Available online at www.sciencedirect.com
ScienceDirect Procedia CIRP 29 (2015) 752 – 757
The 22nd CIRP conference on Life Cycle Engineering
Opportunities to Improve Recycling of Automotive Lithium Ion Batteries Alexandru Sonoca and Jack Jeswieta*, Vi Kie Soob
a
Mechanical Engineering,Queens University, McLaughlin Hall, 130 Stuart Street, Kingston, ON. Canada, K7L 3N6 b FEIT Australian National University, Australia * Corresponding author. Tel.: +1- 613-533-2577. E-mail address:
[email protected]
Abstract A high recovery of lithium from recycled lithium ion batteries (LIBs) is essential to ensure the growth and sustainability of the electrical vehicle market. Without recycling, lithium demand is predicted to outstrip supply in 2023. Current industrial processes are focused on recovering cobalt and other valuable metals because, given lithium’s current low price, it is economically unfavorable to recover it. As part of our efforts to create a process where the recovery of lithium is economically viable we have analyzed the current industrial processes. We have determined that, when applied to recycling automotive LIBs, they are needlessly energy intensive and complicated. In these processes whole LIBs are incinerated, cryogenically cooled, or shredded under an inert atmosphere in order to make their cells safe to open. Instead of such extreme measures, LIBs can be disassembled by automated processes, which recovers valuable electronics for reuse, their cells can be discharged, which recovers residual energy, and then can be opened safely in air. © B.V. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license © 2015 2015 The The Authors. Authors. Published Published by by Elsevier Elsevier B.V. Peer-review under responsibility of the International Scientific Committee of the Conference “22nd CIRP conference on Life Cycle (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/). Engineering. Peer-review under responsibility of the scientific committee of The 22nd CIRP conference on Life Cycle Engineering Keywords: automotive lithium ion batteries; battery recycling; safe opening of lithium ion batteries
1. Predicted shortage of lithium and shortcomings of current processes of recycling lithium ion batteries The world is on track to facing a severe scarcity of lithium in the early 2020’s. Lithium, in the form of lithium carbonate, is an essential ingredient in all lithium ion batteries. Lithium ion batteries (LIBs) are the preferred battery choice for portable devices, where they are used almost exclusively [1], and for electric vehicles, whose production the IEA projects to be 100 million vehicles annually in 2050 [2]. Electrification of the world’s vehicle fleet along with a concomitant increase of electricity production from renewable sources is highly desirable as it is a major way to reduce greenhouse gas emissions [2]. For the mid and near future (today towards 2030) it is projected that only batteries based on lithium chemistries will satisfy the requirements of electric vehicles [2]. Unfortunately, given the projected increase in demand for lithium from batteries, even the most optimistic supply scenario will not meet demand in 2023 [3], [4]. The supply crunch could be averted if LIBs were recycled – 100% recycling rate with a lithium recovery of 90 % would ensure an adequate supply for all of the 21st century [5].
Unfortunately, today only 3% of lithium ion batteries are recycled [3] and lithium recovery is negligible [1]. There are three industrial recycling processes for LIBs – the Umicore process, the Sony-Sumitomo process, and the Toxco process – and one newly commercialized process: the Recupyl process [6]–[8]. There are also numerous processes that are in development; an excellent review of them was written by Zeng et al.[9]. However, the aim of the foregoing recycling processes, both at the industrial and the lab scales, is to recover cobalt and nickel as these have the highest value (see Table 1 for prices of cathode materials); lithium recovery is not a priority. Recycling processes that have a high recovery of lithium has been investigated by a few researchers, as the review by in the review by Chagnes and Pospiech (2013) shows [10]. The highest lithium recycling efficiency reported was 74.5% (leaching efficiency of 93.1% multiplied by precipitation efficiency of 80%) [11]. However, as mentioned before, typically Li is not a priority. Lithium carbonate is perceived as cheap and readily available – for example, in a recycling process developed at the lab scale published in 2014, virgin lithium carbonate is used as a reagent to recover cobalt, nickel, and manganese while the lithium present in the used battery is considered an impurity to be removed [12]. The
2212-8271 © 2015 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/). Peer-review under responsibility of the scientific committee of The 22nd CIRP conference on Life Cycle Engineering doi:10.1016/j.procir.2015.02.039
Alexandru Sonoc et al. / Procedia CIRP 29 (2015) 752 – 757
simple fact is that lithium is still inexpensive to mine and demand has not reached a point where supply is decreasing, hence prices remain low. Focusing only on the recovery of valuable materials while recycling lithium ion batteries is problematic for two reasons. First, without lithium there can be no lithium ion batteries. While it is true that, as high density, easily accessible lithium deposits become scarce, its value will increase and it will make sense to improve recovery in the current processes, by then, the price of lithium ion batteries will have increased. LIBs already make up a large part of the cost of electric vehicles, at today’s low lithium carbonate prices; a significant increase in the price of the batteries will likely stall the electrification of the world’s vehicle fleet [2]. Second reason: cell manufacturers are switching to cheaper cathode materials, such as lithium manganese oxide and lithium iron phosphate to lower the price of batteries [12]. Without the high value metals to be sold, processes designed to recover them may not be adaptable enough to remain profitable if they are modified to recycle batteries with the new, cheaper, chemistries. Table 1: LIB cathode compounds and their market values
Compound Cobalt LiCO3 LiCoO2 Li3NiCoMnO6 LiMnO2 LiFePO4
Value (US$ per kg) 37.00 6.40 18.30 10.80 3.70 1.50
Citation [13] [13] [14] [14] [14] [14]
In our research we are developing a recycling processes specifically for automotive lithium ion batteries, as these are predicted to constitute the majority of the lithium demand in the mid and far future [5] and to make up a waste stream of 340,000 tonnes per year by 2040 [15]. The aim of our research is to develop or modify and existing process such that lithium recovery is maximized, while energy use and waste generated has been minimized. We began by examining the Umicore, Sony-Sumito, Toxco, and Recupyl processes and have identified that the pre-treatment steps in all of them
753
are needlessly energy intensive or process complicating when recycling a large stream of automotive batteries. Just decreasing the energy required for processing would be a positive step. Pre-treatment is necessary because opening the batteries “as is” results in an explosive reaction between lithium ions and air [6], [7]. We present an alternative pre-treatment – discharging batteries to 0.0V – and through a safety analysis, which is central to this paper and is not available for the processes named in the forging processes, it is shown that it is a safe alternative to current industrial practices. We also present a feasibility analysis based on literature data and show that discharging batteries before opening them is likely industrially feasible. Lastly, we present preliminary results from LiCoO2 batteries we discharged showing how much residual energy is left when they are discharged below 3.0V (their practical lower voltage) to 0.0V. We begin with a brief overview of the four industrial LIB recycling processes and identify their lithium recycling efficiency and energy requirements. 1.1 The Umicore process [14] The Umicore process is a smelting process for spent lithium ion and nickel metal hydride batteries (see Fig. 1). An alloy of valuable materials (Co, Cu, Ni, Fe) is obtained from the smelter and it is then treated hydrometralugically (acid leaching followed by chemical precipitation to metal salts) to give recovered metals. All of the lithium, aluminium and manganese from the LIBs ends up in the slag and are not recovered. For 1 ton of batteries 5000 MJ of heat are needed for the smelter and gas clean-up. 1.2 The Sony-Sumitomo process In the Sony-Sumitomo process LIBs are incinerated at 1000 °C [7]. The organics, lithium, and fluoride in the batteries are lost as fly ash and are removed from the flue by a scrubbing system. The metal residue obtained in the furnace is processed hydrometallurgicaly to recover cobalt [8]. No lithium is recovered. An estimate of the minimum energy required to heat 1 ton of automotive li-ion polymer batteries is 992 MJ. The estimate takes 1011.8 J/kg/°C, the heat capacity of 4Ah electric vehicle batteries given by Pesaran et al. (2001) [16], and multiplies it by 1 ton of batteries and 980 °C.
Fig. 1: Umicore process for 1 ton of lithium ion and Ni-Mh batteries
754
Alexandru Sonoc et al. / Procedia CIRP 29 (2015) 752 – 757
1.3 The Toxco process [7], [14], [17] In the Toxco process lithium metal primary batteries and lithium ion secondary batteries are recycled. Batteries deemed to be reactive, such a lithium metal batteries and large lithium ion batteries, are cryogenically cooled with liquid nitrogen to -196 °C; at this temperature the lithium inside the cells is unreactive [17]. The batteries are then shredded and immersed in water. Lithium ion/metal react with the water to produce lithium hydroxide and hydrogen gas, which is burned above the solution [8]. See Fig. 2 for an overview of the whole process. The figure is the most detailed mass flow information of the process available in the open literature and the only information which can be used to calculate approximate lithium yield. The lithium composition for lithium ion batteries varies between 1.2 and 2 % [18]. If the 907.4 kg of batteries in Fig. 2 were all lithium ion batteries than the lithium yield of the Toxco process is between 15 and 26%.
determine the rate of inert gas injection. The different fractions obtained after shredding are: a fines fraction rich in metal oxides and carbon, a magnetic fraction composed of casings, a dense non-magnetic fraction made of Al and Cu current collectors, and a low density non-magnetic fraction of paper and plastic. The fractions are separated, while still under an inert atmosphere. The fines fraction is added to water. Lithium in the fines reacts with the water and releases hydrogen gas. The water is heavily stirred and the fines are added in a very controlled manner to prevent the accumulation of hydrogen gas and an explosion. To further prevent an explosion, the atmosphere above the bath is maintained oxygen poor. The water becomes rich in lithium hydroxide and lithium is recovered by adding sodium carbonate or phosphoric acid. Hydrometallurgical means are used to recover the rest of the materials. The lithium yield is unknown.
Fig. 2: Toxco process for 907.4 kg of lithium metal and lithium ion batteries [14]
Additionally, per 907.4 kg of automotive li-ion polymer batteries, the cooling requirement for the process is at least 198 MJ (per ton it is 219 MJ) ( calculated from the heat capacity of the batteries, 1011.8 J/kg/°C, multiplied by 1000 kg and 211 °C). The shredding power requirement is given in the figure and is equivalent to 565.2 MJ [14]. 1.4 The Recupyl process [7] In the Recupyl process lithium ion batteries are shredded by a rotary shearing machine at 11 rpm and then crushed by a rotor system at 90 rpm. Both steps occur in an air tight enclosure filled with an inert atmosphere of argon and carbon dioxide, which prevents a violent lithium reaction. Residual oxygen content and pressure in the chamber are continuously monitored and the data is used by a control system to
2. Pretreatment alternative: Discharge batteries to 0.0V then open and shred in air and immerse in leaching solution Amongst processes being developed we found a far simpler pre-treatment procedure [19]. Ra and Han (2006) report safely opening batteries by: removing packing, circuit protection modules, temperature safety vents, and all other materials surrounding individual cells. Individual cells were then immersed in brine, left to discharge completely, and opened in air in a ventilated space. Cathode and anode materials were separated manually and were immersed in leaching solution. No reactions of any kind were reported.
Alexandru Sonoc et al. / Procedia CIRP 29 (2015) 752 – 757
Similarly, Krüger et al. (2014) started with individual cells, discharged them to 0.0V with a resistor, opened them in air, and immersed them in leaching solution. No adverse effects were reported either [20]. We were intrigued: if completely discharging cells renders then safe to open in air and process in water, then soaking in brine or connecting to a resistor – both simple and low energy processes – obviate the need for incineration, cooling with liquid nitrogen, or shredding in airtight enclosures under an inert atmosphere. Hundreds of MJ of energy would be saved for every ton of batteries. The Recupyl process would be far simpler and complex monitoring and heavy stirring would be unnecessary. The Umicore process would have the opportunity to be far less energy intensive since it could be modified to shred batteries, isolate the fines fraction rich in metal oxides and carbon (like in the Recupyl process) and smelt only that fraction. Additionally, not only could the pre-treatment step not be a large energy drain in any recycling process but it could be a source of energy for the process: discharging batteries liberates energy. What is missing from the literature is a safety analysis of the hazards of opening lithium and how discharging them mitigates them. Such an analysis is necessary in order to determine if it is safe to open batteries this way not only for one cell at a time in the lab but for numerous cells at once in industry. We have performed such an analysis and present it in this manuscript. 2.1 Hazards of opening a lithium ion cell and their mitigation The main safety hazard of lithium opening a lithium ion battery in air is the exothermic reaction of lithium ions or lithium metal (if present) with oxygen. Opening in water results in an exothermic reaction and the generation of hydrogen gas, which is explosive. Lithium ion pouch cells consist of anode, cathode, separator, electrolyte, and polymer pouch. The anode is graphite mixed with polyvinylidene fluoride binder deposited on a copper foil. The cathode is lithium metal oxide (e.g. LiCoO2, LiMnO2, LiNiO2, Li3NiMnCoO6, LiFePO4) mixed with graphite and polyvinylidene fluoride binder deposited on an aluminium foil. The electrolyte consists of a mixture of non-aqueous solvents and lithium salts as well as additives to slow down secondary reactions. When charging, lithium de-intercalates from the metal oxide and intercalates in the graphite, where it is thermodynamically unstable. When discharging the process is reversed and lithium ions are intercalated back into the lithium metal oxide. [21] The main source of lithium ions in a cell are the free lithium ions that cycle back and forth between the cathode and anode as the cell is charged and discharged. By completely discharging a cell to 0.0 V these free ions are immobilized in the cathode, where they form a thermodynamically stable lithium metal oxide which does not react violently with water or air [21]. Other sources of lithium ions are the electrolyte salt (typically LiPF6 [21]) and the solid electrolyte (SEI) interface layer. This layer is formed on the anode during regular operation and as it grows the cell loses capacity; when enough capacity has been lost the cell is discarded. Lithium ions are present in the SEI as lithium carbonate, lithium fluoride, or lithium organic polymers [22], [23]; as such they are either not reactive (in the case of carbonates or fluorides) or are likely less reactive than free ions (in the case of the organic
755
polymers). Additionally, lithium ions in the electrolyte and SEI are present in far smaller amounts than free lithium ions [21]. These other sources of lithium ions have not been found to be a safety concern when discharged lithium ion batteries have been opened [12], [19], [24]. Damaged cells can have significant deposits of lithium metal on the anode [22], which if exposed to air or water would be very reactive. However, the presence of such deposits would increase the internal resistance [22] and be measurable as an large drop in cell voltage [25]. Damaged cells cannot be safely opened and therefore should be recycled, if at all, by processes which include an incineration/ immersion in liquid nitrogen/ or opening under an inert atmosphere step. The second safety hazard comes from vapours and gases emitted by the electrolyte when exposed to air. The electrolyte comprises 12 to 14% of the mass of a pouch cell used in automobile batteries [26] and soaks the cell’s porous contents. The electrolyte is composed of a lithium salt dissolved in an organic solvent. The salt, typically LiPF6, usually makes up 10% by weight of the electrolyte. The organic solvent is typically a mixture of ethylene carbonate and propylene carbonate. LiPF6 hydrolyses in the presence of water via the following reaction [3] LiPF6 + H2O ė LiF + POF3 + 2HF Hydrogen fluoride is a well know toxic gas. Ethylene carbonate is flammable, a skin irritant, but classified as non-hazardous in case of inhalation. Propylene carbonate is flammable and an irritant of skin, eyes, and lungs. Batteries even fully discharged must be opened in a well ventilated area free from sparks such that the flammability and toxicity hazards posed by the electrolyte are mitigated. A third safety hazard is the discharging process itself. If the batteries are discharged in brine their initial voltage will be above the electrolysis voltage of water and hydrogen and oxygen gases will be produced. These gases must be ventilated to avoid an explosion. If the batteries are discharged by a resistor the current must be kept low enough so that the batteries do not over-heat. As long as cells are kept below 90 °C, the onset temperature of runaway thermal reactions [29], it is safe to discharge them. LIBs are not usually operated at voltages as low as 0.0V. They have a lower practical voltage, 3.0V for LiCoO2 batteries, and a circuit protection module is used to prevent the battery from discharging below it [21]. We looked in the literature for studies where batteries were discharged below the lower practical voltage to see if there were any safety hazards associated with discharging to 0.0V. The literature reports that LiCoO2, LiMnO2, LiNiO2, LiCo1/3Mn1/3Ni1/3O2, or LiFePO4 batteries suffer decreased cell performance due to irreversible crystal changes at the cathode if they are discharged to 0.0V [27], [28]. However, these crystal changes do not pose any inherent safety risk [27], [28] and, since the cells are to be recycled, a decrease in performance is irrelevant. To test whether discharging to 0.0V is indeed sufficient to open batteries in air LiCoO2 pouch cells were opened. They had a nominal capacity of 3.0 Ah, nominal voltage 3.7 V, energy density of 195 Wh/kg, and a weight of 57 g. Cells that were discharged to 0.5V produced small red flames and fumes, showing a potential safety problem. Cells that were discharged to 0.0 V produced neither flames nor fumes nor
756
Alexandru Sonoc et al. / Procedia CIRP 29 (2015) 752 – 757
did they show any evidence of reaction at all (no temperature change or discoloration of materials was observed). 2.1 Energy obtained from discharging batteries As part of the safety experiments, measurements were made of the voltage of the discharging LiCoO2 batteries, continuously, while discharging them with a 4.50 Ω resistance. The voltage was measured every ten seconds and the energy expended by the battery in a time interval was calculated with the formula:
ܧൌ
ܸଶ οݐ ܴ
The cumulative energy expended by the batteries as they discharged between 3.0 and 0.0 V was 0.96 ± 0.02 % of their nominal capacity. For 1 ton of batteries with energy density of 195 Wh/kg this residual energy represents 7 MJ. If the cells used come discharged to 3.0V to a recycling plant, 7 MJ is the all that can be extracted from them. If on the other hand the batteries come charged, say to 80% of their nominal capacity 1 , then another 562 MJ of energy can be extracted from 1 ton of 195 Wh/kg LIBs. 2.3 Feasibility of disassembling automotive batteries The present manuscript has so far shown that discharging cells to 0.0V is sufficient to opening them safely. It has also shown that useful amounts of energy can be extracted from the discharging batteries; this energy could be used to power parts of the recycling process, such as heating the leaching vessel. Cells are assembled into batteries; in order for them to be discharged to 0.0V they must first be extracted from the batteries whole. Literature on the dismantling of automobile batteries to their constituent cells is reviewed below and the argument is made that such dismantling is feasible in an industrial setting. Automotive batteries have three scales of organization: cell, module, and pack [30]. Cells are the smallest component. They can be cylindrical, prismatic or pouch. The exterior shell of the former two is made of steel. The shell of pouch cells is made of a polymer. Since they are light weight, pouch cells are the preferred cell type for automobiles. In an automobile, the cells are of the same chemistry and the same size. They are also numerous: an electric car with 30kWh total electrical capacity [2] would have 2140 cells if these were 4 Ah cells at a discharge voltage of 3.5 V [16]. Cells are joined together, mechanically or by welding, in series and parallel arrangements with heat sinks placed in between them to make a module. The module is then fitted with safety electronics (the aforementioned protection circuit module), which prevent over-charge or over-discharge of the cells, as well as a compression band and protective casing. Modules are then connected to each other and control electronics to make a battery pack. [30] Herrmann et al. (2012) present a mixed manual and automated process for disassembling batteries to individual cells [25]. Batteries are first discharged to their cut-off low voltage. They are then manually disassembled to the modules. Control electronics are removed and can be reused. Modules are automatically extracted from the battery pack and are
manually dismantled to expose cells. The cells are then automatically removed from the modules. The authors write that depending on the battery design it is possible to automate the entire sequence. The authors [25] designed an automated cell removal system and fitted it with a voltmeter. The voltmeter is used to determine the internal resistance of the cells and the state of the cell is inferred from the internal resistance. Any cell that has been damaged, such as by suffering an internal short, is deemed unsafe to discharge and is discarded. Most cells to be recycled are not damaged, but rather have a capacity too low for practical usage due to aging; they are still safe to discharge [22], [23].
Gaines (2014) [14] points out that the infrastructure for collecting automotive batteries is already in place. 98% of lead acid batteries are currently collected. Dealers are required to collect them when new batteries are bought and are paid to return them to manufacturers for recycling. The same infrastructure could easily be used for lithium ion batteries. Given the existing collection infrastructure and the high likelihood manufacturers would standardize their battery packs, it is probable that, when there will be a large number of electric vehicles on the road, recycling facilities would have sufficient battery packs of a similar enough design to recycle to justify an investment in automated disassembly. Disassembly of automotive LIBs in an industrial setting is therefore likely feasible. 3. Conclusions We have shown that current industrial processes of recycling lithium ion batteries do not recover an adequate amount of lithium to meet forecast demand from automotive lithium ion battery manufacturers. We have also shown that, when applied to automotive battery recycling, the current recycling processes are needlessly energy intensive, complicated, and wasteful in their pre-treatment steps. Instead of incinerating, cryogenically cooling, or shredding under an inert atmosphere, automotive batteries can be disassembled to recover valuable electronic components and their cells can be safely discharged to recover residual energy and to render them safe to shred and treat by regular hydrometallurgical and pyrometallurgical means. The adoption of these processes in industry will lead to automotive LIB recycling processes where it is economical to recover lithium as well. 4. Acknowledgements The authors acknowledge the support of NSERC for this work. [1]
[2] [3]
1
Rechargeable batteries are considered to have failed when they can only be charged to 80% of their nominal capacity.
X. Wang, G. Gaustad, C. W. Babbitt, C. Bailey, M. J. Ganter, and B. J. Landi, “Economic and environmental characterization of an evolving Li-ion battery waste stream.,” J. Environ. Manage., vol. 135, pp. 126–34, Mar. 2014. L. Fulton, “Technology Roadmap Electric and plug-in hybrid electric vehicles,” 2011. H. Vikström, S. Davidsson, and M. Höök, “Lithium availability and future production outlooks,” Appl. Energy, vol. 110, pp. 252–266, Oct. 2013.
Alexandru Sonoc et al. / Procedia CIRP 29 (2015) 752 – 757
[4]
[5]
[6]
[7] [8] [9]
[10]
[11]
[12] [13] [14] [15]
[16]
[17]
[18]
[19]
A. Sonoc and J. Jeswiet, “A Review of Lithium Supply and Demand and a Preliminary Investigation of a Room Temperature Method to Recycle Lithium Ion Batteries to Recover Lithium and Other Materials,” Procedia CIRP, vol. 15, pp. 289–293, 2014. P. W. Gruber, P. a. Medina, G. a. Keoleian, S. E. Kesler, M. P. Everson, and T. J. Wallington, “Global Lithium Availability,” J. Ind. Ecol., vol. 15, no. 5, pp. 760–775, Oct. 2011. J. Xu, H. R. Thomas, R. W. Francis, K. R. Lum, J. Wang, and B. Liang, “A review of processes and technologies for the recycling of lithium-ion secondary batteries,” J. Power Sources, vol. 177, no. 2, pp. 512–527, Mar. 2008. F. Tedjar and J.-C. Foundraz, “Method for the Mixed Recycling of Lithium-Based Anode Batteries and Cells,” US 7,820,317 B2, 2010. M. J. Lain, “Recycling of lithium ion cells and batteries,” J. Power Sources, vol. 97–98, pp. 736–738, 2001. X. Zeng, J. Li, and N. Singh, “Recycling of Spent Lithium-Ion Battery: A Critical Review,” Crit. Rev. Environ. Sci. Technol., vol. 44, no. 10, pp. 1129– 1165, Apr. 2014. A. Chagnes and B. Pospiech, “A brief review on hydrometallurgical technologies for recycling spent lithium-ion batteries,” J. Chem. Technol. Biotechnol., vol. 88, no. 7, pp. 1191–1199, Jul. 2013. P. Zhang, T. Yokoyama, O. Itabashi, Y. Wakui, T. M. Suzuki, and K. Inoue, “Hydrometallurgical process for recovery of metal values from spent lithium-ion secondary batteries,” Hydrometallurgy, vol. 47, no. 2– 3, pp. 259–271, 1998. E. Gratz, Q. Sa, D. Apelian, and Y. Wang, “A closed loop process for recycling spent lithium ion batteries,” J. Power Sources, vol. 262, pp. 255–262, Sep. 2014. “Shanghai Metals Market,” 2014. [Online]. Available: http://www.metal.com/pricing. L. Gaines, “The Future of Automobile Battery Recycling,” 2014. K. Richa, C. W. Babbitt, G. Gaustad, and X. Wang, “A future perspective on lithium-ion battery waste flows from electric vehicles,” Resour. Conserv. Recycl., vol. 83, no. 2014, pp. 63–76, Feb. 2014. A. a. Pesaran and M. Keyser, “Thermal characteristics of selected EV and HEV batteries,” Sixt. Annu. Batter. Conf. Appl. Adv. Proc. Conf. (Cat. No.01TH8533), pp. 219–225, 2001. T. Georgi-Maschler, B. Friedrich, R. Weyhe, H. Heegn, and M. Rutz, “Development of a recycling process for Li-ion batteries,” J. Power Sources, vol. 207, pp. 173–182, Jun. 2012. X. Wang, G. Gaustad, C. W. Babbitt, and K. Richa, “Economies of scale for future lithium-ion battery recycling infrastructure,” Resour. Conserv. Recycl., vol. 83, pp. 53–62, Feb. 2014. D. Ra and K.-S. Han, “Used lithium ion rechargeable battery recycling using Etoile-Rebatt technology,” J. Power Sources, vol. 163, no. 1, pp. 284–288, Dec. 2006.
[20]
[21] [22]
[23]
[24] [25]
[26] [27]
[28]
[29]
[30]
757
S. Krüger, C. Hanisch, a. Kwade, M. Winter, and S. Nowak, “Effect of impurities caused by a recycling process on the electrochemical performance of Li[Ni0.33Co0.33Mn0.33]O2,” J. Electroanal. Chem., vol. 726, pp. 91–96, 2014. J. Park, Principles and Applications of Lithium Secondary Batteries. Weinheim, Germany: WileyVCH Verlag & Co. KGaA, 2012. J. Vetter, P. Novák, M. R. Wagner, C. Veit, K.-C. Möller, J. O. Besenhard, M. Winter, M. WohlfahrtMehrens, C. Vogler, and a. Hammouche, “Ageing mechanisms in lithium-ion batteries,” J. Power Sources, vol. 147, no. 1–2, pp. 269–281, Sep. 2005. M. Herstedt, H. Rensmo, H. Siegbahn, and K. Edström, “Electrolyte additives for enhanced thermal stability of the graphite anode interface in a Li-ion battery,” Electrochim. Acta, vol. 49, no. 14, pp. 2351– 2359, Jun. 2004. Jeff Dahn (Prof. at Dalhousie University), “Private communication,” 2014. C. Herrmann, A. Raatz, M. Mennenga, J. Schmitt, and S. Andrew, “Assessment of Automation Potentials for the Disassembly of Automotive Lithium Ion Battery Systems,” in Leveraging Technology for a Sustainable World, David A. Dornfeld; Barbara S. Linke, Ed. Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 2012, pp. 149– 154. L. Gaines, J. Sullivan, A. Burnham, and I. Belharouak, “Life-Cycle Analysis for Lithium-Ion Battery Production and Recycling,” 2011. J. Shu, M. Shui, D. Xu, D. Wang, Y. Ren, and S. Gao, “A comparative study of overdischarge behaviors of cathode materials for lithium-ion batteries,” J. Solid State Electrochem., vol. 16, no. 2, pp. 819–824, Jul. 2011. H.-F. Li, J.-K. Gao, and S.-L. Zhang, “Effect of on Swelling and Recharge Overdischarge Performance of Lithium Ion Cells,” Chinese J. Chem., vol. 26, pp. 1585–1588, 2008. D. Lisbona and T. Snee, “A review of hazards associated with primary lithium and lithium-ion batteries,” Process Saf. Environ. Prot., vol. 89, no. 6, pp. 434–442, Nov. 2011. S. J. Hu, “Lithium-ion battery manufacturing,” 2011.
