磷酸铁锂阴极还原技术的综合评价框架:平衡生产成本、电化学性能和环境影响

IF 13 2区 材料科学 Q1 MATERIALS SCIENCE, MULTIDISCIPLINARY
Evgenii Beletskii, Alexey Volkov, Elizaveta Evshchik, Valery Kolmakov, Anna Shikhovtseva, Valentin Romanovski
{"title":"磷酸铁锂阴极还原技术的综合评价框架:平衡生产成本、电化学性能和环境影响","authors":"Evgenii Beletskii,&nbsp;Alexey Volkov,&nbsp;Elizaveta Evshchik,&nbsp;Valery Kolmakov,&nbsp;Anna Shikhovtseva,&nbsp;Valentin Romanovski","doi":"10.1002/eem2.12850","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Lithium iron phosphate (LFP) has found many applications in the field of electric vehicles and energy storage systems. However, the increasing volume of end-of-life LFP batteries poses an urgent challenge in terms of environmental sustainability and resource management. Therefore, the development and implementation of efficient LFP battery recycling methods are crucial to address these challenges. This article presents a novel, comprehensive evaluation framework for comparing different lithium iron phosphate relithiation techniques. The framework includes three main sets of criteria: direct production cost, electrochemical performance, and environmental impact. Each criterion is scored on a scale of 0–100, with higher scores indicating better performance. The direct production cost is rated based on material costs, energy consumption, key equipment costs, process duration and space requirements. Electrochemical performance is assessed by rate capability and cycle stability. Environmental impact is assessed based on CO<sub>2</sub> emissions. The framework provides a standardized technique for researchers and industry professionals to objectively compare relithiation methods, facilitating the identification of the most promising approaches for further development and scale-up. The total average score across the three criterion groups for electrochemical, chemical, and hydrothermal relithiation methods was approximately 60 points, while sintering scored 39 points, making it the least attractive relithiation technique. Combining approaches outlined in publications with scores exceeding 60, a relithiation scheme was proposed to achieve optimal electrochemical performance with minimal resource consumption and environmental impact. The results demonstrate the framework's applicability and highlight areas for future research and optimization in lithium iron phosphate cathode recycling.</p>","PeriodicalId":11554,"journal":{"name":"Energy & Environmental Materials","volume":"8 3","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":13.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/eem2.12850","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"A Comprehensive Evaluation Framework for Lithium Iron Phosphate Cathode Relithiation Techniques: Balancing Production Costs, Electrochemical Performance, and Environmental Impact\",\"authors\":\"Evgenii Beletskii,&nbsp;Alexey Volkov,&nbsp;Elizaveta Evshchik,&nbsp;Valery Kolmakov,&nbsp;Anna Shikhovtseva,&nbsp;Valentin Romanovski\",\"doi\":\"10.1002/eem2.12850\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>Lithium iron phosphate (LFP) has found many applications in the field of electric vehicles and energy storage systems. However, the increasing volume of end-of-life LFP batteries poses an urgent challenge in terms of environmental sustainability and resource management. Therefore, the development and implementation of efficient LFP battery recycling methods are crucial to address these challenges. This article presents a novel, comprehensive evaluation framework for comparing different lithium iron phosphate relithiation techniques. The framework includes three main sets of criteria: direct production cost, electrochemical performance, and environmental impact. Each criterion is scored on a scale of 0–100, with higher scores indicating better performance. The direct production cost is rated based on material costs, energy consumption, key equipment costs, process duration and space requirements. Electrochemical performance is assessed by rate capability and cycle stability. Environmental impact is assessed based on CO<sub>2</sub> emissions. The framework provides a standardized technique for researchers and industry professionals to objectively compare relithiation methods, facilitating the identification of the most promising approaches for further development and scale-up. The total average score across the three criterion groups for electrochemical, chemical, and hydrothermal relithiation methods was approximately 60 points, while sintering scored 39 points, making it the least attractive relithiation technique. Combining approaches outlined in publications with scores exceeding 60, a relithiation scheme was proposed to achieve optimal electrochemical performance with minimal resource consumption and environmental impact. The results demonstrate the framework's applicability and highlight areas for future research and optimization in lithium iron phosphate cathode recycling.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":11554,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Energy & Environmental Materials\",\"volume\":\"8 3\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":13.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-11-29\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/eem2.12850\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Energy & Environmental Materials\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"88\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/eem2.12850\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"材料科学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"MATERIALS SCIENCE, MULTIDISCIPLINARY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Energy & Environmental Materials","FirstCategoryId":"88","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/eem2.12850","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"材料科学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MATERIALS SCIENCE, MULTIDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

磷酸铁锂(LFP)在电动汽车和储能系统领域有着广泛的应用。然而,越来越多的报废LFP电池在环境可持续性和资源管理方面提出了紧迫的挑战。因此,开发和实施高效的LFP电池回收方法对于解决这些挑战至关重要。本文提出了一种新颖的综合评价框架,用于比较不同的磷酸铁锂再提纯技术。该框架包括三套主要标准:直接生产成本、电化学性能和环境影响。每个标准的评分范围为0-100分,分数越高表明表现越好。直接生产成本是根据材料成本、能源消耗、关键设备成本、工艺时间和空间要求来评定的。电化学性能通过速率能力和循环稳定性来评价。环境影响是根据二氧化碳排放量来评估的。该框架为研究人员和行业专业人员提供了一种标准化的技术,以客观地比较缓解方法,促进确定最有前途的方法,以进一步发展和扩大规模。电化学、化学和水热还原方法的三个标准组的总平均得分约为60分,而烧结的得分为39分,使其成为最不吸引人的还原技术。结合得分超过60分的出版物中概述的方法,提出了一种以最小的资源消耗和环境影响实现最佳电化学性能的改进方案。结果表明了该框架的适用性,并指出了未来研究和优化磷酸铁锂阴极回收的重点领域。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

A Comprehensive Evaluation Framework for Lithium Iron Phosphate Cathode Relithiation Techniques: Balancing Production Costs, Electrochemical Performance, and Environmental Impact

A Comprehensive Evaluation Framework for Lithium Iron Phosphate Cathode Relithiation Techniques: Balancing Production Costs, Electrochemical Performance, and Environmental Impact

Lithium iron phosphate (LFP) has found many applications in the field of electric vehicles and energy storage systems. However, the increasing volume of end-of-life LFP batteries poses an urgent challenge in terms of environmental sustainability and resource management. Therefore, the development and implementation of efficient LFP battery recycling methods are crucial to address these challenges. This article presents a novel, comprehensive evaluation framework for comparing different lithium iron phosphate relithiation techniques. The framework includes three main sets of criteria: direct production cost, electrochemical performance, and environmental impact. Each criterion is scored on a scale of 0–100, with higher scores indicating better performance. The direct production cost is rated based on material costs, energy consumption, key equipment costs, process duration and space requirements. Electrochemical performance is assessed by rate capability and cycle stability. Environmental impact is assessed based on CO2 emissions. The framework provides a standardized technique for researchers and industry professionals to objectively compare relithiation methods, facilitating the identification of the most promising approaches for further development and scale-up. The total average score across the three criterion groups for electrochemical, chemical, and hydrothermal relithiation methods was approximately 60 points, while sintering scored 39 points, making it the least attractive relithiation technique. Combining approaches outlined in publications with scores exceeding 60, a relithiation scheme was proposed to achieve optimal electrochemical performance with minimal resource consumption and environmental impact. The results demonstrate the framework's applicability and highlight areas for future research and optimization in lithium iron phosphate cathode recycling.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Energy & Environmental Materials
Energy & Environmental Materials MATERIALS SCIENCE, MULTIDISCIPLINARY-
CiteScore
17.60
自引率
6.00%
发文量
66
期刊介绍: Energy & Environmental Materials (EEM) is an international journal published by Zhengzhou University in collaboration with John Wiley & Sons, Inc. The journal aims to publish high quality research related to materials for energy harvesting, conversion, storage, and transport, as well as for creating a cleaner environment. EEM welcomes research work of significant general interest that has a high impact on society-relevant technological advances. The scope of the journal is intentionally broad, recognizing the complexity of issues and challenges related to energy and environmental materials. Therefore, interdisciplinary work across basic science and engineering disciplines is particularly encouraged. The areas covered by the journal include, but are not limited to, materials and composites for photovoltaics and photoelectrochemistry, bioprocessing, batteries, fuel cells, supercapacitors, clean air, and devices with multifunctionality. The readership of the journal includes chemical, physical, biological, materials, and environmental scientists and engineers from academia, industry, and policy-making.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信