Executive Summary

Eunomia Research & Consulting Ltd. (Eunomia) and Mepex Consult AS (Mepex) were commissioned by the Norwegian Environment Agency (NEA) on behalf of the Nordic Working Group for Circular Economy under the Nordic Council of Ministers to:

Understand the range of technologies available to contribute towards the electric vehicle (EV) battery manufacturing value chain;
Identify the risks associated with each of these technologies;
Highlight the potential emissions understood to result from the operation of these processes; and
Determine barriers to further circularity in each of these value chain stages.

With a primary focus on three key Nordic countries (Norway, Finland, Sweden), the study sought to contribute to building knowledge around technologies and procedures capable of reducing emissions and minimising environmental risks across the EV battery value chain. Ultimately, the intention behind this research was to provide the initial findings capable of underpinning future Best Available Techniques Reference (BREF) documents.

Background and Context

EVs are the fastest growing segment in the mobility sector. The European Union’s (EU) Fit for 55 package introduces emissions reduction targets for vehicles, and EVs are being increasingly considered a vital technology for meeting these targets. However, despite the benefits, the life cycle of EV batteries can result in harmful emissions and environmental risks, in particular depletion of local resources due to mining metals to produce the batteries, and a significant risk of fires and explosions associated with the use and recycling of batteries.

The development and production of EV batteries within Europe are considered a strategic necessity in the context of the clean energy transition and a contributing factor to the ongoing competitiveness of Europe’s automotive sector. At EU-level, the regulatory landscape surrounding EV batteries is primarily shaped by four key policies, The Batteries Directive, The Batteries Regulations, the Waste Frame Directive (WFD) and the Industrial Emissions Directive (IED).

Nordic countries adhere to EU regulation related to the handling of hazardous products, and all in-scope facilities are required to obtain permits that set conditions for their operation in line with the IED’s requirements. Specified environmental considerations for permitting apply at each stage of the EV battery value chain and consist of managing the risk of fire and explosion and chemical leaks with adequate labelling and handling. While these obligations are largely common across the Nordics, requirements can differ subtly between Nordic countries and, in some instances, between regional authorities.

The EV Battery Value Chain

For the purposes of this study, the value chain has been divided into six primary stages. In most instances, these stages feature multiple sub-stages, each requiring specific technologies. The six primary stages are manufacture, distribution, transport, screening, remanufacturing and recycling. The stages not included within the scope of this study are mining of metal ores, refining of raw materials, precursor material production, cathode active material (CAM) production, EV manufacture and use.

The value chain for EV batteries is international and features numerous actors. Throughout the Nordics, local, regional and national authorities regulate activities within mobility, industry, energy and environment. Government funded investments such as Enova, MISTRA and NFR are also key enablers in the EV battery value chain.

Manufacture

The manufacturing stage of the EV battery value chain is highly energy intensive, accounting for around 40–60% of the total emissions associated with the production of an EV. Most EV batteries are lithium-ion, due to their high battery capacity and high energy density compared to other chemistries. However, they carry environmental and resource risks due to the presence of lithium and other metals (e.g., nickel).

Sodium-ion technologies are viewed as a potential alternative to lithium-ion batteries and are currently the only viable chemistry that does not contain lithium. However, improvement in their energy density and cycle life are essential if they are to become commercially competitive with lithium-ion batteries. Other innovative processes are being introduced to reduce emissions and energy use during manufacturing, including dry electrode coating and electron beam welding.

Distribution

The volatile nature of lithium-ion batteries makes them subject to a significant amount of regulation and mandatory safety measures that must be implemented during distribution from battery manufacturing facilities to automotive manufacturers. Guidelines relevant to the transport of lithium-ion batteries include maintaining a minimum charge to mitigate fire risks; packaging protection against various potential risks such as damage, compression, vibration and movement; and labelling that bears the lithium battery warning mark to warn of potential hazards.

Safe transportation of EV batteries relies on implementing rigorous safety protocols, investing in research and development of more environmentally friendly battery technologies, promoting recycling and proper disposal methods and developing local circular value chains. The last of which will be critical for achieving the Nordics’ goal of establishing a closed-loop European battery network.

Collection and Transport

Decommissioned EV lithium-ion batteries are classified as category 9 hazardous materials due to their unstable thermal and electrical properties and the risk of thermal runaway if wrongly handled. Several safety regulations must therefore be observed to securely transport lithium-ion batteries to recycling facilities, including appropriate packaging.

A key requirement for both safety and economic viability is to have first line checks and treatment done as close to the customer as possible. Incorporating dismantling within these first line checks can also prevent or minimise the costs associated with movement of unnecessary parts.

Testing

There are several tests that need to be carried out on end-of-life (EOL) batteries to determine their state-of-health (SOH) and remaining useful life (RUL) and these vary by model. There are several risks associated with battery testing and dismantling, including thermal runaway (which could lead to fire), gas leaks and exposure to heavy metals.

Advanced technologies, such as semi automation and non-destructive inspection, are being developed to automate certain steps in the process to mitigate these risks and balance the trade-offs between the high costs of detailed battery scanning and potential uncertainty presented by cheaper processes.

Remanufacturing/Repurposing

Remanufacturing and repurposing prolong the useful life of lithium-ion batteries. Due to the pressure of trying to reach net-zero targets and increased scrutiny around environmental performance, remanufacturing has rapidly progressed. Previously, due to a shortage of new batteries, there was a large surge in companies focusing on their reuse. Typically, these companies achieved limited commercial success due to the availability of suitable EOL batteries.

Remanufacturing is the most advantageous EOL scenario in terms of expanding the value and minimising life-cycle energy consumption and emissions. However, this option has the most stringent battery quality requirements.

Recycling

If the battery’s capacity is significantly reduced, the damaged cells cannot be replaced or the battery chemistry is outdated, recycling is the final option to reclaim precious and scarce metals and reduce the pressure on natural resources. EV battery recycling begins with shredding followed by one or a combination of three main technologies; pyrometallurgical processes, using elevated temperatures to recover metals; hydrometallurgical processes, using aqueous chemistry to dissolve valuable cathode material; and direct recycling, using manual or mechanical processes. Both pyro- and hydrometallurgical processes are widely used on an industrial scale, but each have high levels of associated environmental emissions and barriers to circularity.

Very few alternative technologies are available; instead, the focus on improvements within recycling comes from refinement of existing processes and better management and mitigation of process emissions.

Conclusions

There are a range of technologies available to contribute to the EV battery chain.
There are environmental risks, waste products and emissions associated with each stage of the EV battery value chain, and each technology.
As the EV battery value chain is experiencing rapid growth and evolution at all stages, specific Best Available Techniques (BAT) and BREFs do not yet exist.
In addition to the environmental risks at each stage of the EV battery value chain, there are distinct barriers to the circularity of batteries, from the degradation of battery capacity to the complexity and cost of utilising feasible options.