Purpose: Life cycle assessment (LCA) literature evaluating environmental burdens from lithium-ion battery (LIB) production facilities lacks an understanding of how environmental burdens have changed over time due to a transition to large-scale production. The purpose of this study is hence to examine the effect of upscaling LIB production using unique life cycle inventory data representative of large-scale production. A sub-goal of the study is to examine how changes in background datasets affect environmental impacts.Method: We remodel an often-cited study on small-scale battery production by Ellingsen et al. (2014), representative of operations in 2010, and couple it to updated Ecoinvent background data. Additionally, we use new inventory data to model LIB cell production in a large-scale facility representative of the latest technology in LIB production. The cell manufactured in the small-scale facility is an NMC-1:1:1 (nickel-manganese-cobalt) pouch cell, whereas in the large-scale facility, the cell produced in an NMC-8:1:1 cylindrical cell. We model production in varying carbon intensity scenarios using recycled and exclusively primary materials as input options. We assess environmental pollution–related impacts using ReCiPe midpoint indicators and resource use impacts using the surplus ore method (ReCiPe) and the crustal scarcity indicator.Results and discussion: Remodelling of the small-scale factory using updated background data showed a 34% increase in greenhouse gas emissions — linked to updated cobalt sulfate production data. Upscaling production reduced emissions by nearly 45% in the reference scenario (South Korean energy mix) due to a reduced energy demand in cell production. However, the emissions reduce by a further 55% if the energy is sourced from a low-carbon intensity source (Swedish energy mix), shifting almost all burden to upstream supply chain. Regional pollution impacts such as acidification and eutrophication show similar trends. Toxic emissions also reduce, but unlike other impacts, they were already occurring during mining and ore processing. Lastly, nickel, cobalt, and lithium use contribute considerably to resource impacts. From a long-term perspective, copper becomes important from a resource scarcity perspective.Conclusions: Upscaling LIB production shifts environmental burdens to upstream material extraction and production, irrespective of the carbon intensity of the energy source. Thus, a key message for the industry and policy makers is that further reductions in the climate impacts from LIB production are possible, only when the upstream LIB supply chain uses renewable energy source. An additional message to LCA practitioners is to examine the effect of changing background systems when evaluating maturing technologies.

This study presents a review of how the end-of-life (EOL) stage is modelled in life cycle assessment (LCA) studies of lithium-ion batteries (LIBs). Twenty-five peer-reviewed journal and conference papers that consider the whole LIB life cycle and describe their EOL modelling approach sufficiently were analyzed. The studies were categorized based on two archetypal EOL modelling approaches in LCA: The cutoff (no material recovery, possibly secondary material input) and EOL recycling (material recovery, only primary material input) approaches. It was found that 19 of the studies followed the EOL recycling approach and 6 the cutoff approach. In addition, almost a third of the studies deviated from the expected setup of the two methods by including both material recovery and secondary material input. Such hybrid approaches may lead to double counting of recycling benefits by both including secondary input (as in the cutoff approach) and substituting primary materials (as in the EOL recycling approach). If the archetypal EOL modelling approaches are not followed, it is imperative that the modelling choices are well-documented and motivated to avoid double counting that leads to over- or underestimations of the environmental impacts of LIBs. Also, 21 studies model hydrometallurgical treatment, and 17 completely omit waste collection.

Life cycle assessment of several common lithium‐ion battery (LIB) cell designs is hindered by lack of cell‐specific large‐scale production data. This issue is further exacerbated by the fact that automotive manufacturers deploy diverse LIB cell types optimized to meet specific application demands through variations in chemistry, internal design, and format, posing significant challenges in assessing the environmental impacts of different cell types. To address this, this study proposes a parameterization methodology that links cell design parameters, such as electrode and casing area, and cell energy with production processes to investigate the influence of cell type on climate and resources impacts. The parameterization methodology is applied across 14 cell types employing graphite and nickel manganese cobalt oxide electrodes, varying in format, internal design, and nickel content. Results reveal substantial variability in energy demand during production when reported per cell, ranging from 1 to 30 kWh/cell for electricity and 2 to 50 MJ/cell for cooling. When reported per kWh _cell the variation is smaller, 61–63 kWh/kWh _cell for electricity and 107 MJ/kWh _cell for cooling. Impacts of power‐optimized cells are higher than energy‐optimized cells due to larger negative electrodes of the former. Cylindrical cells have lower impacts than prismatic cells owing to their superior volumetric efficiency. Higher volumetric efficiency of single‐ over four‐jelly rolls in prismatic cells also yielded lower impacts. Thus, pointing to the importance of internal cell design when assessing environmental impacts. Finally, higher‐nickel‐content chemistries exhibit reduced climate and resource impacts due to a decreased reliance on cobalt which has higher impact during extraction and production.