The environmental footprint of electric vehicle battery packs during the production and use phases with different functional units

Purpose: Battery electric vehicles (BEVs) have been widely publicized. Their driving performances depend mainly on lithium-ion batteries (LIBs). Research on this topic has been concerned with the battery pack’s integrative environmental burden based on battery components, functional unit settings during the production phase, and different electricity grids during the use phase. We adopt a synthetic index to evaluate the sustainability of battery packs. Methods: A life cycle assessment (LCA) is used to reveal the aspects of global warming potential (GWP), water consumption, and ecological impact during the two phases. An integrative indicator, the footprint-friendly negative index (FFNI), is combined with footprint family indicators of battery packs and electricity sources. We investigate two cases of 1 kg battery production and 1 kWh battery production to assess nickel–cobalt–manganese (NMC) and lithium–iron phosphate (LFP) battery packs and compare their degrees of environmental friendliness. Then, we break down the battery pack to identify the key factors influencing the environmental burden and use sensitivity analysis to analyze the causes. Moreover, we evaluate the environmental impact of battery packs during the use phase among different regions. Results and discussion: Regardless of the functional unit (FU), the weights of the carbon footprint (CF), water footprint (WF), and ecological footprint (EF) are approximately the same. The results of the integrative environmental indicator, the FFNI, illustrate that the LFP is approximately 0.014, which is lower than that of the NMC battery pack in the mass production case. When using energy units as the FU, the FFNI of the NMC is 0.015, which reflects a lower environmental burden than that of other battery packs. In the use phase, 1kWh electricity consumption in China and Europe has the highest and lowest FFNI, respectively. When breaking down the battery-pack components, the simplified model advocates the cathode as the major contributor that determines the total environmental performance. In the following sensitivity analysis, the battery management system (BMS) is found to be the most intensive part of the footprint of most battery packs. Conclusion: FU can influence the evaluation results. Developing proper renewable energy sources can reduce the footprints of battery packs during the use phase. The positive electrode pastes in the battery cell, BMS, and packaging in the battery pack can influence the environmental burden. Adopting green materials in sections like the BMS may be a specific measure to enhance the environmental friendliness of a battery pack during the production phase.