1. LCA jämförelse mellan nytillverkade NiMH-batterimaterial och återvunna
Bengt Steen
Chalmers Tekniska Högskola
Miljösystemanalys

2. Reflection on choice/comparisons
Any choice/comparison depends on three issues:
What is included and considered?
The life cycle – cradle to grave
Environmental impacts on human health, ecosystem services, abiotic resources, biodiversity, access to water
How are trade-offs made?
The monetary value of the impacts
How is uncertainty adressed?
Knowledge of impacts are taken into account at an early stage
Business as usual is the core future scenario
Any data is assessed as best estimate and a measure of its distribution

3. Goal and scope of our study
Compare environmental performance of different recycling options of NILARs NiMH batteries from a live cycle perspective
Limit the study to about two person-weeks, and focus on major issues
In the long run there will be a scarcity of metal resources, and a competition of metal resources, why use of recycled material does not add any extra sustainability value but recycling as waste management does.

4. Method LCA is performed according to the ISO standard 14044 for LCA
The Eco-invent 3.3 database with allocation through system expansion was used to find emissions and use of resources
The EPS 2015dx method was used to determine overall environmental impact value in monetary terms ( ̴ damage costs)
Monetary values are determined for human health impacts as productivity loss, for bioproductivity as market values of lost goods and services, for finite resources as cost for a sustainable alternative, for biodiversity as prevention costs
Monetary values for satisfiers of basic human needs are used as a proxy for sustainability

5. Implementation
An LCA model was developed, with identification of relevant unit processes and data needs
LCI data for materials and energyware was extracted from the Ecoinvent database
Some data was not directly available in the database. In those cases
new data was derived from available data of raw material used for synthesising the relevant material or
Values for similar substances and processes were used
Simulations were made with the model to compare the alternative recycling models of Nickelhütte, Chalmers and Uppsala.

6. The LCA model Manufacturing of electrodes Manufacturing of cells
Stena disassembly
Use
Manufacturing of pack
Nickelütte
Uppsala method
Chalmers method

7. Results from LCA of NILARS NiMH battery with different recycling methods
Net impact
Regain at recycling
Recycling process
Monetary impact value
CO2
Monetary impact value
ELU kg
Chalmers
84,1
137
108,2
-21,6
Uppsala
82,1
104,9
110
10,5
Nickelhütte
102
115
90,3
0,22
Note: The above figures are based on the use of water power. When using European average electricity, net impact will increase to 161 ELU and 447 kg CO2 for the Chalmers case and similar for the others.

8. Net environmental impact value: 102 ELU/10cell pack
Note 1: Ni resource value consitutes 25,8 ELU of active material in the cathode
Note 2: Ni resource values consitutes 40 ELU of the active materials in the anode
Note 2: Mo constitutes 35 ELU in tie rods, which are not regained in recycling of steel

9. Net environmental impact value: 84,1 ELU/10cell pack
Note 1: Ni resource value consitutes 25,8 ELU of active material in the cathode
Note 2: Ni resource values consitutes 40 ELU of the active materials in the anode
Note 2: Mo constitutes 35 ELU in tie rods, which are not regained in recycling of steel

10. Net environmental impact value: 82,1 ELU/10cell pack
Note 1: Ni resource value consitutes 25,8 ELU of active material in the cathode
Note 2: Ni resource values consitutes 40 ELU of the active materials in the anode
Note 2: Mo constitutes 35 ELU in tie rods, which are not regained in recycling of steel

11. Conclusions