Pith. sign in

REVIEW 6 major objections 5 minor 77 references

Meta-analysis of Life Cycle Assessments for Li-Ion Batteries Production Emissions

T0 review · 6 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read Published lithium-ion battery production emissions per kilogram fall with production scale and grid carbon intensity, and a two-predictor regression explains 60 percent of yearly variation.

desk verdict The learning-effect claim collapses under the underlying data; the NMC811 LCA and meta-analysis are solid, reproducible work. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.05531 v1 pith:XPWGCTR2 submitted 2025-06-05 eess.SY cs.SY

Maurizio Clemente , Prapti Maharjan , Mauro Salazar , Theo Hofman This is my paper
classification eess.SYcs.SY
keywords lithium-ionbatterieslifecycleassessmentmeta-analysisglobalwarmingpotentiallearning-by-doingelectricitymixcarbonintensitybatterymanufacturingemissionsregressionanalysis
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper tries to establish that the greenhouse-gas footprint of lithium-ion battery manufacturing is not fixed: it falls as production scales up and as the electricity used in the supply chain gets cleaner. Pooling two decades of published life-cycle assessments converted to a common unit, the authors report a median footprint of 17.63 kg CO$_2$-equivalent per kilogram of battery, with a standard deviation of 7.34. Their own cradle-to-gate assessment of an NMC 811 battery with a silicon-coated graphite anode lands at 17.33, 16.85, and 16.47 kg CO$_2$-eq/kg for China, South Korea, and Sweden, close to the pooled median. The central statistical claim is that a linear model with annual battery production and the carbon intensity of China's electricity mix as predictors explains 60.34 percent of the year-to-year variation in average reported emissions, with the negative production coefficient interpreted as learning-by-doing. This matters because future life-cycle models that ignore scale effects will misestimate the climate benefits of battery-electric vehicles.

What carries the argument

The central object is a yearly-averaged regression dataset built from the meta-analysis: for each year, the average mass-specific global warming potential (kg CO$_2$-eq/kg) is paired with annual battery production $Q_a$ (GWh) and the carbon intensity of the Chinese electricity mix $E_{ch}$ (g CO$_2$/kWh). The mechanism that carries the argument is ordinary least squares on the multivariate linear model $P_{gw} = \beta_0 + \beta_{Q_a} Q_a + \beta_{E_{ch}} E_{ch}$, whose coefficient signs are interpreted: a negative $\beta_{Q_a}$ indicates learning, and a positive $\beta_{E_{ch}}$ indicates dependence on grid carbon intensity. Supporting this is a cradle-to-gate LCA assembled from the cited battery-manufacturing inventories and life-cycle emission databases, run in open-source LCA software, which decomposes the total GWP and shows that cathode and cell production dominate.

What would settle it

Re-fit the model using cumulative battery production, the variable the classic learning curve actually uses, and extend the data beyond seven yearly averages; if the production coefficient loses its negative sign or a simple time trend explains the averaged emissions just as well, the learning-effect interpretation fails. A direct out-of-sample check is to predict cradle-to-gate LCAs published for 2021 through 2024 that were not in the training set and compare the residuals.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the discovery is that two variables — annual battery production volume and the carbon intensity of the Chinese electricity mix — jointly track the average per-kilogram global warming potential reported in the LCA literature. In the averaged dataset (seven yearly points after outlier removal), the multivariate model $P_{gw} = \beta_0 + \beta_{Q_a} Q_a + \beta_{E_{ch}} E_{ch}$ yields $R^2 = 0.6034$; the production coefficient is negative and the grid-intensity coefficient is positive, meaning larger output and cleaner grids both point to lower specific emissions. The accompanying LCA attributes most manufacturing emissions to cell production and, within it, cathode material processing, so switching assembly to a cleaner grid without decarbonizing upstream material production produces only modest savings. The authors conclude that production scale and grid decarbonization should be built into future LCA models, and they read the negative output coefficient as evidence of learning effects in battery manufacturing.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that each year's total battery output, rather than cumulative production experience or an unrelated trend, is what makes reported per-kilogram emissions fall; with only seven yearly averages in the regression, that link is not statistically secure.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Future LCA models that ignore production scale will misestimate specific manufacturing emissions, since the fitted model implies that larger annual output goes with lower per-kilogram global warming potential.
  • Relocating final battery assembly to countries with very clean grids cuts total cradle-to-gate emissions only modestly, from 17.33 to 16.47 kg CO$_2$-eq/kg in the paper's case studies; meaningful cuts require decarbonizing upstream cathode and cell production in the actual supply chain.
  • Given projected battery demand and Chinese grid intensity, the regression provides a direct way to forecast future average manufacturing emissions per kilogram of battery.
  • The pooled median of 17.63 kg CO$_2$-eq/kg with a 7.34 standard deviation gives modelers a harmonized reference point for cradle-to-gate battery production GWP across different functional units.
  • If the negative production coefficient reflects real learning, then early investment in large-scale battery plants carries an emissions dividend that grows as production volume expands.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • A natural test the paper leaves implicit is to fit a Wright-style learning curve on cumulative battery production rather than annual production; if the learning coefficient survives, the annual-production proxy is validated, and if not, the learning claim may be an artifact of the proxy.
  • If the learning rate is real, it can be expressed as an emissions experience curve and combined with cost experience curves, allowing design and policy decisions that trade off cost and carbon explicitly.
  • The model treats China's grid intensity as the relevant carbon signal for the whole supply chain; as battery supply chains diversify outside China, a multi-region intensity index would be needed to keep the predictor valid.
  • Part of the regression's explanatory power may come from methodological harmonization trends in the LCA literature, such as shifting functional units and system boundaries, rather than from physical learning; restricting the analysis to cradle-to-gate studies with a common functional unit would help isolate the physical effect.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

6 major / 5 minor

Summary. The manuscript presents a meta-analysis of 40 life-cycle assessment (LCA) studies on lithium-ion battery production, converts reported global warming potentials to a mass-specific basis, and reports a median of 17.63 kg CO2-eq/kg after excluding four Chinese cradle-to-grave studies. It also develops a cradle-to-gate LCA for an NMC811 battery with a silicon-coated graphite anode under Chinese, South Korean, and Swedish electricity mixes, obtaining 17.33, 16.85, and 16.47 kg CO2-eq/kg, respectively. The paper then fits six regression models that link annual battery production and the carbon intensity of the Chinese electricity mix to yearly-averaged emissions, interpreting the negative coefficient on production volume as evidence of learning effects.

Significance. If the learning-effect result were sound, it would be a useful input to prospective LCA models, allowing production scale and grid decarbonization to be treated as dynamic variables. The assembled dataset and the LCA case study are potentially useful contributions: the median GWP aligns with prior literature, and the emission decomposition across electricity mixes is informative. However, the regression analysis is the paper's central claim, and it is not supported by the reported statistics; the paper's own study-level results contradict it. The significance of the paper therefore hinges on a component that is empirically unsubstantiated.

major comments (6)
  1. [Section 3.2, Table 3 and Table 5] The claim that the multivariate linear regression on yearly-averaged data shows statistical significance is not supported: the overall p-value is 0.1573, which is not significant at any conventional level. The statement that the fit is significant 'using a significance level (α) lower than what is typically applied' inverts the relationship between p-values and alpha; a p-value of 0.1573 means the null is rejected only at an unusually high alpha. Moreover, Table 5 contains an internal inconsistency: for β1,a = -1.2162 with σ = 0.50161, the t-statistic should be about -2.42, not the reported -3.4246; the p-value 0.0724 is consistent with t = -2.42. The abstract and conclusion nevertheless assert the presence of a learning effect, which is not justified by these statistics.
  2. [Section 3.2, Table 3] The same predictors applied to the N=36 study-level observations yield R² = 0.0034 and a model p-value of 0.9457, meaning no relationship exists at the individual-study level. The paper does not explain why the seven yearly means are the appropriate unit of analysis. Because Qa and Ech both trend strongly over time, the negative coefficient on Qa in the averaged regression can simply absorb a common downward drift in published GWP values (e.g., methodological harmonization, updated databases). Without a year effect or a nonparametric trend control, the learning coefficient is confounded with time; the reported result is an aggregation artifact rather than evidence of learning.
  3. [Section 2.3, Eq. (6) and Table 3] The paper motivates the analysis with Wright's learning curve, which is specified on cumulative production, but all models use annual production Qa. The power-law model with annual production (Eq. 6) is null even on the averaged data (R² = 0.0479, p = 0.9065). The paper never estimates a cumulative-production model, so it provides no evidence for a Wright-style learning effect. At best, the significant averaged linear model is a bivariate trend regression, not a learning-curve model.
  4. [Section 2.3, Eq. (3) and Section 2.1] The predictor Ech is the carbon intensity of the Chinese electricity mix, yet the dataset contains studies from many countries with heterogeneous electricity mixes (e.g., Norway, South Korea, USA). Averaging emissions across all studies and regressing them on China's grid intensity is an ecological regression: the predictor is not matched to the emissions of the individual studies. The paper should use each study's own production-location carbon intensity or a global average, and should test the sensitivity of the results to this choice.
  5. [Section 2.1 and Table 1] The conversion of functional units to mass-specific GWP relies on linearity in mass, capacity, and distance, which the authors themselves state is 'not universally applicable.' No details of the conversion factors (e.g., vehicle efficiency, battery energy density, lifetime kilometers) are provided, making the central dataset non-reproducible. Since the regression uses these converted values, the learning-effect claim is contingent on an unvalidated transformation.
  6. [Section 2.1 and Section 2.4] The exclusion of the four Chinese cradle-to-grave studies (Li et al., 2014; Wang et al., 2016; Yu et al., 2018) as 'outliers' is not statistically justified, and it is inconsistent with retaining other cradle-to-grave studies (e.g., Hawkins et al., 2013; Ellingsen et al., 2016; Giordano et al., 2018; Sun et al., 2020). The removal changes the median from 20.18 to 17.63 and defines the regression dataset; no sensitivity analysis is given. Additionally, the paper acknowledges in Section 2.4 that many studies rely on shared secondary sources (Ecoinvent, GREET, GaBi), violating the independence assumption on which the regression p-values rely.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Abstract and Section 2.1, Table 2] The abstract reports the median (17.63 kg CO2-eq/kg) and standard deviation (7.34) without stating that these values refer to the dataset after excluding four Chinese cradle-to-grave studies; the full dataset has median 20.18 and standard deviation 19.09. Please qualify the numbers in the abstract.
  2. [Table 1] The table header contains a typo: 'Y ear' should be 'Year'. Other typos in the text include 'green house gas emissions' in the Introduction and 'Swedish EnEnvironment Research Instiitute' in the reference list.
  3. [Section 3.2] The statement that the normal distribution of residuals 'wards off any concerns about heteroskedasticity' is not correct; normality and homoskedasticity are separate assumptions, and the small sample size makes such diagnostics unreliable.
  4. [Section 3.2 and Section 2.3] For reproducibility, the averaged yearly data (Pgw, Qa, Ech) used in the regressions should be provided in a table or supplementary material; currently the reader cannot reconstruct the N=7 dataset from the manuscript.
  5. [Section 3.2] The phrase 'using a significance level (α) lower than what is typically applied in conventional LCA studies' is confusing and should be rephrased; a p-value of 0.1573 does not become significant by invoking an unusually low alpha.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the regression uses external predictors, the learning effect is a fitted-coefficient interpretation, and the self-citations are methodological or motivational rather than load-bearing.

full rationale

No circular step is present. The central regression (Eq. 3) explains specific emissions Pgw using two external predictors, annual battery production Qa and Chinese electricity carbon intensity Ech, neither of which is constructed from the Pgw values being explained. The coefficients are fitted by least squares (Eq. 7) on the same yearly-averaged data, so the reported R^2 = 0.6034 is an in-sample goodness-of-fit rather than an out-of-sample prediction, but this is standard empirical modeling and does not make the result definitionally identical to its input. The negative Qa coefficient is interpreted as supporting a learning effect, but that is an inference from an estimated association, not a quantity that is equal to the model input by construction. The statistical weakness of the evidence (overall p = 0.1573 with N = 7, and near-zero fit on the N = 36 study-level data) is a robustness and significance concern, not a circularity concern. The self-citations to Clemente et al. 2025 and Maharjan et al. 2024 are used respectively for background on cost-learning and for the standard log-log regression technique; neither citation is the basis for the paper's own emissions-learning claim, which rests on the paper's own regression. Section 2.4 explicitly concedes that some meta-analyzed studies rely on shared secondary databases such as Ecoinvent, GREET, and GaBi, which weakens the independence assumption underlying the meta-analysis and the comparison of the authors' LCA with the literature median, but this is a stated limitation rather than a reduction of any derived result to its inputs. On the whole, the derivation chain is self-contained and not circular.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central regression rests on three fitted coefficients and several untested modeling choices: linear conversion of functional units, annual production as a stand-in for cumulative learning, and post-hoc exclusion of four China studies. The LCA itself leans on GREET/Ecoinvent databases as external assets rather than on new measurements.

free parameters (3)
  • Intercept β0 = -185.7
    Fitted intercept in the multivariate linear regression (Table 5).
  • Production coefficient β1,a = -1.2162
    Fitted coefficient for annual battery production (GWh) in the multivariate linear regression; interpreted as a learning effect.
  • Carbon intensity coefficient β1,e = 0.38658
    Fitted coefficient for Chinese electricity carbon intensity (g CO2/kWh) in the multivariate linear regression.
assumptions (5)
  • ad hoc to paper Emissions scale linearly with mass, capacity, and distance for converting functional units
    Section 2.1 states conversion between functional units assumes a linear relationship in emissions scaling, which the authors acknowledge is not universally applicable; this conversion underlies the meta-analysis dataset.
  • ad hoc to paper Annual battery production is a valid proxy for cumulative production experience in learning curves
    Section 2.3 uses annual production Qa in the regression, but Wright's learning curve is defined on cumulative production; the paper does not justify this replacement.
  • domain assumption The carbon intensity of the Chinese electricity mix is representative of the grid supplying battery production globally
    Section 3.1 stages most production in China because over three-quarters of NMC capacity is installed there; the regression uses Chinese carbon intensity as a global predictor.
  • ad hoc to paper The four excluded China cradle-to-grave studies are outliers and can be removed from the dataset
    Section 2.1 excludes Li et al. (2014), Wang et al. (2016) x2, and Yu et al. (2018) as outliers because of use-phase emissions, but this post-hoc exclusion affects both the meta-analysis statistics and the regression.
  • domain assumption GREET inventory and Ecoinvent 3.8 accurately represent battery production material and energy flows
    Section 2.2 bases the cradle-to-gate LCA on the GREET battery inventory and Ecoinvent emission factors via Activity Browser; the accuracy of the LCA depends on these databases.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Meta-analysis of Life Cycle Assessments for Li-Ion Batteries Production Emissions." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/XPWGCTR2

@misc{pith2026250605531,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Meta-analysis of Life Cycle Assessments for Li-Ion Batteries Production Emissions},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/XPWGCTR2}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.05531}
}
read the original abstract

This paper investigates the environmental impact of Li-Ion batteries by quantifying manufacturing-related emissions and analyzing how electricity mix and production scale affect emission intensity. To this end, we conduct a meta-analysis of life cycle assessments on lithium-ion batteries published over the past two decades, categorizing them by year, battery chemistry, functional unit, system boundaries, and electricity mix. We then carry out a cradle-to-gate assessment for a nickel manganese cobalt 811 battery with a silicon-coated graphite anode, analyzing how variations in the carbon intensity of the electricity mix affect emissions, with case studies for China, South Korea, and Sweden. Finally, we develop a set of regression models that link annual battery production and the carbon intensity of China's electricity mix to the average mass-specific emissions observed each year. The meta-analysis shows a median global warming potential of 17.63 kg CO2-eq./kg of battery, with a standard deviation of 7.34. Differences in electricity mix mainly influence emissions from the energy-intensive cell production, particularly from cathode material processing. We found that a multivariate linear regression using production volume and the carbon intensity of the Chinese electricity mix as predictors explains emissions with moderate accuracy. The environmental impact of battery manufacturing can be reduced by using clean energy sources in production processes. However, achieving substantial reductions requires clean energy throughout the entire supply chain, as importing materials from regions with carbon-intensive electricity mixes can undermine these efforts. Our findings also highlight the emission-reducing effect of learning associated with increased production scale, supporting the integration of learning effects in future life cycle assessment models.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.05531 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. In our study, we analyze the emissions generated [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Comparison of the average specific environmen [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Flow diagram of the cradle-to-gate LCA. We use [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Annual battery production volumes (IEA, 2021; [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Carbon intensity of the Chinese electricity [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Percentual composition of the GHGs considering the Chinese electricity mix. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Influence of the electricity mix on the LCA of mass-specific GHGs emissions in the production of Li-Ion [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_7.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

77 extracted references · 67 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    (2006 a ) Environmental management - life cycle assessment - principles and framework

    work page 2006

  2. [2]

    (2006 b ) Environmental management - life cycle assessment - requirements and guidelines management environnemental

    work page 2006

  3. [3]

    ://www.iso.org/standard/37456.html

    (2006 c ) ISO 14040 environmental management — life cycle assessment — principles and framework. ://www.iso.org/standard/37456.html

    work page 2006

  4. [4]

    (2020) Environmental management - vocabulary management environnemental

    work page 2020

  5. [5]

    (2022) Mineral commodity summaries 2022. Tech. rep., USGS, Virginia

    work page 2022

  6. [6]

    Aguirre K, Eisenhardt L, Lim C, Nelson B, Norring A, Slowik P, Tu N (2012) Lifecycle analysis comparison of a battery electric vehicle and a conventional gasoline vehicle. Tech. rep., California Air Resources Board, ://www.doksi.hu, advisor: Dr. Deepak Rajagopal

    work page 2012

  7. [7]

    Energies 13(23):6345

    Aichberger C, Jungmeier G (2020) Environmental life cycle impacts of automotive batteries based on a literature review. Energies 13(23):6345

    work page 2020

  8. [8]

    Amarakoon S, Smith J, Segal B (2012) Lithium-ion batteries and nanotechnology for electric vehicles: A life cycle assessment. Tech. rep., US EPA Design for the Environment Program Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics and National Risk Management Research Laboratory Office of Research and Development

    work page 2012

Show all 77 references
  1. [9]

    Arzoumanidis I, D'Eusanio M, Raggi A, Petti L (2020) Functional unit definition criteria in life cycle assessment and social life cycle assessment: A discussion pp 1--10

    2020

  2. [10]

    Applied Energy 169(1):721--728

    Bergesen JD, Suh S (2016) A framework for technological learning in the supply chain: A case study on CdTe photovoltaics. Applied Energy 169(1):721--728

    2016

  3. [11]

    International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment (26):2024–2039

    Chordia M, Nordelöf A, Ager-Wick Ellingsen L (2021) Environmental life cycle implications of upscaling lithium-ion battery production. International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment (26):2024–2039

    2021

  4. [12]

    Phd thesis 1 (research tu/e / graduation tu/e), Mechanical Engineering, proefschrift

    Clemente M (2025) Footprint-aware electric vehicle family design. Phd thesis 1 (research tu/e / graduation tu/e), Mechanical Engineering, proefschrift

    2025

  5. [13]

    Applied Energy 379:124840, doi:10.1016/j.apenergy.2024.124840

    Clemente M, Salazar M, Hofman T (2025) Concurrent D esign O ptimization of P owertrain C omponent M odules in a F amily of E lectric V ehicles. Applied Energy 379:124840, doi:10.1016/j.apenergy.2024.124840

    2025

  6. [14]

    Journal of Cleaner Production 215(1):634--649, doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.01.056

    Cusenza MA, Bobba S, Ardente F, Cellura M, Di Persio F (2019) Energy and environmental assessment of a traction lithium-ion battery pack for plug-in hybrid electric vehicles. Journal of Cleaner Production 215(1):634--649, doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.01.056

    2019 doi

  7. [15]

    Dai Q, Dunn J, Kelly JC, Elgowainy A (2017) Update of life cycle analysis of lithium-ion batteries in the greet model. Tech. rep., Energy Systems Division, Argonne National Laboratory (ANL), IL, US

    2017

  8. [16]

    Dai Q, Kelly JC, Dunn J, Benavides P (2018) Update of bill-of-materials and cathode materials production for lithium-ion batteries in the greet model. Tech. rep., Energy Systems Division, Argonne National Laboratory (ANL), IL, US

    2018

  9. [17]

    Batteries 5(2):48

    Dai Q, Kelly JC, Gaines L, Wang M (2019) Life cycle analysis of lithium-ion batteries for automotive applications. Batteries 5(2):48

    2019

  10. [18]

    Environmental Research Communications 2(1), doi:10.1088/2515-7620/AB5E1E

    Davidsson Kurland S (2020) Energy use for gwh-scale lithium-ion battery production. Environmental Research Communications 2(1), doi:10.1088/2515-7620/AB5E1E

    2020 doi

  11. [19]

    Journal of Power Sources 343:284--295, doi:10.1016/j.jpowsour.2017.01.036

    Deng Y, Li J, Li T, Gao X, Yuan C (2017) Life cycle assessment of lithium sulfur battery for electric vehicles. Journal of Power Sources 343:284--295, doi:10.1016/j.jpowsour.2017.01.036

    2017 doi

  12. [20]

    ACS Sustainable Chemistry and Engineering 7:599--610

    Deng Y, Ma L, Li T, Li J, Yuan C (2019) Life cycle assessment of silicon-nanotube-based lithium ion battery for electric vehicles. ACS Sustainable Chemistry and Engineering 7:599--610

    2019

  13. [21]

    Dunn J, Gaines L, Barnes M, Sullivan J, Wang M (2014) Material and energy flows in the materials production, assembly, and end-of-life stages of the automotive lithium-ion battery life cycle. Tech. rep., Argonne National Library - Energy Systems Division

    2014

  14. [22]

    Environ Res Lett 11:054010

    Ellingsen LA, Singh B, Strømman AH (2016) The size and range effect: lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions of electric vehicles. Environ Res Lett 11:054010

    2016

  15. [23]

    Journal of Industrial Ecology 17:53--64, doi:10.1111/jiec.12072

    Ellingsen LAW, Singh B, Majeau-Bettez G, Srivastava AK, Valøen LO, Strømman AH (2013) Life cycle assessment of a lithium-ion battery vehicle pack. Journal of Industrial Ecology 17:53--64, doi:10.1111/jiec.12072

    2013 doi

  16. [24]

    Journal of Power Sources 262:169--177, doi:10.1016/j.jpowsour.2014.03.092

    Faria R, Marques P, Garcia R, Moura P, Freire F, Delgado J, Almeida AT (2014) Primary and secondary use of electric mobility batteries from a life cycle perspective. Journal of Power Sources 262:169--177, doi:10.1016/j.jpowsour.2014.03.092

    2014 doi

  17. [25]

    International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment 10(1):3--9, doi:10.1065/LCA2004.10.181.1/METRICS, ://link.springer.com/article/10.1065/lca2004.10.181.1

    Frischknecht R, Jungbluth N, Althaus HJ, Doka G, Dones R, Heck T, Hellweg S, Hischier R, Nemecek T, Rebitzer G, Spielmann M (2005) The ecoinvent database: Overview and methodological framework . International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment 10(1):3--9, doi:10.1065/LCA2004.10....

    2005 doi

  18. [26]

    Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment 64

    Giordano A, Fischbeck P, Matthews HS (2018) Environmental and economic comparison of diesel and battery electric delivery vans to inform city logistics fleet replacement strategies. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment 64

    2018

  19. [27]

    Sustainability 9:504, doi:10.3390/su9040504

    Hao H, Mu Z, Jiang S, Liu Z, Zhao F (2017) Ghg emissions from the production of lithium-ion batteries for electric vehicles in china. Sustainability 9:504, doi:10.3390/su9040504

    2017 doi

  20. [28]

    Journal of Industrial Ecology 17:53--64, doi:10.1111/j.1530-9290.2012.00532.x

    Hawkins TR, Singh B, Majeau-Bettez G, Strømman AH (2013) Comparative environmental life cycle assessment of conventional and electric vehicles. Journal of Industrial Ecology 17:53--64, doi:10.1111/j.1530-9290.2012.00532.x

    2013

  21. [29]

    Joule 3(6):1412--1414

    Hoekstra A (2019) The underestimated potential of battery electric vehicles to reduce emissions. Joule 3(6):1412--1414

    2019

  22. [30]

    International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment 22(2):138--147, doi:10.1007/S11367-016-1246-Y

    Huijbregt M, Steinmann Z, Elshout P, Stam G, Verones F, Vieira M, Hollander A, zijp M, van Zelm R (2017) ReCiPe2016: a harmonised life cycle impact assessment method at midpoint and endpoint level . International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment 22(2):138--147, doi:10.1007/S11...

    2017 doi

  23. [31]

    IEA (2020) Global EV outlook 2020. Tech. rep., International Energy Agency

    2020

  24. [32]

    IEA (2021) Global EV outlook 2021. Tech. rep., International Energy Agency

    2021

  25. [33]

    IEA (2024) Global ev outlook 2024. Tech. rep., IEA , https://www.iea.org/reports/global-ev-outlook-2024

    2024

  26. [34]

    IPCC (2022) Climate Change 2022: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK and New York, NY, USA, contribution of working group ii to the sixth assessment report of the intergovernmental panel on climate change IPCC, 2022: Summary for Po...

    2022

  27. [35]

    Energy Policy 36(1):138--162

    Kahouli-Brahmi S (2008) Technological learning in energy–environment–economy modelling: A survey. Energy Policy 36(1):138--162

    2008

  28. [36]

    Journal of Cleaner Production 254:120067, doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.120067

    Kallitsis E, Korre A, Kelsall G, Kupfersberger M, Nie Z (2020) Environmental life cycle assessment of the production in china of lithium-ion batteries with nickel-cobalt-manganese cathodes utilising novel electrode chemistries. Journal of Cleaner Production 254:120067, doi:10....

    2020

  29. [37]

    Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change 25:371--396, doi:10.1007/s11027-019-09869-2

    Kelly JC, Dai Q, Wang M (2020) Globally regional life cycle analysis of automotive lithium-ion nickel manganese cobalt batteries. Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change 25:371--396, doi:10.1007/s11027-019-09869-2

    2020 doi

  30. [38]

    Environmental Science & Technology 50:7715--7722, doi:10.1021/acs.est.6b00830

    Kim HC, Wallington TJ, Arsenault R, Bae C, Ahn S, Lee J (2016) Cradle-to-gate emissions from a commercial electric vehicle li-ion battery: A comparative analysis. Environmental Science & Technology 50:7715--7722, doi:10.1021/acs.est.6b00830

    2016 doi

  31. [39]

    Environmental Science & Technology 48:3047--3055, doi:10.1021/es4037786

    Li B, Gao X, Li J, Yuan C (2014) Life cycle environmental impact of high-capacity lithium ion battery with silicon nanowires anode for electric vehicles. Environmental Science & Technology 48:3047--3055, doi:10.1021/es4037786

    2014 doi

  32. [40]

    In: The Future European Energy System: Renewable Energy, Flexibility Options and Technological Progress, pp 55--73

    Louwen A, Junginger M (2021) Deriving experience curves and implementing technological learning in energy system models. In: The Future European Energy System: Renewable Energy, Flexibility Options and Technological Progress, pp 55--73

    2021

  33. [41]

    LowCarbonPower (2024) Electricity in people's republic of china in 2023/2024. Online

    2024

  34. [42]

    Materials Science Forum 847:403--410, doi:10.4028/www.scientific.net/MSF.847.403

    Lu Q, Wu P, Shen W, Wang X, Zhang B, Wang C (2016) Life cycle assessment of electric vehicle power battery. Materials Science Forum 847:403--410, doi:10.4028/www.scientific.net/MSF.847.403

    2016 doi

  35. [43]

    Technological Forecasting and Social Change 209:123795

    Maharjan P, Hauck M, Kirkels A, Buettner B, de Coninck H (2024) Deriving experience curves: A structured and critical approach applied to pv sector. Technological Forecasting and Social Change 209:123795

    2024

  36. [44]

    Environmental Science and Technology 45:4548--4554

    Majeau-Bettez G, Hawkins TR, A HS (2011) Life cycle environmental assessment of lithium-ion and nickel metal hydride batteries for plug-in hybrid and battery electric vehicles. Environmental Science and Technology 45:4548--4554

    2011

  37. [45]

    Energy and Environmental Science 14(1):4712--4739

    Mauler L, Duffner F, Zeier W, Leker J (2021) Battery cost forecasting: a review of methods and results with an outlook to 2050. Energy and Environmental Science 14(1):4712--4739

    2021

  38. [46]

    Available online at https://neonresearch.nl/

    NEON Research (2021) Lighting the way to zero emission energy and mobility. Available online at https://neonresearch.nl/

    2021

  39. [47]

    Journal of Environmental Science and Technology 44(17):6550–6556

    Notter DA, Gauch M, Widmer R, Wager P, Stamp A, Zah R, Althaus HJ (2010) Contribution of li-ion batteries to the environmental impact of electric vehicles. Journal of Environmental Science and Technology 44(17):6550–6556

    2010

  40. [48]

    Batteries 5(23):17

    Philippot M, Alvarez G, Ayerbe E, Van Mierlo J, Messagie M (2019) Eco-efficiency of a lithium-ion battery for electric vehicles: Influence of manufacturing country and commodity prices on ghg emissions and costs. Batteries 5(23):17

    2019

  41. [49]

    Placek M (2021) Projected global battery demand from 2020 to 2030, by application. Tech. rep., Statista, www.statista.com/statistics/1103218/global-battery-demand-forecast/

    2021

  42. [50]

    Energy Procedia 105:3584--3595, doi:10.1016/j.egypro.2017.03.827

    Qiao Q, Zhao F, Liu Z, Jiang S, Hao H (2017) Comparative study on life cycle co2 emissions from the production of electric and conventional vehicles in china. Energy Procedia 105:3584--3595, doi:10.1016/j.egypro.2017.03.827

    2017 doi

  43. [51]

    Rawles C (2019) Who is winning the global lithium ion battery arms race? tech. rep. Tech. rep., Benchmarkminerals, www.benchmarkminerals.com/whois-winning-the-global-lithium-ion-battery-arms-race/

    2019

  44. [52]

    Our World in Data Https://ourworldindata.org/co2-and-greenhouse-gas-emissions

    Ritchie H, Roser M, Rosado P (2020) Co2 and greenhouse gas emissions. Our World in Data Https://ourworldindata.org/co2-and-greenhouse-gas-emissions

    2020

  45. [53]

    Romare M, Dahllöf L (2017) The life cycle energy consumption and greenhouse gas emissions from lithium-ion batteries. Tech. rep., Swedish EnEnvironment Research Instiitute

    2017

  46. [54]

    part i: Performance and energy requirements

    Rydh CJ, Sanden B (2005) Energy analysis of batteries in photovoltaic systems. part i: Performance and energy requirements. Energy Conversion and Management 46:1957--1979

    2005

  47. [55]

    Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management 16(3):314

    Sohn J, Kalbar P, Goldstein B, Birkved M (2019) Defining temporally dynamic life cycle assessment: A review. Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management 16(3):314

    2019

  48. [56]

    Journal of Cleaner Production 203:444--468

    La Picirelli de Souza L, Silva Lora EE, Escobar Palacio JC, Rocha ML M Hand Grillo Reno, Venturini OJ (2018) Comparative environmental life cycle assessment of conventional vehicles with different fuel options, plug-in hybrid and electric vehicles for a sustainable transportat...

    2018

  49. [57]

    Software Impacts 3, doi:10.1016/J.SIMPA.2019.100012

    Steubing B, de Koning D, Haas A, Mutel CL (2020) The Activity Browser — An open source LCA software building on top of the brightway framework . Software Impacts 3, doi:10.1016/J.SIMPA.2019.100012

    2020

  50. [58]

    Energy Conversion and Management 58:134--148, doi:10.1016/j.enconman.2012.01.001

    Sullivan JL, Gaines L (2012) Status of life cycle inventories for batteries. Energy Conversion and Management 58:134--148, doi:10.1016/j.enconman.2012.01.001

    2012 doi

  51. [59]

    Journal of Cleaner Production 273:123006, doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.123006

    Sun X, Luo X, Zhang Z, Meng F, Yang J (2020) Life cycle assessment of lithium nickel cobalt manganese oxide (ncm) batteries for electric passenger vehicles. Journal of Cleaner Production 273:123006, doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.123006

    2020

  52. [60]

    Chemical Engineering Research and Design (112):298--309

    Tagliaferri C, Evangelisti S, Acconcia F, Domenech T, Ekins P, Barletta D, Lettieri P (2016) Life cycle assessment of future electric and hybrid vehicles: A cradle-to-grave systems engineering approach. Chemical Engineering Research and Design (112):298--309

    2016

  53. [61]

    Environmental Science and Pollution Research 24:1251--1260, doi:10.1007/s11356-016-7849-9

    Wang Y, Yu Y, Huang K, Chen B, Deng W, Yao Y (2016) Quantifying the environmental impact of a li-rich high-capacity cathode material in electric vehicles via life cycle assessment. Environmental Science and Pollution Research 24:1251--1260, doi:10.1007/s11356-016-7849-9

    2016 doi

  54. [62]

    International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment 21(9):1218--1230

    Wernet G, Bauer C, Steubing B, Reinhard J, Moreno-Ruiz E, Weidema B (2016) The ecoinvent database version 3 (part i): overview and methodology. International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment 21(9):1218--1230

    2016

  55. [63]

    Journal of Aeronautical Sciences 3(4):122--128

    Wright TP (1936) Factors affecting the cost of airplanes. Journal of Aeronautical Sciences 3(4):122--128

    1936

  56. [64]

    Clean Technologies and Environmental Policy 20:1233--1244, doi:10.1007/s10098-018-1548-9

    Wu Z, Kong D (2018) Comparative life cycle assessment of lithium-ion batteries with lithium metal, silicon nanowire, and graphite anodes. Clean Technologies and Environmental Policy 20:1233--1244, doi:10.1007/s10098-018-1548-9

    2018 doi

  57. [65]

    Journal of Cleaner Production 227:960--971, doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.04.186

    Yin R, Hu S, Yang Y (2019) Life cycle inventories of the commonly used materials for lithium-ion batteries in china. Journal of Cleaner Production 227:960--971, doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.04.186

    2019 doi

  58. [66]

    Online, https://www.spglobal.com/marketintelligence/en/news-insights/blog/top-electric-vehicle-markets-dominate-lithium-ion-battery-capacity-growth

    Yu A, Sumangil M (2021) Top electric vehicle markets dominate lithium-ion battery capacity growth. Online, https://www.spglobal.com/marketintelligence/en/news-insights/blog/top-electric-vehicle-markets-dominate-lithium-ion-battery-capacity-growth

    2021

  59. [67]

    Transportation Research Part D 65:409--420, doi:10.1016/j.trd.2018.09.009

    Yu A, Wei Y, Chen W, Peng N, Peng L (2018) Life cycle environmental impacts and carbon emissions: A case study of electric and gasoline vehicles in china. Transportation Research Part D 65:409--420, doi:10.1016/j.trd.2018.09.009

    2018 doi

  60. [68]

    Zackrisson M (2016) Life cycle assessment of long life lithium electrode for electric vehicle batteries - 5 ah cell. Tech. Rep. 24603

    2016

  61. [69]

    Journal of Cleaner Production 18(15):1519--1529

    Zackrisson M, Avellan L, Orlenius J (2010) Life cycle assessment of lithium-ion batteries for plug-in hybrid electric vehicles - critical issues. Journal of Cleaner Production 18(15):1519--1529

    2010

  62. [70]

    Journal of Energy Storage 43(1):103193

    Zhao E, Walker P, Surawski N, NS B (2021) Assessing the life cycle cumulative energy demand and greenhouse gas emissions of lithium-ion batteries. Journal of Energy Storage 43(1):103193

    2021

  63. [71]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION n.dashify 't := "" t empty not t #1 #1 substring "-" = t #1 #2 substring "--" = not "--" * t #2 global.max substring 't := t #1 #1 substring "-" = "-" * t #2 global.max substring 't := while if t #1 #1 substring * t #2 gl...

  64. [72]

    , " * write output.state after.block = add.period write newline

    ENTRY address archive author booktitle chapter doi edition editor eid eprint howpublished institution journal key month note number organization pages publisher school series title type url volume year label extra.label sort.label short.list INTEGERS output.state before.all mi...

  65. [73]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION add.period duplicate empty 'skip "." * add.blank if FUNCTION if.digit duplicate "0" = swap duplicate "1" = swap duplicate "2" = swap duplicate "3" = swap duplicate "4" = swap duplicate "5" = swap duplicate "6" = swap dupl...

  66. [74]

    , " * write output.state after.block = add.period write newline

    ENTRY address author booktitle chapter doi edition editor eid howpublished institution journal key month note number organization pages publisher school series title type url volume year label INTEGERS output.state before.all mid.sentence after.sentence after.block FUNCTION in...

  67. [75]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION if.digit duplicate "0" = swap duplicate "1" = swap duplicate "2" = swap duplicate "3" = swap duplicate "4" = swap duplicate "5" = swap duplicate "6" = swap duplicate "7" = swap duplicate "8" = swap "9" = or or or or or or...

  68. [76]

    , " * write output.state after.block = add.period write newline

    ENTRY address author booktitle chapter doi edition editor eid howpublished institution journal key month note number organization pages publisher school series title type url volume year label INTEGERS output.state before.all mid.sentence after.sentence after.block FUNCTION in...

  69. [77]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION if.digit duplicate "0" = swap duplicate "1" = swap duplicate "2" = swap duplicate "3" = swap duplicate "4" = swap duplicate "5" = swap duplicate "6" = swap duplicate "7" = swap duplicate "8" = swap "9" = or or or or or or...

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.