EVS28KINTEX, Korea, May 3-6, 2015

What are the options for Li-ion batteries after automotive use?

Hakim IDJIS 1,2, D. Attias1,2, A. Ghaffari1, J-C. Bocquet1

1Industrial Engineering Laboratory, Ecole Centrale Paris, Grande Voie des Vignes, 92290 Châtenay-Malabry, France, hakim.idjis@ecp.fr

2 Armand Peugeot Chair

Introduction

I. Motivations for the recovery of EV batteries

1. A mandatory recycling rate: 50% of battery weight.

2. The use of valuable and potentially scarce materials: Nickel, Cobalt and lithium

3. Batteries have a residual value after automotive end-of-life,

4. Material mining has an impact on the EV life-cycle-assessment.

5. The recovery value chain is emerging

2

Characterization of Li -ion battery recovery

3

Battery technology

4

Pack, Block Module Cells

AnodeCathodeSeparator

Electrolyte

Li +

Casing

Al Cu

graphite

2 Technologies are considered:NMC: Li(Ni 1/3Mn1/3Co1/3)O2 (Reference technology)LFP: LiFePO4 (substituting technology)

� Packaging� Cooling system� Battery Management System � Modules ≈ Cells

Li-ion battery recovery options

• Remanufacturing: Repair of failed batteries in the same configuration for automotive reuse

• Repurposing: Refurbishing of EOL batteries in a different configuration for 2nd life use (stationary energy storage, captive fleets …)

• Recycling: several processes are available5

End-Of-Life

Remanufacturing

Recycling

Repurposing

Recycling processes

6

Disas-sembly

MechanicalConditioning

Hydro-metallurgy

Pyro-metallurgy

Hydro-metallurgy

Disas-sembly

Co Ni

Fe Cu

P1

P2

Li Co

Ni Cu

Al + Cu, Steel

Plastics

Black mass

Al + Cu, Steel

Plastics

Cells

Own(Kwade, 2010)(Sangwan et Jindal, 2012)

Assessment of the recovery options

7

Recycled materials revenue

8

Based on reference batteries : NMC - Li(Ni 1/3Mn 1/3Co1/3)O2 batteries

• Recycling revenue = 1450 €/t

• Co, Ni, Cu = 90% of revenue

• Marginally maximum increase in revenue: + 30 €/t

Battery evolution

• Manganese enrichment (Ni0,1Mn0,8Co0,1): Revenue = 700 - 750 €/t

• Nickel enrichment (Ni0,8Mn0,1Co0,1): Revenue = 1530 €/t

• Shift to LFP (LiFePO4) : Revenue = 400 - 450 €/t

P2

e

P1

e

Contribution of materials (P1)

9

Recycling rate = 58%

Revenue = 1450€/t

• Active materials (Ni, Mn, Co) contribute only to 17% of the recycling rate• With the exception of lithium, the materials considered to be potentially critical

(Ni, Co, Cu) are already recycled. • 10 times lithium price increase� +5% in recycling revenue• Similar conclusions for P2

P1 : Disassembly + Mechanical conditioning + Hydrometallurgy• Assuming the financial data provided in the Lithorec project (Hoyer et al., 2014).

100% NMC batteries. The profitability of P1 is estimated

• It is likely that Recycling will be a net cost, even higher with battery technology evolution and the inclusion of collection cost

P2: Disassembly + Pyrometallurgy + Hydrometallurgy• The difference between P2 & P1 is the operation of pyrometallurgy instead of

mechanical conditioning. Pyrometallurgy requires higher investments.• Recycling revenue being the same, same conclusion for P2 � Recycling will be a

net cost for OEMs.10

Recycling profitability and cost for OEMs

Recycling cost (without collection cost) � Cost for OEM

25% 50% 100%

Pay back period: 8 - 10 y

Internal Rate of Return : 15 - 20% ( -1 000 €/t) ( - 350 €/t) (- 60 €/t)

Pay back period: 5 - 7 y

Internal Rate of Return : 20 - 30% ( - 1500 €/t) ( - 700 €/t) ( - 300 €/t)

Starting activity intensityP1 (Disassembly + Mechanical

Cond. + Hydrometallurgy)

Repurposing

• Repurposing: Refurbishing of EOL batteries in a different configuration for 2nd

life use (stationary energy storage, captive fleets …)

• Repurposing is at stage of development in research projects and OEM’s initiatives

• Analysis of the profitability of repurposing with the following assumptions:

11

Data For a 16 kWh battery For 1 t Source

Initial Investment 22 711 701 €

Max capacity kWh / y 80 000 5 000 ≃ 1 000 t

Variable cost€/kWh 15€-30€ 240€ – 480€ 1 200€ -2 400€ Neubauer et a l ., (2012)

New Bat price €/kWh 250€ - 400€ 4 000€ - 6 400€ 20 000€ - 32 000€

Average in l i terature

Repurposed Bat

price €/kWh

=New * 30%

75€ - 120€ 1 200€ - 2 000€ 6 000€ -9 600€

Neubauer et a l ., (2012),

(2013)

Collection cost €/kWh 19 € 300 € 1 500 € Estimation

Standridge and Corneal ,

(2014)

Repurposing

• Results:

• If new battery price drops under 300 €, repurposing is not profitable � Starting from 2020 – 2025, it is not reasonable to invest in repurposing

• Max cap 80 000 kWh ≃ 1 000 t of batteries � Volume is less an issue for repurposing

• When repurposing is profitable (IRR >= 15%), minimum revenue is 60€ kWh (3 500 € / t) � Repurposing can pay for recycling and reduce overall battery price

New Repur. 15 € 20 € 25 € 30 €

250 € 75 € 7% 5% 2% -2%

270 € 81 € 10% 8% 5% 2%

290 € 87 € 12% 10% 8% 6%

310 € 93 € 15% 13% 11% 9%

330 € 99 € 17% 15% 13% 11%

350 € 105 € 20% 18% 16% 14%

370 € 111 € 22% 20% 18% 16%

400 € 120 € 25% 23% 21% 20%

Variable cost /kWhBattery price

Internal rate of return

New Repur. 15 € 20 € 25 € 30 €

250 € 75 € 41 € 36 € 31 € 26 €

270 € 81 € 47 € 42 € 37 € 32 €

290 € 87 € 53 € 48 € 43 € 38 €

310 € 93 € 59 € 54 € 49 € 44 €

330 € 99 € 65 € 60 € 55 € 50 €

350 € 105 € 71 € 66 € 61 € 56 €

370 € 111 € 77 € 72 € 67 € 62 €

400 € 120 € 86 € 81 € 76 € 71 €

Repurposing variable cost /kWhBattery price/kWh

Revenue / kWh

Remanufacturing

• Remanufacturing: Repair of failed batteries in the same configuration forautomotive reuse

• Today, there is no known remanufacturing activity of lithium-ion batteries

• Analysis of the profitability of remanufacturing with the following assumptions:

13

Data For a 16 kWh battery For 1 t Source

Initial Investment 18 900 000 €

Max capacity kWh / y 480 000 30 000 ≃ 6 000 t

Variable cost€/kWh 80€-140€ 1 280€ – 2 240€ 6 400€ -11 200€

Standridge and Corneal ,

(2014) + Es timation

Remanufactured Bat

price €/kWh 100€ - 200€ 1 600€ - 3 200€ 8 000€ -16 000€ Conservative assumption

Collection cost €/kWh 19 € 300 € 1 500 € Estimation

Standridge and Corneal ,

(2014)

• Results:

• 25% of Max capacity≃ 1 500 t of end-of-life batteries � Volume is less an issue for remanufacturing.

• When remanufacturing is profitable (IRR >= 15%), minimum revenue is 1000 € / t � Remanufacturing can pay for recycling and reduce overall battery cost

14

Starting activity intensity = 25%

80 € 100 € 120 € 140 €

100 €

125 € 27% 3%

150 € 46% 31% 12%

175 € 63% 50% 35% 18%

200 € 80% 67% 53% 39%

Internal Rate of

Return

Reman. variable cost /kWh

Rem.

Bat.

Price

/kWh

80 € 100 € 120 € 140 €

100 € 1 € 19 €- 39 €- 59 €-

125 € 26 € 6 € 14 €- 34 €-

150 € 51 € 31 € 11 € 9 €-

175 € 76 € 56 € 36 € 16 €

200 € 101 € 81 € 61 € 41 €

Revenue / kWhReman. variable cost /kWh

Rem.

Bat.

Price

/kWh

Revenue / kWh

Remanufacturing

Conclusion

15

Recovery option Nature Revenue €/t Comments

Recycling Obligatory Negative

Economies of scale are importantSensitive to the evolution of battery technologyP1 & P2 perform the same in terms of recyclingrevenue and recycling rate

RepurposingOptional, if profitable

4800 - 7000Does not necessitate big volumesSensitive to the evolution of new batteries pricesTechnological challenges, Safety & regulatory issues

RemanufacturingOptional, if profitable 800 - 8 000

Does not necessitate big volumesTechnological challenges, less organizational and legalconstraints

• Remanufacturing seems to be more feasible than repurposing, more challengeshave to be met in repurposing.

• Recycling can not be self sustained just with recycled materials revenue.Remanufacturing or repurposing might be the solution to payfor recycling andreduce the overall battery price.

EVS28KINTEX, Korea, May 3-6, 2015

What are the options for Li-ion batteries after automotive use?

Hakim IDJIS 1,2, D. Attias1,2, A. Ghaffari1, J-C. Bocquet1

1Industrial Engineering Laboratory, Ecole Centrale Paris, Grande Voie des Vignes, 92290 Châtenay-Malabry, France, hakim.idjis@ecp.fr

2 Armand Peugeot Chair

Acknowledgments

This work was benefited from the support of the chair “PSA Peugeot CitroenAutomobile: Hybrid technologies and Economy of Electromobility. So-called ArmandPEUGEOT Chair”, led by Ecole Centrale Paris, ESSEC and SUPELEC, and sponsoredby PEUGEOT CITROEN Automobile

17

Biblio• Hoyer, C., Kieckhäfer, K., Spengler, T.S., 2014. Technology and capacity planning for the recycli

ng of lithium-ion electric vehicle batteries in Germany. J. Bus. Econ.

• Neubauer, J., Pesaran, A., 2011. The ability of battery second use strategies to impact plug-in electric vehicle prices and serve utility energy storage applications. J. Power Sources 196,

• Neubauer, J.S., Pesaran, A., Williams, B., Ferry, M., Eyer, J.,2012. A Techno-Economic Analysisof PEV Battery Second Use: Repurposed-Battery Selling Price and Commercial and IndustrialEnd-User Value (SAE Technical Paper No. 2012-01-0349). SAE International, Warrendale, PA.

• Standridge, C.R., Corneal, L., 2014. Remanufacturing, repurposing, and recycling of post-vehicle-application lithium-ion batteries. Mineta National Transit ResearchConsortium, San José, CA

• Kwade, A., 2010. On the way to an “intelligent” recycling of traction batteries. Presented at the 7th Braunschweiger Symposium on Hybrid, Electric Vehicles and Energy Management,Braunschweigh.

• Sangwan, K.S., Jindal, A., 2013. An integrated fuzzy multi-criteria evaluation of lithium-ionbattery recycling processes. Int. J. Sustain. Eng. 6, 359–371. doi:10.1080/19397038.2012.735717

18

Lithorec estimates

Small Large

Capacity

Invest

Fixed expenses €/a

Capacity

Invest

Fixed expenses €/a

6000 BEV-eq/a* 60000 BEV-eq/a*

560 000 € 3 100 000 €

227 000 € 1 020 000 €

1500 t cells/a 15000

2 100 000 € 5 240 000 €

120 000 € 255 000 €

3300 t coating / a 33000 t coating / a

10 000 000 € 40 000 000 €

1 350 000 € 5 380 000 €

Disassembly

Mechanical Conditioning

Hydrometallurgical

Conditioning