Sustainable Management of Spent Lithium-Ion Batteries: The Role of Reverse Logistics in the Automotive Sector ^†

Abstract

In this age of global advancement in technology, environmental sustainability has become increasingly important. Electric vehicles (EVs) have gained popularity due to their lower carbon impact. One of the most important components of an electric vehicle (EV) is its lithium-ion battery. Increased use of lithium-ion battery (LIB) packs has produced a possible concern in the form of excess LIBs unless adequate recycling or remanufacturing procedures are followed. To repurpose previously used LIBs in an eco-friendly and efficient way, it is essential to implement appropriate reverse logistics procedures. This field of research holds significant potential for the future of the automotive sector. In this study, we briefly reviewed spent LIB management, recycling procedures, demographic locations, remanufacturing concerns, transportation costs, deterioration, and regulations in North America. A brief review of the reverse logistics for lithium-ion batteries improves comprehension and paves the way for future research considerations in this evolving field.

1. Introduction

The rapid growth in EV adoption presents an urgent environmental challenge. As the global demand for electric vehicles (EVs) continues to surge, driven by a growing interest in sustainable transportation, the spotlight is on lithium-ion batteries (LIBs) as the primary power source for these vehicles, and this trend is projected to persist [1], raising the need for effective waste management strategies for LIBs. The importance of sustainable practices is underscored by the fact that improper disposal of these batteries, which are estimated to reach 125,000 tons by 2030, poses a significant threat to the environment and contributes to the escalating landfill crisis [2]. Initiatives such as the CAD 1 billion lithium-ion plant project in British Columbia, set to be operational by 2028, highlight the urgency in addressing the proper disposal and recycling of LIBs [3].

As the automotive sector evolves, the demand for sustainable practices is at an all-time high. This study is particularly relevant as it addresses the efficient recycling and remanufacturing of LIBs, which are critical components of EVs. Amidst this landscape, the concept of reverse logistics emerges as a crucial element in ensuring the responsible handling and recycling of LIBs. Reverse logistics, a concept evolving beyond its traditional supply chain context [4], involves the reversal of product flow for purposes such as repair, remanufacturing, or recycling [5]. Companies, influenced by environmental regulations and a heightened public awareness of sustainability, are re-evaluating their supply chain networks to incorporate reverse logistics practices [6].

This research delves into the reverse logistics process for LIBs, offering insights into recycling procedures, demographic locations, and regulatory frameworks, with a focus on North America. The following discussion will go into detail about how these batteries are produced, why understanding this production process is crucial for effective recycling, and the strategic planning required to optimize the reverse logistics of these vital components. The production of lithium-ion batteries (LIBs) involves key elements such as lithium (Li), nickel (Ni), manganese (Mn), cobalt (Co), and graphite (C). The anode relies on carbon substances like graphite and graphene, while the cathode offers various options, including LiMO2 (M = Co, Ni, Mn) and LiTiS2. Understanding the production process is crucial for effective recycling strategies. Lithium, the primary component of LIBs, is primarily mined through spodumene recovery (26%) and evaporating brine lake deposits (58%). Nevada’s MdDer-mitt caldera clay sediments contribute 25% of the world’s lithium, with an estimated global reserve of 89 million tons. Current lithium recovery from mines is not at full capacity and is projected to quadruple by 2030 [7].

By exploring the management hierarchy of spent LIBs and assessing their second life, the study provides valuable information for policymakers, manufacturers, and consumers aiming for a sustainable automotive future.

2. Literature Review

Recent research has shed light on various facets of lithium-ion battery (LIB) management, emphasizing the need for a comprehensive understanding across global, regulatory, market, and technological dimensions. The following papers were reviewed for their insights into lithium-ion battery characteristics, reverse logistics network design, barriers to electric car battery reverse logistics, safety concerns, circular economy considerations, and sustainability in the supply chain. Several notable studies have significantly contributed to the burgeoning field of lithium-ion battery (LIB) management. The authors of [8] conducted a meticulous life span analysis, revealing nuanced insights into the longevity of new, remanufactured, and repurposed batteries, indicating lifespans of 12.5 years, 2 years, and 10 years, respectively, with a 10% reliability for remanufactured batteries. Additionally, employing a steady-state census model, the study estimated the potential recovery of approximately 138,000 tons of lithium batteries through recycling by mid-2042. The authors of [9] employed a robust Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA) methodology to identify and assess barriers affecting the reverse logistics of electric car batteries in the European market. Their findings underscored market and social perspectives as primary barriers, exerting a pervasive influence on other considered factors in the model.

Moreover, policy and regulation emerged as a secondary but consequential barrier in their assessment. The authors of [10] provided an insightful exploration into safe transport options for End-of-Life (EOL) and damaged lithium-ion batteries. Emphasizing the pivotal role of cryogenic freezing temperatures in enhancing thermal stability during transportation, the study also acknowledged the imperative of determining the minimum temperature required for stability without reaching cryogenic levels. The authors of [11] contributed to the field by formulating a comprehensive reverse logistics model tailored for End-of-Life LIBs in Canada. Their approach involved considering three recycling clusters based on greenhouse gas emissions and transportation unit costs, ultimately identifying Quebec as the optimal location based on these factors.

The authors of [7] identified challenges in lithium-ion battery recycling, emphasizing the difficulty in producing pure metals and the urgent need for global coordination in recycling technologies. The authors of [12] contributed to the field by developing a comprehensive waste battery recycling system. This innovative system encompassed three integral segments: offline reverse logistics, an online recycling system, and a traceability management system. The authors of [13] enriched the academic discourse by conducting a thorough review focusing on the circular economy considerations in lithium-ion battery recycling. Their analysis emphasized the imperative of removing heterogeneity in battery chemicals to unlock the full benefits of lithium battery recycling, with a specific emphasis on the prevalent use of hydrometallurgy. In a broader context, [1] emphasized the global impact of electric vehicle demand on LIB cathode material prices, stressing the need for international collaboration. The authors of [14] discussed the global demand for electric vehicle batteries, emphasizing the importance of recycling for sustainability. They analyzed market environments and advocated for strategies in recycling routes, reverse logistics, and policies for sustainable development.

Finally, [15] explored advancements in recycling technology, offering potential solutions to increase recovery rates and reduce environmental impact. Collectively, these studies paint a comprehensive picture of the challenges and opportunities in LIB management, advocating for a holistic approach across various dimensions for a sustainable future.

3. Methodology

In the pursuit of rigor and systematicity in our research methodology, we opted for the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) technique to guide our project exploration and paper selection process. This methodological approach ensures a comprehensive and transparent execution of systematic reviews or meta-analyses. It covers critical aspects, including defining the research question, refining search strategies, establishing selection criteria, conducting unbiased data extraction, assessing the risk of bias, synthesizing data, and facilitating informed discussions. By reducing the risk of bias, error, and omission, PRISMA enhances the overall quality of systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Additionally, its detailed and transparent approach aids in replicating and updating research, contributing to the reliability and credibility of the findings [16].

To initiate our research, we commenced with a broad search using key terms such as “Reverse logistics” and “Batteries,” resulting in an initial pool of 103 papers. To align with the automotive focus, the search was refined with the keywords “Reverse logistics,” “Lithium-ion battery,” and “Automotive industry,” narrowing down to 20 papers. Papers were excluded based on their relevance to the specific segment of the automotive sector and electric vehicles. One paper was excluded due to its similarity to others, leaving 19 papers for review. The final 19 papers were selected for their insights into reverse logistics for lithium-ion batteries within the automotive industry. This methodological approach ensures a transparent and systematic review, enhancing the study’s reproducibility (Figure 1).

Figure 1. PRISMA Technique on reverse logistics focusing on lithium-ion batteries.

The study investigates options for waste lithium-ion batteries (LIBs) across an environmental hierarchy, including prevention, reuse, recycling, recovery, and disposal. The emphasis is on reducing waste, increasing service life, reintroducing components, energy extraction, and disposal options. LIBs’ second lives are assessed using procedures like remanufacturing and reuse. The study examines the three primary recycling methods (pyro metallurgy, direct recycling, and hydrometallurgy), with a focus on costs and net present values. Transportation charges in LIB recycling are investigated via cost comparison among nations. Environmental laws in North America and Europe are examined, considering federal, state, and local laws as well as the functions of organizations in LIB recycling. The findings focus on prospective improvements in LIB recycling efficiency, stressing collaborative efforts, improved technologies, and the economic viability of direct recycling. The study recognizes the importance of carefully balancing environmental impact and economic feasibility in future recycling systems. The study emphasizes the importance of efficient reverse logistics for LIBs, which coincides with the growing demand for electric vehicles. It promotes proactive and sustainable waste management through streamlined recycling and remanufacturing processes, resulting in a greener and more sustainable automotive future.

4. Research Objectives

The research aims to contribute valuable insights for the advancement of efficient reverse logistics for LIBs, aligning with the increasing demand for electric vehicles and promoting proactive and sustainable waste management practices in the automotive sector and addresses the following specific research questions:

• RQ1. What are the effective strategies for managing spent (LIBs) within an environmental hierarchy covering prevention, reuse, recycling, recovery, and disposal?
• RQ2. How can the second life of spent LIBs be assessed, particularly through remanufacturing and repurposing?
• RQ3. What are the key factors differentiating the three main recycling approaches (pyro metallurgy, direct recycling, hydrometallurgy), and how do they compare in terms of costs and net present values?
• RQ4. What are the critical cost factors, specifically in transportation, influencing LIB recycling across different countries?
• RQ5. How do environmental regulations in North America and Europe govern LIB waste management, and what role do state and provincial regulations play?

5. Results

5.1. Unused LIB Management Hierarchy

The environmental preference hierarchy for LIB management is categorized as prevention, reuse, recycling, recovery, and disposal (Table 1).

Table 1. Structure of management and choices for used LIBs [17].

Strategy	Description	Reference
Prevention	To reduce the generation of waste, this method uses LIBs with less-critical materials and creates smaller electronic gadgets with smaller LIBs.	[17]
Reuse	This strategy involves extending the service life of spent LIBs by giving them a second use, which is primarily applicable to electric vehicle (EV) batteries.	[18]
Recycling	Reintroducing beneficial components from unused lithium-ion batteries back into the value chain is the objective of this method.	[17]
Recovery	The process involves extracting energy from wastes like pyrometallurgy and other procedures that use elements from waste LIBs as fuel.	[17]
Disposal	Used LIBs are consumed at municipal waste combustion plants or landfills under this method, with little chance of recovery.	[17]

5.2. Second Life of Spent LIBs

It is advised to eliminate a battery if its electric energy is below eighty percent of its initial worth [18]. These “reuse” choices allow these end-of-life LIBs to keep an important portion of energy. This is vital financially because power batteries can account for up to 50% of the whole cost of a car [19]. Remanufacturing and repurposing used LIBs in electric cars is a possibility for their second lives (Table 2).

Table 2. Second life of spent LIBs.

Strategy	Description	Reference
Re-manufacturing	This is the process of repurposing power lithium-ion batteries (LIBs) for their intended applications. It includes evaluating and disassembling LIB packs, replacing defective cells and components, and assembling them to create new, functional LIB packs.	[20]
Re-purposing	Renewing withdrawn automotive batteries for “second life” use in non-automotive applications like permanent archiving is easier than in electric automobiles.

5.3. Recycling Is the Way LIBs Are Finally Used

Three main approaches are used for recycling spent LIBs: pyrometallurgy, direct recycling, and hydrometallurgy (Figure 2).

Figure 2. Forward and reverse supply chain logistics.

5.4. Recycling Costs and Methods Comparison

Table 3 summarizes the key economic indicators for different lithium-ion battery recycling methods, including recycling costs and net present value per kilowatt hour.

Table 3. LIB recycling methods comparison [21].

Method	Method Description	Recycling Cost ($/kWh)	Net Present Value ($/kWh)
Direct	Physically separates battery components, retaining the cathode’s functional structure without chemical alteration.	USD 9.40	USD 15.90
Hydro metallurgical	Uses chemical leaching to recover all key cathode and anode materials, including lithium.	USD 10.10	USD 8.60
Pyro metallurgical	Uses high-temperature smelting to recover metals such as cobalt, nickel, and copper.	USD 11.60	USD 5.10

Globally, many countries are actively involved in the recycling of lithium-ion batteries, as shown in Figure 3.

Figure 3. Country-wise segmentation of LIB recycling [22].

5.5. LIB Transportation for Recycling

In Table 4, it is evident that transportation represents one of the key cost factors in the recycling of lithium-ion batteries, contributing to over 40% of the total expenses. Furthermore, as summarized in Table 5, transportation costs associated with lithium-ion battery recycling exhibit significant variation across different countries, thereby underscoring the critical role of geographic location in influencing overall recycling costs.

Table 4. Comparison table summarizing the strengths and weaknesses of each lithium-ion battery recycling technique [23].

Recycling Technique	Pros	Cons
Hydrometallurgy	Lower energy requirements compared to pyro metallurgy. Detailed metal separation process. Ability to extract metals using aqueous solutions.	Requires purification of water and uses many reagents. Selective precipitation or solvent extraction may be needed for metal recovery.
Pyro metallurgy	Simpler implementation. Effective for recycling a variety of battery compositions. Effective for recovering valuable metals like cobalt.	Incurs significant energy costs for combustion and calcination. Consumes some battery materials, limiting direct incorporation into new batteries.
Direct Recycling	Likely lower energy and reagent costs compared to other methods. Preserves intact crystal structure of cathode materials for reuse. Potential for reducing environmental impact by reusing materials without extensive processing.	Requires manual disassembly, potentially leading to higher labor costs. Requires standardization of battery chemistries and packaging for economic viability.

Table 5. Studies of LIB transportation costs in different countries.

References	Country	Carriage Expense	Normalize Expense (USD per kg)	Additional Information
[24]	United States	USD 2.50 per lb	USD 5.51	Cost of volt battery transportation from Detroit to Lancaster.
[25]	North America	USD 1120 per ton	USD 1.12	Total transportation cost, including collection and processing.
[26]	Germany	USD 215.25/BEV-eq. (330 kg)	USD 0.71	Costing for one collection center.
[27]	Shenzen	USD 302.62 per ton	USD 0.30	Market survey is conducted to determine costing.
[28]	Spain	USD 1096.32 per truckload	NA	The transportation of 500 batteries is estimated at EUR 11,520, meaning that 42 batteries can be shipped in one truck.
[29]	United States	USD 2.09 per kg	USD 2.09	Total travel time to collection, then to disassembly and finally to recycling is considered.
[30]	China	USD 158.00 per battery (365 kg)	USD 0.43	The route from collection to recycling center is considered to be uninterrupted.

5.6. Regulation Regarding LIB

Environmental regulations guide debris management, framing the handling of hazardous and non-hazardous substances at the end of their useful life. Government positions, both local and national, shape the severity and extent of waste management laws. North America and Europe are increasingly adopting disposal restrictions and efficient recycling of lithium-ion batteries (LIBs). In the US, LIBs fall under universal waste regulations, and some states like New York, California, and Minnesota restrict LIB disposal in regular waste zones. The US EPA monitors LIB life cycles but does not deem them environmentally harmful, yet improper disposal can harm the soil. Canada relies on provincial regulations for LIB management, with provinces like British Columbia, Manitoba, and Quebec enforcing collection mechanisms. The Rechargeable Battery Recycling Corporation of Canada oversees collection and recycling, establishing annual targets and a 50% process recovery rate for LIBs.

6. Discussion

The study highlights the potential improvement in lithium-ion battery (LIB) recycling efficiency through industry collaboration, implementing advanced remanufacturing technologies and developing specialized infrastructure. The best lithium-ion battery (LIB) recycling method depends on factors like energy efficiency, environmental impact, economic viability, and scalability. Hydrometallurgy and direct recycling offer advantages in energy efficiency with lower requirements compared to pyro metallurgy. Direct recycling shows promise for reducing environmental impact by preserving material integrity and potentially lowering processing requirements. Pyro metallurgy, known for its simplicity and effectiveness in recovering valuable metals, may have an edge in economic viability, but direct recycling could become more competitive with further development. While hydrometallurgy and pyro metallurgy are more established and scalable, ongoing research in direct recycling could lead to its increased adoption. Ultimately, the choice of the best recycling technique may vary based on specific priorities and circumstances, with a potential for combining techniques to optimize efficiency and effectiveness.

Each lithium-ion battery (LIB) recycling method has distinct environmental impacts: Hydrometallurgy typically requires lower energy compared to pyro metallurgy, but it involves water purification and the use of reagents, which may lead to water pollution and chemical waste if not managed properly. Pyro metallurgy, while effective for recovering valuable metals, can produce air pollutants and greenhouse gas emissions due to high-temperature processes. Additionally, it consumes some battery materials, potentially contributing to resource depletion. Direct recycling holds promise for lower energy and reagent usage, preserving the intact crystal structure of cathode materials for reuse. However, manual disassembly may increase labor costs and risk exposure to hazardous materials. Standardization of battery chemistries and packaging is necessary to streamline recycling processes and reduce environmental risks across all methods. Overall, a comprehensive approach to LIB recycling, considering energy efficiency, waste management, and ecological sustainability, is crucial for minimizing environmental harm and promoting a circular economy.

For future research, the following recommendations are proposed:

• Enhance direct recycling: Development of more efficient processes for manual disassembly and reconstitution of batteries, which could reduce labor costs and environmental impact. Optimize the direct recycling process for improved material recovery rates, emphasizing economic and environmental refinement for long-term lithium-ion battery (LIB) recycling.
• Hydrometallurgical techniques: improvement of hydrometallurgical methods to reduce energy consumption, reagent use, and water purification needs.
• Standardization of LIB design: establishment of common designs and labeling specifications for LIBs to facilitate easier sorting and recycling.
• Establish regional recycling infrastructure: Suggest the creation of consolidated recycling facilities in Canada, especially in high LIB consumption regions, to reduce transportation costs and associated carbon emissions. Further research is needed to understand and validate the cost-effectiveness and environmental benefits of this regionalization strategy.

7. Conclusions

This paper highlights the importance of effective reverse logistics procedures for managing lithium-ion batteries (LIBs), especially with the rising demand for electric vehicles. The study promotes proactive and sustainable waste management by endorsing effective recycling and remanufacturing processes. These efforts aim to contribute to a greener and more sustainable future, emphasizing responsible waste management practices. It highlights the importance of balancing economic feasibility with environmental impact in future recycling systems, with direct recycling showing promising financial benefits but requiring careful consideration of its environmental sustainability. Recommendations include enhancing direct recycling processes, improving hydrometallurgical methods, and standardizing LIB design to facilitate easier recycling. Additionally, suggestions for operational adjustments, such as establishing regional recycling infrastructure and consolidating facilities, aim to reduce transportation costs and carbon emissions. This study offers valuable insights for policymakers and industry stakeholders, guiding the development of strategies that promote sustainable waste management practices and contribute to a more environmentally friendly automotive industry.