Resources, Conservation & Recycling 133 (2018) 76–85

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Resources, Conservation & Recycling

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/resconrec

Full length article

Modeling the potential impact of lithium recycling from EV batteries on T

lithium demand: A dynamic MFA approach
⁎
Saskia Ziemanna, , Daniel B. Müllerb, Liselotte Schebekc, Marcel Weila,d
a
Karlsruhe Institute of Technology (KIT), P.O. Box 3640, 76021 Karlsruhe, Germany
b
Industrial Ecology Programme (IndEcol), Department of Hydraulic and Environmental Engineering, Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NTNU), S.P.
Andersens veg 5, NO-7491 Trondheim, Norway
c
Technical University Darmstadt, Faculty of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Institute IWAR, Material Flow Management and Resource Economy, Franziska-Braun-
Straße 7, 64287 Darmstadt, Germany
d
Helmholtz Institute Ulm for Electrochemical Energy Storage, (HIU) Albert-Einstein-Allee 11, 89081 Ulm, Germany

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Electric mobility is a key element in the transition to a more sustainable transport system. Already today Li-ion
Electric mobility batteries (LIB) are used in many stationary and mobile applications. If electric vehicles (EV) based on LIB reach a
Lithium-ion batteries strong market penetration the recycling of lithium from growing numbers of automotive batteries will be de-
Automotive battery recycling cisive for future availability of this resource. However, the amount that EV battery recycling can contribute to
Lithium recovery
lithium availability is unclear since the ability of secondary lithium to be reused in batteries is uncertain. Here
Scrap surplus
Material flow analysis
we assess the trend in demand for lithium and the possible effects of automotive battery recycling by applying
dynamic material flow analysis to the global lithium cycle. We found that lithium recovery from EV battery
recycling could result in a significant oversupply of secondary material if its quality is not high enough to allow
for reprocessing in battery production. In this case the application of secondary lithium would be limited to other
use sectors and thus also restrict the possible savings of this resource. If secondary lithium only substitutes a
relatively small quantity of virgin material whereas total lithium demand keeps rising, the production of primary
raw materials will have to increase strongly.
The findings of our work reveal the challenge that might result from a quality problem of recycled battery
materials and thereby emphasize the importance of developing cost-effective recycling technologies with effi-
cient material recovery processes for traction batteries as well as the timely development of a functioning re-
cycling infrastructure.

1. Introduction
Electric vehicles (EV) can be an alternative to cars using fossil fuel
and can play an important role in a more sustainable development of
the transport sector. In scenarios featuring increasing electric mobility,
the use of traction batteries such as lithium-ion batteries (LIB) is ex-
pected to grow significantly, raising the demand for the component
materials (Simon et al., 2015; Weil and Ziemann, 2014; Navigant, 2013;
Buchert et al., 2011).
As a contribution to the ongoing discussion of future lithium
availability, several studies have analyzed the impact of EV penetration
on lithium demand and compared it with data on lithium reserves and
resources (Pehlken et al., 2017; Weil and Ziemann, 2014; Vikström
et al., 2013; Mohr et al., 2012; Kushnir and Sandén, 2012; Gruber et al.,
2011; Gaines and Nelson, 2010; IEA, 2009; Yaksic and Tilton, 2009;
Angerer et al., 2009; Roskill, 2013; Weil et al., 2009; Tahil, 2008). The
majority of these studies have determined there is sufficient lithium to
meet the possible future demand for EV in the coming decades. How-
ever, some of these analyses also detected a potential premature de-
pletion of current lithium reserves (Pehlken et al., 2017; Weil and
Ziemann, 2014, Gruber et al., 2011; IEA, 2009; Tahil, 2008). Specifi-
cally, there is a considerable risk of a shortage due to the concentration
of lithium deposits in certain regions and countries characterized by
political instability such as Bolivia and China (DERA, 2014; Worldbank,
2011). Due to the risk of supply chain disruptions, the status of a sig-
nificant part of the lithium reserves can be classified as critical (cf.
Fig. 1, see also Oliveira et al., 2015; Weil and Ziemann, 2014; Grosjean
et al., 2012).
Recycling is an important measure to mitigate potential supply risks
and also to reduce the demand for primary raw materials (Hagelüken,

⁎
Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: saskia.ziemann@kit.edu (S. Ziemann), Daniel.mueller@ntnu.no (D.B. Müller), l.schebek@iwar.tu-darmstadt.de (L. Schebek), marcel.weil@kit.edu (M. Weil).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2018.01.031
Received 14 July 2017; Received in revised form 28 January 2018; Accepted 29 January 2018
Available online 22 February 2018
0921-3449/ © 2018 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
S. Ziemann et al.
Fig. 1. Dynamic model with lithium flows.
2014; UNEP, 2013; Buchert et al., 2011). Recycling is usually con-
sidered to be beneficial for the economy and the environment because it
reduces primary production, energy consumption, and the associated
environmental impact (Zeng et al., 2014; Hagelüken, 2014; UNEP,
2013; Li et al., 2013). In addition, domestic recycling can reduce the
quantity of imported materials (Gaines, 2014; Richa et al., 2014) and
thus the vulnerability of supply chains. Therefore, the majority of the
above-mentioned studies emphasize the relevance of battery recycling
for future lithium supply security and include recycled material as an
important additional future source of lithium that could significantly
decrease the need for primary raw materials (Idjis et al., 2013; Mohr
et al., 2012; Kushnir and Sandén, 2012; Gruber et al., 2011; Gaines and
Nelson, 2010; IEA, 2009; Yaksic and Tilton, 2009; Angerer et al., 2009).
However, the recycling of batteries does not directly imply the re-
cycling of lithium from spent batteries (Gardener, 2017; McCormick,
2016; Kushnir, 2015). The European Union already defined legal re-
quirements for recycling of batteries, where collection rates of at least
45% should be reached by 26 September 2016 (Richtlinie, 2013/56/
EU). Since the number of end-of-life (EOL) batteries from EVs is ex-
pected to rise significantly over the coming decades (Gaines, 2014;
Richa et al., 2014; Georgi-Maschler et al., 2012), companies such as
Toxco (Thompson, 2011), Umicore (Tytgat et al., 2008), and Accurec
(Weyhe, 2010) have developed recycling processes for batteries, in-
cluding LIB. These technologies are focused, however, on the recovery
of more valuable materials such as cobalt and nickel (Heelan et al.,
2016; Kushnir, 2015; Sonoc et al., 2015). Even though these processes
can be applied to batteries from consumer electronics, recycling tech-
nology for lithium-based traction batteries is still the subject of ongoing
research (e.g., Zeng et al., 2014; Li et al., 2013; Georgi-Maschler et al.,
2012; Kwade et al., 2013; Buchert et al., 2011). This research has led to
the development of recycling processes, including lithium recovery, on
a laboratory scale, but the reuse of recycled lithium in the manufacture
of new EV batteries has only been partly successful (Kwade et al.,
2013).
Today, almost no lithium is recovered because it is not economical,
and this resource remains instead in the slag that is used in the con-
struction sector as a cement additive (McCormick, 2016; Kushnir, 2015;
Sonoc et al., 2015; Tytgat, 2013 pers. comm.; Dewulf et al., 2010). This
means, based on our current knowledge, that the economics of lithium
recovery is dependent on the costs for producing lithium from primary
77
Resources, Conservation & Recycling 133 (2018) 76–85
sources. The cost of recovering lithium (in the form of Li2CO3) from the
slag using the currently available recycling processes is estimated to be
in the same range as that of producing battery-grade lithium carbonate
(Li2CO3) from pegmatite minerals such as spodumene (Tytgat, 2013
pers. comm.). Specifically, the variable1 cost of extracting Li2CO3 from
spodumene can be estimated at 3.1 US$ per kg Li2CO3 (Hykawy and
Thomas, 2009) and are thus actually higher than the cost of the current
procedure for extracting Li2CO3 from brine deposits corresponding to
1.2 US$/kg (Muhl, 2014; Yaksic and Tilton, 2009; Hykawy and
Thomas, 2009). To achieve lower recycling costs, the whole recycling
chain must become more efficient, and more cost-efficient recycling
technologies must be developed. Furthermore, subsidies could also be
an important factor for increasing recycling whose potential role will be
investigated further.
An additional challenge is posed by the quality of Li2CO3 recovered
from EV batteries: the secondary Li2CO3 needs to be of high enough
quality to find a market for its original purpose, or it has to find an
alternative market (Gaines, 2014). Even if there is still relatively little
information about the application of recovered Li2CO3 in battery
manufacture some research results showed that performance and dur-
ability of batteries produced from recycled active materials did not
reach the same quality level as if they were produced from virgin ma-
terials (Kwade et al., 2013). In this case, the recirculation of secondary
Li2CO3 may be limited to use in other sectors such as in ceramics, glass,
and alloys (not for rechargeable batteries). But here a problem could be
arising, because the demand for lithium in these sectors is very likely to
grow at a slower rate than that for EV batteries. It has to be stated, that
the stationary applications of LIB are not considered in this work, but
would further deepen the mentioned problem.
The effects of the quantities and qualities of Li2CO3 recovered from
EV batteries on the overall recycling system have not been investigated
so far.
Our study analyses the impact of a rising demand for lithium-based
traction batteries in electric mobility on the potential for lithium re-
covery from EOL-EV batteries and the options for as well as the lim-
itations of using secondary lithium for EV batteries and other lithium
products. The following questions are addressed. (1) What impact does
1
Variable costs do not include the amortization of capital cost of the mine and plant
construction that would additionally amount to $ 3.333 per ton of Li2CO3.
S. Ziemann et al.
strong growth in demand for EV batteries have on the recycling of
traction batteries, especially the potential recovery of secondary li-
thium? (2) To what extent can recovered lithium from traction battery
recycling contribute to a reduction in the demand for primary raw
materials as a way to save lithium resources? (3) What are the options
and limitations of lithium recycling from a systems perspective?
2. Methodology
2.1. System definition
The system taken into consideration in our study includes all the
relevant processes of the global lithium cycle: the processes of lithium
production including primary production from brines and minerals as
well as secondary production from recycling, manufacture and use, and
end of life (EOL) (cf. Fig. 1).
The use process is divided into two subprocesses:
• EV batteries: subdivided further into different drive technologies
(type-component extension)
• Other use sectors: nonautomotive batteries, glass and ceramics, lu-
bricants, air conditioning, aluminum production, pharmaceuticals,
alloys, and other uses.
A potentially promising application of LIB in home power back-up
systems for the storage of electricity produced from, for example, solar
cells is not included in the modeling, just as the larger application in
stationary storage systems is not.
The EOL-process includes two subprocesses: battery recycling and
waste management of other lithium products. Two types of battery
recycling are taken into consideration, i.e., recycling with lithium re-
covery and recycling without lithium recovery, in which case lithium
accumulates in the slag used in the construction sector. Most lithium
products other than EV batteries are treated in waste management
processes without lithium recovery if at all (Lu et al., 2016; USGS,
2012). Lithium flows from waste management either end up in the
construction sector or in the environment (e.g. landfills). Lithium losses
occur predominantly within the use phase through dissipative appli-
cations like pharmaceuticals or lubricants (cf. Fig. 1). However, the
total losses can be regarded as very small in comparison to the antici-
pated demand for lithium for EV batteries and are therefore neglected
here (Ziemann et al., 2012b).
The model is projected for a time frame of 40 years (2010–2050).
2.2. Model description
2.2.1. The use process
A dynamic model of the global lithium cycle was developed based
on the stock dynamics concept developed by Muöller (2006), applying
the in-use stock as the primary driver for material flows.
The global lithium in-use stock consists of two parts, which are
modeled in different ways: the lithium stock in future electric vehicles
(1) and the lithium stock of other lithium applications (2).
(1) A stock-driven material flow analysis (MFA) model for vehicles
built up by population (pop) and car per capita (car/cap) forms the
basis of the development of the lithium stock in traction batteries as
well as of the respective inflows and outflows (cf. Fig. 1). This MFA-
model is extended by a type component approach to integrate dif-
ferent drive technologies: fuel cell vehicles (FCV), natural gas ve-
hicles (NGV),2 diesel, gasoline, hybrid electric vehicles (HEV), plug-
in hybrid electric vehicles (PHEV), and fully electric vehicles (FEV)
2
Natural gas vehicles use compressed natural gas (CNG) or liquefied petroleum gas
(LPG) as fuel.
78
Resources, Conservation & Recycling 133 (2018) 76–85
(cf. Fig. 1). Stock development and vehicle lifetimes determine the
input of new vehicles and output of retired ones.
Vehicle stock forms the basis for deriving the stock of batteries in
use, which incorporates four vehicle types equipped with traction
batteries: FCV, HEV, PHEV, and FEV. The calculated inflow of new EVs
into vehicle stock is the primary driver of battery stock (cf. Fig. 1). The
input of new batteries and output of EOL batteries is computed by stock
development and battery lifetime. The useful lifetime of batteries is
generally expressed as the loss of a battery's ability to provide a specific
amount of its original nominal capacity, usually 80%. Based on current
technology of LIB, battery lifetime in EV is shorter than the average
vehicle lifetime (Keil et al., 2015), which means that the model im-
plicitly assumes that EV batteries are replaced after reaching their EOL
by new batteries for each of the different types of EVs. Such exchange is
already carried out in the EVs currently available on the market
(Voelcker, 2014; Ingram, 2012). Thus, the inflow of lithium for EV
batteries is determined by the inflow of new EVs that need to be
equipped with traction batteries and also by the new batteries required
as replacements for EOL batteries in vehicles that are still running. In
this regard the model does not assume a reuse of functioning batteries
from EOL vehicles, but always generates the need for new batteries in
new vehicles and for new batteries in used cars. This assumption can be
justified by the fact that such a further utilization of used batteries
would require perfect markets for the used but not obsolete batteries as
well as appropriate replacement opportunities, which is not the case.
(2) The lithium stocks for other uses – these are nonautomotive bat-
teries (primary and rechargeable), glass, ceramics, glass-ceramics,
lubricants, air conditioning, aluminum production, chemicals,
pharmaceuticals, alloys, and other uses (later referred to as basic
demand) – is modeled using a defined and constant annual growth
rate of lithium consumption in all these use sectors.
2.2.2. The production process
The lithium inflow to the use process3 (cf. Fig. 1) is met by primary
and secondary lithium production. Lithium can be extracted as a pri-
mary raw material from brines and mineral deposits and can then be
used to manufacture lithium-based traction batteries for EVs as well as
to fabricate other lithium products. Secondary lithium is assumed to
originate exclusively from the recycling of EV batteries leaving out
other use sectors, where mainly product recycling without lithium re-
covery takes place (cf. Ziemann et al., 2012a).
2.2.3. The end-of-life process
Based on the present recycling situation of LIB (cf. Section 1), it is
possible to recover recyclable grade lithium from obsolete traction
batteries provided that suitable processes are used. In this case the
actual recovery rates determine the amount of secondary lithium that
reaches the production process (cf. Fig. 1). If lithium is not recovered, it
is used in the construction sector (as slag) or landfills instead.
2.3. Recycling scenarios
The lithium outflow from the EV battery stock provides the basis for
a quantitative estimate of the amount of secondary lithium. In the
modeling we assumed different recovery rates for secondary lithium of
either 40% or 80% determined by the efficiency of the whole battery
recycling chain (cf. Weil and Ziemann 2014, see also Fig. A.2 and ex-
planation in SI).
A recovery rate of 80% can be seen as the optimistic case where
3
For reasons of simplification, manufacturing processes using various lithium com-
pounds for fabricating a wide variety of lithium products are not regarded separately
since these are not the focus of the model.
S. Ziemann et al.
every single process step (collection, dismantling, preprocessing, and
recovery) needs very high values regarding their efficiencies. Such an
optimistic rate (or even higher) for lithium recycling from EV batteries
is assumed by other studies about future lithium availability as well
(e.g. Kushnir and Sandén, 2012; Gruber et al., 2011; Gaines and Nelson,
2010; Yaksic and Tilton, 2009; Angerer et al., 2009). Since presently
feasible lithium recycling processes do not imply a high recovery effi-
ciency of lithium from LIB, but rather a moderate of approx. 50–60%
(cf. Kushnir, 2015) a lower recovery rate of 40% might be achievable in
medium term (see also Fig. A.2 and explanation in SI). Through ap-
plying different recovery rates of 40 and 80% in comparison to the
current RR of lithium from traction batteries being still 0% the potential
for EV battery recycling contributing to future resource availability can
be assessed within a certain range.
The current status of battery recycling technologies comprises two
different approaches in essence.
1. “Recovery of metals” is mainly characterized by pyrometallurgical
separation of metals and incineration of organics. Resulting metal
alloys can be used as such or further refined to the level that they
can be transformed into new battery materials. Such processes allow
for a large scale metal recovery with a high energy efficiency and
high process robustness for different battery types. However lithium
is separated from the recovered metal alloys and remains in the
resulting slag which needs further treatment to extract lithium
(Kushnir, 2015; Tytgat, 2009).
2. “Recovery of compounds” consists primarily of physical separation
of fractions (plastics, steel, foils, electrolyte) followed by a propriety
technology to extract compounds from fractions. Recycling pro-
cesses aim at extensive recovery of valuable compounds such as
electrolyte, separator, and active cathode material. But these tech-
nologies usually are more energy intensive, require several process
chemicals, and might be less robust since they are dedicated for
well-defined battery types (Kushnir, 2015; Georgi-Maschler et al.,
2012; Kwade et al., 2013; Tytgat, 2009)
In our study we focus on the first approach since it is already suc-
cessfully implemented in recycling companies (Kushnir, 2015; Gaines,
2014; Tytgat, 2009). The slag resulting from this process could theo-
retically contain up to 1% lithium by mass − a concentration roughly
equivalent to marginal spodumene mines for lithium and thus it may be
possible to recover it. Based on this we assume that the effort to recover
secondary Li2CO3 from slags is similar to extracting primary Li2CO3
from spodumene, but the quality of recovered lithium remains unclear
(Tytgat, 2013 pers. comm.). Due to different battery materials and
chemicals contained the slag is a fairly complex material for which
processing is difficult and recovering lithium from it only a theoretical
possibility until now (Kushnir, 2015). Therefore we cannot expect that
the quality of potentially recovered Li2CO3 from EV battery recycling
will reach the same level as primary produced Li2CO3.
To assess the implications of a growing quantity of secondary
Li2CO3 from EOL-EV batteries against this background, we investigated
two distinct recycling options: closed-loop recycling and open-loop
recycling. In closed-loop recycling, the intrinsic properties of materials
do not undergo any changes. This implies that the inherent character-
istics of the recycled materials are not considerably different from those
of the virgin material. The recycled material or product can still be used
in the same product system and thus replace primary materials
(Huysman et al., 2015; Williams et al., 2015). In open-loop recycling, in
contrast, the intrinsic properties and the inherent characteristics of the
material are altered in such a way (i.e., often a degradation in quality)
that reuse in the same product is not possible. Instead, the recycled
material can only be used for other product applications, which is also
termed downcycling (Williams et al., 2015).
Using this distinction, we defined two main scenarios to evaluate
the potential effects of lithium recycling from EV batteries on lithium
79
Resources, Conservation & Recycling 133 (2018) 76–85
production and on the usage of primary resources.
(A) The first scenario assumes open-loop recycling where the recovered
Li2CO3 does not reach battery grade quality, but the recycled ma-
terial can be used instead of primary Li2CO3 in basic demand sec-
tors such as glass, glass-ceramics, ceramics, alloys, aluminum pro-
duction, and some other minor applications.
(B) In the second scenario, closed-loop recycling is assumed, meaning
that secondary Li2CO3 reaches a quality that allows its reuse in the
fabrication of new Li-ion batteries for EV as well as non-automotive
applications. Recycled material can thus substitute primary Li2CO3
in these products.
Within the sector of Basic Demand internal recycling of LIB in
electronics was not considered since at the moment only a small frac-
tion of these batteries are collected for recycling and because pyrolysis
as the solely available recycling technology on an industrial scale in
Europe does currently not recover secondary lithium.
2.4. Quantitative estimate of parameters
Detailed documentation of the quantitative estimates of the para-
meters is available in the Supporting information (Appendix). An
overview of the input parameters and their variation is given in Table 1.
The parameters to build up the demand driven MFA model of the
global lithium stock in EV (Fig. 1) are as follows: population and vehicle
ownership as car per capita, vehicle lifetime, market penetration of
vehicle types as projection, battery lifetime, and lithium content in
different vehicle types.
The specific lithium content of each EV depends on the battery size
and the proportion of lithium in the battery materials (cf. Table 1).
Different types of LIBs are currently used in EVs, and further develop-
ment of Li-based traction batteries is anticipated. Thus, three battery
types with differing lithium content were examined as alternative de-
velopments: Lithium-Nickel-Mangan-Cobalt-Oxide/Graphite (NMC-G)
as an example of a state-of-the-art battery, Lithium-Nickel-Cobalt-Alu-
minium-Oxide/Graphite (NCA-G) which is increasingly being preferred
by many car manufacturers, and Lithium-Sulfur (Li-S) as a promising
type of battery for the future (cf. Table 1, more information in Ap-
pedix).
3. Results
3.1. Lithium consumption in electric vehicles
The annual lithium inflow into the use sector of EV batteries in the
base case is predicted to show a continuous and strong increase until
2042, and then growth of lithium demand is predicted to level out. This
development is caused by the number of HEV starting to decline after
reaching its highest value in 2030 and additionally by a slowed down
increase for PHEV from 2040 on (cf. Fig. 2). Lithium inflow of 0.85 Mt
in 2050 corresponds to approximately 27 times the current lithium
production of 0.032 Mt in 2012. The annual material inflow into EV
batteries is expected to develop in the same way regardless of whether
low (NMC batteries) or high (Li-S batteries) lithium content is em-
ployed, reaching either 0.37 Mt or 1.43 Mt in the year 2050, respec-
tively. This will be equivalent to 12 or 45 times the current level of
production (cf. Fig. 2). In addition, the lithium demand for other (non-
traction battery related) use sectors (i.e., basic demand) evolves at a
constant annual growth rate and will amount to approximately 0.2 Mt
in 2050. LIB in consumer electronics will continue to have the largest
share in this and account for lithium demand of almost 0.05 Mt in 2050
and thus roughly 5 times that of 2012.
Looking more closely at this development, it can be seen that the
lithium required for EV batteries might outpace lithium consumption
from basic demand as soon as 2016 in the base case for NCA batteries
S. Ziemann et al. Resources, Conservation & Recycling 133 (2018) 76–85

Table 1
Overview of input data and references for modeling lithium demand in electric vehicles.

Input parameters Data Reference(s)

2010 2050

Population Medium case 6.5 bn 8.6 bn UN (2011)

Car ownership (car/1000 capita) Medium case 144 320 Modaresi and Müller (2012)
Type share of EV in light duty vehiclesa [%] FCV 0 18.6 IEA (2009): Blue Map scenario
HEV 1.2 7.6
PHEV 0 33.3
FEV 0 25.9
Vehicle lifetime 15 years Ball et al. (2011), Mueller et al. (2007)
Battery lifetime 10 years Keil et al. (2015), Kushnir and Sandén (2012)
Lithium content [kg] Battery HEVb/FCV PHEV FEV Weil et al. (2013)
Battery size composition 1.5 kWh 12 kWh 25 kWh
Low: NMC-G 0.13 kg/kWh 0.2 kg 1.6 kg 3.3 kg Majeau-Bettez et al. (2011), own calculations
Medium: NCA-G 0.25 kg/ 0.4 kg 3 kg 6.3 kg Gaines and Nelson (2009), own calculations
kWh
High: Li-S 0.41 kg/kWh 0.6 kg 5 kg 10.5 kg Zhang et al. (2010), own calculation
Recovery rate (recovery of Li2CO3) Low 40% Assumption (based on Weil and Ziemann. 2014)
High 80%
Basic demand (other use sectors, incl. LIB in electronics) 5% annual growth rate 28 202 Roskill (2013), Yaksic and Tilton (2009), own
[Mt Li] calculation

a
Type share also includes diesel and gasoline vehicles as well as natural gas vehicles whose market penetration will decrease significantly in the BlueMap projection of IEA (more
information is provided in the SI).
b
For reasons of simplification it is assumed in the modeling that every new produced HEV will be equipped with a LIB. In fact, there are still car manufacturers selling their hybrids
with the more expensive NiMH-batteries, but LIB are set to displace NiMH in the near future due to the advantages they provide as can already be observed for market leader Toyota or
also Nissan.

(2015 for Li-S and 2021 for NMC). Between 2011 and 2014 there could
be seen an average increase of 27% per year in global lithium-ion
battery consumption reaching an estimated 55 gigawatthours (GWh) in
2014 (USGS, 2014).
The outflow of lithium from EOL-EV batteries occurs with a time lag
of the assumed battery lifetime of 10 years. The annual material out-
flow from the EV battery stock is continuously growing and will reach
approximately 0.6 Mt (NCA) in 2050. The development for the other
battery types should be similar, but result in different outflows of either
0.26 Mt (NMC) or 1.01 Mt (Li-S). The outflow is lower than the inflow
as long as the stock of EV batteries is growing. In 2028, however, the
annual lithium outflow from EV batteries of NCA type will amount to
0.08 Mt and exceed the inflow into the sectors of basic demand. The
timing of this switch for the alternative battery types can be as late as
2038 (NMC) or as early as 2025 (Li-S).
The amount of secondary lithium that could be gained from auto-
motive battery recycling is usually determined from the lithium outflow
of EV batteries from the use phase by using an applied recovery rate of
either 40% or 80%. This would result in as much as 0.24 or 0.48 Mt for
NCA batteries in 2050. For NMC batteries, the amount would usually be
smaller, approximating 0.1 or 0.21 Mt, respectively, and for Li-S
batteries it would be higher at 0.41 and 0.81 Mt, respectively. These
volumes of secondary lithium can in principle serve as a substitute for a
considerable part of the primary raw materials required for the lithium
inflow into the in-use stock.
3.2. Lithium recycling and reuse
Within the context of the different recycling scenarios, the extent to
which secondary Li2CO3 from EV battery recycling can meet the
growing demand for lithium was evaluated. Also investigated was how
this might change with a permanent increase in the number of EOL
automotive batteries becoming available for recycling as a function of
the quality and the reuse options for recycled lithium.
The results of the different recycling scenarios are shown in Fig. 3. If
the Li2CO3 recovered from obsolete traction batteries does not reach
battery-grade quality and can thus only be used for specific use sectors
that do directly require primary Li2CO3 (Scenario A), the supply of
secondary Li2CO3 from EV battery recycling will soon exceed the de-
mand for Li2CO3 in the use sectors of glass, glass-ceramics, ceramics,
alloys, aluminum production, and some other minor applications. The
first year of Li2CO3 oversupply would be 2021 for LiS batteries and a

Fig. 2. Annual Li inflow into and Li outflow from use in the base case: basic demand and lithium demand for EV batteries by type according to the BLUE Map scenario (BM).

80
S. Ziemann et al.
Fig. 3. Simulated future demand of Li and the relative share covered by primary and secondary Li production assuming different recovery rates and possibilities for reusing recycled Li.
recovery rate of 80%; whereas the oversupply would be delayed until
2030 in the case of NMC batteries and a recovery rate of 40%. If a lower
growth rate of 2.5% for Basic Demand is applied the oversupply of
Li2CO3 occurs already approximately one year earlier, but will be ad-
ditionally delayed when the growth rate for Basic
Demand amounts to 7.5% (see also Appendix for detailed results).
The gap between demand and supply can grow to considerably different
levels, ranging from 0.16 to 0.77 Mt per year in 2050, depending on
battery type and recovery rate. The higher this difference between
demand and supply of secondary Li2CO3 the more virgin material is
needed tapping lithium sources that require more energy for extracting
lithium than from brines at the moment.
In contrast, if the recovered Li2CO3 from EV battery recycling
reaches battery-grade quality, thereby enabling its reuse in the manu-
facture of new rechargeable batteries (Scenario B), the supply of sec-
ondary Li2CO3 could meet a certain part of the required inflow in
battery applications. Besides covering the lithium inflow into non-
automotive it could also sustain a limited number of new Li-based
batteries for EVs irrespective of which battery type is favored. At a
recovery rate of 40%, the amount of secondary Li2CO3 could cover
approximately 25% of the required annual lithium inflow for EV bat-
teries in 2050. The amount could even reach 53% in 2050 if the re-
covery rate is 80%.
4. Discussion
4.1. Development of demand for lithium
The future demand for lithium and the availability of scrap are
highly uncertain, depending mainly on the degree of EV penetration
and the lithium content in batteries. The influence of changes in po-
pulation development and vehicle ownership on lithium demand is less
intense than the effects of low or high lithium content and short or long
battery lifetime respectively. Lithium content and battery lifetime have
81
Resources, Conservation & Recycling 133 (2018) 76–85
comparable effects: lithium demand increases much faster if high li-
thium content and low battery lifetime are assumed (in the same
amount), but it is only slightly lower if low lithium content and longer
battery lifetime are applied (detailed information can be found in the
Appendix).
The demand for lithium from other use sectors (c.f. Fig. 2 Basic
Demand) accounts for a much smaller fraction of total lithium demand
than that for EV batteries despite the annual growth rate of 5%. This
demand increase is also primarily driven by lithium consumption for
LIB, in this case for consumer electronics for which the market ex-
panded rapidly within the last years reaching high growth rates. In fact,
further demand increase in electronic batteries is expected on a lower
scale since saturation effects can already be observed in industrial
countries in Europe and North America for e.g. cellular phones or
portable PCs reducing market forecasts to approximately 6% growth
rate for the next years (GFK 2016, Pillot 2015). However, even if the
increase of LIB demand for portable electronic devices might be higher
the potential development of Basic Demand also depends from other
use sectors such as glass, ceramics, greases or aluminum production,
some of which are predicted to have smaller growth rates or even de-
cline over the coming decades e.g. greases and aluminum production
(c.f. Roskill, 2013; Yaksic and Tilton, 2009).
The lithium content in EV batteries is determined by the composi-
tion of the individual battery type and the battery capacity. The di-
rection of battery research suggests a trend to the use of more lithium-
intense active materials such as NCA, LTO, and Li-S (cf. Simon et al.,
2014). In addition, developments in the automotive industry are con-
centrated on increasing battery capacity, which tends to result in a
higher lithium content of traction batteries. So far FEVs are produced
with a battery capacity of approximately 20–25 kWh (Honda, 2014;
BMW, 2013; Nissan, 2013) (cf. Table 1). Still, there are trends toward
the use of larger batteries (60–85 kWh) within the automotive industry
– e.g. Tesla Roadster already has a Li-ion battery with a capacity of 56
kWh that enables a driving range of 320 km (Tesla, 2013). This
S. Ziemann et al.
intended development is triggered by some important advantages of
larger batteries including longer driving range, which increase the at-
tractiveness of electric mobility, or improved battery endurance pos-
sibly resulting in a longer battery lifetime. Increased battery capacity
may even bring about better possibilities for EV to be integrated in
surrounding systems such as vehicle-to-grid and smart cities. Moreover,
the material composition is decisive since even a change in lithium-
based traction batteries from the NCA type to the Li-S type would in-
crease the lithium content substantially, namely from 6.25 to 10.5 kg
per FEV (cf. Table 1). If this trend continues, further increases in the
lithium content per vehicle are to be expected during the next 20 years.
Another factor influencing the outcome is the lifetime of EV bat-
teries which is assumed to be shorter (around 10 years) than that of
vehicles (approximately 15 years) based on the warranties most car
manufacturers give for their LIB at the moment of approximately 8–10
years (cf. Morris, 2017; Shahan, 2016). However, the battery lifetime is
dependent on many “parameters” like e.g. working temperature, Depth
of Discharge (DoD), the quantity of charge cycles and use frequencies,
but also calendar degradation and environmental conditions making it
difficult to give general values for the useful lifespan of LIB in EV
(Smith 2017). In addition to that there exist only little practical ex-
perience with aging EV batteries until now, but different statements can
be found in current reports about how long the battery pack in an
electric car is to be used ranging from 5 to 20 years (Morris, 2017;
Smith, 2017; Shahan, 2016). Nevertheless battery lifespan in bigger
cities such as Indianapolis was found to be slightly lower than 10 years
for the majority of cars according to a recent study (TRB, 2016). This
mismatch of vehicle lifetime and battery lifetime can have different
implications.
If the battery lifetime is assumed to be 10 years while the vehicle
lifetime is taken to be 15 years two batteries will be required for each
EV: one battery with a 10 year lifetime and one battery with a lifetime
of 5 years. For future lithium demand this would imply the shorter the
battery lifetime the more batteries have to be replaced during a vehi-
cle's lifetime and more material is thus required to fabricate EV bat-
teries.
Furthermore there also is the possibility that people will not replace
the traction battery of their EV after it reached the end of its useful
service life since the battery can still have at least 80% of its original
capacity by then. It is conceivable that people might instead buy a new
car containing a new battery with 100% capacity or they adapt to the
situation of a probably decreasing driving range for the remaining ve-
hicle lifetime. Another option would be the reuse of functioning bat-
teries (aged approximately 5 years) from retired vehicles in new EV, but
this has not been implemented in the model. Currently such reuse is
unrealistic mainly due to the fact that battery replacement would re-
quire identical vehicle construction and functioning markets for used
batteries. There is constant development in vehicle construction (model
cycles in the automotive industry are approximately four years) and
further battery research. In contrast, it is implicitly assumed that bat-
teries from retired vehicles that are still functioning are put to some
kind of second use. One promising possibility is the reuse of such
second-life batteries for stationary applications, such as are already
implemented in the USA for the individual cells of EV batteries that are
still active (Gaines, 2014). Since the obsolete batteries removed from
cars are still capable of significant energy storage, repurposing LIB into
stationary applications (e.g., residential home power backup and large
industrial electrical load shifting) provides a valuable extension of life
providing both environmental and economic benefits (Ahmadi et al.,
2014; Heymans et al., 2014).
4.2. Impact of battery recycling
The quality of the recovered lithium from battery recycling pro-
cesses is decisive for its reutilization as secondary raw material in the
fabrication of lithium products. But it is still unclear if lithium can be
82
Resources, Conservation & Recycling 133 (2018) 76–85
recovered from the slag of currently applied pyrometallurgical re-
cycling processes in a high enough quality since these slags also contain
other materials and certain impurities that may interfere with a po-
tential extraction process. This could result in higher requirements for
energy and extraction chemicals reducing the efficiency and thus
profitability of the process (Sonoc et al., 2015). It is, therefore, con-
ceivable that the recovery of Li2CO3 from slags might be executed in a
way where the focus is on economics instead of quality issues. Such
downgrading of secondary lithium constrains the contribution of EV
battery recycling to future lithium availability, because it only sub-
stitutes limited amounts of virgin material needed for some lithium
applications that can use lower qualities of recovered Li2CO3. However,
in this case an oversupply of secondary Li2CO3 from open-loop re-
cycling will occur. The timing of such oversupply depends on the re-
covery rate, the lithium content in batteries, and the possibilities for
reusing recovered Li2CO3 (cf. Fig. 3). For investigating to what extent
these factors influence the availability of secondary lithium to suffice
future raw material demand recovery rates of 40 and 80% as well as
three battery technologies with different lithium contents were applied.
Surplus of recovered material could occur as early as 2021 and
could add up to a cumulative amount of leftover secondary lithium in
the range of 7.6–9 Mt by 2050, which corresponds to 39%–47% of the
currently known lithium reserves or even outperforms the sum of cur-
rent reserves in countries exposing high risks for supply disruption such
as China and Bolivia (cf. Weil and Ziemann, 2014). Likewise, the con-
siderable amount of recovered but not recycled lithium would be as
much as 11%–22% (at a moderate recovery rate of 40%) or 30%–47%
(at 80%) of the required primary lithium inflow in 2050. Although the
potential oversupply of secondary lithium could result in an accumu-
lation of surplus material that might be reprocessed in the future, op-
portunities and regulations for deposition (e.g., of recovered Li2CO3 or
lithium-containing slags from battery recycling) would be required in
the meantime.
In contrast a low recovery rate could delay and reduce a potential
oversupply of recovered lithium. The same applies for a higher growth
rate of 7.5% in the relevant use sectors of BD (see SI for details).
Connected to this approach is the prospect of a decrease in the amount
of lithium used in EV batteries (see also Zeng and Li, 2013).
Altogether the results of the different scenarios (cf. Fig. 3) show that
open-loop recycling could only make a limited contribution to the
substitution of virgin materials as well as to saving primary resources.
This would lead to a faster increase in lithium mining to satisfy growing
lithium demand for all applications. Such a development results in the
necessity to exploit lower quality deposits with presumably higher ex-
traction costs. Higher costs for primary lithium production are caused
by e.g. lower lithium concentrations in brines or minerals and un-
favorable magnesium-to-lithium ratios in brines. The exploitation of
lower quality deposits is usually accompanied by higher energy re-
quirements and emissions resulting from e.g. lower evaporation rates of
brines or difficult accessibility of deposits and also the environmental
impacts of resource extraction are higher as well as possible supply risks
(Muhl, 2014; Wanger, 2011). Since a considerable part of current li-
thium reserves is situated in high risk countries (e.g. Bolivia, China) fast
increase of lithium demand without efficient lithium recycling could
result in a potential dependence on critical reserves with a higher po-
tential of supply disruption (cf. Weil and Ziemann, 2014).
Following these findings, the focus for developing efficient lithium
recycling technology should be placed on closed-loop recycling because
the market potential of battery grade lithium is larger in the longer
term. If EV penetration grows strongly and increasing numbers of EOL
batteries are recycled, the market for LIB traction batteries alone will be
large enough to absorb the amount of secondary lithium that is gen-
erated. This implies the development of suitable structures to be able to
process recovered Li2CO3 to a quality level that allows for recirculation
in the manufacture of new rechargeable batteries. In fact, the only re-
cycling technology currently available for LIB on an industrial scale in
S. Ziemann et al.
Europe is pyrolysis, where lithium remains in the slag and recovering it
is only a theoretical possibility that would be expensive and thus in-
efficient at the moment (Gardener, 2017; McCormick, 2016; Kushnir,
2015; Tytgat, 2013). However, pyrolysis is highly effective at re-
covering Nickel, Cobalt, and Copper in a concentrated and relatively
clean alloy with high efficiency (see Kushnir, 2015; Tytgat, 2013).
Despite that the revenue from recycled material for the recycling
companies is still low at the moment making legislation the main factor
for the decision to recycle and thus giving recyclers the possibility to
charge a premium gate fee for used batteries (Kushnir, 2015). If already
LIB recycling as executed now is not economic lithium recovery from
currently available recycling processes does not seem likely to be cost
effective in the short term. Instead there is the need for developing
alternative recycling processes to get to closed loop recycling, espe-
cially regarding circular flows of lithium (Gardener, 2017; McCormick,
2016; Kushnir, 2015). In this regard other recycling strategies more
dedicated to recover valuable compounds such as electrolyte, separator,
and active cathode material (e.g. hydrothermal or direct physical re-
cycling) could offer a promising though more complicating approach
(cf. chapter 2.3, see also Kushnir, 2015; Georgi-Maschler et al., 2012,
Gaines, 2011; Tytgat, 2009). The hydrometallurgical recycling process
seems to be more beneficial for Li recovery, but the efforts are relatively
high and not seldom toxic substances are used (Rodriguez Garcia and
Weil, 2015).
Furthermore, in order to facilitate the closed-loop recycling of EV
batteries, a functioning infrastructure (e.g., collection, transport) must
be established (Zeng et al., 2014; Wang et al., 2014; Zeng and Li, 2013),
which requires effective cooperation between battery researchers, bat-
tery manufacturers, and recycling companies. Such collaboration
should allow the participants to design efficient recycling processes
adapted to LIB, in contrast to the rather robust recycling technologies
employed at the moment to include a broad variation in batteries.
There are several strategies to expand EV battery recycling: a standard
configuration of batteries to develop appropriate recycling equipment;
further chemistry standardization to reduce the necessity for sorting;
labeling of cells to allow for better sorting; and advanced battery design
for disassembly makes separation of contained materials possible (cf.
Sonoc et al., 2015; Zeng et al., 2015; Kushnir, 2015; Gaines, 2014; Zeng
and Li, 2013; Gaines, 2011). With such improvements recycling of EV
batteries could yield valuable, high-purity materials, also in the case of
secondary Li2CO3. Beyond this, a credible and practical framework is
required to facilitate the development of an economic recycling system
with efficient material recovery since there are still uncertainties with
respect to, for example, the safe and economic transport of spent bat-
teries. In this context, there is an additional need for reliable framework
conditions for the processing of spent batteries so that investment in
efficient recycling processes can pay off within a limited period of time
(Zeng et al., 2014; Wang et al., 2014). Against this background gov-
ernment intervention in the form of subsidies might be needed since EV
recycling technologies with lithium recovery are still the object of re-
search and have not been proven to be economic yet (IM, 2016;
Kushnir, 2015). It is likewise difficult to anticipate a high efficiency in
EV battery recycling and lithium recovery because of the ongoing re-
search in battery technology, specifically by further improvements to
LIB and changes in battery chemistry within the next twenty years
(Pehlken et al., 2017; Hanisch et al., 2015; Ziemann et al., 2012b).
The realization of closed-loop recycling of lithium-based batteries is
even more relevant if stationary applications for LIB such as home
batteries for the storage of energy from solar cells (e.g., Tesla Power
Wall (Tesla, 2016)) gain a considerable share of the market and put
additional pressure on lithium resources. However this was not taken
into account in the analysis at this stage, because the market integration
of such storage devices is currently very complex and diverse and dif-
ficult to quantify. The same applies for the reuse of batteries in second
life applications which could also provide for stationary electricity
storage. But further extension of battery lifetime beyond 10 years could
83
Resources, Conservation & Recycling 133 (2018) 76–85
delay lithium material recycling and thereby restrict the availability of
secondary lithium (see also Ziemann et al., 2016).
Furthermore, the contribution of recycling in a growing economy is
limited (Graedel, 2015). This is also the case regarding the potential
lithium outflow from battery recycling covering only a limited amount
of annual lithium demand as long as the lithium stock is growing fast,
which is to be expected until saturation of the EV market (see also
Pehlken et al., 2017). The effect that the share of secondary Li pro-
duction remains low as long as total raw material demand keeps rising
can be observed for many metals and results mainly from the residence
time of products in the use phase delaying the outflow to recycling
(UNEP, 2013).
The model’s limitations refer to the resolution of the system defi-
nition and parameter assumptions. The MFA-model we used employs a
global system definition to calculate lithium flows on a global level. The
stock of vehicles worldwide from which the lithium stock in future
electric vehicles is derived was built up using global averages of po-
pulation growth and car ownership development. Such a stock-driven
approach is frequently used in MFA-Studies to determine the long-term
development of material stocks and flows in the global system of ve-
hicle use (cf. Løvik et al., 2014; Modaresi and Müller, 2012; Kushnir
and Sandén, 2012; Carles, 2010). Since the data applied was originally
built up as aggregates from a more regional scale it takes also account
of variances in future development of car ownership in different parts of
the world (see detailed explanation of parameter estimation in the SI).
Likewise the IEA projection of the global future EV market is based on
regional sales forecasts (cf. IEA, 2009). Although it predicts a very
strong increase of EV market shares this expansion is in line with EV
sales targets announced by governments all over the world. The IEA
projection thus constitutes a level of market penetration that govern-
ments are willing to stimulate or might be obligated to for reaching
ambitious climate targets. It probably makes this forecast an established
scenario for several investigations of future impacts from EV develop-
ment on material demand and recycling (cf. Vikström et al., 2013;
Modaresi and Muöller, 2012). Other studies applied optimistic sce-
narios for future EV market penetration, too (e.g. Mohr et al., 2012;
Kushnir and Sandén, 2012; Gruber et al., 2011; Carles, 2010; Yaksic and
Tilton, 2009), thus reaching comparatively high values of future li-
thium demand for EV-batteries, but their implications on future lithium
availability depend on the individual scope of the respective study.
Furthermore parameters such as car ownership or sales forecasts are
likely to be influenced at a much smaller scale and might result in re-
gional differences of EV numbers. However, such differences and re-
gional flows of lithium for EV batteries that may arise are not con-
sidered in the modeling.
5. Conclusions
Through our analysis it could be shown that lithium recycling is
important for future availability of this resource, especially in the light
of growing demand by electric mobility and potentially high risks for
supply disruptions on the production side in politically instable coun-
tries. However the contribution of lithium recycling to save primary
resources is dependent on the process efficiency as well as the quality of
the recovered materials, which is decisive for potential recirculation
into new products. The quality of secondary lithium decides whether an
open-loop or closed-loop recycling for specific applications can be
carried out. If the quality of recovered lithium from EV batteries is not
high enough for reutilization in manufacture of new batteries open-loop
recycling will be applied. In this case secondary lithium could only be
reused in other use sectors, but such reuse is limited by the develop-
ment of basic demand. If these use sectors cannot take up the amounts
of recovered lithium from EV battery recycling a surplus of secondary
lithium could easily occur and thus only a limited part of potential
future lithium demand would be met. Conversely if secondary lithium
reaches battery grade quality closed-loop recycling of lithium-based EV
S. Ziemann et al.
batteries can be realized. Such closed-loop recycling would be able to
provide larger amounts of secondary lithium as substitute for virgin
materials in manufacture of new batteries. This is necessary to sustain a
significant part of growing lithium demand once electric vehicles with
LIB reach high market shares. Thus, closed loop-recycling cannot only
prevent a potential oversupply of secondary lithium, but also save a
larger amount of primary resources compared to the open-loop re-
cycling. Since closed-loop recycling of EV batteries is crucial for a sig-
nificant reduction of demand for primary raw materials different op-
tions to facilitate this type of recycling can be defined:
• Structures and framework conditions to produce battery grade
Li CO for reutilization in fabrication of new batteries;
2 3
• Standardization of batteries to develop adapted processes for re-
cycling of EV batteries concentrating on the valuable compounds;
• Subsidies for retrofitting recycling processes or to cover investment
costs of recycling companies so that lithium can e.g. be recovered
from the slags of pyrometallurgical recycling processes despite high
costs;
• Regulations for the processing of EOL-EV batteries to go beyond
overall recycling rates for EOL-vehicles or parts of such vehicles to
be more material specific.
However the efficiency of EV battery recycling − though still an
object of research − appears as a complex interaction of the quality of
the recovered lithium and of recycling costs. Usually the costs for re-
covery of secondary materials compete with production costs for pri-
mary materials. Since the recycling costs are merely resulting from the
effort to recover materials during recycling processes they represent
expenditures in case of i.a. energy and process requirements as well as
emissions. In order to achieve high quality recycling products the re-
quired energy might be higher and so would be the costs for recovery.
A closer look at pyrometallurgical recycling technologies being
more frequently used than others reveals that currently lithium re-
covery from the slags of such battery recycling processes is not carried
out because it lacks profitability for the recycling companies. This is
due to the efforts to recover lithium from these slags being approxi-
mately at the same level as extracting primary Li2CO3 from minerals,
but the major part of primary lithium production still comes from
brines exposing lower extraction costs at present resulting in a com-
paratively low raw material price.
It can be concluded that lithium recycling depends strongly on
economic issues, meaning that the profitability of lithium recovery from
EV battery recycling is determined by the raw material price for pri-
mary lithium and its potential development. Based on the expected
demand increase and possible threats by tight supply situations a rising
price can be assumed even if its development in the short to medium
term is hardly predictable. Access to materials may be an important
policy driver therefore making the development of cost-efficient re-
cycling processes for EV batteries considering also alternative recycling
strategies and technological approaches vital for future lithium re-
source availability in industrial countries.
Acknowledgements
The authors want to thank Roja Modaresi, Stephan Pauliuk and
Gang Liu for their great support and excellent discussions regarding the
modeling during the research stay at NTNU Trondheim and Marco
Muhl whose thesis contributed to the modeling.
Appendix A. Supplementary data
Supplementary data associated with this article can be found, in the
online version, at https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2018.01.031.
84
Resources, Conservation & Recycling 133 (2018) 76–85
References
Ahmadi, L., Yip, A., Fowler, M., Young, S.B., Fraser, R.A., 2014. Environmental feasibility
of re-use of electric vehicle batteries. Sustain. Energy Technol. Assess. 6, 64–74.
Angerer, G., Marscheider-Weidemann, F., Wendl, M., Wietschel, M., 2009. Lithium für
Zukunftstechnologien. Nachfrage und Angebot unter besonderer Berücksichtigung
der Elektromobilität. ISI–Fraunhofer-Institut für System-und Innovationsforschung,
Karlsruhe.
BMW, 2013. BMW i3 Technische Daten. http://www.bmw.com/com/de/newvehicles/i/
i3/2013/showroom/technical_data.html. (Accessed 24 January 2014).
Ball, R., Keers, N., Marcus, A., Bower, E., 2011. Mobile energy resources in grids of
electricity. Deliverable D2.1, 2.1, 2011.
Buchert, M., Jenseit, W., Dittrich, S., Hacker, F., Schüler-Hainsch, E., Ruhland, K., Knöfel,
S., Goldmann, D., Rasenack, K., Treffer, F., 2011. Ressourceneffizienz und re-
ssourcenpolitische Aspekte des Systems Elektromobilität: Arbeitspaket 7 des
Forschungsvorhabens OPTUM: Optimierung der Umweltentlastungspotenziale von
Elektrofahrzeugen. Anhang zum Schlussbericht im Rahmen der Förderung von
Forschung und Entwicklung im Bereich der Elektromobilität des Bundesministeriums
für Umwelt. Naturschutz und Reaktorsicherheit (BMU), Darmstadt, pp. 2011.
Carles, L., 2010. Modelling Long-Term Global Lithium Stocks and Flows. In: Master
Thesis, ´Ecole Polytechnique F´ed´erale de Lausanne. Lausanne, Switzerland.
DERA-Rohstoffliste, 2014. Angebotskonzentration Bei Metallen Und Industriemineralen
–Potenzielle Preis- Und Lieferrisiken. Deutsche Rohstoffagentur (DERA) in der
Bundesanstalt für Geowissenschaften und Rohstoffe (BGR), Berlin. http://www.bgr.
bund.de/DE/Gemeinsames/Produkte/Downloads/DERA_Rohstoffinformationen/
rohstoffinformationen-10.pdf?__blob=publicationFile&v=6. (Accessed 21 May
2016).
Dewulf, J., van der Vorst, G., Denturck, K., van Langenhove, H., Ghyoot, W., Tytgat, J.,
et al., 2010. Recycling rechargeable lithium ion batteries: critical analysis of natural
resource savings. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 54, 229–234.
GFK, 2016. Global Smartphone Sales Growth Driven by China. Press release. http://www.
gfk.com/insights/press-release/global-smartphone-sales-growth-driven-by-china/.
(Accessed 22 September 2017).
Gaines, L., Nelson, P., 2009. Lithium Ion Batteries: Possible Materials Issues. Argonne
National Laboratory. https://www.anl.gov/energy-systems/publication/lithium-ion-
batteries-examining-material-demand-and-recycling-issues. (Accessed 25 July 2015).
Gaines, L., Nelson, P., 2010. Lithium-ion Batteries: Examining Material Demand and
Recycling Issues. Minerals, Metals and Materials Society/AIME.
Gaines, L., 2011. Recycling of Li-Ion Batteries. Illinois Sustainable Technology Center,
University of Illinois. http://www.istc.illinois.edu/about/SeminarPresentations/
20111115.pdf. (Accessed 20 January 2017).
Gaines, L., 2014. The future of automotive lithium-ion battery recycling: charting a
sustainable course. Sustain. Mater. Technol. 1–2, 2–7.
Gardener, J., 2017. The Rise of Electric Cars Could Leave Us with a Big Battery Waste
Problem. The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/2017/
aug/10. (Assessed 20 September 2017).
Georgi-Maschler, T., Friedrich, B., Weyhe, R., Heegn, H., Rutz, M., 2012. Development of
a recycling process for Li-ion batteries. J. Power Sources 207, 173–182.
Graedel, T., 2015. Defining and determining criticality. In: ESM Workshop and Criticality
Debate at World Resources Forum Davos. October. pp. 13.
Grosjean, C., Mirandaa, P., Perrina, M., Poggi, P., 2012. Assessment of world lithium
resources and consequences of their geographic distribution on the expected devel-
opment of the electric vehicle industry. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 16, 1735–1744.
Gruber, P.W., Medina, P.A., Keoleian, G.A., Kesler, S.E., Everson, M.P., Wallington, T.J.,
2011. Global lithium availability. J. Ind. Ecol. 15 (5), 760–775.
Hagelüken, C., 2014. Recycling of (critical) metals. In: Gunn, G. (Ed.), Critical Metals
Handbook. John Wiley & Sons, Oxford, pp. 41.
Hanisch, C., Diekmann, J., Stieger, A., Haselrieder, W., Kwade, A., 2015. Recycling of
lithium-Ion batteries. In: In: Yan, J. (Ed.), Handbook of Clean Energy Systems, vol.
2015. Wiley, pp. 1–24.
Heelan, J., Gratz, E., Zheng, Z., Wang, Q., Chen, M., Apelian, D., Wang, Y., 2016. Current
and prospective Li-ion battery recycling and recovery processes. J. Miner. Met. Mater.
Soc. (TMS) 68 (10), 2632–2638.
Heymans, C., Walker, S.B., Young, S.B., Fowler, M., 2014. Economic analysis of second
use electric vehicle batteries for residential energy storage and load-levelling. Energy
Policy 71, 22–30.
Honda, 2014. Fit EV Specifications. http://automobiles.honda.com/fit-ev/specifications.
aspx. (Accessed 24 January 2014).
Huysman, S., Debaveye, S., Schaubroeck, T., De Meester, S., Ardente, F., Mathieux, F.,
Dewulf, J., 2015. The recyclability benefit rate of closed-loop and open-loop systems:
a case study on plastic recycling in Flanders. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 101, 53–60.
Hykawy, J., Thomas, A., 2009. Lithium: The Next Strategic Material. Industry Report,
Byron Capital Markets.
International Energy Agency (IEA), 2009. Energy Technology Transitions for Industry –
Strategies for the Next Industrial Revolution. (Paris).
Idjis, H., Attias, D., Ghaffari, A., Richet, S., Bocquet, J.C., 2013. Recycling lithium bat-
teries: a key issue for electro-mobility. In: 1 st Armand Peugeot Chair Conference
Electromobility: Challenging Issues. Paris.
Ingram, A., 2012. Toyota Hybrid Battery Replacement Cost Guide. Green Cart Reports.
www.greencarreports.com/news/1078138_toyota-hybrid-battery-replacement-cost-
guide. (Accessed 18 April 2014).
Keil, P., Schuster, S., v. Lüders, C., Hesse, H., Arunachala, A., Jossen, A., 2015. In:
Lifetime Analyses of Lithium-Ion EV Batteries, 3rd Electromobility Challenging Issues
Conference (ECI). Singapore, 1st–4th December.
Kushnir, D., Sandén, B.A., 2012. The time dimension and lithium resource constraints for
S. Ziemann et al.
electric vehicles. Resour. Policy 37, 93–103.
Kushnir, D., 2015. Lithium Ion Battery Recycling Technology 2015: Current State and
Future Prospects. Environmental Systems Analysis. Chalmers University, Göteborg,
Sweden, pp. 18 ESA REPORT # 2015.
Kwade, A., Bärwaldt, G., Meinfelder, T., Steinbild, M., Kramer, K., Barenschee, B., et al.,
2013. Recycling von Lithium-ionen-batterien. http://www.erneuerbar-mobil.de/
projekte/foerderprojekte-aus-dem-konjunkturpaket-ii-2009-2011/batterierecycling/
abschlussberichte-recycling/abschlussbericht-lithorec.pdf. (Accessed 18 April 2014).
Løvik, A.N., Modaresi, R., Müller, D.B., 2014. Long-term strategies for increased recycling
of automotive aluminum and its alloying elements. Environ. Sci. Technol. 48 (8),
4257–4265.
Li, L., Dunn, J.B., Zhang, X.X., Gaines, L., Jie Chen, R., Wu, F., Amine, K., 2013. Recovery
of metals from spent lithium-ion batteries with organic acids as leaching reagents and
environmental assessment. J. Power Sources 233, 180–189.
Lu, B., Liu, J., Yang, J., 2016. Substance flow analysis of lithium for sustainable man-
agement in mainland China: 2007–2014. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 80, 58–63.
Majeau-Bettez, G., Hawkins, T.R., Strømman, A.H., 2011. Life cycle environmental as-
sessment of lithium-ion and nickel metal hydride batteries for plug-in hybrid and
battery electric vehicles. Environ. Sci. Technol. 45, 4548–4554.
McCormick, M., 2016. Lithium Recycling Still ‘Too Expensive’. Industrial Minerals.
http://www.indmin.com/Article/3648970/Lithium-recycling-still-too-expensive/.
(Assessed 20 September 2017).
Modaresi, R., Müller, D.B., 2012. The role of automobiles for the future of aluminum
recycling. Environ. Sci. Technol. 46, 8587–8594.
Mohr, S.H., Gavin, M., Giurco, D., 2012. Lithium resources and production: critical as-
sessment and global projections. Minerals 2, 65–84.
Morris, C., 2017. How Long Will A Tesla, LEAF, Or Other EV Battery Last? Inside EVs.
https://insideevs.com/tesla-leaf-ev-battery-degradation/. (Assessed 22 September
2017).
Müller, D.B., 2006. Stock dynamics for forecasting material flows-case study for housing
in the Netherland. Ecol. Econ. 59, 152–156.
Mueller, D.B., Cao, J., Kongar, E., Altonji, M., Weiner, P.-H., Graedel, T.E., 2007. Service
Lifetimes of Mineral End Uses. U.S. Geological Survey (USGS).
Muhl, M., 2014. Modellierung der zukünftigen Verfügbarkeit von Lithium für neue
Technologien unter Berücksichtigung geographischer und geopolitischer Aspekte.
Technische Universität Berlin, Berlin (Diplomarbeit).
Navigant Research, 2013. Lithium Ion Batteries for Electric Vehicles Will Reach $22
Billion in Annual Market Value by 2020. Press release 22.01.2013. http://www.
navigantresearch.com/newsroom/lithium-ion-batteries-for-electric-vehicles-will-
reach-22-billion-in-annual-market-value-by-2020. (Accessed 04 March 2015).
Nissan, 2013. The Nissan Leaf. http://www.nissanusa.com/electric-cars/leaf/charging-
range/battery/. (Accessed 24 January 2014).
Oliveira, L., Messagie, M., Rangaraju, S., Sanfelix, J., Rivas, M.H., Van Mierlo, J., 2015.
Key issues of lithium-ion batteries –from resource depletion to environmental per-
formance indicators. J. Clean. Prod. 108, 354–362.
Pehlken, A., Albach, S., Vogt, T., 2017. Is there a resource constraint related to lithium ion
batteries in cars? Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 22, 40–53.
Pillot, C., 2015. Future trends in the rechargeable battery market. In: 20th International
Congress for Battery Recycling (ICBR). Montreux, Switzerland, 23.–25. September
2015.
Richa, K., Babbitt, C.W., Gaustad, G., Wang, X., 2014. A future perspective on lithium-ion
battery waste flows from electric vehicles. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 83, 63–76.
Richtlinie 2013/56/EU des Europäischen Parlaments und des Rates vom 20. November
2013 über Batterien und Akkumulatoren sowie Altbatterien und Altakkumulatoren
hinsichtlich des Inverkehrbringens von Cadmium enthaltenden Gerätebatterien und
−akkumulatoren, die zur Verwendung in schnurlosen Elektrowerkzeugen bestimmt
sind, und von Knopfzellen mit geringem Quecksilbergehalt sowie zur Aufhebung der
Entscheidung 2009/603/EG der Kommission, L 329/5 vom 10.12.2013.
Rodriguez Garcia, G., Weil, M., 2015. Toxicity assessment of extractants used in LiB re-
cycling. In: Presentation Symposium Chair Mines Urbaines: Challenges and
Innovation in Recycling Processes. Paris, France, 02.–03. June 2015.
Roskill, 2013. Lithium—Market Outlook to 2017. Roskill Information Services Ltd.,
London. http://www.roskill.com/reports/minor-and-light-metals/lithium/leaflet.
(Accessed 22 February 14).
Shahan, Z., 2016. Tesla CTO Says EV Batteries Should Last 10–15 Years. Reneweconomy.
http://reneweconomy.com.au/tesla-cto-says-ev-batteries-should-last-10-15-years-
minimum-78060/. (Assessed 25 September 2017).
Simon, B., Ziemann, S., Weil, M., 2014. Criticality of metals for electrochemical energy
storage systems − Towards a technology specific indicator. Metall. Res. Technol.
111, 191–200.
Simon, B., Ziemann, S., Weil, M., 2015. Potential metal requirement of active materials in
lithium-Ion battery cells of electric vehicles and its impact on reserves: focus on
europe. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 104, 300–310.
Smith, K., 2017. Battery Lifespan. National Renewable Energy Laboratory, Transportation
Research. https://www.nrel.gov/transportation/battery-lifespan.html. (Accessed 29
September 2017).
85
Resources, Conservation & Recycling 133 (2018) 76–85
Sonoc, A., Jeswiet, J., Soo, V.K., 2015. Opportunities to improve recycling of automotive
lithium ion batteries. Procedia CIRP 29, 752–757.
TRB, 2016. Quantifying the Impacts of Electric Vehicle Travel Patterns on Battery Life
Span. Transportation Research Board. https://trid.trb.org/view.aspx?id=1437290.
(Accessed 24 September 2017).
Tahil, W., 2008. The Trouble with Lithium 2: Under the Microscope. http://www.
meridian-int-res.com/Projects/Lithium_Microscope.pdf. (Accessed 12 March 2012).
Tesla Motors, 2013. Roadster Technology – Battery. http://www.teslamotors.com/
roadster/technology/battery. (Accessed 24 January 2014).
Tesla Motors, 2016. Powerwall – Energiespeicher für einen nachhaltigen Haushalt.
https://www.teslamotors.com/de_DE/powerwall. (Accessed 20 December 2016).
Thompson, S., 2011. Kinskursky/toxco overview. In: US China Electric Vehicle and
Battery Technology Workshop. Lemont.
Tytgat, J., Lopez, I., van Damme, G., 2008. End of Life Management and Recycling of
Rechargeable Lithium Ion, Lithium-polymer and Nickel Metal Hydride Batteries. An
Industrial Award-winning Comprehensive Solution. Umicore. http://www.
batteryrecycling.umicore.com/download/. (Accessed 14 May 2015).
Tytgat, J., 2009. In: Li-ion and NiMH Battery Recycling at Umicore, Joint European
Commission/EPoSS/ERTRAC Expert Workshop: Batteries and Storage Systems for the
Fully Electric Vehicle. Brussels, 19 June.
Tytgat, J., 2013. Personal Communication with Marcel Weil, Stuttgart.
World Population in 2300, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, United Nations
(UN), New York, 2011.
UNEP, 2013. Environmental Risks and Challenges of Anthropogenic Metals Flows and
Cycles, A Report of the Working Group on the Global Metal Flows to the International
Resource Panel. In: van der Voet, E., Salminen, R., Eckelman, M., Mudd, G., Norgate,
T., Hischier, R. (Eds.).
USGS, 2012. Lithium Mineral Commodity Summaries 2012. US Department of the
Interior/U.S. Geological Survey, Reston.
USGS, 2014. Lithium: 2014 Minerals Yearbook. US Department of the Interior/U.S.
Geological Survey, Reston.
Vikström, H., Davidsson, S., Höök, M., 2013. Lithium availability and future production
outlooks. Appl. Energy 110, 252–266.
Voelcker, J., 2014. Nissan Leaf New Battery Cost: $5, 500 For Replacement With Heat-
Resistant Chemistry. http://www.greencarreports.com/news/. (Accessed 12 March
2015).
Wang, X., Gaustad, G., Babbitt, C.W., Richa, K., 2014. Economies of scale for future li-
thium-ion battery recycling infrastructure. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 83, 53–62.
Wanger, T.C., 2011. The lithium future—resources, recycling, and the environment.
Conserv. Lett. 4 (3), 202–206.
Weil, M., Ziemann, S., 2014. Recycling of traction batteries as a challenge or chance for
future lithium availability. In: Pistoia, G. (Ed.), Lithium-Ion Batteries: Advances and
Applications. Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp. 509–528.
Weil, M., Ziemann, S., Schebek Lithium, L., 2009. a strategic metal for emerging tech-
nologies – scarce of abundant? In: R'09 Twin World Congress Resource Management
and Technology for Material and Energy Efficiency. Davos, 15/16.09.
Weil, M., Ziemann, S., Zimmermann, B., 2013. New materials and components for future
batteries – A resource perspective. In: Vortrag Auf Der Fachmesse World of Energy
Solutions Battery & Storage – Materials and Components. Stuttgart, 30.09.−02.10.
Weyhe, R., 2010. Stoffliche Verwertung moderner Batteriesysteme. In: Teipel, U. (Ed.),
Rohstoffeffizienz und Rohstoffinnovationen Bd.1. Fraunhofer Verlag, Stuttgart
(pp XX).
Williams, T.G.J.L., Heidrich, O., Sallis, P.J., 2015. A case study of the open-loop recycling
of mixed plastic waste for use in a sports-field drainage system. Resour. Conserv.
Recycl. 55, 118–128.
Worldbank, 2011. The Worldwide Governance Indicators (WGI) Project. Washington, DC,
http://info.worldbank.org/governance/wgi/index.aspx#home. (Accessed 02
September 2015).
Yaksic, A., Tilton, E., 2009. Using the cumulative availability curve to assess the threat of
mineral depletion: the case of lithium. Resour. Policy 34 (4), 185–194.
Zeng, X., Li, J., 2013. Implications for the carrying capacity of lithium reserve in China.
Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 80, 58–63.
Zeng, X., Li, J., Singh, N., 2014. Recycling of spent lithium-ion battery: a critical review.
Environ. Sci. Technol. 44 (10), 1129–1165.
Zeng, X., Li, J., Liu, L., 2015. Solving spent lithium-ion battery problems in China: op-
portunities and challenges. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 52, 1759–1767.
Zhang, J.-G., Wang, D., Xu, W., Xiao, J., Williford, R.E., 2010. Ambient operation of Li/
Air batteries. J. Power Sources 195 (13), 4332–4337.
Ziemann, S., Weil, M., Schebek, L., 2012a. Dissipative applications of lithium – lost for the
future? Revue de Metallurgie 109, 341–347.
Ziemann, S., Weil, M., Schebek, L., 2012b. Tracing the fate of lithium – the development
of a material flow model. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 63, 26–34.
Ziemann, S., Ketzer, D., Young, S.B., Weil, M., Poganietz, W.R., 2016. Increased lifetime
and resource efficiency in electric mobility – linking material flow analysis with
system dynamics. In: Teipel, U., Reller, A. (Eds.), Symposium Rohstoffeffizienz und
Rohstoffinnovationen 4. Fraunhofer Verlag, Stuttgart, pp. 153–168.