The InnoRec Process: A Comparative Study of Three Mainstream Routes for Spent Lithium-ion Battery Recycling Based on the Same Feedstock
-
Published:2024-05-06
Issue:9
Volume:16
Page:3876
-
ISSN:2071-1050
-
Container-title:Sustainability
-
language:en
-
Short-container-title:Sustainability
Author:
Qiu Hao1ORCID, Goldmann Daniel1, Stallmeister Christin2ORCID, Friedrich Bernd2ORCID, Tobaben Maximilian3, Kwade Arno3ORCID, Peschel Christoph4, Winter Martin45, Nowak Sascha4ORCID, Lyon Tony6, Peuker Urs A.6ORCID
Affiliation:
1. Institute of Mineral and Waste Processing, Recycling and Circular Economy Systems (IFAD), Clausthal University of Technology, Walther-Nernst-Straße 9, 38678 Clausthal-Zellerfeld, Germany 2. Institute of Process Metallurgy and Metal Recycling (IME), RWTH Aachen University, Intzestr. 3, 52056 Aachen, Germany 3. Institute for Particle Technology (iPAT), TU Braunschweig, Volkmaroder Str. 5, 38104 Braunschweig, Germany 4. MEET Battery Research Center, University of Münster, Corrensstr. 46, 48149 Münster, Germany 5. Helmholtz-Institute Münster, IEK-12, Forschungszentrum Jülich, Corrensstraße 46, 48149 Münster, Germany 6. Institute of Mechanical Process Engineering and Mineral Processing (MVTAT), TU Bergakademie Freiberg, 09599 Freiberg, Germany
Abstract
Among the technologies used for spent lithium-ion battery recycling, the common approaches include mechanical treatment, pyrometallurgical processing and hydrometallurgical processing. These technologies do not stand alone in a complete recycling process but are combined. The constant changes in battery materials and battery design make it a challenge for the existing recycling processes, and the need to design efficient and robust recycling processes for current and future battery materials has become a critical issue today. Therefore, this paper simplifies the current treatment technologies into three recycling routes, namely, the hot pyrometallurgical route, warm mechanical route and cold mechanical route. By using the same feedstock, the three routes are compared based on the recovery rate of the six elements (Al, Cu, C, Li, Co and Ni). The three different recycling routes represent specific application scenarios, each with their own advantages and disadvantages. In the hot pyrometallurgical route, the recovery of Co is over 98%, and the recovery of Ni is over 99%. In the warm mechanical route, the recovery of Li can reach 63%, and the recovery of graphite is 75%. In the cold mechanical route, the recovery of Cu can reach 75%, and the recovery of Al is 87%. As the chemical compositions of battery materials and various doping elements continue to change today, these three recycling routes could be combined in some way to improve the overall recycling efficiency of batteries.
Funder
Federal Ministry of Education and Research
Reference75 articles.
1. Kwade, A., and Diekmann, J. (2018). Recycling of Lithium-Ion Batteries, Springer International Publishing. 2. Liu, R.-S. (2010). Electrochemical Technologies for Energy Storage and Conversion, Wiley-VCH. 3. Blengini, G.A., El Latunussa, C., Eynard, U., Torres de Matos, C., Wittmer, D.M.A.G., Georgitzikis, K., Pavel, C.C., Carrara, S., Mancini, L., and Unguru, M. (2020). Study on the EU’s List of Critical Raw Materials (2020): Final Report, Publications Office of the European Union. 4. McRae, M.E. (2023, April 27). U.S. Geological Survey: Mineral Commodity Summaries 2023—Nickel, Available online: https://pubs.usgs.gov/periodicals/mcs2023/mcs2023-nickel.pdf. 5. Shedd, K.B. (2023, April 27). U.S.Geological Survey: Mineral Commodity Summaries 2023—Cobalt, Available online: https://pubs.usgs.gov/periodicals/mcs2023/mcs2023-cobalt.pdf.
Cited by
1 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献
|
|