ECODESIGN BATTERIES –SECOND STAKEHOLDER MEETING TASK … · 3. Results Task 5 Main comments on...

VITO icons can be found on: Y:\_Stores\Store02\BeeldData\Logo's\__VITO\Iconen

VITO pictures can be found on: Y:\_Stores\Store02\BeeldData\Foto

ECODESIGN BATTERIES – SECOND STAKEHOLDER MEETINGTASK 5 + DRAFT TASK 6: ENVIRONMENT & ECONOMICS

Paul Van Tichelen, Karolien Peeters, Wai Chung Lam

May 2th, 2019 – Albert Borschette Centre ‐ Brussels

2

AGENDA

1. Introduction General assumptions Overview of the seven base cases (BCs) The Functional Unit (FU) Used Life Cycle Inventory (LCI) data

3. Results Task 5 Main comments on version 1 and changes Main conclusions Comparison with PEF and other literature sources

4. Draft results of Task 6 Selection of leading environmental impact category First results Task 6

Ecodesign Batteries Second Stakeholder Meeting 02.05.2019



ECODESIGN BATTERIES – FIRST STAKEHOLDER MEETINGTASK 5 ‐ 1. INTRODUCTION

Wai Chung Lam


General assumptions


4

1. INTRODUCTION

Scope (as defined in Task 1 in line with Product Environmental Footprint (PEF)): ‘High Specific Energy Rechargeable Batteries for Mobile Applications with High Capacity’

A Base Case Is a conscious abstraction of the reality, necessary for practical reasons Represents average EU product on the market in terms of resources efficiency, emissions

and functional performance Is defined within Task 4

General assumptions


5

1. INTRODUCTION

Calculations on application level, includes number of battery application systems per economic lifetime of application (as described in PEF Category Rules (PEFCR) on rechargeable batteries section 3.3 ) Already received stakeholder comment: to only account the “proportional use” of the

second battery application system (if applicable in certain applications) and not the whole resulting in zero impact for the second life If we would apply this, this should also be applied for the single battery application

system in applications with only one battery application system and also for the Life Cycle Costing (LCC)

Also business‐as‐usual (BAU) is considered in Task 5, and second life applications are not BAU yet

Seven Base Cases (BCs)

6

1. INTRODUCTION

BC1 ‐ Passenger car battery electric vehicle with a high battery capacity (PC BEV HIGH) BC2 ‐ Passenger car battery electric vehicle with a low battery capacity (PC BEV LOW) BC3 ‐ Passenger car plug‐in hybrid electric vehicle (PC PHEV) BC4 ‐ Truck battery electric vehicle (Truck BEV) BC5 ‐ Truck plug‐in hybrid electric vehicle (Truck PHEV) BC6 ‐ Residential storage (Resid. ESS) BC7 ‐ Grid stabilisation (Comm. ESS)


Seven Base Cases (BCs) – assumed parametersComplete overview of all parameters included in Task 5 report

7

1. INTRODUCTION

BC1

PC BEV HIGH

BC2

PC BEV LOW

BC3

PC PHEV

BC4

Truck BEV

BC5

Truck PHEV

BC6

Resid. ESS

BC7

Comm. ESS

Economic lifetime of application (Tapp) [yr] 13 14 13 14 12 20 20

Application service energy (AS) [kWh/Tapp] 43,680 29,568 19,656 940,800 890,400 40,000 120∙106

Nominal battery system capacity [kWh] 80 40 12 30 20 10 10

Number of batteries in the application [‐] 1 1 1 12 8 1 3,000Service life of battery (Tbat) [y] 14.40 13.43 10.67 8.04 5.33 17.02 17.02Number of battery application systems per Tapp (Ass) [‐]

1 2 2 2 3 2 2

Weight of one battery [kg] 609 304 126 256 210 128 128Conversion to unit analysis [kg/kWh] 0,014 0,021 0,013 0,007 0,006 0,006 0,006


Functional Unit (FU)

8

1. INTRODUCTION

Same FU as PEFCR

1 kWh (kilowatt‐hour) of the total output energy delivered over the service life by the battery system (measured in kWh).


Used Life Cycle Inventory (LCI) data

9

1. INTRODUCTION

MEErP EcoReport tool 2014: 55 common materials Extra materials addable: battery‐specific raw materials Chemistries: based on GREET2 Model by UChicago Argonne, LLC Other extra materials: based on PEFCR on rechargeable batteries Details included in section 5.1.3.1


nr Name materialPrimairy Energy (MJ)

Electr energy (MJ)

feedstockwater proces

Water cool

waste haz waste non GWP AD

unitNew Materials production phase (category 'Extra')

MJ MJ MJ L L g gkg CO2 eq.

g SO2 eq.

100 NCM622 253,17 190,62 0,46 7447,29 19,17 1070,60101 NCM424 230,00 168,93 0,44 6289,89 17,60 751,10102 NCM111 254,44 196,19 0,47 6168,18 19,42 669,03103 NCM532 244,70 181,29 0,46 6897,22 18,53 915,06104 LMO 45,34 53,22 0,12 1835,15 2,85 11,83105 NCA 290,28 220,87 0,51 8995,14 22,08 1405,11106 LFP 57,28 81,76 0,23 3609,14 3,60 22,12107 Carbon 81,67 2,21 0,02 76,87 1,87 9,85108 PVDF 218,38 171,93 0,30 1099,65 15,30 71,33109 ZrO2 68,56 84,57 0,14 540,44 4,83 27,04110 Graphite 81,67 2,21 0,02 76,87 1,87 9,85111 CMC 88,66 55,62 0,17 364,92 3,48 21,81112 LiPF6 76,99 83,79 0,66 11949,90 6,24 35,38113 LiFSI 324,36 377,25 0,62 13052,61 21,57 199,60114 EC (Ethylene carbonate) 41,46 16,03 0,02 153,20 1,62 5,89115 DMC (Dimethyl carbonate) 58,40 20,29 0,04 206,10 2,21 8,34116 EMC (Ethyl methyl carbonate) 58,40 20,29 0,04 206,10 2,21 8,34117 PC (Propylene carbonate) 112,22 52,85 0,00 150,61 7,87 24,91118 Hydrochloric acid 16,41 24,58 0,05 156,14 0,75 5,92119 n‐Methylpyrolidone (NMP) 137,80 283,26 0,14 588,01 7,10 32,13120



ECODESIGN BATTERIES – FIRST STAKEHOLDER MEETINGTASK 5 – 2. RESULTS TASK 5

Wai Chung Lam


Main comments on version 1 and changes

2. RESULTS TASK 5

Main comments on the BCs, parameters and Bill‐of‐Materials (BOM) used

Main changes version 2 Completely reviewed based on the changes in the previous tasks All the parameters are aligned with the previous tasks LCI data sources changed to model the changed BOMs as accurate as possible Includes results of all 7 BCs

11 Ecodesign Batteries Second Stakeholder Meeting 02.05.2019

Main conclusions

2. RESULTS TASK 5

Biggest contributing life cycle stage = production


Main conclusions

2. RESULTS TASK 5

Biggest contributing life cycle stage = production Cathode active material

13

Contribution to impact category X > 50% 25% < X < 50% 10% < X < 25% X <10%

Materials weight GERwater (p + c)

haz. waste

non‐haz. waste GWP AD VOC POP HMa PAH PM HMw EUP

Cathode active material 23% 27% 37% 0% 71% 36% 75% 61% 27% 70% 4% 48% 47% 56%Cathode, other materials 7% 7% 2% 0% 1% 7% 2% 2% 5% 1% 15% 6% 3% 2%Cell anode 24% 14% 1% 0% 1% 9% 11% 8% 7% 10% 3% 4% 19% 8%Cell electrolyte 11% 4% 3% 0% 10% 3% 1% 6% 1% 3% 0% 2% 0% 3%Cell separator 2% 1% 1% 0% 0% 1% 0% 0% 1% 0% 3% 1% 1% 0%Auxillary materials 16% 50% 0% 7% 14% 3% 22% 10% 11% 2% 12% 1% 31%Cell packaging 8% 7% 0% 0% 1% 7% 2% 0% 8% 1% 21% 8% 5% 0%Module 5% 5% 1% 0% 1% 4% 1% 0% 7% 1% 9% 5% 2% 0%System ‐ BMS 4% 3% 2% 40% 2% 3% 3% 0% 9% 2% 0% 1% 7% 0%System ‐ thermal man. 4% 4% 0% 0% 1% 4% 1% 0% 5% 0% 13% 4% 3% 0%System packaging 12% 12% 3% 60% 4% 12% 3% 0% 20% 1% 30% 9% 11% 0%


Main conclusions

2. RESULTS TASK 5

xEv PC BCs bigger environmental impact per kWh delivered over their lifetime in comparison with truck and ESS BCs See concluding overview Table 60 in report


BC1

PC BEV HIGH

BC2

PC BEV LOW

BC3

PC PHEV

BC4

Truck BEV

BC5

Truck PHEV

BC6

Resid. ESS

BC7

Comm. ESS

Total energy (GER) per FU [MJ/kWh] 5.01 6.56 4.78 2.76 2.65 2.19 2.19

Greenhouse Gases in GWP100 per FU [kg CO2 eq./kWh]

0.24 0.31 0.22 0.13 0.12 0.10 0.10

Acidification, emissions per FU [g SO2 eq./kWh] 3.19 4.56 1.91 1.29 0.95 0.71 0.71

Particulate Matter (PM, dust) per FU [g/kWh] 0.21 0.31 0.16 0.09 0.07 0.07 0.07

Main conclusions

2. RESULTS TASK 5

BEV PC BCs highest Levelized Cost Of Energy (LCOE) Truck BCs lowest LCOE


BC1

PC BEV HIGH

BC2

PC BEV LOW

BC3

PC PHEV

BC4

Truck BEV

BC5

Truck PHEV

BC6

Resid. ESS

BC7

Comm. ESS

LCOE or LCC per FU [EUR/kWh] 0.452 0.538 0.367 0.172 0.121 0.283 0.273

LCC total for all batteries in application per Tapp [EUR/appl.]

19,730 15,894 7,212 162,093 107,438 11,337 32,779,404

Comparison with PEF pilot

2. RESULTS TASK 5

Only to check if the order of magnitude of the results is in the same range Only production stage, as the other life cycle stages are based on very different scenarios

16

PEF

e-mobility Li-ion

BC1

PC BEV HIGH

BC2

PC BEV LOW

Specifications Battery weight [kg]

Number of battery application systems per Tapp (Ass) [-]

Total energy delivered over the lifetime [kWh]

Conversion to unit analysis [kg/kWh]

225

1

8,000

0.028

609

1

43,680

0,014

304

2

29,568

0,021

GWP results production phase [kg CO2 eq./FU1] Raw material acquisition Manufacturing of the product Total production phase

0.244 (63.4%) 0.141 (36.6%) 0.385

0.129 (65.6%) 0.068 (34.3%) 0.197

0.191 (65.6%) 0.100 (34.4%) 0.290

GWP results per kg battery application system [kg CO2 eq./kg] Raw material acquisition Manufacturing of the product Total production phase

8.66 5.05

13.70

9.28 4.86

14.14

9.28 4.86

14.14


Comparison with other literature sources

2. RESULTS TASK 5

Peters, et al. (2017): Average: 110 kg CO2/kWh

storage capacity

17

BC1

PC BEV HIGH

BC2

PC BEV LOW

BC3

PC PHEV

BC4

Truck BEV

BC5

Truck PHEV

BC6

Resid. ESS

BC7

Comm. ESS

GWP results per kWh storage capacity [kg CO2 eq./kWh] Raw material Manufacturing Total production

70.57 36.96

107.53

70.57 36.96

107.53

93.98 51.93

145.91

72.75 41.52

114.27

93.98 51.93

145.91

89.35 64.50

153.85

89.35 64.50

153.85




ECODESIGN BATTERIES – FIRST STAKEHOLDER MEETINGTASK 5 – 3. DRAFT RESULTS TASK 6

Paul van Tichelen


Selection of leading environmental impact category

3. DRAFT RESULTS TASK 6

Based on external marginal costs (societal costs) Top 3 based on EcoReport results: Acidification potential Greenhouse gases/global warming potential (GWP) Particulate matter

However the rates within EcoReport date from 2014 Especially rate of GWP is very low

Based on more recent studies on external environmental costing, GWP on highest position

Global warming potential [kg CO2 eq.] as leading category


First results Task 6


20


Comparison of BAU results with results of the design options: Higher energy density Prolonged lifetime Low carbon electricity mix: not calculated in EcoReport, due limitations to extract the

amount of primary energy of which electricity along the complete production chain For scenario analysis in Task 7 made rough estimates

THANK YOU FOR YOUR ATTENTION

24

For commenting please use form https://ecodesignbatteries.eu/files/attachments/ED_Battery_commentsv2.docxand e‐mail it to [email protected]

Deadline for sending comments on draft Task 6: 22 May 2019


ECODESIGN BATTERIES –SECOND STAKEHOLDER MEETING TASK … · 3. Results Task 5 Main comments on...

Documents

Transcript of ECODESIGN BATTERIES –SECOND STAKEHOLDER MEETING TASK … · 3. Results Task 5 Main comments on...