicability to Nordic Context | The maturity of NMC batteries means there are already a number of manufacturing plants available in Nordic countries as well as others in Europe. They will continue to be extensively developed and their recycling network improved, making them a great choice for achieving a closed-loop system in the Nordics. Furthermore, their ability to withstand cold temperatures during both charging and use makes them ideal for Nordic climates. While other, less mature battery chemistries may offer greater potential for improving the range and longevity of EV battery packs, NMCs offer an easier pathway to circularity and are readily available. |
Technology Readiness Level A technology readiness level (TRL) is a scale used to describe the maturity of a technology while it is being researched (TRLs 1-3), developed (TRLs 4-6) and deployed (TRLs 7-9). | 9 – This technology is mature. There are full scale production facilities of NCA batteries in several geographies. |
Risks | Higher initial cost – The major drawback of NCA batteries is the high cost due to the cobalt content, a material that is extremely expensive compared to the other materials found in most batteries, such as nickel and lithium. Shorter cycle life – As with NMC, NCA batteries have a shorter cycle life when compared to other chemistries, notably LFP. However, they have a longer cycle life when compared to NMC, owed to the inclusion of aluminium; this increased cycle life is at the cost of a lower energy density when compared to NMC. Baker, D. (2023). Nickel-Cobalt-Aluminum (NCA) vs. Nickel-Cobalt-Manganese (NCM) Batteries Compared: What’s the Difference? Retrieved from: https://history-computer.com/nickel-cobalt-aluminum-nca-vs-nickel-cobalt-manganese-ncm-batteries-compared-whats-the-difference/ Safety – Similarly to NMC, NCA batteries are more prone to thermal runaway compared to most other battery chemistries, and as a result require many more safety precautionary measures. |
Emissions | Compared to the other battery technologies discussed in this section, NCA batteries, along with NMC (as detailed in section 4.1.3) and LFP batteries, currently dominate the EV battery manufacturing market. Therefore, they will collectively be accounting for the majority of carbon emissions associated with EV battery production. More specifically to NCA batteries – the use of cobalt in these still raises environmental concerns due to its toxic nature, posing a potential risk to the environment in cases of accidents or chemical spills. The same may also be said for its increased nickel content when compared to other battery chemistries (including NMC). However, nickel is widely regarded as an enabler to reducing cobalt content in batteries, being less toxic/scarce when compared to cobalt and simultaneously improving the energy density of a battery. Extensive ongoing research on this battery type is being conducted, and it is anticipated that the associated environmental impacts will decrease over time. As with NMC batteries (section 4.1.1), the production of NCA batteries also has several other harmful byproducts associated with it. Aside from the risk of heavy metals leaching into soil and wastewater, VOCs, which are generated in battery production and are dangerous to humans when inhaled in quantities over an extended period, are still a concern in NCA manufacturing. An example of a VOC produced during NMC battery production is hydrogen fluoride. Anguil Environmental Systems (2023) From Mining to Recycling: The Road to Responsible Battery Manufacturing. Retrieved from: https://www.azocleantech.com/article.aspx?ArticleID=1736 [4] Baker, D. (2023). Nickel-Cobalt-Aluminum (NCA) vs. Nick |
Strengths | High energy density – NCA batteries have a high energy density compared to the majority of other well-established lithium-ion technologies, allowing them to save space and weight when used in EVs, while also using less raw material. High discharge rate – NCA batteries can deliver high currents and have a high discharge rate, making them well suited for devices requiring short, powerful bursts of energy like power tools. Low self-discharge – NCA batteries experience minimal self-discharge when not in use, typically losing less than 10% of their charge per month. This makes them suitable for infrequently used devices. Temperature tolerance – NCA batteries operate well in hot and cold temperatures, unlike some lithium-ion batteries. They can also be charged at freezing temperatures. |
Barriers to circularity | As with NMC batteries, the design and diversity of NCA batteries pose challenges for recycling efforts, coming in various chemistries and formats. Despite reduced cobalt dependence compared to traditional lithium-ion batteries, NCA batteries still contain this rare and toxic metal, although it is worth noting that they use less cobalt on average when compared to NMC. el-Cobalt-Manganese (NCM) Batteries Compared: What’s the Difference? Retrieved from: https://history-computer.com/nickel-cobalt-aluminum-nca-vs-nickel-cobalt-manganese-ncm-batteries-compared-whats-the-difference/ |
Applicability to Nordic Context | Similarly to NMC batteries, their established presence in Nordic and European manufacturing plants offers a reliable choice for the region. Their maturity ensures accessibility and ease of integration into existing systems, making them a practical solution for the Nordics. Despite potential alternatives with greater range and longevity, NCA batteries provide an accessible pathway to circularity, enhanced by ongoing improvements in recycling networks. Additionally, their resilience in cold climates makes them a well-suited choice for use in Nordic climates (like NMC batteries), making them a practical and efficient option for sustainable energy solutions in the region. |
Technology Readiness Level A technology readiness level (TRL) is a scale used to describe the maturity of a technology while it is being researched (TRLs 1-3), developed (TRLs 4-6) and deployed (TRLs 7-9). | 9 – This technology is mature. There have been numerous commercial-scale production facilities of LFPs established by multiple organisations. |
Risks | Large cost fluctuation potential – According to the IEA, the rise in battery material costs has had varying impacts on different battery types (as of 2022). Among these, LFP batteries saw the most significant surge in cost, exceeding 25% from 2021, while NMC batteries experienced a more modest increase of under 15%. This disparity can be attributed to the composition of LFP batteries, which lack the costly elements nickel and cobalt, using iron and phosphorus instead. Consequently, the fluctuating price of lithium, a key component in LFP batteries, played a larger role in determining the overall cost. Ultimately, as the price of lithium rose at a faster rate than nickel and cobalt, LFP batteries became pricier compared to NMC batteries. Nevertheless, LFP batteries remained more affordable than NCA and NMC batteries when considering their energy capacity per unit. International Energy Agency (2023) Global EV Outlook 2023: Trends in batteries. Retrieved from: https://www.iea.org/reports/global-ev-outlook-2023/trends-in-batteries Lower Energy Density – LFP batteries have a lower energy density (around 90–120 Wh/Kg) when compared to other chemistries such as NCA (200–260 Wh/Kg). Thus, they may need to be larger (and heavier) for the same energy storage capacity. This increases resource consumption during manufacture and weight during use. |
Emissions | LFPs are regarded as one of the most environmentally friendly forms of battery currently available worldwide, owing mostly to their increased length of life (reducing the number of required replacements) and non-toxic nature. They also do not contain any nickel or cobalt, which are scarce and toxic materials only available in a handful of regions worldwide. There are consequently no associated concerns with heavy metals leaching into soil and wastewater from LFP batteries. Unlike with NMC or NCA batteries (sections 4.1.1 and 4.1.2), the production of LFP batteries has fewer other harmful byproducts. VOCs, which are generated in battery production and are dangerous to humans when inhaled in quantities over an extended period, are much less of a concern in LFP manufacturing. Research shows that the overall volume of VOCs released from LFP batteries is an order of magnitude lower in quantity when compared to NMC batteries, for example – over 30 times less. Sturk, D. et al. (2019). Analysis of Li-Ion Battery Gases Vented in an Inert Atmosphere Thermal Test Chamber. Batteries, 5, 61. Retrieved from: https://www.mdpi.com/2313-0105/5/3/61 |
Strengths | Improved safety – One of the most notable features of LiFePO4 batteries is their exceptional safety profile. Unlike some other lithium-ion batteries, they are highly resistant to overheating and are far less prone to thermal runaway – a major concern in battery technology. This inherent stability makes them a preferred choice in Evs, where safety is essential. Extended cycle life – LFP batteries offer an extended cycle life, typically averaging around 5000 charge-discharge cycles. Murden, D. (2023). Lithium NMC Vs LiFePO4 – How to Choose The Best One For Your Needs. Retrieved from: https://ecotreelithium.co.uk/news/lithium-nmc-vs-lifepo4/ Cost effective – The main cathode materials used in LFP batteries are iron and phosphorus. These are relatively abundant materials when compared with other battery metals. This makes them a cost-effective option for a variety of energy storage applications. Charging capacity – LFP batteries can be charged to full capacity (or 100% SoC). For other batteries (for example, NMC and NCA), the recommendation can be to avoid both very high and very low charges in order to maintain optimal lifespan (typically keeping the SoC at around 10–80 percent – though this level is different across other battery chemistries). LFP batteries do not face this limitation and can be fully charged without experiencing accelerated battery degradation. |
Barriers to circularity | Increased resource consumption – LFP batteries have a lower energy density compared to other battery chemistries. Thus, resource consumption is comparatively high for the same power. As well as being a barrier to circularity during manufacture, this characteristic of LFP batteries also impacts circularity at end-of-life. LFP recycling infrastructure must be capable of handling higher volumes of material than infrastructure for other technologies. Manufacturing locations – At present, LFP battery manufacturing is predominantly limited to China, but they are being used worldwide – including by several Nordic companies such as Freyr and Morrow. Their leading position in LFP battery manufacturing is linked to crucial LFP patents being managed by a collective of universities and research institutions. A decade ago, this group reached an agreement with Chinese battery manufacturers exempting them from licensing fees, provided the LFP batteries were exclusively used within Chinese markets. This makes it difficult to establish a closed-loop system within Europe, as car manufacturers outside of China will be subject to these licencing fees. However, these fees expired in 2022 and it is now anticipated that LFP battery use will surge globally. Major car manufacturers (for example, Tesla, Volkswagen) have announced changes to LFP chemistries in entry level (high production volume) models. International Energy Agency (2022) Global Supply Chains of EV Batteries. Retrieved from: https://iea.blob.core.windows.net/assets/961cfc6c-6a8c-42bb-a3ef-57f3657b7aca/GlobalSupplyChainsofEVB Lack of recycling incentive – Recycling LFP batteries is expensive. Recovery of the comparatively lower value materials (e.g., iron) instead of higher-value cobalt or nickel will lack economic viability in many scenarios. As LFPs have only recently began to surge in popularity, the recycling technologies have not yet caught up. To address this, direct recycling, regulatory intervention, innovative frameworks and/or alternative business models seem necessary to ensure the profitability of LFP recycling; research shows that existing recycling techniques may be utilised to improve its economic viability. Vasconcelos, D. et al. (2023). Circular Recycling Strategies for LFP Batteries: A Review Focusing on Hydrometallurgy Sustainable Processing. Metals, 13, 543. Retrieved from: https://www.mdpi.com/2075-4701/13/3/543 |
Applicability to Nordic Context | LFP batteries may not fully align with the Nordics’ goal of achieving a closed-loop battery system with Europe to as great an extent as other chemistries. This is predominantly due to their production being so heavily concentrated to China – which also applies to all lithium-ion batteries, but more so for LFP batteries. However, this may change as investments are made. Indeed, a large LFP battery factory is being set up in Norway (see case study below). LFPs may become less relevant for Nordic countries as there is significant focus on improving more nascent technologies within the region. However, due to their maturity and sudden surge in popularity, they could act as a useful supplement to the Nordic EV market and help reduce the total emissions associated with EV battery production – they certainly should not be disregarded. |
Technology Readiness Level A technology readiness level (TRL) is a scale used to describe the maturity of a technology while it is being researched (TRLs 1-3), developed (TRLs 4-6) and deployed (TRLs 7-9). | 5–6 – This technology is in development. There have been proof-of-concepts for scalable component production. However, the commercial availability of lithium anode batteries is not yet widespread. |
Risks | The greatest challenge to developing lithium metal anode batteries into a feasible technology for EV use are concerns over stability and safety. The main risks are: Lithium dendrite – As with solid-state batteries (section 4.1.6), lithium anode batteries are similarly susceptible to the build-up of dendrites. These can accumulate on the anode current collector of a cell and can ultimately penetrate the separator in a cell and cause short circuiting. This can result in large currents passing through the dendritic connection, ultimately rapidly generating heat and causing the risk of fire or explosion. Wang, Q. et al. (2021). Confronting the Challenges in Lithium Anodes for Lithium Metal Batteries. Advanced Science, 8. Retrieved from: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/advs.202101111 Dead lithium – The term for lithium that has lost contact with the electrode, originating from broken dendrite. After the break of the dendrite, the freshly exposed lithium surface is corroded quickly by the electrolyte, forming a solid electrolyte interphase – a thin film that forms around the broken lithium and has poor electronic conductivity. These broken bits of lithium reduce the lifetime and charging efficiency of the cell; repeated occurrences of this reaction will eventually lead to the corrosion of the lithium anode. While this effect occurs in all lithium-ion batteries, it is prominent in those that suffer from high dendrite formation. |
Emissions | Life cycle assessments (LCAs) show that lithium metal anode batteries have the potential to have the lowest environmental impact (in terms of CO2e emissions) when compared to traditional lithium-ion batteries, and also LFP batteries – mainly due to the lower mass of raw materials required for their manufacture (although this does depend on manufacturing locations). Berg, H. & Zackrisson, M. (2019). Perspectives on environmental and cost assessment of lithium metal negative electrode sin electric vehicle traction batteries. Journal of Power Sources, 415, 83-90. Retrieved from: https://www.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:1554505/FULLTEXT01.pdf When compared to different cathode variations, lithium metal batteries also possess a lower risk surrounding the quantity of harmful byproducts released during manufacture – as with LFP batteries (section 4.1.3). This is mostly due to the omission of nickel and cobalt, which are toxic heavy metals that are harmful to humans and wildlife if allowed to leach into soils and wastewater. |
Strengths | High energy density – Lithium metal anodes have the highest theoretical energy density versus other anode designs. Lightweight – Lithium is lightweight without compromising energy density. Thus, it is invaluable in applications where weight and size are critical factors, giving them huge potential for use in EVs. Faster charging – The design of lithium anode batteries enables rapid deposition and dissolution of lithium ions during charging and discharging processes, leading to quicker charge times for EVs. High electrochemical potential – Alkali metals readily give up electrons, and lithium has the lowest reduction potential (willingness to give up electrons) in the group. This gives lithium-ion batteries a relatively high voltage compared to other types of batteries, which directly translates to the storage of more energy. |
Barriers to circularity | Complex recycling requirements – Lithium anode batteries often use complex chemistries and materials, including solid electrolytes (for solid state variants) and various cathode materials. Disassembling and recycling these efficiently is difficult, especially as designs are not standardised across manufacturers. Scale and Volume – Production of lithium metal anode batteries is unlikely to be large enough to support a robust recycling system. Adequate volume is necessary to justify investments required for recycling infrastructure. |
Applicability to Nordic Context | The use of lithium metal anode batteries is aligned with the ambitions of the Nordic countries in the EV battery market. The increased use of lithium content in these batteries could make it easier to make recycling more economical, with a great number of recycling routes – allowing the life cycle of lithium to become much more closed, aligning with the goal of the Nordic battery market. |
Technology Readiness Level A technology readiness level (TRL) is a scale used to describe the maturity of a technology while it is being researched (TRLs 1-3), developed (TRLs 4-6) and deployed (TRLs 7-9). | 5–9 – The maturity of this technology varies depending on the percentage of silicon incorporated. In some instances, commercial production has been established. In others, there is proof-of-concept for saleable component production. |
Risks | First charge expansion – Silicon anodes can expand over 2x when they are fully charged, compared to about 10% expansion for conventional graphite-anode batteries. This causes design issues and size constraints when applied in the context of EVs. Volume expansion – Silicon undergoes significant volume expansion during lithiation (absorption of lithium ions), leading to mechanical stress and eventual electrode degradation. This can affect the long-term stability and cycle life of the battery. Cycle life – The expansion and contraction cycles can lead to the formation of a solid electrolyte interface (SEI) layer as silicon particles electrically disconnect from the anode. This can affect the battery’s performance over multiple charge/discharge cycles. Enovix (2022) Overcoming the Four Killer Problems of Silicon to Create a Better Battery. Retrieved from: https://enovix.medium.com/overcoming-the-four-killer-problems-of-silicon-to-create-a-better-battery-6f709ff67348#:~:text=Silicon%20anodes%2C%20by%20contrast%2C%20can,commercially%20viable%20in%20many%20applications. |
Emissions | Silicon is an abundant and more environmentally friendly material compared to other predominantly used materials in batteries like lithium, nickel and cobalt. Its use in batteries is expected to have lower environmental and social impacts than the mining and processing of metals like cobalt. Additionally, it has the potential to increase the energy density of batteries. Ultimately this could lead to longer-lasting batteries for consumer electronics, as well as increased driving range and reduced charging times for electric vehicles – reducing associated GHG emissions when compared to other battery types. Frąckiewicz, M. (2023). The Road to Sustainable Energy: Silicon Anode Batteries and Their Environmental Impact. Retrieved from: https://ts2.space/en/the-road-to-sustainable-energy-silicon-anode-batteries-and-their-environmental-impact/ Philippot, M. et al. (2023). Life cycle assessment of a lithium-ion battery with a silicon anode for electric vehicles. Journal of Energy Storage, 60. Retrieved from: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S2352152X23000324#:~:text=The%20energy%20use%20in%20the,to%20the%20environmental%20impact%20categories. |
Strengths | High energy density – The use of silicon increases the overall energy density of the battery, allowing it to store more energy per unit weight or volume. Improved performance – Silicon-graphite anodes offer better performance (energy storage, charge/discharge rates) versus traditional graphite anodes. Reduced charging time – The higher conductivity of silicon-graphite anodes can lead to faster charging times compared to conventional graphite technologies. Potential cost effectiveness – Silicon is abundant and relatively inexpensive, which can contribute to the cost-effectiveness of these batteries once scalable manufacturing methods are established. |
Barriers to circularity | Silicon-coated anode batteries are highly aligned with a circular economy, as they promote greater resource efficiency and utilise already well-established processes and manufacturing facilities, reducing the need for designing/building new ones. However, recyclability is currently a concern. The intricate composition of silicon-coated anode batteries, involving multiple layers of coatings and different materials, makes it challenging to separate and recycle these components efficiently. In particular, the presence of coatings and binders can introduce contaminants during manufacture or over the battery's lifecycle. These factors are also likely to increase the energy intensity of the recycling process. It is not currently clear to what extent existing recycling infrastructure for lithium-ion batteries can be used for silicon-coated anode variants. |
Applicability to Nordic Context | As with other battery technologies aiming to improve charging times and energy density, silicon-coated anode batteries are highly applicable to the Nordic countries for future EV production. Silicon is a safe and abundant material – research also shows that there are large reserves of it yet to be exploited in the Nordics. Jonsson, E. et al. (2023). Critical metals and minerals in the Nordic countries of Europe: diversity of mineralization and green energy potential. Geological Society, London, Special Publications, 526, 95-152. Retrieved from: https://www.lyellcollection.org/doi/10.1144/SP526-2022-55 There have also been studies highlighting the potential of recycled silicon content to be utilised in this type of battery. Ruan, D. et al. (2021). A low-cost silicon-graphite anode made from recycled graphite of spent lithium-ion batteries. Journal of Electroanalytical Chemistry, 884. Retrieved from: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1572665721000990 Green Car Congress (2022) NEO Battery Materials to integrate recycled silicon into silicon anode materials. Retrieved from: https://www.greencarcongress.com/2022/12/20221230-neo.html |
Technology Readiness Level A technology readiness level (TRL) is a scale used to describe the maturity of a technology while it is being researched (TRLs 1-3), developed (TRLs 4-6) and deployed (TRLs 7-9). | 6–7 – The maturity of this technology varies depending on the electrolyte that is used. In general, this technology is considered pre-production. However, there has been some development of industrial-scale component production. |
Risks | Safety – While SSBs are generally considered to be safer than traditional batteries, they are not without risk. SSBs are anticipated to experience higher temperature rises than those of lithium-ion batteries in future high-energy-density configurations, particularly involving lithium metal anodes, as the same amount of heat is generated under operation over a smaller mass and volume when compared to less energy dense battery types; however, with proper thermal management, this issue is not unmanageable. Green Car Congress (2022). DOE researchers suggest solid-state batteries may not be a safety slam-dunk; thermodynamic models evaluated solid-state and Li-ion safety. Retrieved from: https://www.greencarcongress.com/2022/03/20220307-sandia.html Short-circuit failure scenarios may arise should the integrity of the solid electrolyte be compromised; this occurs when lithium dendrites (projections of metal that can build up on the lithium surface and penetrate the solid electrolyte) can reach the cathode. Ruan, D. et al. (2021). A low-cost silicon-graphite anode made from recycled graphite of spent lithium-ion batteries. Journal of Electroanalytical Chemistry, 884. Retrieved from: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1572665721000990 |
Emissions | The increased resource efficiency and longer lifespan of solid-state batteries will clearly provide scope to reduce emissions associated with EV battery production. According to the European Federation of Transport and Environment, based on a comparison of one of the most promising solid-state batteries to lithium-ion technology and using sustainable lithium sources, a battery's carbon footprint could be cut by as much as 39%. Carey, N. (2022). Solid-state EV batteries could cut carbon emissions further, says climate group. Retrieved from: https://www.reuters.com/business/autos-transportation/solid-state-ev-batteries-could-cut-carbon-emissions-further-says-climate-group-2022-07-18/#:~:text=Based%20on%20a%20comparison%20of,and%20Environment%20(T%26E)%20said. SSBs do, however, have risks of other harmful byproducts associated with their production; this is dependent on materials used in the anode and the cathode used to make them. These risks can therefore vary significantly. Further research and development of SSBs will prove critical for minimising harmful emissions resulting from their production. |
Strengths | Higher energy density – By using a solid electrolyte instead of liquid, SSBs can include greater volumes of electrode material in the same battery volume as batteries with non-solid electrolytes. Some prototypes have demonstrated energy densities over 1,000 Wh/L, compared to 600–700 Wh/L for current lithium-ion designs. This can increase range and/or decrease battery size. Faster charging – Solid electrolytes have higher ionic conductivity, thus allowing ions to move faster during charging and discharging. While SSBs are not yet mature enough to have real-world data regarding speed of charging and range, Toyota has announced a date when they aim to have solid-state batteries used in EV production (2027) – stating that they hope to achieve charge rates that could charge an EV battery to 80% in 10–15 minutes, compared to 30–60 minutes for current EVs. Toyota is the first major car manufacturer to make this level of commitment to commercialising SSBs. Improved safety – Unlike batteries using liquid electrolytes, solid electrolytes are non-flammable and have a great thermal stability. These attributes are vital as batteries increase in size. Longer lifespan – Solid electrolytes maintain properties better over repeated charging and discharging. This enables a greater number of cycles before degradation, providing potential to significantly increase the life span of a battery – ultimately reducing costs. Some SSBs in development have been reported to last for over 9000 cycles. Cheng, Z. et al. (2022). Achieving long cycle life for all-solid-state rechargeable Li-I2 battery by a confined dissolution strategy. Nat Commun, 13, 125. Retrieved from: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-021-27728-0 Less use of harmful materials – Compared with lithium-ion batteries, the manufacture of SSBs may require less cobalt. Cobalt is rare, expensive and associated with potentially unethical mining processes. The simpler pack design and potentially lower manufacturing costs could make solid state batteries cheaper than liquid lithium-ion. Lower cost – As a result of many of the attributes previously listed, SSBs require fewer safety components and cooling systems than lithium-ion batteries. Additionally, they use fewer raw materials during manufacture and typically have simpler designs. These considerations potentially reduce overall (material, processing and maintenance) costs. It is worth noting, however, that the relative immaturity of this technology means these potential cost savings have not yet been realised. Wide operating temperatures – The solid electrolytes used in SSBs – typically manufactured from ceramics or polymers – do not evaporate or decompose when exposed to high temperatures. Consequently, SSBs can maintain their performance and safety even in harsh thermal conditions. While lithium-ion batteries operate best at ambient temperatures, SSBs work well across a wider range (including extreme heat). Frąckiewicz, M. (2023). How do solid-state batteries handle high temperatures? Retrieved from: https://ts2-space.webpkgcache.com/doc/-/s/ts2.space/en/how-do-solid-state-batteries-handle-high-temperatures/ Improved recyclability – The recycling procedures for SSBs are significantly simpler and require less energy compared to traditional batteries; there is evidence of research underway looking at how these processes can be realised in industry. Waidha, A. et al. (2023). Recycling All-Solid-State Li-ion Batteries: A Case Study of the Separation of Individual Components Within a System Composed of LTO, LLZTO and NMC. ChemSusChem, 16. Retrieved from: https://chemistry-europe.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/cssc.202202361 |
Barriers to circularity | Raw material usage – SSBs require more lithium than traditional lithium-ion batteries, which could put a strain on global lithium supplies. However, as with traditional lithium-ion batteries, advances in recycling and alternative materials could help to reduce the reliance on these materials and increase their circularity. Scaling-up production – SSBs are currently difficult to manufacture at scale. An effective circular system for SSBs would require significant volumes of batteries to reach end-of-life to consequently make recycling economically viable (and thus to make the system circular). Given the immaturity of the technology, scale-up is naturally required. Lack of recycling infrastructure – Despite SSBs being easier to recycle, the nascent state of the technology means there is a lack of recycling infrastructure. However, this is likely to change as the technology develops and further investments are made. The shift to SSBs also raises questions about the future of the existing lithium-ion battery recycling infrastructure due to the heavy investment that has already been made in developing processes and facilities for recycling lithium-ion batteries. As the demand for these batteries decreases, the recycling industry will need to adapt. This could involve repurposing existing facilities or investing in new technologies to handle SSBs. |
Applicability to Nordic Context | According to an article published by Business Norway, the Nordic countries are “not aiming for world battery domination”, but rather a sustainable closed-loop battery ecosystem within Europe. An objective is to shift battery manufacturing away from the Far East, where they are predominantly produced. This alliance between Norway, Finland and Sweden specifically is known as the Nordic Battery Collaboration. It aims to utilise the synergistic properties and skills of these countries to achieve a closed-loop system:
Together, these countries possess all the essential elements to establish a circular battery ecosystem and value chain in the Nordic region. Solid-state batteries align extremely well with the ambitions of the Nordic battery alliance; their increased lifespan, reduced raw material consumption and potential for improved recyclability make them a perfect fit for EV production in Nordic countries. Their wider operating temperature range also makes them a suitable choice for use in EVs for the colder climates felt in the Nordics. |
Technology Readiness Level A technology readiness level (TRL) is a scale used to describe the maturity of a technology while it is being researched (TRLs 1-3), developed (TRLs 4-6) and deployed (TRLs 7-9). | 7 – Sodium-ion batteries are on the brink of commercialisation for EV applications. CATL, one of the world’s largest lithium battery manufacturers (based in China), is launching commercial-scale manufacturing of sodium-ion batteries for EVs. Zhukov, A. (2023). Sodium-ion Batteries are on the Horizon: How do they Measure up to Lithium-ion? Retrieved from: https://www.machinedesign.com/materials/article/21274631/sodiumion-batteries-are-on-the-horizon-how-do-they-measure-up-to-lithiumion |
Risks | Low cycle life – Lithium-ion batteries usually have a longer cycle life compared to sodium-ion batteries. Sodium-ion batteries, as of current technology, tend to degrade faster over multiple cycles, reducing their overall lifespan. Low energy density – Sodium-ion batteries generally have a lower energy density compared to lithium-based batteries (mostly due to their higher atomic mass), which makes them generally less suitable for EV applications – where lightweighting is regarded as one of the priorities in future EV development. This could be a significant barrier to commercialisation in EV use. |
Emissions | Sodium mining is less environmentally intensive than lithium mining. Sodium is abundantly available in more geographies than lithium. The lack of the need for copper and cobalt use within sodium-ion cells reduces this impact further. There is still, however, a risk of contaminating wastewater and soil as a result of sodium-ion battery production, namely from the solvents used during the manufacturing process, but these risks are notably small in comparison to the majority of lithium-ion based battery chemistries. |
Strengths | Lower cost – Sodium is more than 500 times more abundant than lithium and can be extracted from seawater at a low cost, using established processes. GEP (2023). Sodium-ion vs. lithium-ion battery: Which is a better alternative? https://www.gep.com/blog/strategy/lithium-ion-vs-sodium-ion-battery Lilley, S. (2021). Sodium-ion Batteries: Inexpensive and Sustainable Energy Storage. Retrieved from: https://www.faraday.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/Faraday_Insights_11_FINAL.pdf Improved safety – Sodium-ion batteries are safer than many other battery technologies, particularly during transport. Unlike (for example) lithium-ion batteries, sodium-ion batteries can be transported with the battery terminals directly connected and the voltage maintained at zero. This fully discharged state significantly lowers the risk of fire, eliminating the need for costly safety precautions during transportation. Additionally, sodium-ion electrolytes possess a higher flash point, the lowest temperature at which a substance can vaporise and create an ignitable mixture with the air. This characteristic makes sodium-ion electrolytes less prone to ignition, further reducing fire risk. Lilley, S. (2021). Sodium-ion Batteries: Inexpensive and Sustainable Energy Storage. Retrieved from: https://www.faraday.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/Faraday_Insights_11_FINAL.pdf Future scalability – A major hurdle in introducing new battery technology commercially is the requirement to establish and expand novel manufacturing techniques. Once scientists perfect a battery in the lab, substantial financial investment is necessary for manufacturers to increase production scale and reduce per-unit costs. Developing supply chains also demands time to mature and achieve the necessary scale to drive down material expenses. While the compositions of sodium-ion and lithium-ion active materials differ, their synthesis and handling methods are very similar, and the overall production process remains largely unchanged. Therefore, existing lithium-ion battery plants and cell formats can be adapted for manufacturing sodium-ion batteries. In fact, some manufacturers have already successfully created prototype sodium-ion batteries using this method and are able to seamlessly integrate them into their existing facilities. Lilley, S. (2021). Sodium-ion Batteries: Inexpensive and Sustainable Energy Storage. Retrieved from: https://www.faraday.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/Faraday_Insights_11_FINAL.pdf High temperature range – Sodium-ion batteries typically have a broader operational temperature range compared to some other battery chemistries. They can function effectively in a wider range of temperatures, which can be advantageous in EV use in more extreme environments. |
Barriers to circularity | As a comparatively abundant resource, sodium arguably has a higher potential for circularity than lithium. However, sodium-ion battery manufacture occurs almost entirely in China, leaving little opportunity for circular supply chains in the Nordics. Nordic countries would need to begin construction of sodium-ion plants to reduce reliance on Chinese imports and increase circularity. As with many other battery technologies, the recyclability of sodium-ion batteries is limited by the (lack of) existing infrastructure. There is not yet enough demand for sodium-ion batteries to incentivise the establishment of a recycling network. |
Applicability to Nordic Context | Sodium-ion cells currently show great potential to align with the aims of the Nordic countries; they can be considered more sustainable compared to lithium-based batteries due to the abundance of sodium, along with their overall lowered raw material requirements. Their wider operating temperature range also makes them a suitable choice for use in EVs for the colder climates of the Nordics. However, their lower energy density would likely limit their use to short range vehicles in the EV market (if they are used at all). It is anticipated that sodium-ion batteries are better suited to energy storage applications (versus EVs), where space and weight constraints are not as essential and where low-cost, large-scale production is the main driver. The availability of sodium may suggest that establishing a closed-loop supply chain within the Nordics is a more viable possibility than for other battery technologies. A contributing factor is long coastlines and abundant seawater surrounding the Nordics. While this technology appears applicable to Nordic countries, time and investment are needed to determine the extent to which the sodium-ion battery supply chain is developed – not just in the Nordics, but globally. |
Technology Readiness Level A technology readiness level (TRL) is a scale used to describe the maturity of a technology while it is being researched (TRLs 1-3), developed (TRLs 4-6) and deployed (TRLs 7-9). | 5–6 – This technology is being piloted for application in EV batteries. |
Risks | Uniformity and consistency – Ensuring a uniform and consistent coating on electrodes is crucial for their performance. Achieving consistent coating thickness and distribution across a large scale can be challenging. Scalability – Transitioning from lab-scale to industrial-scale production while maintaining the quality and efficiency of the coating process is a significant challenge. Scalability issues can affect the cost-effectiveness of the technology. Material Selection – Identifying coating materials that are not only effective in enhancing electrode performance but also cost-efficient and readily available in large quantities can be a challenge. Cost – While dry coating has the potential to reduce costs, the initial setup and material costs, especially for specialised binders and powders, can be a challenge. Researchers are working on finding cost-effective solutions. Integration – Integrating dry coating processes into existing manufacturing processes without disrupting the overall production flow is a challenge faced by industries adopting this technology. |
Emissions | Dry coating processes generally require less energy compared to traditional wet coating methods. By reducing energy consumption, dry coating contributes to lower greenhouse gas emission. The absence of solvent-based coatings in dry processes means fewer volatile organic compounds (VOCs) are released into the atmosphere. VOCs can contribute to air pollution and have adverse effects on air quality and human health. Dry coating minimises these emissions, promoting cleaner air. |
Strengths | Despite the complexity often associated with dry coating electrodes, this method offers significant advantages, including cost reduction, shorter fabrication time and enhanced environmental sustainability. By eliminating the need for solvents, the dry coating process streamlines preparation steps and reduces the necessary equipment, thereby decreasing both capital and operational expenses. The reduced reliance on heavy machinery allows for manufacturing electrodes within a fraction of the typical factory space. This not only saves costs but also minimises energy consumption during battery production. Additionally, the quicker dry coating process significantly boosts manufacturing output, leading to lowered costs and energy usage. These advantages could potentially translate into a minimum 10% reduction in battery production costs. Dry electrode coating has also been shown to produce electrode coatings with an increased adhesion strength to the electrode foiling; this will improve the longevity and performance of the battery. |
Barriers to circularity | There are no real barriers to circularity associated with this manufacturing process, but there is a risk that integrating this process into existing facilities could potentially cause parts of existing facilities to become obsolete. This may require the construction of many new ones, but this is countered by the benefit of reduced factory footprint requirements for dry electrode coating equipment. |
Applicability to Nordic Context | If Nordic countries can make substantial developments/investments in this manufacturing process, the benefits for EV battery production could be significant. However, it remains a relatively nascent process. It is a technology worth considering, however, as the overall battery manufacturing value chain in the Nordics is still relatively immature. Therefore, it is anticipated that prioritising efforts to upscale the manufacture of new and better battery chemistries will likely have a greater impact, both improving overall EV battery production and reducing the associated environmental impacts. |
Technology Readiness Level A technology readiness level (TRL) is a scale used to describe the maturity of a technology while it is being researched (TRLs 1-3), developed (TRLs 4-6) and deployed (TRLs 7-9). | 3–4 – Electron Beam Welding for use in EV batteries has been proven in a lab environment. |
Risks | Vacuum environment – Electron beam welding requires a vacuum environment to prevent electron scattering and absorption by air molecules. Maintaining a vacuum can be technically challenging and expensive, especially for large or complex workpieces. Sensitivity to contamination – The electron beam is highly sensitive to contamination, such as dirt, grease or oxides, on the surface of the materials to be welded. Even small impurities can affect the quality of the weld, making thorough cleaning processes crucial. Limited joint accessibility – Electron beam welding requires a direct line of sight between the electron gun and the welding area. This limitation can make it challenging to weld complex geometries or components with restricted access points. High initial costs – The equipment for electron beam welding is expensive to purchase, set up and maintain. This high initial investment can be a barrier for smaller businesses or industries with limited budgets. Skill and expertise – Operating electron beam welding equipment requires skilled technicians with specialised training. Proper set-up and parameter adjustments are critical for successful welds. Finding and training skilled personnel can be a challenge. Material limitations – While electron beam welding is versatile, it is most effective on conductive materials. Welding dissimilar materials with significantly different melting points or thermal conductivities can be challenging. Post-weld inspection – Inspecting the quality of the welds can be complex due to the internal nature of the welds and the need for advanced inspection techniques such as X-rays. Ensuring the integrity of the welds may require additional testing and quality control measures. Energy consumption – Creating and maintaining the vacuum environment, as well as accelerating the electrons, requires a significant amount of energy. However, this is not the case for all types of electron beam welding; the levels of energy usage depend on the context (thickness, material type, etc.). |
Emissions | While electron beam welding benefits from having a low material usage due to the absence of a filler that is typically required for conventional welding methods, it can require a large amount of energy, raising some environmental concerns. |
Strengths | Precision – EBW offers high precision, making it suitable for delicate and intricate welding tasks. Minimal heat affected zone (HAZ) – Due to the concentrated heat input, EBW results in a small heat-affected zone, reducing the risk of distortion and preserving material properties. Deep weld penetration – Electron beams can penetrate deep into the material, allowing for welding thick sections. Improved resource efficiency – As EBW does not require filler material, it may result in the use of less raw material. |
Barriers to circularity | None |
Applicability to Nordic Context | There is currently no real direct applicability for electron beam welding in Nordic countries. However, if the technology matures, it could be a key tool for ramping up the efficiency of battery production. If the Nordics can get a foothold in its development, then there could be large potential benefits realised in forming a closed-loop battery system within Europe. However, there are currently only a handful of startups that are looking to scale this technology for use in EV battery production, hence its impact is not anticipated to be felt in the industry for a reasonably long time. |