Mineral sourcing has the biggest carbon footprint in lithium battery production: Report

The report found that moving manufacturing sites to regions with low-carbon electricity has a limited impact on decarbonisation

Lithium ion batteries, the most important component in electric vehicles, carry substantial carbon footprints. A new report published in Nature, developed a cost-based approach to estimate the emission curves for critical minerals like lithium, nickel and cobalt, based on mining cost data. 

Titled ‘Carbon footprint distributions of lithium-ion batteries and their materials’, the report found that sourcing of the material had a higher impact on lithium batteries’ carbon footprint, and so much the location of the production. It also identified that the metals nickel and lithium had higher carbon footprints.

The study looked at the carbon footprint distributions for lithium-ion batteries of two variants: nickel-manganese-cobalt (NMC) and lithium-iron-phosphate (LFP). 

Emissions inbuilt into the supply chain

According to the report, nickel sulphate, used in the production of NMC batteries, has a higher share in contributing to carbon emissions. It found that active materials made up over 50% of the carbon footprint, while contributions from electricity consumption during cell production accounted for around 15%. The report also found that other components such as copper and aluminium contributed around 5% and 7% in carbon footprints, respectively. 

The study found that nickel sulphate and lithium carbonate contributed highly towards the carbon footprint, while cobalt sulphate and graphite did not have such big impacts. 

For LFP cells, whose cathodes mainly comprised lithium, iron and phosphate, carbon footprints were found to be around 16% lower than for NMC cells, found the study. Now, the global distribution of carbon emissions for LFP cells was similar to China’s, as nearly the entirety of global LFP cell production is in China.

The study found that differences between carbon footprint weren’t a lot if one changed production locations. In fact, for LFP type batteries, it was even lesser, as less electricity is required for material synthesis and cell production.

Tricky policy

The study pointed out that the biggest question that arises when thinking about making policies for batteries is: ‘How granular should material emissions data for battery carbon footprint calculations be?’

It could be calculated using generic, fixed default values, which would muddle the metric’s significance leading to a lost opportunity for low-carbon supply chain innovation. Conversely, wanting detailed, supplier-specific carbon footprint data for materials could challenge industry acceptance of policy intervention. The second method could prove to be too impractical. 

The study proposes to take the proposed EU Battery Regulation as a workable model when designing policy, as it is balanced. It provides default values for carbon footprints that battery producers can replace with their own calculations, as long as specific quality standards are met. By setting these default values, it creates a greening effect on the supply chain.

In the benefit of transparency and low-carbon innovation, these default values should be set at the higher ends of the emission curves, recommends the study. While it may compromise technical accuracy to a certain degree, having a less accurate carbon footprint metric which promotes low-carbon battery production has greater benefits than a metric which stresses over disciplined accuracy.

Furthermore, the report found that recycling of mineral grade battery material will also play a crucial role in long-term policy planning.

About The Author

Editorial Team

A team of handpicked and dedicated writers committed to fact check each climate-related statement. Go to the roots and intent of each policy implemented, internationally and at home to help you understand climate better

See author's posts