Submitted Successfully!
To reward your contribution, here is a gift for you: A free trial for our video production service.
Thank you for your contribution! You can also upload a video entry or images related to this topic.
Version Summary Created by Modification Content Size Created at Operation
1
Janis Vienenkötter
 -- 2945 2023-04-03 15:32:22 |
2 format
Jason Zhu
 Meta information modification 2945 2023-04-07 03:43:32 |

Video Upload Options

Do you have a full video?
Send video materials Upload full video

Confirm

Are you sure to Delete?
Yes No
Cite
If you have any further questions, please contact Encyclopedia Editorial Office.
Kampker, A.; Heimes, H.H.; Offermanns, C.; Vienenkötter, J.; Frank, M.; Holz, D. Identification of Challenges for Second-Life Battery Systems. Encyclopedia. Available online: https://encyclopedia.pub/entry/42749 (accessed on 05 September 2024).
Kampker A, Heimes HH, Offermanns C, Vienenkötter J, Frank M, Holz D. Identification of Challenges for Second-Life Battery Systems. Encyclopedia. Available at: https://encyclopedia.pub/entry/42749. Accessed September 05, 2024.
Kampker, Achim, Heiner Hans Heimes, Christian Offermanns, Janis Vienenkötter, Merlin Frank, Daniel Holz. "Identification of Challenges for Second-Life Battery Systems" Encyclopedia, https://encyclopedia.pub/entry/42749 (accessed September 05, 2024).
Kampker, A., Heimes, H.H., Offermanns, C., Vienenkötter, J., Frank, M., & Holz, D. (2023, April 03). Identification of Challenges for Second-Life Battery Systems. In Encyclopedia. https://encyclopedia.pub/entry/42749
Kampker, Achim, et al. "Identification of Challenges for Second-Life Battery Systems." Encyclopedia. Web. 03 April, 2023.
Identification of Challenges for Second-Life Battery Systems
Edit
This entry is adapted from the peer-reviewed paper 10.3390/wevj14040080

Lithium-ion batteries (LIBs) have been proven to be increasingly popular and are the solution of choice for many companies and business models around the world. One major question for battery owners is how to deal with returning batteries if they still contain sufficient capacity for operation. In this case, those energy storages can still be used in different, less demanding second-life applications, such as stationary battery storage systems, contributing to increased product sustainability and economic benefits at the same time. However, the second-life business model is still at an early stage of development due to the young EV market in combination with long vehicle lifetimes. As a consequence, there are several barriers in various thematic fields, complicating the rededication process for LIBs.

battery second-life reuse challenges battery life cycle

1. End of First Life, Collection, and Transport

According to projections by BloombergNEF, future EV sales will increase globally to 10 million in 2025 and 56 million in 2040 [1]. It is assumed that EV batteries can be used in the vehicle for 10–20 years [2][3]. As the market share of EVs has only begun to increase sharply in recent years, most EV batteries are still in their first life [4]. This means that although availability is assured for the long term, there will not be enough EoL batteries for a second use in the next few years. Especially for large second-life applications, there is currently a lack of product availability [5]. Furthermore, there is still uncertainty about how many of these batteries have a sufficiently good SOH to be used as SLBs [6]. At the same time, some modules might perform well enough to be used again in a vehicle (e.g., as part of a remanufacturing process), so they would not be available for a second-life application [7][8]. Hereby, it has to be considered that remanufacturing does not yet represent a valid business case either, as it suffers from some of the same hurdles as reuse.
According to the specifications of OEMs, EV batteries are no longer suitable for a vehicle application when they reach a residual capacity of about 80% [9][10][11]. In the literature, this value is considered to be the standard EoL criterion. However, some authors criticize this concrete definition. Saxena et al. [12] and Martinez-Laserna et al. [13] emphasize the large dependence of the aging behavior in second-life on the former usage (stress) in first life. Thus, whether the SOH alone is sufficient as an EoL criterion is questionable. In order to ensure the reliability of the SOH value, many more batteries will have to reach the EoL in the future, and their aging behavior will have to be monitored in the second life in order to obtain statistical statements.
At a certain point, approximately at a SOH of 80%, it has been observed that accelerated, non-linear aging of the vehicle battery occurs, which also makes the prediction of further aging behavior more challenging [14]. Therefore, it is important that the rededication to the second-life application occur, before the accelerated aging of the battery. However, the exact prediction of this optimal moment is quite complex and not yet predictable [15][16]. The reason for this is that battery aging varies greatly, as influencing factors such as temperature and load profile are highly individual. Thus, there are also batteries that can operate even with a SOH below 80% without experiencing accelerated aging. This makes it difficult to predict the remaining life of the battery system, even if the SOH is known. Here again, statistical evaluations would help make decisions about the further use of aged batteries.
At the end of the first life, the batteries must be removed from the vehicle. This process should not be underestimated, as many batteries are designed specifically for their vehicle, permanently installed in it, and therefore difficult to extract [8]. After the removal, the LIBs must be sent to the rededication facility. Since used batteries are classified as hazardous waste, the transport is subject to many regulations; for example, trained personnel and approved vehicles are required.

2. Screening and Condition Diagnosis

After the EoL batteries are collected and taken to the repurposing facility, they must be identified. According to the current status, there are no standardized concepts for the identification process. Since clear battery identification is not always given, it might be necessary to contact the manufacturer [16]. Moreover, due to insufficient labeling, automatic identification is difficult, resulting in a time-consuming identification process [17]. At this point, the planned introduction of a battery passport in the EU should be mentioned [18], which could ease the identification and evaluation of EoL batteries in the future. The battery passport is a digital information repository for products that can be used as a product ID and to track important product lifecycle information, e.g., value chain and usage history data, recycling recommendations [19]. Manufacturers, users, and recyclers, as well as regulators, will benefit from the battery passport in the future since it provides transparency along the complete value chain.
In order to make a reasonable decision about the future second-life application of the battery, an evaluation of the battery’s SOH must be performed. The SOH describes how the battery capacity differs compared to a new battery, but there are uncertainties about how to exactly define it and how it should be evaluated [20]. The SOH degradation of a battery cell is caused by the aging process, which can be evaluated using battery aging models. However, other factors affecting the SOH, such as battery damage caused by vehicle collisions or short circuits, are difficult to determine, so the actual condition of the battery often remains unknown. That’s why storing and managing EoL batteries always involves constant uncertainty [21].
The SOH determination still faces several barriers that need to be overcome. One of the most mentioned challenges in the literature is the great diversity of EoL batteries, which leads to a wide range of possibilities concerning the different aspects of batteries. Depending on the cell manufacturer and EV model, the batteries differ in cell chemistry, cell type, module dimension, power, capacity, refrigeration system, BMS, and functional characteristics of the battery, among others [22][23]. Due to the wide variety of batteries, even the SOH determination tests will differ for the different types, making it impossible to develop a unified technical procedure. Consequently, the screening process gets more complicated and possibly more expensive [22]. This becomes particularly challenging when a third-party acts as the system integrator [24].
Many studies also emphasize the large amount of time required for SOH determination, which again leads to an increase in rededication costs, questioning the economic viability [23][25][26]. Although there are already standards for determining battery parameters, such as ISO 12405-1 or USABC electric vehicle battery test procedures, they are time-consuming (up to 75 h) and therefore not suitable for mass rededication. This is why the realization and standardization of rapid test procedures are of particular interest to the battery industry [25]. Aside from the testing duration, another barrier is the required high-end, specialized testing equipment. Currently, after their first life, the EoL-batteries are typically sent to the recycler. However, many automotive recyclers neither have the right testing equipment nor the expertise on how to properly test the batteries and may not be able to estimate the SOH value [27][28].
The availability of battery data from the first life would be an advantage for the evaluation process. This can be achieved by tracking the usage history of the EV battery, for example, by the battery management system (BMS) [29]. According to Hua et al. [30], big data analysis techniques could help a lot here to accelerate the evaluation process. However, given the long design cycle of new EVs and the possibility that the manufacturers might not be willing to share battery data, it must be assumed that many EoL batteries will not come with data from the first life [14]. Without these data, it is difficult to decide whether or not used EV batteries would be suitable for second-life applications [6]. Additionally, not only the data from the first life is crucial; the precise requirements for the second-life applications are also important for a proper rededication decision since those are often new and unknown markets for the reuse companies [31]. However, life cycle data from the vehicle would not be entirely sufficient for the evaluation process. This is stated by Becker et al. [16], who noted that even if all the data from the first life were known, no well-founded decision could be made regarding the second use scenario because the strains and the resulting aging of the SLBs in the second-life were not yet sufficiently researched. However, it should be possible to provide lifetime estimations in second-life based on load scenario predictions and conservative assumptions. This means, it is possible to evaluate the remaining lifetime, even if only approximated. Therefore, battery aging estimates must be combined with the load scenarios, which is time consuming, especially since there are numerous areas of application for second life batteries and the load behavior can also vary.

3. Dismantling, Processing, and Integration

Montes et al. [32] identified three main configurations of how EV batteries can be adapted in second-life applications, depending on the pack and the second-life scenario. Multiple EV packs can be directly connected without disassembly, or the packs can be refurbished at the module or even cell level [32]. For the latter two options, it is necessary to disassemble and process the EoL battery packs before reusing them in a second-life application. In addition, for an accurate SOH determination without access to BMS data, a battery disassembly is usually required. When disassembly is considered, it is recommended to disassemble down to the module level and reuse the retired modules (or packs) directly because complete battery disassembly to cells is difficult and expensive today [33][34]. After disassembly, the batteries must be visually inspected before all modules and components are tested. Subsequently, degraded modules could be replaced, whereby those with significantly low SOH are substituted, so that in the end the conditions of all modules are similar. This process is called remanufacturing (or refurbishing) and is not necessarily a part of the second-life process chain. The goal of this process is to achieve high homogeneity among all modules in the battery pack. This is especially crucial since the worst module determines the maximum power of the battery pack [35]. In addition, since the new application of the battery pack may differ greatly from the application in the EV, the modules sometimes may need to be reconfigured. However, the approach of battery reconfiguration is still part of research and is rarely used in the industry [16].
The major challenge for disassembly is its extensive nature and the fact that it is currently performed manually, which significantly increases the cost of rededication. According to calculations by Rallo et al. [36], the dismantling costs account for more than half the price of a new battery pack [24][36]. However, this value serves only as an approximation, as the dismantling costs depend in particular on the labor costs of the individual site or country. Further, the effort of the battery disassembly process is mainly dependent on the battery structure as well as interconnections. Accordingly, factors such as the number of bolts and fasteners and accessibility determine the cost of disassembly and rededication.
One additional cost factor is the fact that battery systems are usually operated at about 400 V DC (a rising number of systems are even using a higher level of about 800 V DC), which means that high voltage trained staff is needed for disassembly. In addition, the amount of time required to open the battery pack and remove the individual modules from the system also has a major impact on the overall profitability. [17] One solution to this would be to avoid the disassembly by rededicating at pack level. Another option is to automate the technical processing. The automation, however, requires high investment costs, as the EoL batteries differ greatly in their designs (including battery parameters such as performance values). Batteries vary depending on vehicle type and OEM, and even within a pack there may be multiple module designs. Therefore, a unique disassembly procedure must be developed for each new battery. The literature sees this as the main problem of technical processing since, in the absence of a universal battery standard, the battery disassembly process becomes very inconsistent [17][21][37][38]. This could also explain the lack of technological standards in the repurposing process, which are emphasized, among others, by Wrålsen et al. [39] and Abdel-Monem et al. [40].
Not only does the inhomogeneity of battery designs (cells, modules, and packs) need to be considered, but also the different SOH of used batteries and the larger cell-to-cell variability of second-life batteries compared to their new counterparts complicate the reassembly of SLBs. This becomes a challenge when assembling new battery strings since, as described above, the similarity of cell capacities is significant for battery performance and future lifetime. Especially for large second-life applications with a wide range of capacities, it becomes difficult to assemble a matched string [6][7].
Another challenge of the repurposing process is the development of a new BMS, which might be necessary if access to the existing BMS is not possible. [7][8] Whether a new BMS is needed also depends on the OEM providing the appropriate communication interface (e.g., DBC files), which is often not the case due to the resulting disclosure of sensitive data. However, this problem will potentially be solved with the new EU battery regulation, which will be addressed again in Chapter 6. It should be considered that the development of a new BMS leads to significant additional effort and higher rededication costs [41], especially since the new BMS becomes more challenging. This is caused by the balancing necessity of larger performance differences in the case of SLBs compared to new batteries [42].
If the battery packs are reused directly, i.e., without replacing or reconfiguring individual modules, the original BMS of the OEM can be leveraged. The least costly situation is when the communication interface is provided. If this is not the case, the development and use of a gateway are necessary. The gateway translates information into different arrays. As a result, the final receiver cannot know the original CAN codification and protocol from the vehicle, which provides a higher security level [43]. In any case, also an energy management system (EMS) must be implemented, which communicates with the BMS of the battery packs and with the power converter [32].
Finally, the large number of possible reuse scenarios and the resulting variety of requirements complicate the technical preparation and the system adjustment in general [16]. When it comes to integration into second-life applications, the literature again points to a lack of technological standards as well as a lack of long-term experience. The limited data, for example, on how SLBs will perform in different applications makes it difficult to evaluate other second-life application scenarios [37][44][45]. In the future, representative load profiles for various stationary applications would help to estimate the remaining life of battery systems.

4. Rentability

An aspect that is mentioned in several studies regarding the rentability of SLBs is the price competitiveness between retired batteries and new battery systems [31][46][47]. Since batteries for second use are repurposed after their first use phase (approximately between 10 and 20 years [2][3]), they must prove themselves in terms of €/kWh against future battery systems, which already benefit from cost reductions through production and material innovations. On the other hand, even if research and industry continue to develop and improve battery systems, the cost savings could be offset by future innovations due to rising material prices, which would lead to a stable price level and could make second-life batteries competitive.
Another cluster of issues addresses the problem that repurposed battery systems are perceived by customers as second-hand goods, which reduces the perceived value of the storage systems due to potentially necessary breakdowns, maintenance, or repairs [6][16]. Wu et al. [48] also elaborate that market penetration may be hindered by customers’ concerns about the quality of used battery systems due to inconsistent information. They therefore emphasize the need for a comprehensible traceability and evaluation mechanism for battery quality to counteract unnecessary consumer concerns. In addition to this psychological phenomenon, the uncertainty regarding the residual value and capacity of the battery adds to the difficulty, resulting in lower prices that customers are willing to pay. The same effect applies to leasing options, which represent a possible business case for second-life systems [49]. The mentioned factors increase the need for the provision of costly product warranties, decreasing the rentability of second-life even further [16].
Furthermore, the steps of condition assessment and reconditioning of battery packs receive much criticism regarding their economic viability. As already mentioned in Chapter 4, the cost of battery disassembly and technical processing alone can already account for more than half the price of a new battery system [24][36]. Haram et al. also note that the cost of reconditioning a SLB could make it unprofitable [22]. The potentially expensive rededication of the battery pack for second-life applications limits financing options due to economic uncertainty, reducing the attractiveness of a SLB case [31].
According to Wu et al. [48], considering the acquisition cost of second-life batteries, the evaluation of second-life rentability becomes even harder since there is a market price range for retired batteries. Starting at the lower range limit, which is the “willing to sell a retired battery,” up to the realistic evaluated market price based on remaining SOH and the current market price. Finally, Wu et al. [48] state: “Consumers may have concerns about the economic feasibility of a second-life. To demonstrate the viability of the life cycle strategy, pilot projects in selected cities would provide valuable learning.”
In summary, the challenges show that reliable SOH assessment and estimation of the remaining life are two highly relevant research areas that affect the profitability of SLBs. As a result, a method is needed to evaluate SLBs in terms of their remaining residual value at a low cost.

References

  1. Bloomberg, N.E.F. Electric Vehicle Outlook 2019. Available online: https://legacy-assets.eenews.net/open_files/assets/2019/05/15/document_ew_02.pdf (accessed on 1 December 2022).
  2. Gunther, C. How Long Do EV Batteries Last? Review Geek, 19 April 2022.
  3. What Happens to Old Electric Car Batteries?|National Grid Group. Available online: https://www.nationalgrid.com/stories/journey-to-net-zero-stories/what-happens-old-electric-car-batteries (accessed on 1 December 2022).
  4. The Global Electric Vehicle Market In 2022–Virta. Available online: https://www.virta.global/en/global-electric-vehicle-market (accessed on 1 December 2022).
  5. Zhao, Y.; Pohl, O.; Bhatt, A.I.; Collis, G.E.; Mahon, P.J.; Rüther, T.; Hollenkamp, A.F. A Review on Battery Market Trends, Second-Life Reuse, and Recycling. Sustain. Chem. 2021, 2, 167–205.
  6. Cready, E.; Lippert, J.; Pihl, J.; Weinstock, I.; Symons, P. Technical and Economic Feasibility of Applying Used EV Batteries in Stationary Applications; Sandia National Lab. (SNL-NM): Albuquerque, NM, USA; Sandia National Lab. (SNL-CA): Livermore, CA, USA, 2003.
  7. Kelly, J.C. Battery Second Life: Frequently Asked Questions; Argonne National Lab.: Argonne, IL, USA, 2020. Available online: https://www.osti.gov/servlets/purl/1599759 (accessed on 1 December 2022).
  8. Kelly, J.C.; Winjobi, O. Battery Second Life: A Review of Challenges and Opportunities. In Proceedings of the 33nd Electric Vehicle Symposium (EVS33), Portland, OR, USA, 14–17 June 2020.
  9. Shahjalal, M.; Roy, P.K.; Shams, T.; Fly, A.; Chowdhury, J.I.; Ahmed, M.R.; Liu, K. A review on second-life of Li-ion batteries: Prospects, challenges, and issues. Energy 2022, 241, 122881.
  10. Schulz, D. (Ed.) . NEIS Conference 2016: Nachhaltige Energieversorgung und Integration von Speichern = Sustainable Energy Supply and Energy Storage Systems; Springer Vieweg: Wiesbaden, Germany, 2017; ISBN 9783658150280.
  11. Thein, S.; Chang, Y.S. Decision making model for lifecycle assessment of lithium-ion battery for electric vehicle—A case study for smart electric bus project in Korea. J. Power Sources 2014, 249, 142–147.
  12. Saxena, S.; Le Floch, C.; MacDonald, J.; Moura, S. Quantifying EV battery end-of-life through analysis of travel needs with vehicle powertrain models. J. Power Sources 2015, 282, 265–276.
  13. Martinez-Laserna, E.; Sarasketa-Zabala, E.; Villarreal Sarria, I.; Stroe, D.-I.; Swierczynski, M.; Warnecke, A.; Timmermans, J.-M.; Goutam, S.; Omar, N.; Rodriguez, P. Technical Viability of Battery Second Life: A Study From the Ageing Perspective. IEEE Trans. Ind. Applicat. 2018, 54, 2703–2713.
  14. Neubauer, J.; Smith, K.; Wood, E.; Pesaran, A. Identifying and Overcoming Critical Barriers to Widespread Second Use of PEV Batteries; National Renewable Energy Lab. (NREL): Golden, CO, USA, 2015.
  15. Schuster, S.F.; Bach, T.; Fleder, E.; Müller, J.; Brand, M.; Sextl, G.; Jossen, A. Nonlinear aging characteristics of lithium-ion cells under different operational conditions. J. Energy Storage 2015, 1, 44–53.
  16. Becker, J.; Beverungen, D.; Winter, M.; Menne, S. Umwidmung und Weiterverwendung von Traktionsbatterien; Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden: Wiesbaden, Germany, 2019; ISBN 978-3-658-21020-5.
  17. Nigl, T.; Rutrecht, B.; Altendorfer, M.; Scherhaufer, S.; Meyer, I.; Sommer, M.; Beigl, P. Lithium-Ionen-Batterien–Kreislaufwirtschaftliche Herausforderungen am Ende des Lebenszyklus und im Recycling. Berg Huettenmaenn Mon. 2021, 166, 144–149.
  18. Halleux, V. New EU Regulatory Framework for Batteries. 2022. Available online: https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/BRIE/2021/689337/EPRS_BRI(2021)689337_EN.pdf (accessed on 19 December 2021).
  19. Berger, K.; Schöggl, J.-P.; Baumgartner, R.J. Digital battery passports to enable circular and sustainable value chains: Conceptualization and use cases. J. Clean. Prod. 2022, 353, 131492.
  20. Lu, L.; Han, X.; Li, J.; Hua, J.; Ouyang, M. A review on the key issues for lithium-ion battery management in electric vehicles. J. Power Sources 2013, 226, 272–288.
  21. Catton, J.; Walker, S.B.; McInnis, P.; Fowler, M.; Fraser, R.; Young, S.B.; Gaffney, B. Comparative safety risk and the use of repurposed EV batteries for stationary energy storage. In Proceedings of the 2017 IEEE International Conference on Smart Energy Grid Engineering (SEGE), Oshawa, ON, Canada, 14–17 August 2017; IEEE: Cambridge, UK, 2017; pp. 200–209, ISBN 978-1-5386-1775-5.
  22. Haram, M.H.S.M.; Lee, J.W.; Ramasamy, G.; Ngu, E.E.; Thiagarajah, S.P.; Lee, Y.H. Feasibility of utilising second life EV batteries: Applications, lifespan, economics, environmental impact, assessment, and challenges. Alex. Eng. J. 2021, 60, 4517–4536.
  23. Casals, L.C.; Garca, B.A. Assessing Electric Vehicles Battery Second Life Remanufacture and Management. JGE 2016, 6, 77–98.
  24. Zhu, J.; Mathews, I.; Ren, D.; Li, W.; Cogswell, D.; Xing, B.; Sedlatschek, T.; Kantareddy, S.N.R.; Yi, M.; Gao, T.; et al. End-of-life or second-life options for retired electric vehicle batteries. Cell Rep. Phys. Sci. 2021, 2, 100537.
  25. Groenewald, J.; Grandjean, T.; Marco, J. Accelerated energy capacity measurement of lithium-ion cells to support future circular economy strategies for electric vehicles. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2017, 69, 98–111.
  26. Li, J.; Gu, Y.; Wang, L.; Wu, X. Review on state of health estimation of retired lithium-ion batteries. Energy Storage Sci. Technol. 2019, 8, 807.
  27. Ahmadi, L.; Young, S.B.; Fowler, M.; Fraser, R.A.; Achachlouei, M.A. A cascaded life cycle: Reuse of electric vehicle lithium-ion battery packs in energy storage systems. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 2017, 22, 111–124.
  28. Cimprich, A.; Skinner, D.; Oh, B.; Booth, K.; Leutenegger, A. Responsible Stewardship of Electrified Vehicles; University of Waterloo: Waterloo, ON, Canada, 2015.
  29. Hossain, E.; Murtaugh, D.; Mody, J.; Faruque, H.M.R.; Haque Sunny, M.S.; Mohammad, N. A Comprehensive Review on Second-Life Batteries: Current State, Manufacturing Considerations, Applications, Impacts, Barriers & Potential Solutions, Business Strategies, and Policies. IEEE Access 2019, 7, 73215–73252.
  30. Hua, Y.; Liu, X.; Zhou, S.; Huang, Y.; Ling, H.; Yang, S. Toward Sustainable Reuse of Retired Lithium-ion Batteries from Electric Vehicles. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2021, 168, 105249.
  31. Elkind, E. Reuse and Repower: How to Save Money and Clean the Grid with Second-Life Electric Vehicle Batteries; Berkeley Low: Berkeley, CA, USA, 2014.
  32. Montes, T.; Etxandi-Santolaya, M.; Eichman, J.; Ferreira, V.J.; Trilla, L.; Corchero, C. Procedure for Assessing the Suitability of Battery Second Life Applications after EV First Life. Batteries 2022, 8, 122.
  33. Fan, E.; Li, L.; Wang, Z.; Lin, J.; Huang, Y.; Yao, Y.; Chen, R.; Wu, F. Sustainable Recycling Technology for Li-Ion Batteries and Beyond: Challenges and Future Prospects. Chem. Rev. 2020, 120, 7020–7063.
  34. Ahmadi, L.; Fowler, M.; Young, S.B.; Fraser, R.A.; Gaffney, B.; Walker, S.B. Energy efficiency of Li-ion battery packs re-used in stationary power applications. Sustain. Energy Technol. Assess. 2014, 8, 9–17.
  35. Beverungen, D.; Fabry, C.; Ganz, W.; Matzner, M.; Satzger, G. (Eds.) Dienstleistungsinnovationen für Elektromobilität: Märkte, Geschäftsmodelle, Kooperationen; Fraunhofer-Verlag: Stuttgart, Germany, 2015; ISBN 978-3839603604.
  36. Rallo, H.; Benveniste, G.; Gestoso, I.; Amante, B. Economic analysis of the disassembling activities to the reuse of electric vehicles Li-ion batteries. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2020, 159, 104785.
  37. Olsson, L.; Fallahi, S.; Schnurr, M.; Diener, D.; van Loon, P. Circular Business Models for Extended EV Battery Life. Batteries 2018, 4, 57.
  38. Engel, H.; Hertzke, P.; Siccardo, G. Second-Life EV Batteries: The Newest Value Pool in Energy Storage. Available online: https://www.mckinsey.com/industries/automotive-and-assembly/our-insights/second-life-ev-batteries-the-newest-value-pool-in-energy-storage (accessed on 1 December 2022).
  39. Wrålsen, B.; Prieto-Sandoval, V.; Mejia-Villa, A.; O’Born, R.; Hellström, M.; Faessler, B. Circular business models for lithium-ion batteries—Stakeholders, barriers, and drivers. J. Clean. Prod. 2021, 317, 128393.
  40. Abdel-Monem, M.; Hegazy, O.; Omar, N.; Trad, K.; van den Bossche, P.; van Mierlo, J. Lithium-ion batteries: Comprehensive technical analysis of second-life batteries for smart grid applications. In Proceedings of the 2017 19th European Conference on Power Electronics and Applications (EPE’17 ECCE Europe), Warsaw, Poland, 11–14 September 2017; IEEE: Cambridge, UK, 2017; pp. 1–16, ISBN 978-90-75815-27-6.
  41. Soto, A.; Berrueta, A.; Zorrilla, P.; Iribarren, A.; Castillo, D.H.; Rodriguez, W.E.; Rodriguez, A.J.; Vargas, D.T.; Matias, I.R.; Sanchis, P.; et al. Integration of second-life battery packs for self-consumption applications: Analysis of a real experience. In Proceedings of the 2021 IEEE International Conference on Environment and Electrical Engineering and 2021 IEEE Industrial and Commercial Power Systems Europe (EEEIC/I&CPS Europe), Bari, Italy, 7–10 September 2021; IEEE: Cambridge, UK, 2021; pp. 1–6, ISBN 978-1-6654-3613-7.
  42. Song, Z.; Feng, S.; Zhang, L.; Hu, Z.; Hu, X.; Yao, R. Economy analysis of second-life battery in wind power systems considering battery degradation in dynamic processes: Real case scenarios. Appl. Energy 2019, 251, 113411.
  43. Casals, L.C.; Garca, B.A. Communications concerns for reused electric vehicle batteries in smart grids. IEEE Commun. Mag. 2016, 54, 120–125.
  44. Bräuer, S. Electric Vehicle Battery Second Use Future Trade, Business Models, and Information Systems Design. Ph.D. Thesis, Westfälische Wilhelms-Universität Münster, Münster, Germany, 2018.
  45. Martinez-Laserna, E.; Gandiaga, I.; Sarasketa-Zabala, E.; Badeda, J.; Stroe, D.-I.; Swierczynski, M.; Goikoetxea, A. Battery second life: Hype, hope or reality? A critical review of the state of the art. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2018, 93, 701–718.
  46. Jiao, N.; Evans, S. Market Diffusion of Second-life Electric Vehicle Batteries: Barriers and Enablers. WEVJ 2016, 8, 599–608.
  47. Jiao, N.; Evans, S. Business Models for Repurposing a Second-Life for Retired Electric Vehicle Batteries. In Behaviour of Lithium-Ion Batteries in Electric Vehicles; Springer: Cham, The Netherlands, 2018; pp. 323–344.
  48. Wu, W.; Lin, B.; Xie, C.; Elliott, R.J.; Radcliffe, J. Does energy storage provide a profitable second life for electric vehicle batteries? Energy Econ. 2020, 92, 105010.
  49. Viswanathan, V.V.; Kintner-Meyer, M.C. Repurposing of batteries from electric vehicles. In Advances in Battery Technologies for Electric Vehicles; Elsevier: Cambridge, UK, 2015; pp. 389–415. ISBN 9781782423775.
More
© Text is available under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy.
Upload a video for this entry
Information
Subjects: Energy & Fuels
Contributors MDPI registered users' name will be linked to their SciProfiles pages. To register with us, please refer to https://encyclopedia.pub/register :
Achim Kampker
,
Heiner Hans Heimes
,
Christian Offermanns
,
Janis Vienenkötter
,
Merlin Frank
,
Daniel Holz
View Times: 302
Revisions: 2 times (View History)
Update Date: 07 Apr 2023
Table of Contents
    1000/1000
    Hot Most Recent
    ScholarVision Creations
    Feedback