Environmental Impact of Electric Vehicles: Potential of the Circular Economy? - Forschungsstelle für ...
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
Environmental Impact of Electric Vehicles:
Potential of the Circular Economy?
Anika Regett
Prof. Dr. Ulrich Wagner, Prof. Dr. Wolfgang Mauch, Jane Bangoj
13. Internationale MTZ-Fachtagung Zukunftsantriebe
„Der Antrieb von morgen“
24th of January 2019
Project “Ressourcensicht auf
die Energiezukunft” funded by:
1
The Environmental Footprint of Electric Vehicle Batteries –
A Story of Misleading References and an Emotional Debate
Myth 1
Carbon footprint of an electric vehicle battery = 17 t CO2
Myth 2
Amortisation period of an electric vehicle = 8 years
so-called ”Sweden Study“
provides an overview of studies on the carbon
Starting point:
footprint of battery production
BUT: doesn‘t include these values…
Tesla-example of Swedish scientists and journalists
picked up by Danish and then German media
A chain reaction… transfered to all electric vehicles
not considering range of validity (100 kWh and
150-200 kg CO2 eq./kWh) and future improvements
An overview of the whole story:
2 https://edison.handelsblatt.com/erklaeren/elektroauto-akkus-so-entstand-der-mythos-von-17-tonnen-co2/23828936.html?social=twitter
Plea: Need for Objectivity and a Life Cycle Perspective!
Potential of the circular economy to reduce the environmental impact of electric
3 vehicles?1. Carbon Footprint of Battery Production – Impact of Efficiency
and Renewables
41. Carbon Footprint of Battery Production – System Boundaries
Valid for:
Energy-related greenhouse
Raw material extraction gas (GHG) emissions
Cradle-to-Gate
Material production
Fuel supply and
GHG emissions
conversion
Manufacturing of cells
and other components
Battery assembly
Li-ion traction battery:
1 kWh capacity
51. Carbon Footprint of Battery Production – Energy-related
Greenhouse Gas Emissions per Process
Valid for:
30 kWh system
NMC622 (Nickel-Manganese-
Cobalt)
Inventory data from Argonne
National Laboratory (2017)
Emission factors from ecoinvent
Battery production mix from
Fraunhofer roadmap
Large contribution of electricity in battery manufacturing process
6
But large variation of demand in current Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) studies1. Carbon Footprint of Battery Production – Impact of Electricity
Demand and Emission Factor in Battery Manufacturing
Energy-related GHG emissions of battery production
in kg CO2 eq. per kWh battery capacity Valid for:
30 kWh system
Emission factor of electricity in battery manufacturing in kg/kWh
NMC622 (Nickel-Manganese-
Cobalt)
coal 1.0 112 162 212 Inventory data from Argonne
National Laboratory (2017)
battery Emission factors from ecoinvent
production mix Battery production mix from
Fraunhofer roadmap
German
electricity mix
0.5 87 112 137
renewable 0.0 62 62 62
50 100 150
Electricity demand for battery manufacturing in kWh/kWh battery capacity
industrial pilot
plant plant
analysis Swedish literature
at hand overview
Strong dependency on state-of-the-art and location of production plant
7
Significant improvement potential for efficiency and renewables2. Battery Electric (BEV) vs. Internal Combustion Engine Vehicle
(ICEV) – Impact of Origin of Charged Electricity
82. BEV vs. ICEV – Payback Periods
≙169 g/km
Valid for:
Well-to-Wheel
Golf class
30 kWh capacity
≙ 99 g/km 14 000 km/a
Battery: 106 kg
≙ 80 g/km CO2 eq./kWh
Other components
from Hawkins et al.
Similar lifetime and
occupancy assumed
No additional benefits
(e.g. range of ICEV)
≙ 17 g/km considered
PV: Mix DE 2015:
~1.6 years ~3.6 years
92. BEV vs. ICEV – Sensitivities of Payback Period
Payback Period of BEV vs. ICEV
PV: ~1.6 years
- +
• Comparison to Diesel • Efficiency and renewables in
2.1 years for PV production (62 kg CO2 eq./kWh)
• Larger battery 1.4 years for PV
(simplified scaling to 50 kWh) • Large reduction potential through
2.6 years for PV increase of energy density (trend)
• Lower annual mileage • Higher annual mileage
Further potential of End-of-Life approaches such as recycling and
10
Second-Life to improve the environmental footprint?3. Impact of Recycling and Second-Life (SL) on Critical Metal
Demand – Further Reduction Potential at End-of-Life (EoL)
113. Impact of Recycling and SL on Critical Metal Demand –
Modelling Approach and Advantages
Approach
• Primary demand of lithium (Li) and
cobalt (Co)
• Dynamic Material Flow Analysis
• Stock-and-Flow-Model for Germany
• Production and EoL (recycling and SL)
• 2015 to 2050 (annual resolution)
• Batteries: electric vehicles, PV home
storage, power control reserve
• Linking of mobile and stationary
applications through SL
• Considerations of lifetimes
Time dependencies
Substitution effects in
stationary battery markets
12 Figure: VDE Study on „Second-Life-Konzepte für Lithium-Ionen-Batterien aus Elektrofahrzeugen“: FfE, TUM, 20163. Impact of Recycling and Second-Life on Critical Metal Demand
– “Reference“ vs. “Recycling“ Scenario
Valid for:
Market development:
NEP for stationary,
ERP for traction
Av. battery capacity:
34 kWh (2015) to 44
kWh (2050)
Rec. rate Co: 94%
Rec. Rate Li:
0 %, from 2020: 57 %
Max. collection rate:
100 %
Current mix of cell
technologies
Battery lifetime: 20 a
stationary, 12 a
traction
As expected: large reduction of primary demand for Li and especially Co
But still high level of demand despite conservative electric vehicle scenario:
2 100 t Co in 2050 (about 2 % of current global production)
13 NEP=Netzentwicklungsplan, ERP=Energiereferenzprognose3. Impact of Recycling and Second-Life on Critical Metal Demand
– “Recycling“ vs. “Second-Life“ Scenario
Valid for:
Market development:
NEP for stationary,
ERP for traction
Av. battery capacity:
34 kWh (2015) to 44
kWh (2050)
Rec. rate Co: 94%
Rec. Rate Li:
0 %, from 2020: 57 %
Max. SL feasibility and
collection rate: 100 %
Current mix of cell
technologies
Battery lifetime: 20 a
for stationary, 12 a for
traction, 8 a SL
Overall: reduction of primary Li and Co demand through Second-Life
But in the short- to medium-term: depending on boundary conditions
14 increase in critical metal demand (in this case Co)4. Conclusion – The Bigger Picture 15
4. Conclusion – Key Messages
1
The higher efficiency of an electric vehicle is currently reduced by a larger environmental
impact in the production phase.
2
But overall, electric vehicles (batteries or fuel cells) are from today's view the only notable and
indispensable option for a comprehensive integration of renewables in the transport sector.
3
The circular economy offers a considerable potential for an improvement of the environmental
performance in all phases of the battery’s life cycle.
4
In this context efficiency and renewables in battery production and the vehicle’s use phase
play a decisive role to improve the carbon footprint of electric mobility.
5
A thought-through implementation of recycling and Second-Life approaches offers further
improvement potential, also with regard to critical metals such as lithium and cobalt.
16Analysis: „Carbon footprint of electric vehicles – a plea for more
objectivity“
Press release:
https://www.ffe.de/publikationen/pressemeldungen/856-klimabilanz-von-elektrofahrzeugen-ein-
plaedoyer-fuer-mehr-sachlichkeit
Detailed analysis:
https://www.ffe.de/attachments/article/856/Klimabilanz_Elektrofahrzeugbatterien_FfE.pdf
Supplementary material:
https://www.ffe.de/attachments/article/698/Begleitdokument_Klimabilanz_Elektrofahrzeugbatterien
_FfE.pdf
Data on recent production processes and battery systems to update this
analysis?
17Thank you for your attention!
Anika Regett, M.Sc.
+49 (89) 158121-45
ARegett@ffe.de
Forschungsstelle für Energiewirtschaft (FfE) e.V.
Am Blütenanger 71
80995 München
www.ffe.de
Register now for “FfE-Energietage“ (1st - 4th of April 2019):
www.ffe.de/aktuelles/energietage2019
18Ergebnis-Symposium des Projekts Dynamis
Dynamische und intersektorale Maßnahmenbewertung zur kosteneffizienten Dekarbonisierung des Energiesystems
Eckdaten: Anmeldung: www.ffe.de/dynamis
Datum: 4. April 2019 | Teilnahmegebühr: Kostenlos | Räumlichkeiten: Bayerische Akademie der Wissenschaften in München
Vorabend Get-Together am 3. April 2019 von 17:30 bis 19:30 Uhr
Dynamis: Agenda:
• Bewertung von Dynamische Bewertung von Zukunft in einem dekarbonisierten
CO2-Verminderungsmaßnahmen unter sich CO2-Verminderungsmaßnahmen Energiesystem
verändernden Randbedingungen des
09:00 Uhr Einleitung, Motivation & Überblick über 13:15 Uhr Potenziale der Erneuerbaren Energien
Energiesystems hinsichtlich ihrer
Dynamis (Photovoltaik & Windenergie)
Kosteneffizienz und ihres Potenzials zur
• Begrüßung durch das
Emissionsreduktion 13:45 Uhr Elektrifizierung vs. Green Fuels – Partner
Bundesministerium für Wirtschaft und
oder Konkurrenten?
• Fokus insbesondere auf Rückwirkungen der Energie
• Das Projekt Dynamis im Kontext der 15:15 Uhr 90 % bis 95 % CO2-Emissionsreduktion –
anwendungsseitigen Maßnahmen auf das
Energiewende Ja bitte! Aber wie?
Energiesystem
• Der Dynamis-Ansatz zur Bewertung von 15:30 Uhr Podiumsdiskussion "Leben in einer
• Abbildung der Maßnahmen durch CO2-Verminderungsmaßnahmen dekarbonisierten Welt: Chancen und
Erweiterung der Optimierungsmodelle der 10:30 Uhr Die großen Stellhebel zur Herausforderungen für Energiewirtschaft
Bereitstellungsseite um eine detaillierte Dekarbonisierung der und Politik“
Modellierung der vier Endenergiesektoren Endenergiesektoren 16:30 Uhr Zusammenfassung & Ausblick
Verkehr, Haushalte, GHD und Industrie Jeweils:
10 Minuten wissenschaftlicher Vortrag
• Berücksichtigung dynamischer + 10 Minuten Kommentar eines 16:45 Uhr Ausklang bei gemütlichem Get-Together
Wechselwirkungen in der Berechnung von Industrievertreters
CO2-Verminderungskosten + 10 Minuten Diskussion im Plenum
• Verkehr
• Industrie
• Haushalte & GHD
19You can also read
