Life cycle assessment of lithium-based batteries: Review of sustainability dimensions

Life cycle assessment of lithium-based batteries: Review of sustainability dimensions Debashri Paul a,* , Viera Pechancov´ a b , Nabanita Saha a,b , Drahomíra Pavelkov´ a c , Nibedita Saha b , Marjan Motiei a , Thaiskang Jamatia a , Mainak Chaudhuri a , Anna Ivanichenko b , Mariana Venher b , Lucie Hrb´ aˇ ckov´ a c , Petr S´ aha a,b a Centre of Polymer Systems, University Institute, Tomas Bata University in Zlín, Tr. T. Bati 5678, 760 01, Zlín, Czech Republic b University Institute, Tomas Bata University in Zlín, Nad Ovˇ círnou IV 3685, 760 01, Zlín, Czech Republic c Faculty of Management and Economics, Tomas Bata University in Zlín, Mostní 5139, 760 01, Zlín, Czech Republic ARTICLE INFO Keywords: Life cycle assessment Li-based battery Environmental impact Economic impact Social impact Sustainability ABSTRACT Lithium-based batteries are essential because of their increasing importance across several industries, particularly when it comes to electric vehicles and renewable energy storage. Sustainable batteries throughout their entire life cycle represent a key enabling technology for the zero pollution objectives of the European Green Deal. The EU’s (European Union) new regulatory framework for batteries is setting sustainability requirements along the whole battery, including value chains. For a comprehensive assessment of battery technologies, it is necessary to include a life cycle thinking approach into consideration from the beginning. This review offers a comprehensive study of Environmental Life Cycle Assessment (E-LCA), Life Cycle Costing (LCC), Social Life Cycle Assessment (S-LCA), and Life Cycle Sustainability Assessment (LCSA) methodologies in the context of lithium-based batteries. Notably, the study distinguishes itself by integrating not only environmental considerations but also social and economic dimensions, encapsulating the holistic concept of sustainability. Challenges unique to each assessment method are outlined, including data availability (with 35 % of the reviewed studies having openly accessible inventory data), methodological inconsistencies, uncertainty around future costs and social impacts. Difficulties such as data uncertainty, challenges in cost comparison, and the lack of standardized measures are underscored. The research identifies critical future directions for LCA, including the need for better data quality, adaptation to new technologies, and alignment with Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Future research directions are suggested -including the standardization of methodologies, and fostering interdisciplinary collaboration. Overcoming these challenges holds the potential to advance sustainable practices in the battery industry and contribute to a cleaner energy future. Abbreviation BESS Battery Energy Storage Systems CAPEX Capital Expenditures E-LCA Environmental Life Cycle Assessment ELCD European Reference Life Cycle Database EOL End-of-life EOLEX End-of-life Expenses EUR Euro EV Electric Vehicle GHG Greenhouse Gases GREET Greenhouse Gases, Regulated Emissions, and Energy use in Technologies ISO International Standard of Organization (continued on next column) (continued) LCA Life Cycle Assessment LCC Life Cycle Costing LCSA Life Cycle Sustainability Assessment LCI Life Cycle Inventory LCIA Life Cycle Inventory Analysis LCOE Levelized Cost of Energy LFP Lithium iron phosphate LIBs Lithium-ion batteries MCA Multi Criteria Analysis OPEX Operational Expenses SDG Sustainable Development Goal S-LCA Social-Life Cycle Costing (continued on next page) * Corresponding author. E-mail address: [email protected] (D. Paul). Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/rser https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2024.114860 Received 29 September 2023; Received in revised form 17 June 2024; Accepted 21 August 2024 Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 206 (2024) 114860 Available online 30 August 2024 1364-0321/© 2024 Published by Elsevier Ltd. (continued) SRHRM Socially Responsible Human Resources Management TOPSIS Technique for Order of Preference by Similarity to Ideal Solution 1. Introduction Within the field of energy storage technologies, lithium-based battery energy storage systems play a vital role as they offer high flexibility in sizing and corresponding technology characteristics (high efficiency, long service life, high energy density) making them ideal for storing local renewable energy. As those available battery energy storage technologies are still too expensive, the development and introduction of new storage technologies are necessary to increase market uptake. Moreover, there is a need to concentrate the majority of the battery manufacturing technology and know-how in Europe and be less reliant on other countries, which currently are dominated by the Asian market. Additionally, there is a drive to improve energy density and safety without compromising on cost or sustainability. With the policymakers in Europe working towards decarbonization of the automobile industry, an anticipated growth in electric vehicle (EV) production is expected. The transition to EVs from an internal combustion engine vehicle, providing an alternative to the existing fossil-based vehicles, could significantly reduce global greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions across the globe. Thus, a surge in sales of electric vehicles is anticipated in Europe and worldwide. With this, the demand for material resources and their consumption by the car manufacturing industries are on the rise. However, mining, processing, production, use-phase, and battery recycling are energy-intensive processes and there arises a need to systematically quantify and evaluate each phase of battery production [1,2]. The life cycle assessment study evaluates the potential environmental impacts of a product within a system boundary. In view of that, several life cycle assessment (LCA) practitioners have used the LCA tool to evaluate the environmental impact of Li-ion battery (LIB) production [3–7]. The technological, cost and social aspects considered illustrate an extensive and a comprehensive picture that is crucial for designing sustainable battery supply chains. Hoogmartens et al. [8], reported that these three sustainable assessment methodology tools were complementary to each other. Further, life cycle sustainability assessment (LCSA) considers these three pillars and provides a platform to assess sustainability studies as one entity. Due to the increasing recent trend in the development of low-cost and environmentally friendly materials, the life cycle thinking perspective has gained a lot of attention as well. Environmental life cycle assessment (E-LCA) of battery technologies can cover the entire life cycle of a product, including raw material extraction and processing, fabrication of relevant components, the use phase, and, as far as possible, the end-of-life phase/recycling (cradle to grave/cradle to cradle). These methods should be applied already, starting with low technology readiness levels, to enable the analysis and comparison of traditional and emerging products. This approach also provides developers, manufacturers or decision-makers with information about the specific environmental impacts or hotspots of a new product system. They allow for the identification of potential sustainability hotspots and to avoid unintended consequences that might hinder market introduction. In life cycle costing (LCC), the methodology assesses the cost involved in battery production, maintenance, and end-of-life phase. This gives a comprehensive overview of techno-economic viability and can be a useful tool in establishing a battery choice. For example, one study conducted an LCC evaluation of electric vehicles was conducted on the tangible and non-tangible costs related to the economic and noneconomic effects respectively [9]. The LCC analysis delineates the tangible and intangible costs associated with lithium-based batteries, offering critical insights into their economic viability and the broader economic implications of their adoption. This analysis is vital for stakeholders to comprehend the full cost spectrum and make informed decisions that account for long-term economic impacts. In another study, a structure of the LCC of electric vehicles was established based on the acquisition phase, operating phase and disposal phase [10]. Social considerations, often underrepresented in traditional environmental assessments, are brought to the forefront through the incorporation of social life cycle assessment (S-LCA). This paper illuminates the social consequences of lithium battery production, highlighting issues related to labor standards, community impacts, and broader social implications, thus filling a critical research void and enriching the discourse on battery sustainability. The S-LCA is one of the three pillars in achieving sustainable product development. It is considered the most effective methodology to study and comprehend the social impacts of a product, in this context, a lithium-ion battery, in its entire lifecycles [11]. The aim of the review work is to bring together and integrate the three pillars of the sustainability tools in coherence, and through this work a critical overview of previous LCA studies on Li-based batteries is presented. This study presents a review of LCSA for lithium-based batteries, integrating E-LCA, LCC, and S-LCA to provide a comprehensive evaluation of their multifaceted impacts. The key issues of each pillar were studied and analyzed individually. Over the years, LCA has widened its horizon from purely environmental assessments to include the social and economic aspects. This comprehensive work addresses the increasing attention it has received over the past years. The challenges involving procuring primary data, societal issues like labor standards, safety and economy-related issues like the cost of raw materials, and production techniques were addressed. The originality of this review work lies in its multidisciplinary approach to assessing the sustainability of lithium-based batteries, integrating environmental, economic, and social aspects into a unified framework. The LCSA framework detailed in this paper is intended as a tool for decision-makers across various sectors. By providing a nuanced understanding of the environmental, economic, and social dimensions of lithium-based batteries, the framework guides policymakers, manufacturers, and consumers toward more informed and sustainable choices in battery production, utilization, and end-of-life management. 2. Methodology The search strategy covers a variety of pertinent keywords and research publications over the past eleven years. Using three significant databases and limiting the search to English-language articles should yield sufficient results that are relevant which is described in Fig. 1. In addition, the inclusion of three sectoral perspectives should aid in capturing research on a variety of Li-based battery applications. The review search protocol for all three dimensions of LCA is focused on conducting a literature review of research articles published between 2012 and 2023. The search was conducted on three academic databases, Web of Science, Scopus and Google Scholar. The sectoral perspective of the search is on three different areas, including E-mobility, grid-scale stationary applications, and portable/wearable electronics. For this extensive search type, keywords related to the specific battery chemistries were used. Specifically, the search protocol included using the following keyword sequences used in the title search field (Web of Science, Scopus and Google Scholar): "Life cycle assessment" “AND Li-metal battery” OR “Li-polymer battery” OR ”Li-S battery” OR “Li-air battery” AND "LCA" AND "Li-based battery" OR “Social Life cycle assessment” AND "Social LCA" AND “lithium-based battery” OR “Life cycle assessment AND "LCC" “lithium-based battery” OR "LCSA," AND “lithium-based battery”. (The selection process was strictly - limited to research and review articles.) Additionally, other document types like conference proceedings, project reports and documents from company findings were out of the scope of the selection process. Additional selection criteria included time range (2012–2023), and the language selected was English. A total of 76 articles were found: 31 E-LCA articles, 13 LCC articles, 12 S-LCA articles, D. Paul et al. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 206 (2024) 114860 2 and 6 LCSA articles. While the paper offers an understanding of sustainability of lithiumbased batteries, it is crucial to acknowledge its potential limitations and discuss how these might affect the findings and their interpretation. The comprehensiveness of the review is contingent upon the range and depth of the literature included. Even with the search criteria carefully and systematically chosen, some important studies might have been overlooked as it is limited to published research articles and do not include other types of works, such as conference proceedings or reports. Additionally, there may be some relevant studies that do not use the exact keywords included in the search protocol, which could result in missing important results. Therefore, it may be helpful to include some additional keywords or conduct a manual search of the literature to ensure that all relevant studies were captured. Given the relatively established status of Li-ion battery technology compared to Li-air, Li-metal, Li-polymer, or Li-S, extensive LCA work has been conducted, as evidenced in the web search portal. Specifically, the search targeted the years 2020–2023 for E-LCA Li-ion battery research and 2012–2023 for Li-air, Li-metal, Li-polymer, and Li-S. This approach aimed to prioritize reviewing recent works on the E-LCA of Li-ion batteries, considering several previous LCA studies. The objective was to gain insights into the E-LCA for Li-ion batteries using recent and up-todate inventory datasets. For Li-air, Li-metal, Li-polymer, and Li-S review was conducted from 2012 to 2023, however very few E-LCA studies were obtained. The integration of E-LCA, LCC, and S-LCA into a unified LCSA framework presents another methodological challenge, particularly in ensuring consistency and comparability across these dimensions. Differences in methodological approaches, metrics, and data quality across the three assessments could introduce variability and affect the integration of results. The sustainability of lithium-based batteries can vary significantly based on temporal and geographical contexts due to differences in energy mixes, technological advancements, and regulatory environments. The review might not be easily generalizable across different regions and time periods. The reliability of LCSA outcomes heavily depends on the quality and availability of data. Gaps or inconsistencies in data, especially in S-LCA and emerging battery technologies, can lead to uncertainties. 3. Results and discussions 3.1. General information about lithium-based batteries: working Principle and applications Li-based batteries are a class of electrochemical energy storage devices that have been intensely researched since the 1980s. The effect of charge/discharge rate and prolonged cell cycling on energy and power storage performance is unclear, but they strongly affect the lifetime, cost, and overall quality of a Li-based device [12]. According to Table 1, there are different Li-based batteries, including Li-ion, Li-metal, Li-air, Li-polymer, and Li-S. Li-ion batteries are one of the most popular forms of energy storage commercialized due to their longer cycle life. Conventional batteries, such as Li-ion batteries, usually consist of negative (anode) and positive (cathode) electrodes, a liquid electrolyte transports Lithium ion between the electrodes, and porous separator functions as electrical insulation between the electrodes, as seen in Fig. 2. Carbon (graphite) and high-capacity carbon alternatives such as silicon, metal oxides, and alloyed metals are being explored as anode materials [13]. The cathode’s most critical component of a Li-ion battery Fig. 1. Review search protocol. Table 1 Main types and structures of Li-based rechargeable batteries. Batteries Anode Cathode Electrolyte Li-ion Graphitic carbon Lithiated metal oxide liquid organic carbonates, polymers, or solids Li-metal Li metal/Li alloy metal Manganese dioxide, Vanadium oxide, Molybdenum disulfide Nonaqueous solution Li-air Li metal Air Aqueous, aprotic, or solid Li-S Li metal Elemental sulfur Liquid organic electrolyte D. Paul et al. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 206 (2024) 114860 3 is LiCoO 2 , Li-Mn-O, LiFePO 4 , and Li-layered metal oxide [14]. Liquid electrolytes integral to cell safety are pure molten salts with low melting points, typically below 100 ◦C [15]. Salt solubility, ionic conductivity, Li reactivity, and electrochemical stability are fundamental electrolyte properties. Electrolyte wetting of the electrode and separator can also directly impact cell performance [15]. However, the main drawbacks of the conventional Li-ion battery are the chance of leakage of the electrolyte and the formation of dendrites of Li, which make it prone to explosion [16]. Various applications for different type Li-based batteries namely Liion, Li-metal, Li-air, Li-polymer and Li-S are described in Table 2. 3.2. Environmental Life Cycle Assessment (E-LCA) of Libased batteries E-LCA is a time-framed measurement method that evaluates environmental performance over the duration of a product’s life cycle. Throughout each stage, calculations are made about the extraction and use of resources (including energy), as well as the emissions to air, water, and soil. It is evaluated and analyzed how much they might contribute to environmental issues, such as climate change, human and ecological toxicity, ionizing radiation, and resource base depletion (such as water, non-renewable primary energy supplies, land, etc.). The development of the life cycle assessment midpoint-damage framework, which theorizes the connections between a product’s environmental involvements and the considerable harm it does to human health, resource depletion, ecosystem quality, etc., was greatly aided by the Life Cycle Initiative. Such details are crucial for making decisions [32]. The main components of LCAs are: (1) identifying and quantifying the environmental loads involved, such as the energy and raw material consumption, emissions, and wastes generated; (2) assessing the potential environmental impacts of these loads; and (3) evaluating the options available for reducing these environmental impacts [33,34]. There were numerous attempts to standardize the life-cycle assessment approach. For the purpose of giving comprehensive information on the LCA methodology, the Canadian Standards Association published the first national LCA guideline in the world, Z-760 Environmental Lifecycle Assessment, in 1994. However, the International Standards Organization’s (ISO) standards were the ones that were most widely recognized [35]. •ISO 14040 Environmental management, LCA, Principles and framework (1997). •ISO 14041 Environmental management, LCA, Goal definition and inventory analysis (1998). •ISO 14042 Environmental management, LCA, Life-cycle impact assessment (2000). •ISO 14043 Environmental management, LCA, Life-cycle interpretation (2000). •ISO 14044 Environmental management, LCA, Requirements and Guidelines (2006). •ISO 14045 Environmental management, LCA, Principles, Requirements and Guidelines (2012). •ISO 14046 Environmental management, LCA, Water footprint — Principles, requirements, and guidelines (2014) Among all the ISO frameworks reported about Environmental management, ISO 14040:2006 was last reviewed and confirmed in 2022. Therefore, this version will be considered as the current ISO norms for the LCA study. The guidelines and framework for LCA are outlined in ISO 14040:2006. These guidelines and framework include the following: the definition of the goal and the scope of the LCA, the life cycle inventory analysis (LCI) phase, the life cycle impact assessment (LCIA) phase, the life cycle interpretation phase, reporting and critical review of the LCA, limitations of the LCA, the relationship between the LCA phases, and the circumstances for the use of value choices and optional elements [36]. LCA is an efficient tool generally adopted for thorough environmental impact assessment of a product from cradle to grave [37]. Hence, the review of work on E-LCA for Li-based batteries was conducted from 2012 to 2023 and has given emphasis on batteries for electric vehicles. Below is the detailed E-LCA framework. 3.2.1. E-LCA framework The findings of the E-LCA analysis are presented in Table S1 of the supplementary information. A summarized overview is provided below: Life cycle assessment is a widely used tool to quantify the potential environmental effects of battery production, usage, and disposal/recycling. This framework for the assessment of the environmental impacts consists of four stages. Fig. 3 represents the four stages of LCA for Libased battery. The most important application for assessing the environmental impact of the battery product over its life cycle lies in dissecting the contributions of individual life cycle stages. Moreover, battery production includes raw material extraction mainly in the form of mining ores, production of battery components, battery modules, and battery packs assembled with a Battery management system (BMS) followed by the transportation of the products, their usage and end-oflife or recycling. The insights and methodologies introduced by (Arshad) [38] have been instrumental in guiding the E-LCA review of batteries, offering a critical evaluation of the environmental impacts stemming from the growing production and application of LIBs. This systematic analysis seeks to examine the studies and conduct a meta-analysis of LCA of batteries, identifying the current state of Fig. 2. A graphical representation of working principle of Lithium battery. Table 2 Application of different types of Li-based batteries. Battery Type Applications References Li-ion Grid-level energy storage [17] Portable electronic devices [18] Aerospace applications [18] Satellite and Aviation [19] Medical Devices [20] Electric Vehicles (EVs) [21] Li-metal Next-generation energy storage systems [22] Medical Devices [23] Li-air Automotive applications [24] Smart grid [25] Li-polymer Drones [26] EV and HEV [27] UPS [28] Li-S Electric Vehicle [29] Portable electronic device [30] Aerospace applications [31] D. Paul et al. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 206 (2024) 114860 4 research and providing crucial insights into the life cycle assessments of emerging technologies. Goal and scope: The ISO 14000 series have a structured and standardized method of LCA frameworks and principles, and this calls for smooth functioning of the life cycle assessment of a battery. Accordingly, the LCA assessment starts by defining the goal and scope of the study. In this phase, the objectives, functional unit of a battery (e.g., kWh or kg of battery), system boundaries (cradle-to-gate, cradle-tograve, cradle-to-cradle) [39], methodologies, allocation procedure and impact categories are defined. This step forms a basis where the LCA study is generated. In the reviewed articles given in the Supplementary file Table S1, most of the functional units considered were either 1 kWh of the nominal energy capacity (for example [40–42]: or one vehicle kilometre (for example: [43–45]). The determination of the functional unit is guided by the specific objectives of the study, including the comparative evaluation of environmental performance across different vehicles or different battery chemistries, investing in the battery efficiency or examining different phases of battery production. The generation of system boundaries makes LCA of batteries a mutually iterative process, as the study conducted can be modified and adjusted based on the results generated. The three system boundaries that were frequently used in the reviewed articles to represent the entire life cycle of an electric vehicle were cradle-to-gate, cradle-to-grave, and cradle-to-cradle. This is explained in detail in the supplementary file (Section 1.4) Life Cycle Inventory: In the following step, LCI is the data collection step, which requires entering data of all the processes included in the battery production. The inventory collection is of utmost importance in the LCI study as it is an exhaustive phase of LCA. Moreover, the LCI inventory data collection demands complete and well-grounded information with a better picture of each step in the battery manufacturing and usage phase. As the LCA study is dependent on data availability, data collection is one of the most demanding tasks. There are two types of data: foreground data and background data. The foreground data or primary data is procured directly from a battery manufacturer. This type of inventory is highly confidential and challenging to acquire. On the Fig. 3. Life cycle assessment of Li-based battery. D. Paul et al. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 206 (2024) 114860 5 contrary, background data / secondary data is mostly generated by estimations and from the LCA software databases like EcoInvent, European Reference Life Cycle Database (ELCD), GREET, etc., and also includes the data from the studies [29,41,42,45–54]. The reviewed articles on E-LCA revealed that only 45 % of them utilized a combination of primary data (obtained from laboratory or industrial sources) and secondary data (drawn from databases/software). The primary data encompassed various aspects such as battery production materials, energy consumption during production and use phases, as well as waste and recovered materials. The remaining studies relied solely on secondary data sourced from existing studies. Additionally, it was found that only 35 % of the reviewed studies had openly accessible inventory data, while 38 % lacked open inventory data. The remaining articles provided only partial inventory data. Significant challenges may arise in ensuring transparency, developing methodologies, and validating life cycle assessments, particularly when open inventory data is not available. Inconsistent data sources make it difficult to compare environmental impacts accurately and may lead to skewed conclusions. These aspects are crucial for enhancing the reliability of such assessments. Life Cycle Impact Assessment: The LCIA stage assesses the environmental impacts and puts into perspective the contribution from each impact category. The purpose of this phase is to provide a quantitative and comparative evaluation of potential environmental impacts based on the insights obtained from the LCI stage. A comparison of these impacts revealed significant variability, which can be attributed to differences in concepts, databases, and the battery chemistries that are being studied. Although LCIA methodologies vary, they aim to provide insights into the environmental significance of a product or system across its entire life cycle. SimaPro modeling software was used in many works to assess and evaluate the environmental impacts of materials and energy used in manufacturing and assembly processes. This was followed by OpenLCA, an open-source LCA software developed by GreenDelta. Fig. 4 (b) shows the choice of software for the assessment by the reviewed articles. Also, in the articles there were various impact assessment methods and tools were used to quantify and evaluate the environmental impacts associated with battery production and use. Fig. 4 (a) shows the different tools that were employed by the studies in the assessment. This phase mainly has two types of impact categories: the midpoint impact category and the endpoint impact category. The former is a parameter in a cause-effect chain before the endpoint is reached and the latter is basically the aggregate from the midpoint categories. The ReCiPe method has been used (15 out of the 31 case studies) as the most common characterization tool. The Dutch National Institute for Public Health and the Environment (RIVM), CML, PR´ e Consultants, Radboud Universiteit Nijmegen, and CE Delft developed the ReCiPe approach for impact assessment in LCA which is described by Fig. 5. By converting emissions and resource extraction into scores for the environmental impact, life cycle impact assessment (LCIA) aids in the interpretation of LCA studies [55]. This is done by means of characterization factors. Characterization factors indicate the environmental impact per unit of stressor. In ReCiPe indicators are determined at 2 levels. They are: Midpoint levelIt features 18 midpoint indicators, which are challenging to interpret but have low uncertainty. Characterization factors at the midpoint level are found before the cause-effect chain, somewhere along the impact pathway. Midpoint indicators concentrate on single environmental issues, such as the global warming potential or acidification. Endpoint level – It has 3 endpoint indicators which are easy to understand but more uncertain. Endpoint is a measure of the damage – at the end of the cause-effect chain – caused by a stressor. Endpoint indicators show the environmental impact on three higher aggregation levels, being the 1) effect on human health, 2) ecosystem quality, and 3) resource availability. In the reviewed works, it was observed that all studies included in the analysis integrated the calculation of Global Warming Potential (GWP). Following GWP, the next impact category examined was resource depletion, succeeded by acidification, human toxicity, and eutrophication, as seen in Fig. 4 (c). The GWP is significantly influenced by the battery production site [42]. Coating and drying, formation, and drying rooms account for over 76 % (31.87 kWh/kWh of battery cell capacity) of total energy consumption resulting in 74 % of all greenhouse gas emissions [56]. In another study, it was found that the cathode and the electricity needed for material transformation and battery assembly were identified as the main contributors to the GWP. These factors were responsible for 44.5 % and 17.0 % of the overall impact in this category, respectively [47]. Li-ion batteries exhibit higher impacts on ozone layer depletion and global warming, primarily due to supply chains in China and reliance on electricity from coal-fired plants [50]. The nickel cobalt aluminum (NCA) LIB demonstrates a notable improvement over lead-acid batteries, with a reduction of approximately 45 % in impact for both climate change and fossil resource use, and a 52 % decrease in respiratory inorganics. Similarly, the nickel manganese cobalt (NMC) LIB exhibits a significant enhancement, being approximately 67 % better than lead-acid in terms of acidification potential. Additionally, the lithium iron phosphate battery (LFP) emerges as the best performer in the Fig. 4. (a) Impact category tools implemented in the case studies (b)Software utilized in the case studies (c)Impact categories analyses in the case studies. D. Paul et al. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 206 (2024) 114860 6 minerals and metals resource use category, boasting a 94 % reduction compared to lead-acid batteries. Consequently, LIBs prove to be superior to lead-acid batteries across various cradle-to-grave impact categories [57]. In another research three types of batteries (LFP, NMC532, and NMC622) were subjected to modeling using primary data, revealing GWP impacts per 1 kWh of cell capacity: 61.9 kg CO 2 eq kWh −1 for LFP cells, 78.4 kg CO 2 eq kWh −1 for NMC532 cells, and 80.4 kg CO 2 eq kWh −1 for NMC622 cells. Incorporating End-of-Life (EoL) considerations in the analyses can significantly reduce the performance gap between LFP and NMC batteries, with these two types benefitting the most from material recovery processes such as pyrometallurgical or hydrometallurgical methods [52]. In the case of Li-S batteries, the active material in the battery (anode, cathode, electrolyte) contributes over 70 % to all assessed impact categories (except resource depletion), and electronics in module packaging represent the largest contribution to resource depletion [43]. Also, compared to conventional NCM-Graphite LIB, Li-S batteries are found to have a relatively less environmental impact, exhibiting 9%–90 % lower impacts in most categories [29]. Lithium metal batteries (LMBs) exhibit lower climate impact, lower abiotic depletion potential, and lower toxicity compared to similarly designed LIBs (NMCand LFP-based). This is because the higher energy density in LMBs results in lower battery weight and electricity consumption in vehicles [58]. Life cycle assessment (LCA) of lithium-oxygen Li−O 2 battery showed that the system had a lower environmental impact compared to the conventional NMC-G battery, with a 9.5 % decrease in GHG emissions to 149 g CO 2 eq km −1 [44]. Another study [46] also underscored the potential environmental benefits of lithium-air cells over time, including 4–9 times less climate impact compared to today’s lithium-ion cells, and the potential avoidance of 10–30 % of production-related environmental impact through recycling. In summary, the studies emphasised the importance of considering GWP alongside other environmental impact categories in assessing battery production and use. The results also showed that emerging batteries like Li-S, LMBs and Li-O 2 showed promising environmental benefits over current LIBs. Interpretation of the results: Lastly, the final stage of the LCA study is interpretation of data. During the interpretation phase of LCA, the results of the environmental impact assessment are meticulously scrutinized to draw conclusions and provide recommendations. This process involves identifying significant environmental hotspots, understanding the implications of various life cycle stages and decisions, and assessing the overall environmental performance of the product or process under study. Moreover, uncertainties, limitations, and opportunities for improvement in the LCA results are taken into consideration to guide decision-making toward more sustainable behaviours and policies. Additionally, integrating the findings from impact assessments and inventory assessments allows for a comprehensive overview of batteries, aiding in the understanding of potential environmental issues and ensuring the environmental sustainability of Li-based battery production. Through the review conducted, the main contributing factors to environmental impact have been identified: Energy consumption factor: Cells, specifically the energy consumed during manufacturing, cathode paste production, and cell container fabrication, constitute the primary contributors to environmental impacts within the prototype battery’s life cycle [58,59]. Vacuum drying, coating processes, and other drying procedures emerge as the predominant contributors to energy consumption [53]. Energy demand during the use phase remains a critical aspect. Electricity usage data originating from the use phase, especially if it is primary, significantly influences the determination of the overall environmental impact [57]. The direct energy prerequisites for cell manufacturing, encompassing activities such as maintaining a clean dry room and cleaning and conditioning processes, along with the impacts of battery assembly procedures, can be subject to significant uncertainty in battery LCAs due to the absence of primary data. Challenges persist in aligning direct energy prerequisites across different studies owing to factors such as assumed production facility locations, annual production capacities, and yield factors. These uncertainties make it difficult to accurately compare or integrate the energy requirements outlined in different studies [51]. Energy mix factor: Future research should prioritize improving production processes and integrating innovative technologies to decrease energy consumption and GHG emissions. Transitioning from natural gas to electricity for heat generation may decrease emissions, but its feasibility depends on the electricity emissions factor. Challenges include additional investments and higher energy costs associated with Fig. 5. Relationship between ReCiPe midpoint-endpoint indicators based on [55]. D. Paul et al. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 206 (2024) 114860 7 electricity. Alternative technologies like laser-based drying and dry coating show potential for reducing energy consumption, but further research is required [56]. Shifting the manufacturing electricity mix to renewables has the potential to reduce impact by up to 53 % for freshwater eutrophication [59]. Increasing the proportion of renewable energy sources in the electricity mix during the use phase could aid in mitigating environmental impacts [57]. Novel material factor: The third-generation prototype battery showcases a high-voltage cathode (NMC622), high-capacity anode (silicon alloy with no significant environmental impact on any category), and a stable and safe electrolyte, offering environmental advantages compared to a graphite-based battery [59]. The lithium-ion battery pack with NMC cathode and lithium metal anode (NMC-Li) is recognized as the most environmentally friendly new LIB based on 1 kWh storage capacity, with a cycle life approaching or surpassing lithium-ion battery pack with NMC cathode and graphite anode (NMC-C). Lithium metal anode (Li-A) exhibits promise for future development owing to its high specific capacity, lightweight, and environmental benefits. Due to these advantages, Li-A is anticipated to be widely adopted as an anode material in future traction batteries [60]. Battery type factor: The overall environmental performance of LFP batteries exceeds that of NMC batteries due to lower environmental and resource impacts. Significant environmental impacts of NMC batteries are attributed to rare metal materials like nickel and cobalt in cathodes, which are higher than those in LFP batteries. However, NMC batteries exhibit a better energy-saving effect during the use phase, saving about 30 % of electricity compared to LFP batteries, particularly in regions with coal-fired power generation like China [54]. Li-S batteries are regarded as a sustainable energy storage alternative due to the absence of toxic metals like nickel, cobalt, and manganese. The introduction of sulfur in cathode composition improves the environmental profile of Li-S batteries compared to Li-ion batteries. Li-S batteries show potential for use in electric vehicles, offering higher specific energies than Li-ion and reducing raw material requirements. LiS batteries exhibit up to a 31 % reduction in GHG emissions compared to Li-ion batteries. The production phase, including material extraction and component manufacture, contributes up to 70–90 % to impact categories like abiotic resource depletion (ADP) and natural resource scarcity [40]. Battery recycling factor: The impact reduction potential of recycling varies; considering recycled materials as avoided primary material could lead to a decrease in impacts by 25 %–46 % [59]. Recycling of cobalt, nickel, and copper significantly reduces overall battery impacts by avoiding the use of virgin raw materials [52]. In general, there are significant uncertainties involved while evaluating these studies for several reasons like insufficient data, wrong assumptions or insufficient information. So, the uncertainties in the LCA study need to be thoroughly identified and analyzed. In addition, sensitivity analysis, like the uncertainty analysis, can also be implemented at several LCA stages to investigate the energy and resourcerelated environmental impacts of any product [61]. 3.2.2. End of life (EOL) and recycling In the battery EOL stage, batteries no longer operate at sufficient capacity due to the ageing that happens as the electrolyte undergoes decomposition over time at a given temperature. The ageing is affected by the degradation rate of the battery and battery capacity. The proposed EOL option for batteries could be recycling, reusing or remanufacturing [62]. Reusing of battery is when the EV battery after reaching its useful life can be removed and be used as an energy storage system. This provides greater stability thus increasing the integration rate of renewable energy and reliability to the grid [63,64]. Another way to mitigate the environmental impacts of the EOL stage of battery is remanufacturing which reinstates the product like new condition along with a warranty to the buyer. This is environmentally friendly and a well-known practice in auto-industry as 80 % of the components are remanufactured [65]. Proper recycling is another potential strategy to alleviate environmental pollution by increasing the opportunity for secondary supply, lessens the manufacturing cost for LIBs as the price fluctuations of critical raw materials is mitigated. This is in principle with the sustainable development strategy of resources and energy. The three major technical means of recycling available include [63,66]. •The pyrometallurgical process (In this stage, the component metal oxides from lithium-ion batteries are reduced in a high-temperature furnace to form an alloy. The primary procedures are roasting and calcination) •The hydrometallurgical process (This involves the dissolution of metallic components from lithium-ion batteries using mineral acids, followed by metal separation through processes like solvent extraction and precipitation) •Direct recycling method (This method intends to minimize the number of processing steps required for the re-synthesis of cathode materials by recovering cathode materials with still-useable morphology, and has a comparatively low impact on the environment) [67]. 3.3. Life cycle costing (LCC) of Libased batteries Battery LCC involves evaluating the total cost of owning and operating a battery system over its entire lifetime, including the costs associated with production, installation, maintenance, and disposal. The total of a battery’s initial investment cost (CAPEX), operating cost (OPEX), and disposal cost (End-of-life Expenditures, EOLEX) is the battery’s life cycle cost. The CAPEX, which includes all expenses related to design, engineering, procurement, and construction, is the cost of purchasing and installing the battery. Over the course of the product’s lifecycle, all expenses such as those related to energy use, maintenance, and repair are included in the OPEX. The EOLEX is the price of disposing of a product after the end of its useful life. It includes costs for transportation, disposal, and remediation of the environment [68]. By considering the total life cycle cost of a product, LCC can help organizations make more informed decisions about product selection, procurement, and use. For example, a product with a lower initial cost may have a higher life cycle cost if it has higher operating and disposal costs. Therefore, LCC can be an opportunity for organizations to reduce costs and improve corporate sustainability by choosing products with lower life cycle costs. An important feature of some of the LCA studies is the LCC comparison of different battery chemistries and technologies, such as leadacid and lithium-ion batteries, in stationary energy storage applications. Variations in performance characteristics, lifetimes, safety considerations, and recycling/disposal costs between these different battery chemistries, can impact the total cost of ownership [69–71]. LCC can be divided into conventional LCC (actual cash flows) and environmental LCC (with assumed adoption of additional external costs and benefits) [72]. Cathode materials make up a significant portion of the raw materials needed for, and the expense associated with, lithium-ion batteries (LIBs). The high cost of cathodes results from the use of essential elements like lithium and cobalt. Still, it’s important to evaluate the supply, demand, and broader impacts of all the elements used in cathodes to accurately forecast the effects of swift electric vehicle (EV) adoption [73]. In addition, LCC can be conducted from different perspectives, including that of the customer, the manufacturer, or a larger entity (from the perspective of public perception or society as a whole). When conducting LCC, different scopes can also be considered, including conventional LCC, environmental LCC, and societal LCC. D. Paul et al. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 206 (2024) 114860 8 3.3.1. LCC framework The findings of the LCC analysis are presented in Table S2 of the supplementary information. A summarized overview is provided below: Goal and scope: The goal and scope of LCC studies differ in the battery system level, ie. battery cells, battery packs, battery energy storage systems (BESS) or battery electric vehicles. The evaluation of the costs of the battery system is most often viewed from the point of view of the price of battery production [10,74–79] or the operation of the user in relation to the consumption of the electric car [75,80]. In the cost expression, the functional unit is expressed in the currency of the given country per kWh of the battery or the given system level (cell/BESS/- electric vehicle) [76–79,81–83]. Most studies are focused on the system boundary Cradle-to-grave [10,74,80,82–84] or Cradle-to-usage [76–79]. In one study, the system boundary is Cradle-to-gate [81]. Life Cycle Inventory: Data sources and their quality are essential for the evaluation of LCC of battery systems. The mentioned studies draw data mainly from secondary sources in the form of open access or restricted databases [74,80–82,84] or review of articles [77–79], data from the market [10,76,83,85], or data from simulation analyses [75], and expert analysis [78]. Global organizations from which the data was obtained include the European Landscape Contractors Association, the World Bank’s and Eurostat’s and the United Nations’ Comtrade database. Life Cycle Impact Assessment: The impact category within the LCC is always in the area of costs from different perspectives. Studies mainly mention conventional LCC (variable and fixed costs) but environmental costs are also evaluated, which are expressed mainly in the sum of GHG emissions (EUR/ton CO 2 eq) [74]. CAPEX (capital expenditures) are costs associated with the acquisition of new physical assets and OPEX (operation and maintenance expenditures) are costs associated with battery operation [74,75,83]. The Commodity -LCC indicator expresses the sum of the market prices of the raw materials used excluding costs such as labor and depreciation [81]. In studies, the LCC framework appears to evaluate different phases - acquisition, development, production, use, maintenance phases and liquidation [10,76,77]. The LCC analysis of EVs varies by model, size of batteries, and region, with specific studies showing that the BYD e6 BEV had a higher LCC of US$ 2.63 million compared to US$ 1.80 million for the BALK EV 200 BEV in China, while in Singapore, the Mitsubishi EV brand recorded the highest LCC among others. Studies also indicated that EVs are not cost-competitive when compared to conventional and hydrogen EVs, despite incentives like exemptions from purchase and driving restrictions in China influencing the LCC outcomes [10,76,77].The findings [75,80]. indicate that due to elevated initial purchase prices, hybrid and battery electric vehicles incur the highest expenses, whereas vehicles powered by internal combustion engines are the least costly. Yet, when it comes to operational costs, electric vehicles are around 37 % cheaper than diesel vehicles and 60 % more affordable than those running on petrol. For battery energy storage systems (BESS), the mentioned parameter is LCOE (levelized cost of energy) which is defined as the total lifetime cost of an investment divided by the cumulated generated energy by this investment [86]. The cost model for battery cells represents the costs of material and scrap, labor, land, energy, machinery and installation, overhead, buildings, and maintenance [79]. Interpretation of the results: The LCC analysis indicates that Battery Electric Vehicles (BEV) and Internal Combustion Engine Vehicles (ICEV) powered by diesel are the most economical choices, showing total consumer life cycle costs that are about 5 % and 15 % lower than those for petrol-powered ICEVs and Hybrid Electric Vehicles (HEV), respectively [75,80]. Mela et al. [81] emphasizes that market prices are not always adequate to stimulate the sustainable use of resources. The high cost of the battery is the reason for the higher cost of producing battery electric vehicles than conventional combustion engine vehicles [76,77]. This is related to the statement of Maik et al. [78] that the prerequisite for the use of lithium-ion batteries is their decreasing price and high cycle stability. In a study of battery prices across different countries, applying economies of scale to reduce the battery price is effective in order to use all resources in the manufacturing plant [79]. The LCC of electricity storage in batteries is mainly driven by the cost of the battery system itself. Conversely, the GHGs from the electricity needed for charging significantly affect the additional life cycle emissions through losses from round-trip inefficiencies. Thus, the LCE of batteries can be significantly decreased by increasing the renewable energy proportion in an electricity system, which also indirectly lowers emissions associated with the electricity used in production [74]. Another influence on the price of the battery is its lifespan, which is estimated to be 8 years [10]. Optimum battery costs are achieved by adding thermal energy storage to a relatively large battery instead of partial battery replacement. Extensive sensitivity analyses were conducted [75] to ensure the accuracy of the findings and the selected parameters, which revealed that the LCC is significantly influenced by economic factors such as fuel cost, fuel price increase, and the discount rate. Incorporating PV with a diesel generator cuts LCC by 9–10 %, and adding batteries reduces it further by 14–17 %. Combining battery and thermal energy storage offers 51–77 % fuel cost savings, surpassing battery-only savings of 39–48 %, but raises investment costs by 27–50 %. Cars with LFP batteries tend to use more energy and emit more during use than those with Li-NMC batteries, which adversely affects their overall greenhouse gas emissions. However, when considering different environmental impact metrics, electric vehicles equipped with LFP batteries are on par with or outperform those with Li-NMC batteries, a benefit linked to the lesser emissions from LFP battery materials and the predominant influence of vehicle manufacturing on these metrics. Li-NMC batteries offer greater cost-effectiveness, benefiting both consumers and society in terms of external expenses [85]. Optimum economic impact on the environment can be ensured by reducing the cost of batteries and photovoltaics [84]. 3.4. Social life cycle assessment (S-LCA) of Li-based batteries S-LCA builds the social counterpart to LCA, sharing many of its key methodological characteristics. However, assessments are based on the status quo of the social environment including related factors such as economics, politics and social dynamics which are by nature subject to continuous changes. The results are provided in the form of social hotspots of the entire life cycle of a product covering several social indicators (e.g., workplace accidents, child labour, etc.) related to the different used cell materials (e.g. mining raw materials) and main stakeholders (workers, value chain actors, etc.). Special attention is usually given to supplier countries for raw materials used for cell manufacturing [87–90]. To address more vividly the overview and methods of S-LCA for Libased batteries, it is necessary to mention that to do the assessment of the social aspects is the least addressed pillar among the three dimensions of sustainability, namely environment, economy, and social aspects. In addition, S-LCA has also been created as a tool to evaluate the positive or negative social and socioeconomic impacts throughout the product line, such as Li-batteries [91–94]. Although there exist several tools focused on assessing social impacts, S-LCA differs from the others by its object on products and services, and its scope concerns the entire life cycle. The advantages of adopting a life cycle perspective include informing multi-stakeholders, i.e., retailers, common people, and end consumers about the positive and negative social impacts of the Li-batteries they sell or buy, or they use in order to prevent the changing of negative social impacts from one life cycle stage to another, or from one social issue to another [95–97]. In this review study, the importance of S-LCA for Li-based batteries has been considered to explore the supervision of the groups (manufacturers) making products as well as to create awareness among the retailers, common people, and end user, i.e., consumers. Additionally, the purpose of doing S-LCA for Li-batteries is also to assess and follow D. Paul et al. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 206 (2024) 114860 9 [69] Andra Luciana T, Gasparotti C, Rusu E. Green fuels — a new challenge for marine industry. Energy Rep 2021;7:127–32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. egyr.2021.06.020. [70] Ifaei P, Yoo CK. The compatibility of controlled power plants with self-sustainable models using a hybrid input/output and water-energy-carbon nexus analysis for climate change adaptation. J Clean Prod 2019;208:753–77. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.10.150. [71] Flynn A, Hacking N. Setting standards for a circular economy: a challenge too far for neoliberal environmental governance? J Clean Prod 2019;212:1256–67. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.11.257. [72] Saidur R, Abdelaziz EA, Demirbas A, Hossain MS, Mekhilef S. A review on biomass as a fuel for boilers. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2011;15:2262–89. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2011.02.015. [73] Murdock BE, Toghill KE, Tapia-Ruiz N. A perspective on the sustainability of cathode materials used in lithium-ion batteries. Adv Energy Mater 2021;11. https://doi.org/10.1002/aenm.202102028. [74] Schmidt TS, Beuse M, Zhang X, Steffen B, Schneider SF, Pena-Bello A, et al. Additional emissions and cost from storing electricity in stationary battery systems. Environ Sci Technol 2019;53:3379–90. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs. est.8b05313. [75] Luerssen C, Gandhi O, Reindl T, Sekhar C, Cheong D. Life cycle cost analysis (LCCA) of PV-powered cooling systems with thermal energy and battery storage for off-grid applications. Appl Energy 2020;273. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. apenergy.2020.115145. [76] Fang J. Modeling and analysis of life cycle cost for (LCC) battery electric vehicles (BEVs) and conventional combustion engine vehicles. Chem Eng Trans 2015;46: 601–6. https://doi.org/10.3303/CET1546101. [77] Ayodele BV, Mustapa SI. Life cycle cost assessment of electric vehicles: a review and bibliometric analysis. Sustainability 2020;12. https://doi.org/10.3390/ su12062387. [78] Naumann M, Karl RC, Truong CN, Jossen A, Hesse HC. Lithium-ion battery cost analysis in PV-household application. Energy Proc 2015;73:37–47. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.egypro.2015.07.555. Elsevier Ltd. [79] Orangi S, Strømman AH. A techno-economic model for benchmarking the production cost of lithium-ion battery cells. Batteries 2022;8. https://doi.org/ 10.3390/batteries8080083. [80] Petrauskien˙ e K, Galinis A, Kliaugait˙ e D, Dvarionien˙ e J. Comparative environmental life cycle and cost assessment of electric, hybrid, and conventional vehicles in Lithuania. Sustainability 2021;13:1–17. https://doi.org/10.3390/ su13020957. [81] Mela G, Carvalho ML, Temporelli A, Girardi P. The commodity life cycle costing indicator. An economic measure of natural resource use in the life cycle. Sustainability 2021;13. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13094870. [82] Koh SCL, Smith L, Miah J, Astudillo D, Eufrasio RM, Gladwin D, et al. Higher 2nd life Lithium Titanate battery content in hybrid energy storage systems lowers environmental-economic impact and balances eco-efficiency. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2021;152. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2021.111704. [83] Cicconi P, Postacchini L, Pallotta E, Monteriù A, Prist M, Bevilacqua M, et al. A life cycle costing of compacted lithium titanium oxide batteries for industrial applications. J Power Sources 2019;436. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. jpowsour.2019.226837. [84] Rossi F, Heleno M, Basosi R, Sinicropi A. Environmental and economic optima of solar home systems design: a combined LCA and LCC approach. Sci Total Environ 2020;744. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.140569. [85] Reuter B. Assessment of sustainability issues for the selection of materials and technologies during product design: a case study of lithium-ion batteries for electric vehicles. Int J Interact Des Manuf 2016;10:217–27. https://doi.org/ 10.1007/s12008-016-0329-0. [86] Pawel I. The cost of storage - how to calculate the levelized cost of stored energy (LCOE) and applications to renewable energy generation. Energy Proc 2014;46: 68–77. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egypro.2014.01.159. Elsevier Ltd. [87] Guidelines for SOCIAL LIFE CYCLE ASSESSMENT OF PRODUCTS AND ORGANIZATIONS 2020. n.d. [88] Russo Garrido S, Parent J, Beaulieu L, Rev´ eret JP. A literature review of type I SLCA—making the logic underlying methodological choices explicit. Int J Life Cycle Assess 2018;23:432–44. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-016-1067-z. [89] do Carmo BBT, Margni M, Baptiste P. Addressing uncertain scoring and weighting factors in social life cycle assessment. Int J Life Cycle Assess 2017;22:1609–17. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-017-1275-1. [90] Chhipi-Shrestha GK, Hewage K, Sadiq R. “Socializing” sustainability: a critical review on current development status of social life cycle impact assessment method. Clean Technol Environ Policy 2015;17:579–96. https://doi.org/ 10.1007/s10098-014-0841-5. [91] Bouillass G, Blanc I, Perez-Lopez P. Step-by-step social life cycle assessment framework: a participatory approach for the identification and prioritization of impact subcategories applied to mobility scenarios. Int J Life Cycle Assess 2021; 26:2408–35. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-021-01988-w. [92] Du C, Freire F. Overview of social life cycle assessment. 2014. [93] Dreyer LC, Hauschild MZ, Schierbeck J. Characterisation of social impacts in LCA: Part 1: development of indicators for labour rights. Int J Life Cycle Assess 2010; 15:247–59. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-009-0148-7. [94] Jørgensen A, Le Bocq A, Nazarkina L, Hauschild M. Methodologies for social life cycle assessment. Int J Life Cycle Assess 2008;13:96–103. https://doi.org/ 10.1065/lca2007.11.367. [95] Huertas-Valdivia I, Ferrari AM, Settembre-Blundo D, García-Mui˜ na FE. Social lifecycle assessment: a review by bibliometric analysis. Sustainability 2020;12. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12156211. [96] Catherine Benoit, Bernard Mazijn, United Nations Environment Programme. CIRAIG., interuniversity research centre for the life cycle of producs P and services, Canadian electronic library. Guidelines for social life cycle assessment of products. United Nations Environment Programme; 2013. [97] Venkatesh G. Critique of selected peer-reviewed publications on applied social life cycle assessment: focus on cases from developing countries. Clean Technol Environ Policy 2019;21:413–30. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10098-018-1644-x. [98] Zanchi L, Delogu M, Zamagni A, Pierini M. Analysis of the main elements affecting social LCA applications: challenges for the automotive sector. Int J Life Cycle Assess 2018;23:519–35. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-016-1176-8. [99] Traverso M, Bell L, Saling P, Fontes J. Towards social life cycle assessment: a quantitative product social impact assessment. Int J Life Cycle Assess 2018;23: 597–606. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-016-1168-8. [100] Moreno-Camacho CA, Montoya-Torres JR, Jaegler A, Gondran N. Sustainability metrics for real case applications of the supply chain network design problem: a systematic literature review. J Clean Prod 2019;231:600–18. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.05.278. [101] Mancini L, Eslava NA, Traverso M, Mathieux F. Assessing impacts of responsible sourcing initiatives for cobalt: insights from a case study. Resour Pol 2021;71. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resourpol.2021.102015. [102] Deberdt R, Le Billon P. The green transition in context—cobalt responsible sourcing for battery manufacturing. Soc Nat Resour 2022;35:784–803. https:// doi.org/10.1080/08941920.2022.2049410. [103] Thies C, Kieckh¨ afer K, Spengler TS, Sodhi MS. Assessment of social sustainability hotspots in the supply chain of lithium-ion batteries. Procedia CIRP 2019;80: 292–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procir.2018.12.009. Elsevier B.V. [104] Sharma SS, Manthiram A. Towards more environmentally and socially responsible batteries. Energy Environ Sci 2020;13:4087–97. https://doi.org/ 10.1039/d0ee02511a. [105] Agusdinata DB, Liu W, Eakin H, Romero H. Socio-environmental impacts of lithium mineral extraction: towards a research agenda. Environ Res Lett 2018;13. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/aae9b1. [106] Sovacool BK, Hook A, Martiskainen M, Brock A, Turnheim B. The decarbonisation divide: contextualizing landscapes of low-carbon exploitation and toxicity in Africa. Global Environ Change 2020;60. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. gloenvcha.2019.102028. [107] Chaves C, Pereira E, Ferreira P, Guerner Dias A. Concerns about lithium extraction: a review and application for Portugal. Extr Ind Soc 2021;8. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.exis.2021.100928. [108] Neves D, Baptista P, Sim˜ oes M, Silva CA, Figueira JR. Designing a municipal sustainable energy strategy using multi-criteria decision analysis. J Clean Prod 2018;176:251–60. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.12.114. [109] Haase M, Wulf C, Baumann M, R¨ osch C, Weil M, Zapp P, et al. Prospective assessment of energy technologies: a comprehensive approach for sustainability assessment. Energy Sustain Soc 2022;12. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13705-02200344-6. [110] Khlief AK, Ul Haq Gilani SI, Al-Kayiem HH, Mohammad ST. Concentrated solar tower hybrid evacuated tube–photovoltaic/thermal receiver with a non-imaging optic reflector: a case study. J Clean Prod 2021;298. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. jclepro.2021.126683. [111] Fu X, Li D, Wang H, Li Z, Zhao Q, Wei X. Oneand three-dimensional coupling flow simulations of pumped-storage power stations with complex long-distance water conveyance pipeline system. J Clean Prod 2021;315. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.128228. [112] Xue H, Jia Y, Wen P, Farkoush SG. Using of improved models of Gaussian Processes in order to Regional wind power forecasting. J Clean Prod 2020;262. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.121391. [113] Shrivastava S, Unnikrishnan S. Life cycle sustainability assessment: methodology and framework. In: Muthu SS, editor. Life cycle sustainability assessment (LCSA). Singapore: Springer Singapore; 2021. p. 43–55. https://doi.org/10.1007/978981-16-4562-4_3. [114] Barke A, Thies C, Popien JL, Melo SP, Cerdas F, Herrmann C, et al. Life cycle sustainability assessment of potential battery systems for electric aircraft. Procedia CIRP 2021;98:660–5. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procir.2021.01.171. Elsevier B.V. [115] Wang Y, Zhou G, Li T, Wei X. Comprehensive evaluation of the sustainable development of battery electric vehicles in China. Sustainability 2019;11. https:// doi.org/10.3390/su11205635. [116] Petrillo A, De Felice F, Jannelli E, Autorino C, Minutillo M, Lavadera AL. Life cycle assessment (LCA) and life cycle cost (LCC) analysis model for a stand-alone hybrid renewable energy system. Renew Energy 2016;95:337–55. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.renene.2016.04.027. [117] Guohua Y, Elshkaki A, Xiao X. Dynamic analysis of future nickel demand, supply, and associated materials, energy, water, and carbon emissions in China. Resour Pol 2021;74. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resourpol.2021.102432. [118] Graham JD, Rupp JA, Brungard E. Lithium in the green energy transition: the quest for both sustainability and security. Sustainability 2021;13. https://doi. org/10.3390/su132011274. [119] Raugei M, Kamran M, Hutchinson A. Environmental implications of the ongoing electrification of the UK light duty vehicle fleet. Resour Conserv Recycl 2021;174. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2021.105818. [120] Nordel¨ of A, Messagie M, Tillman AM, Ljunggren S¨ oderman M, Van Mierlo J. Environmental impacts of hybrid, plug-in hybrid, and battery electric D. Paul et al. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 206 (2024) 114860 16 vehicles—what can we learn from life cycle assessment? Int J Life Cycle Assess 2014;19:1866–90. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-014-0788-0. [121] Picatoste A, Justel D, Mendoza JMF. Circularity and life cycle environmental impact assessment of batteries for electric vehicles: industrial challenges, best practices and research guidelines. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2022;169. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2022.112941. [122] Lai X, Chen Q, Tang X, Zhou Y, Gao F, Guo Y, et al. Critical review of life cycle assessment of lithium-ion batteries for electric vehicles: a lifespan perspective. ETransportation 2022;12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.etran.2022.100169. [123] Lueddeckens S, Saling P, Guenther E. Temporal issues in life cycle assessment—a systematic review. Int J Life Cycle Assess 2020;25:1385–401. https://doi.org/ 10.1007/s11367-020-01757-1. [124] Kloepffer W. Life cycle sustainability assessment of products (with Comments by Helias A. Udo de Haes, p. 95). Int J Life Cycle Assess 2008;13:89–95. https://doi. org/10.1065/lca2008.02.376. Springer Verlag. [125] Pikatza-Gorrotxategi N, Alvarez-Meaza I, Río-Belver RM, Zarrabeitia-Bilbao E. Mapping social life cycle assessment: science toward industrial involvement. Dyna 2022;97. https://doi.org/10.6036/10553. D. Paul et al. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 206 (2024) 114860 17