Carbon Footprint of Spent Ternary Lithium-Ion Battery Waste Recycling

被引：0

作者：

Song X.-C. ^{[1
]}

Du S. ^{[2
]}

Xie M.-H. ^{[1
]}

Deng C.-N. ^{[1
]}

Guo J. ^{[2
]}

Shen P. ^{[1
]}

Zhao C. ^{[1
]}

Chen C. ^{[1
]}

机构：

[1] State Key Laboratory of Environmental Criteria and Risk Assessment, Chinese Research Academy of Environmental Sciences, Beijing

[2] Chinese Research Academy of Environmental Sciences Environmental Technology & Engineering Co.，Ltd., Beijing

来源：

Huanjing Kexue/Environmental Science | 2024年 / 45卷 / 06期

关键词：

carbon footprint; emission reduction potential; spent lithium battery; uncertainty; wet recovery;

D O I：

10.13227/j.hjkx.202307268

中图分类号：

学科分类号：

摘要：

Road transport is the primary source of greenhouse gas emissions in China ' s transportation field. As an important means to achieve the“double carbon”goal in the transportation field，the new energy automobile industry will face a large number of power battery scrapping in the future. In order to quantitatively assess the carbon emission reduction benefits generated by the spent ternary lithium-ion battery waste recycling industry，the carbon footprint accounting model of spent ternary lithium-ion battery waste recycling and utilization was constructed from the life cycle perspective. By optimizing the power structure and transportation structure，the carbon emission reduction potential of spent ternary lithium-ion battery waste recycling was predicted and evaluated. In addition，the uncertainty analysis was conducted using the propagation of uncertainty equation to ensure the reliability and effectiveness of the carbon footprint results. The results showed that the current carbon footprint of Chinese enterprises using wet technology to recover 1 kg waste lithium batteries was -2 760.90 g（directional recycling process）and -3 752.78 g（recycling process），and the uncertainty of the carbon footprint was 16%（directional recycling process）and 15%（recycling process），respectively. From the analysis of carbon emission contribution，the regenerated product stage was the primary source of carbon reduction in the wet recycling and utilization of waste ternary lithium batteries，whereas the battery acquisition，disassembly，and end treatment stages were the main sources of carbon increase. Compared to optimizing the transportation structure，optimizing the power structure could effectively achieve greater carbon emission reduction potential. Under the collaborative optimization scenario，compared to that before optimization，14%-19% carbon emission reduction could be achieved. Compared with native products，the directional circulation process and recycling process could achieve 9% and 11% emission reduction potential，respectively. © 2024 Science Press. All rights reserved.

引用

页码：3459 / 3467

页数：8

共 45 条

[21] Huang B，, Pan Z F，, Su X Y，, Et al., Recycling of lithium-ion batteries：recent advances andperspectives［J］, Journal of Power Sources, 399, pp. 274-286, (2018)
[22] Qiao Q Y, Zhao F Q，, Liu Z W，, Et al., Electric vehicle recycling in China： economic and environmental benefits［J］, Resources，Conservation and Recycling, 140, pp. 45-53, (2019)
[23] Hao H, Qiao Q Y，, Liu Z W，, Et al., Impact of recycling on energy consumption and greenhouse gas emissions from electric vehicle production：the China 2025 case［J］, Resources，Conservation and Recycling, 122, pp. 114-125, (2017)
[24] Xiong S Q，, Ji J P，, Ma X M., Environmental and economic evaluation of remanufacturing lithium-ion batteries from electric vehicles［J］, Waste Management, 102, pp. 579-586, (2020)
[25] Mao R C., Assessing the environmental impacts of urban transport infrastructure via life cycle assessment：case study of a mega city-Shenzhen，China［D］, (2017)
[26] Song X C, Du S，, Deng C N，, Et al., Life cycle carbon emission accounting and emission reduction potential assessment of steel industry［J］, Environmental Science, 44, 12, pp. 6630-6642, (2023)
[27] Good practice guidance and uncertainty management in national greenhouse gas inventories［EB/OL］
[28] Cai B F，, Zhu S L, Yu S M，, Et al., The interpretation of 2019 refinement to the 2006 IPCC guidelines for national greenhouse gas inventory［J］, Environmental Engineering, 37, 8, pp. 1-11, (2019)
[29] 11, pp. 28-30
[30] Chen H H, Li P C, Wang Z H., Interpretation of national standard GB/T 2589-2020， general rules for calculation of the comprehensive energy consumption［J］, Standard Science, 12, pp. 107-111, (2021)

← 1 2 3 4 5 →