Follow-up feasibility study on sustainable batteries . Final report for task 3, Development of models for rechargeable battery chemistries and technologies beyond lithium-ion, in compliance with the existing product environmental footprint category rules.
Date: 2020-03-17
Institutions: Directorate-General for Internal Market, Industry, Entrepreneurship and SMEs
Subjects: European standard, cost-benefit analysis, electric vehicle, electricity storage device, energy research, energy technology, environmental impact, feasibility study, motor vehicle, sustainable development, two-wheeled vehicle

Follow-up feasibility study on sustainable 
batteries  
under FWC ENER/C3/2015-619-Lot 1 

Final Report for Task 3  

Development of models for rechargeable battery chemistries and technologies 
beyond lithium-ion, in compliance with the existing product environmental 
footprint category rules 

VITO, Fraunhofer, Viegand Maagøe  

Study team leader:  

Paul Van Tichelen  
VITO/EnergyVille – paul.vantichelen@vito.be 

Key technical expert: 

Grietus Mulder 
VITO/EnergyVille – grietus.mulder@vito.be  

Authors of Task 3:  

Neethi Rajagopalan – VITO/EnergyVille 
Mihaela Thuring – VITO/EnergyVille 
Wai Chung Lam – VITO/EnergyVille 

Quality Review Task 3:  

Jan Viegand – Viegand Maagøe A/S (Tasks 1-3) 

Project website:  

https://ecodesignbatteries.eu/ 

January 2020 

 
 
 
 
    
 
   
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Version history: 

Version 1: first draft for discussion in the stakeholder meeting 

Version 2: draft final report with the results of the sodium-ion and sodium nickel chloride 
batteries. 

EUROPEAN COMMISSION 

Directorate-General for Internal Market, Industry, Entrepreneurship and SMEs 

Directorate C – Industrial Transformation and Advanced Value Chains 

Unit Directorate C1  

Contact: Cesar Santos 

E-mail: 

cesar.santos@ec.europa.eu  

European Commission 
B-1049 Brussels 

Directorate-General for Internal Market, Industry, Entrepreneurship and SMEs     

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Follow-up feasibility study on sustainable batteries 

Europe Direct is a service to help you find answers  
to your questions about the European Union. 

Freephone number (*): 

00 800 6 7 8 9 10 11 

(*)  The information given is free, as are most calls (though some operators, phone boxes or hotels may charge you). 

LEGAL NOTICE 

This document has been prepared for the European Commission however it reflects the views only of the authors, and the Commission cannot be held 

responsible for any use which may be made of the information contained therein. 

This report has been prepared by the authors to the best of their ability and knowledge. The authors do not assume liability for any damage, material or 

immaterial, that may arise from the use of the report or the information contained therein. 

More information on the European Union is available on the Internet (http://www.europa.eu). 

Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union, 2020 

ISBN 978-92-76-16377-0 

doi: 10.2873/453640 

ET-02-20-133-EN-N 

© European Union, 2020 

Reproduction is authorised provided the source is acknowledged. 

Use of number format 

 “space” as thousand separator 

. “dot” as decimal point 

3 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Follow-up feasibility study on sustainable batteries 

CONTENTS 

1. 

1.1. 

2. 

2.1. 

2.2. 

2.3. 
2.3.1. 
2.3.2. 
2.3.3. 
2.3.4. 
2.3.5. 
2.3.6. 
2.3.7. 
2.3.8. 
2.3.8.1. 
2.3.8.2. 
2.3.8.3. 
2.4. 
2.4.1. 
2.4.2. 
2.4.3. 
2.4.4. 
2.4.5. 
2.4.6. 
2.4.7. 
2.4.8. 
2.4.8.1. 
2.4.8.2. 
2.4.8.3. 

3. 

3.0. 

3.1. 

3.2. 

TASK  3:  DEVELOPMENT  OF  MODELS  FOR  RECHARGEABLE 
BATTERY CHEMISTRIES AND TECHNOLOGIES BEYOND LITHIUM-
ION, 
IN  COMPLIANCE  WITH  THE  EXISTING  PRODUCT 
ENVIRONMENT FOOTPRINT (PEF) CATEGORY RULES ...........................7 

General introduction to Task 3 ...................................................................................... 7 

ANALYSIS OF BATTERIES USING THE PEF APPROACH .........................8 

Battery chemistries selected ......................................................................................... 8 

Application of PEFCR for batteries .............................................................................. 9 

Sodium-ion battery ............................................................................................................ 9 
Functional unit ....................................................................................................................................................... 9 
System boundary .............................................................................................................................................. 11 
Raw materials acquisition and main product production stage ............................................ 11 
Distribution stage ............................................................................................................................................. 16 
Use stage .............................................................................................................................................................. 16 
End of life stage ................................................................................................................................................ 16 
LCA modelling using the PEFCR method ............................................................................................. 20 
PEF results for sodium-ion battery ........................................................................................................ 21 
Characterized results for Na-ion battery ............................................................................................ 21 
Normalized and weighted results for sodium-ion battery ....................................................... 22 
Hotspots Analysis ............................................................................................................................................. 23 
Sodium nickel chloride battery ................................................................................... 25 
Functional unit .................................................................................................................................................... 25 
System boundary .............................................................................................................................................. 27 
Raw materials acquisition and main product production stage ............................................ 27 
Distribution stage ............................................................................................................................................. 30 
Use stage .............................................................................................................................................................. 30 
End of Life stage .............................................................................................................................................. 30 
LCA modelling using the PEFCR method ............................................................................................. 33 
PEF results for ZEBRA battery ................................................................................................................... 33 
Characterized results for ZEBRA battery ............................................................................................ 33 
Normalized and weighted Results for ZEBRA battery ................................................................. 34 
Hotspot Analysis ............................................................................................................................................... 35 

CONCLUSION FOR IMPLEMENTING PEFCR FOR BATTERIES ............. 38 

Functional Unit ................................................................................................................. 38 

Availability of primary data ........................................................................................ 38 

End of Life Modelling ..................................................................................................... 38 

4 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Follow-up feasibility study on sustainable batteries 

LIST OF TABLES 

Table 1: Parameters used to calculate the functional unit, reference flow and the number of sodium-ion batteries 
applied within a residential ESS based on the PEFCR for batteries. ..................................................................................................... 10 

Table 2: Life cycle stages modelled for sodium-ion batteries as per PEFCR for batteries ...................................................... 11 

Table 3: Life cycle inventory for the production of Na-ion battery. Data from Peters et al (2016)5 ................................. 13 

Table 4: Life cycle inventory of the distribution of battery pack ........................................................................................................... 16 

Table 5: Life cycle inventory of end of life of Na-ion battery (based on PEFCR for batteries). The highlighted processes 
have different amounts when compared with the PEFCR for batteries as they have been modified based on Na-ion 
battery contents ................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 18 

Table 6: List of processes not available as EF compliant datasets for Na-ion PEF modelling and for which ecoinvent 
datasets were used ......................................................................................................................................................................................................... 20 

Table 7: List of newly modelled processes that were created using data from Peters et al (2016)5 for Na-ion batteries 
that are currently not available as EF compliant datasets ....................................................................................................................... 21 

Table 8: Characterized results of 1 kWh of the total energy provided over the service life by the Na-ion battery .. 21 

Table 9: Normalized and weighted results for Na-ion battery. The highlighted impact categories are the most relevant 
impact categories that contribute >80% cumulatively to the total impact ..................................................................................... 22 

Table 10: Most relevant life cycle stages based on characterized results  for the most relevant impact categories
.................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 23 

Table 11: Most relevant processes during the life cycle of the Na-ion battery characterized for the most relevant 
impact categories ............................................................................................................................................................................................................. 24 

Table 12: Parameters used to calculate the functional unit, reference flow and the number of ZEBRA batteries applied 
within a residential ESS based on PEFCR for batteries1 method and data from Galloway et al (2003)4 ....................... 26 

Table 13: Life cycle inventory for manufacturing of ZEBRA battery. Activity data from Galloway et al (2003)4 ....... 28 

Table 14: Life cycle inventory of the end of life modelling for ZEBRA battery (based on data from Galloway et al 
(2003) and supplemented with the PEFCR for batteries end of life model) .................................................................................... 31 

Table 15: List of processes not available as EF compliant datasets for ZEBRA battery PEF modelling and for which 
ecoinvent datasets were used ................................................................................................................................................................................... 33 

Table 16: Characterized results per 1 kWh functional unit of ZEBRA battery ................................................................................. 33 

Table  17:  Normalized  and  Weighted  impacts  of  1kWh  of  ZEBRA  battery.  The  impact  categories  with  a  total 
cumulative contribution of >80% are highlighted as the most relevant impact categories .................................................. 34 

Table 18: Most relevant life cycle stages based on most relevant impact categories .............................................................. 35 

Table 19: Most relevant processes contributing >80% cumulative impacts to the relevant impact categories ......... 35 

5 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Follow-up feasibility study on sustainable batteries 

List of abbreviations and acronyms  

Abbreviations 
EF 
EFTA 
EOL 
eq. 
ESS 
EU 
EU-28 
FU 
GHG 
GLO 
GWP 
ICT 
ILCD 
ILCD-EL 
JRC 
LCA 
LCC 
LCI 
LCO 
Li 
LiS 
LMO 
Na 
NaNiCl2 
NaS 
NCM 
NMC 
NiMh 
PCR 
PEF 
PEFCR 
UPS 
WP 

Descriptions 
Environmental Footprint 
European Free Trade Association 
End-of-Life 
equivalent 
Energy Storage System 
European Union 
28 Member States of the European Union 
Functional Unit 
Greenhous Gases 
Global 
Global Warming Potential 
Information and Communications Technology 
International reference Life Cycle Data system 
ILCD Entry Level 
Joint Research Centre 
Life Cycle Assessment 
Life Cycle Costs 
Life Cycle Inventory 
Lithium Cobalt Oxide 
Lithium 
Lithium Sulfur 
Lithium Manganese Oxide 
Sodium 
Sodium Nickel Chloride 
Sodium Sulfur  
Lithium Nickel Manganese Cobalt Oxide 
Lithium Nickel Manganese Cobalt Oxide 
Nickel-Metal hydride 
Product Category Rules 
Product Environmental Footprint 
Product Environmental Footprint Category Rules 
Uninterruptible Power Supply 
Work Package 

6 

 
 
 
 
 
Follow-up feasibility study on sustainable batteries 

1. 

Task  3:  Development  of  models  for  rechargeable  battery 
chemistries  and  technologies  beyond  lithium-ion,  in  compliance 
with the existing Product Environment Footprint (PEF) Category 
Rules 

1.1. 

General introduction to Task 3 

This report is a final report with the results of two batteries analysed for this task.  

The  aim  of  Task  3  is  to  develop  life  cycle  assessment  (LCA)  models  of  additional  battery  technologies  and 
chemistries beyond Li-ion in compliance with the PEF Category Rules (PEFCR) for High Specific Energy Rechargeable 
Batteries for Mobile Applications.  

The PEFCR were published in December 20181. Mobile Applications refers to three application fields:  

• 
• 
• 

e-mobility (from e-bikes up to trucks) 
ICT 
cordless power tools. 

The battery technologies and chemistries covered in the PEFCR for batteries included:  

• 
• 

Li-ion: LCO (LiCoO2), NMC (LiNixMnyCozO2), LMO (LiMnO2) and LFP (LiFePO4)  
NiMH. 

These battery types will tend to dominate the mobile market in coming years and are likely to be at the core of the 
scope of any possible regulatory intervention being proposed by the Commission.  

The follow-up feasibility study on sustainable batteries focusses partly on different application fields from the above 
mentioned PEFCR and also on a broader field of battery types i.e. chemistries. 

The idea of setting mandatory information requirements on the carbon footprint associated with the manufacturing 
of batteries is gaining ground and the availability of PEFCR will be instrumental to make this possible. However, 
there is a need to ensure that PEFCR are available for all battery chemistries and technologies that fall in the scope 
of a possible regulatory intervention. 

The  development  of  PEF  Category  Rules  for  a  specific  product  group  is  a  well-defined  process.  The  PEFCR 
development  process  is  complex,  as  it  is  comprehensive  and  requires  a  number  of  technical  steps  followed  by 
consultations of all the relevant stakeholders2. Therefore, starting from the existing PEFCR, the purpose of this task 
is to: 

 

 

 

Identify other battery technologies and chemistries with a significant presence in the market, including a 
possible grouping or categorization; 

Identify, for each battery technology and chemistry, their system boundary and the processes included in 
each life cycle stage; 

Identify the activity data to be used for each process, based on best available information; 

  Develop a model3 for each battery technology and chemistry identified, implementing –where possible 
and relevant  – the rules and requirements as included in the High Specific Energy Rechargeable 
Batteries for Mobile Applications PEF Category Rules 1; 

1 Available at: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/eussd/smgp/PEFCR_OEFSR_en.htm   
2 See https://eplca.jrc.ec.europa.eu/permalink/PEF_method.pdf  
3 The model should be developed according to the ILCD format or eILCD if available. 

7 

 
 
 
                                                        
Follow-up feasibility study on sustainable batteries 

 

Identify the best available secondary datasets (Environmental Footprint (EF) compliant or at least 
International reference Life Cycle Data system Entry Level (ILCD-EL) compliant using EF nomenclature) to 
be used to populate the models developed and also to identify and list missing secondary datasets; 

  Perform a hotspot analysis according to the method elaborated by JRC2, focusing on the climate change 
impact category; this analysis should also identify the most relevant processes for climate change 
impact category that should be looked at as a priority; 

Hence, the objective of Task 3 is to develop life cycle assessment (LCA) models of other battery technologies and 
chemistries beyond Li-ion in compliance with the PEFCR for High Specific Energy Rechargeable Batteries for Mobile 
Applications1, hereinafter ‘PEFCR for batteries’.  

The purpose of Task 3 is not to review or change the existing PEFCR on batteries, but to develop proof of concepts 
of the PEF profiles for other chemistries, if possible. All phases from raw materials production and manufacturing 
of battery to end of life recycling will be included in analysis. The exception is the use phase, which will be excluded 
for all batteries analysed in this study. Due to uncertainties arising in the use phase energy consumption and losses, 
this phase is not considered within the scope of this study. 

The  success  of  this  task  is  however  highly  dependent  on  the  availability  of  primary  data  that  will  allow  the 
development of these PEF profiles. Public availability of such data is very limited and insufficient for the purpose of 
this study, reason for which the contribution of manufacturers is absolutely necessary for obtaining data with an 
acceptable quality level from reliable sources.  

2. 

2.1. 

Analysis of batteries using the PEF Approach 

Battery chemistries selected 

For electric vehicles, any other chemistries apart from Li-ion will not play a significant role (also mentioned in Task 
2 report). For stationary applications, low specific weight is not the only decisive parameter in case of stationary 
energy storage and therefore other chemistries can remain and/or enter the market. The following chemistries were 
considered within the scope:  

Li-ion 
Li-metal 
Lead-acid 

 
 
 
  NiMH 
  NaNiCl2 
  NaS 
  Hybrid-ion 
 
LiS 
  Na-ion 

Data available in PEF for batteries, already covered in a PEF data set 
Data unavailable, no agreement reached in the supply of data. 
Data available in PEF for UPS study, already covered in PEF data set 
Data available in PEF for batteries, already covered 
Data available in publicly available study4 
Large scale energy storage system (ESS) - data not available 
Residential ESS - data not available 
Residential ESS - under development - data not available 
Residential ESS - data available5 in publicly available study 

The  aim  of  this  task  was  to  analyse  three  to  five  additional  chemistries.  After  a  preliminary  analysis  of  data 
availability, the battery chemistries selected for analysis in Task 3 include existing battery types not yet included in 
the PEFCR for batteries are:  

 

sodium nickel chloride,  

4 Galloway & Dustmann (2003) ZEBRA Battery 

8 

 
 
 
 
  
                                                        
Follow-up feasibility study on sustainable batteries 

 

future battery type - sodium-ion batteries.  

Both selected batteries are considered for residential storage application. Sodium-ion is chosen as a first example 
case to apply the PEF method using publicly available data5 followed by sodium nickel chloride4.  

2.2. 

Application of PEFCR for batteries  

The PEFCR for batteries is applied to the two battery types selected. The following sections will detail the procedure 
of application of PEFCR for batteries for sodium-ion and the sodium nickel chloride battery.   

2.3. 

Sodium-ion battery 

This subsection describes how the PEFCR for batteries is applied to the sodium-ion battery.  

2.3.1. 

Functional unit 

The functional unit in the PEFCR1 for rechargeable batteries is defined as 1 kWh of total energy provided over 
the service life by the battery. The service life is dictated by the application service. The application service 
parameter is not available in the PEFCR. For this study, we used the value for the Ecodesign Batteries Preparatory 
Study 6.  The functional unit for sodium-ion is calculated using the method provided in the PEFCR and with 
information gathered from the Peters et al (2016)5 study. Based on the functional unit, the number of batteries 
required per functional unit and the reference flow is calculated (Table 1).  

The functional unit calculation makes some assumption regarding the parameters such as depth of discharge, the 
number of cycles, weight of the battery and others. These assumptions are carried over to the calculation of number 
of batteries required for the service lifetime.   

5 Peters, Jens, et al. "Life cycle assessment of sodium-ion batteries." Energy & Environmental Science 9.5 (2016): 1744-1751 
(https://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/articlepdf/2016/ee/c6ee00640j). 

9 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                        
Follow-up feasibility study on sustainable batteries 

Table  1:  Parameters  used  to  calculate  the  functional  unit,  reference  flow  and  the  number of  sodium-ion  batteries 
applied within a residential ESS based on the PEFCR for batteries.  

Parameter 

Nominal battery system capacity   

Unit 

kWh 

Economic lifetime of application (Tapp) 

y 

note: this is not a parameter within the 
PEFCR 

Depth of discharge (DoD) 

% 

Energy delivered per cycle (Edc) 

kWh/cycle 

Value 

Reference 

10 

20 

80 

8 

Ecodesign Batteries - Preparatory Study - Base Case 
6-Residential ESS (see Task 5 report)6 

Ecodesign Batteries - Preparatory Study - Base Case 6 
- Residential ESS (see Task 5 report) 

Assumption 

Calculated (nominal capacity*DoD) 

Number of cycles for battery system over 
its service life (Nc) 

- 

2 000 

Peters et al (2016) Life cycle assessment of sodium-
ion batteries-laboratory test data 

Average capacity per cycle (Acc) 

Total weight of battery system 

% 

kg 

90 

128 

Note: The author made three assumptions for a kind 
of sensitivity analysis (1000/2000/3000) cycles and 
this is the average. Because this is still a prototype 
real data is still missing. 

Based on standards and data from Peters et al (2016) 
initial capacity retention of 80% 

Assumption - based on Ecodesign Batteries - 
Preparatory Study - Base Case 6 - Residential ESS 
(see Task 5 report) 

Average net capacity per cycle until EoL 

kWh/cycle 

7.2 

Calculated (Edc*Acc) 

Functional unit over service life (QUa) per 
battery  

kWh/service life 

14 400 

Calculated (Edc*Nc*Acc; as per PEFCR) 

Application Service (AS) (as defined in the 
preparatory study) 

kWh 

40 000 

Ecodesign Batteries - Preparatory Study - Base Case 6 
- Residential ESS (see Task 5 report) 

Coulombic Efficiency  (ŋcoul) 

Voltage Efficiency (ŋv = Vp/Vc) 

Energy efficiency (ŋcd = ŋcoul x ŋv) 

Charger Efficiency (ŋcharger) 

No. of battery systems per economic service 
life (Nb batt)  

% 

% 

% 

% 

- 

- 

- 

- 

Not considered for this analysis 

Not considered for this analysis 

Not considered for this analysis (see WP 2 for 
discussion) 

- 

Not considered for this analysis 

2.78 

Calculated (AS/Qua; as per PEFCR) 

Reference flow (Rf) 

kg  battery/kWh 

0.0089 

Calculated (Nb batt*mass/AS; as per PEFCR) 

6 https://ecodesignbatteries.eu/welcome 

10 

 
 
 
 
                                                        
Follow-up feasibility study on sustainable batteries 

Parameter 

Unit 

Value 

Reference 

2.3.2. 

System boundary 

The following life cycle stages (Table 2) are included in the study.  

Table 2: Life cycle stages modelled for sodium-ion batteries as per PEFCR for batteries 

Life Cycle Stage 

Description 

Raw materials acquisition 

Included. Data sourced from Peters et al (2016)5 

Main product production 

Included. Data sourced from Peters et al (2016)5 

Distribution 

Use  

End of life recycling 

Included. Data sourced from Peters et al (2016)5  

Not included. Deviation from PEFCR 

Included. Data sourced from PEFCR for batteries1. Modified to suit material 
quantities in Na-ion batteries. 

2.3.3. 

Raw materials acquisition and main product production stage 

The battery manufacturing and assembly stages of a sodium-ion battery are organized as: 

  Manufacturing of active materials for cathode and anode 

  Manufacturing of cathode, anode and electrolyte 

  Manufacturing of battery cell 

  Assembly and manufacturing of battery pack 

The details are shown in Figure 1.  

A life cycle inventory for the production of the battery is provided in Table 3.  

Where possible, EF datasets were used. New datasets were created for certain materials using data from Peters et 
al (2016)5 study. The activity data (i.e. amounts) for the new datasets was obtained from the study while the input 
and output life cycle data was from EF database (where available) or ecoinvent database7, version 3.5. 

Note that for manufacturing sodium-ion battery anodes hard carbon was used as opposed to graphite in lithium-
ion anodes for technical reasons8. The manufacturing of hard carbon is significantly different from graphite and is 
assumed to use sugar beets which will have a strong impact on the obtained LCA results. 

7 Frischknecht, Rolf, et al. "The ecoinvent database: Overview and methodological framework (7 pp)." The international journal 
of life cycle assessment 10.1 (2005): 3-9. 
8  Xinwei Dou, “ Hard Carbon Anode Materials for Sodium-ion Battery”, PhD dissertation, December 2018, Karlsruher Instituts 
für Technologie (KIT), Germany 

11 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                        
Follow-up feasibility study on sustainable batteries 

Figure 1: Cradle to gate diagram of sodium-ion production processes (Source: Peters et al (2016)5) 

12 

 
 
 
 
 
Follow-up feasibility study on sustainable batteries 

Table 3: Life cycle inventory for the production of Na-ion battery. Data from Peters et al (2016)5 

Material/Process 

Geographical 
reference 

EF compliant dataset name 

If no EF compliant dataset available, dataset 
name - source 

Unit 

Amount per 
kg battery 

Power_electrode 

EU-28+3 

Electricity grid mix 1kV-60kV| AC, technology mix| 
consumption mix, at consumer| 1kV - 60kV  

Power_cell forming 

EU-28+3 

Electricity grid mix 1kV-60kV| AC, technology mix| 
consumption mix, at consumer| 1kV - 60kV  

Power_battery assembly 

EU-28+3 

Electricity grid mix 1kV-60kV| AC, technology mix| 
consumption mix, at consumer| 1kV - 60kV  

Heat 

EU-28+3 

Thermal energy from natural gas| technology mix regarding 
firing and flue gas cleaning| production mix, at heat plant| 
MJ, 100% efficiency  

Anode 

Hard carbon, anode from 
sugar 

Carbon black 

RER 

Carbon black, general purposes production, 100% active 
substance  

Carboxymethyl cellulose 

RER 

Carboxymethyl cellulose production 

Aluminium foil 

EU-28+3 

Aluminium foil| primary production| single route, at plant| 
2.7 g/cm3  

kWh/kg 
battery 

kWh/kg 
battery 

kWh/kg 
battery 

MJ/kg 
battery 

2.00E-03 

2.91E+00 

3.53E+00 

2.10E+01 

Hard carbon, anode, from sugar - created based on 
Peters et al (2016)5 data 

kg/kg 
battery 

2.34E-01 

Cathode 

Layered oxide 

Carbon black 

RER 

Carbon black, general purposes production, 100% active 
substance  

NMMT active material, layered oxide, for Na-ion 
batteries - created based on Peters et al (2016)5 
data 

13 

kg/kg 
battery 

kg/kg 
battery 

kg/kg 
battery 

kg/kg 
battery 

kg/kg 
battery 

7.56E-03 

1.01E-02 

4.03E-02 

1.84E-01 

3.92E-03 

 
 
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
 
  
Follow-up feasibility study on sustainable batteries 

Material/Process 

Geographical 
reference 

EF compliant dataset name 

If no EF compliant dataset available, dataset 
name - source 

Unit 

Amount per 
kg battery 

PVDF 

World 

Polyvinylidene fluoride (PVDF)| polymerisation of vinyl 
fluoride| production mix, at plant| 1.76 g/cm3  

Aluminium foil 

EU-28+3 

Aluminium foil| primary production| single route, at plant| 
2.7 g/cm3  

kg/kg 
battery 

kg/kg 
battery 

7.84E-03 

1.96E-02 

Electrolyte 

Sodium 
hexafluorophosphate 

Separator 

Sodium hexafluorophosphate, at plant  -created 
based on Peters et al (2016)5 data 

kg/kg 
battery 

8.30E-04 

Battery Separator 

GLO 

Battery separator - ecoinvent database 

Cell casing 

Steel sheet part 

EU-28+EFTA 

Steel cast part alloyed| electric arc furnace route, from 
steel scrap, secondary production| single route, at plant| 
carbon steel  

Nylon 6 

EU-28+EFTA 

Nylon 6 fiber| extrusion into fiber| production mix, at plant| 
5% loss, 3,5 MJ electricity  

Battery casing 

Steel sheet part 

DE 

Battery Management System  

Steel sheet cold rolling - thickness 2.5mm | steel cold 
rolling process | single route, at plant | thickness 2.5 mm  

Data cable 

EU-28+EFTA 

Cable, high current| technology mix| production mix, at 
plant| high current, 1m  

Three-phase cable 

EU-28+EFTA 

Cable, three-conductor cable| technology mix| production 
mix, at plant| three-conductor cable, 1m  

14 

kg/kg 
battery 

1.73E-05 

kg/kg 
battery 

kg/kg 
battery 

1.93E-01 

7.06E-01 

kg/kg 
battery 

1.45E-01 

m/kg 
battery 

m/kg 
battery 

3.73E-01 

2.50E-02 

 
 
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
 
  
 
  
  
  
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
Follow-up feasibility study on sustainable batteries 

Material/Process 

Geographical 
reference 

EF compliant dataset name 

If no EF compliant dataset available, dataset 
name - source 

Unit 

Amount per 
kg battery 

Printed wiring board, Pb 
containing 

Printed wiring board, Pb 
free 

GLO 

GLO 

Printed wiring board, for surface mounting, Pb 
containing surface, ecoinvent database 

kg/kg 
battery 

1.01E-03 

Printed wiring board, for surface mounting, Pb free 
surface, ecoinvent database 

kg/kg 
battery 

2.37E-03 

15 

 
 
 
  
  
Follow-up feasibility study on sustainable batteries 

2.3.4. 

Distribution stage 

The distribution stage for Na-ion was modelled based on data from Peters et al (2016). The life cycle inventory is 
presented in Table 4.  

Table 4: Life cycle inventory of the distribution of battery pack 

Material/Process 

Distribution 

Truck-trailer 

Geographical 
Reference 

EF compliant dataset name 

Unit 

Amount per 
kg battery 

GLO 

Articulated lorry transport, Euro 4, Total 
weight >32 t (without fuel) 

tkm 

1.00E-01 

Diesel mix at refinery 

EU-27 

Diesel mix at refinery 

Rail transport cargo - average 

GLO 

Freight train, average (without fuel) 

Diesel mix at refinery 

EU-27 

Diesel mix at refinery 

kg 

tkm 

kg 

1.00E-01 

5.42E-01 

5.42E-01 

2.3.5. 

Use stage impact from losses 

Due to uncertainties arising in the use phase energy consumption and losses, the resulting impact on the use phase 
is not considered within the scope of this study. If batteries have efficiencies similar to Li-ion then use phase impacts 
will be similar and will be a fraction of the production phase.  

Note however that the functional unit depends on the life time assumptions which depend on the use stage and 
therefore this impact is taken into account (see Table 1). 

2.3.6. 

End of life stage 

There is no established market for sodium-ion batteries cell recycling and hence no information available on end of 
life recycling of sodium battery cells. To overcome this lack of data the lithium-ion EOL e-mobility scenario (95% 
collection for recycling and 5% unidentified stream) and model for recycling was used  as a baseline to model this 
phase for sodium-ion batteries. The battery recycling processes was used as-is from the PEFCR for batteries except 
for the dataset for the passive components recycling. That dataset was modified for the Na-ion batteries passive 
components based on inventory mass balance from Peters et al5. The steel,  copper and plastic amounts in the 
passive components parts were changed in accordance with the amounts available in the production of the battery 
part. When no amount data was available assumptions were made. In the EOL stage that was only the case for the 
data cable inventory which is in m cable/kg battery, therefore estimations were made on the metal and plastic 
components  per  m  cable.  The  data  cables  were  assumed  to  have  0.01555  kg  of  copper  and  0.0342  kg  of 
polyethylene per m cable.  The aluminium data was removed as there is no aluminium in the battery casing system 
for Na-ion but steel and plastic data were modified according to mass balance from Peters et al.  

The circular footprint formula (CFF) was applied to the amounts and default parameters as described in the PEFCR 
for batteries were used. The formula and parameters used are presented below. Since there is no incineration or 
landfill component, the energy recovery and landfill parameters are not shown in the formula.  

In which: 

16 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Follow-up feasibility study on sustainable batteries 

R1 =  

Ev =  

A =  

Recycled content (of raw materials at production) recycled from previous system. 

Environmental impacts of virgin content (of raw materials in production). 

Allocation factor of burdens and credits between supplier and user of recycle materials; in PEF 
studies A can be 0.2, 0.5, or 0.8. 

Erecycled =  

Environmental impacts of recycling/reuse process of R1 (incl. collection, sorting, transport). 

QSin =  

Quality of the ingoing secondary material. 

Qp =  

R2 =  

Quality of the primary material. 

Recycling fraction (at EOL) for a subsequent system. 

ErecyclingEoL =    Environmental impacts of recycling process at EOL. 

E*v =  

Environmental impacts of substituted virgin materials after recycling ("avoided virgin materials"); 
there is no E*v if R1 equals 0. 

QSout =  

Quality of the outgoing secondary material. 

The assumption is that the steel, copper and plastic are recycled and with no materials going to landfill. In addition 
Based on the default parameters applied, the formula for calculating the environmental impact of the EOL stage 
reduces to: 

(1-A)R2 x ErecyclingEoL 

The default parameters as per the PEFCR for batteries  used for the CFF calculation are: 

  Parameter A= 0.5 for plastics and 0.2 for metals 

  Parameter B= 0 

  Parameter R1 = 0 

  Parameter R2

9 = 1 

  Parameter QSout/QP= 1 

A complete life cycle inventory for the end of life phase is provided in Table 5.  

9 As per Annex C, Values in the R2 cells refer to the collection rate, and they refer to the whole product. The conversion to the 
recycling output rate (R2) for the different materials is included in the EF-compliant dataset. 

17 

 
 
 
 
                                                        
Follow-up feasibility study on sustainable batteries 

Table 5: Life cycle inventory of end of life of Na-ion battery (based on PEFCR for batteries). The in green highlighted processes have different amounts when compared with the PEFCR 
for batteries as they have been modified based on Na-ion battery contents 

Material/Process 

Geographical 
reference 

EF compliant dataset name 

Unit 

Amount per kg battery 

Proxy Y/N 

Battery cell recycling 

Battery cell recycling credits 
(depending on cell composition) 

EU-27 

EU-27 

EU-27 

EU-27 

DE 

EU-27 

EU-27 

EU-27 

EU-27 

EU-27 

EU-27 

DE 

DE 

GLO 

EU-27 

Electricity grid mix 

Thermal energy from natural gas 

Process steam from natural gas 

Tap water 

Lime production 

Hard coal mix 

Sodium hydroxide production 

Sulphuric acid production (100%) 

Landfill of inert (steel) 

MJ/kg battery 

6.90E-01 

MJ/kg battery 

2.07E+00 

MJ/kg battery 

6.48E+00 

kg/kg battery 

7.63E+00 

kg/kg battery 

4.00E-02 

kg/kg battery 

3.00E-02 

kg/kg battery 

1.90E-01 

kg/kg battery 

6.60E-01 

kg/kg battery 

9.00E-02 

Treatment of residential wastewater, large plant 

kg/kg battery 

8.27E+00 

Process steam from natural gas 

Manganese 

Nickel (updated) 

Cobalt 

kg/kg battery 

1.46E+00 

kg/kg battery 

2.00E-01 

kg/kg battery 

4.00E-02 

kg/kg battery 

5.00E-02 

Steel cold rolled coil / Steel cast part alloyed 

kg/kg battery 

0.00E+00 

Passive parts recycling 

EU-28+EFTA 

Recycling of steel into steel scrap: Steel billet (St) 

kg/kg battery 

1.93E-01 

EU-28+EFTA 

Landfill of inert (steel) 

kg/kg battery 

n.a. 

18 

N 

N 

N 

N 

Y 

N 

N 

N 

N 

N 

N 

N 

N 

Y 

N 

N 

N 

 
 
 
Follow-up feasibility study on sustainable batteries 

Material/Process 

Geographical 
reference 

EF compliant dataset name 

Unit 

Amount per kg battery 

Proxy Y/N 

EU-28+EFTA 

Recycling of aluminium into aluminium scrap - from post-consumer 

kg/kg battery 

0.00E+00 

EU-28+EFTA 

Landfill of inert material (other materials) 

kg/kg battery 

n.a. 

EU-28+EFTA 

Recycling of steel into steel scrap: Steel billet (St) 

kg/kg battery 

0.00E+00 

EU-28+EFTA 

Recycling of copper from electronic and electric waste 

kg/kg battery 

6.19E-03 

EU-28 

Plastic granulate secondary (low metal contamination) 

kg/kg battery 

1.00E-01 

Passive parts credits 

EU-28+EFTA 

Aluminium ingot mix (high purity) 

kg/kg battery 

0.00E+00 

EU-28+EFTA 

Recycling of steel into steel scrap: Steel billet (St) 

kg/kg battery 

0.00E+00 

n.a. 

n.a. 

EU-28+EFTA 

Copper cathode 

EU-28+EFTA 

LDPE granulates 

EU-28+EFTA 

Steel cast part alloyed 

kg/kg battery 

n.a. 

kg/kg battery 

9.00E-03 

kg/kg battery 

1.36E-02 

kg/kg battery 

1.93E-01 

N 

N 

Y 

N 

N 

N 

N 

N 

N 

N 

N 

19 

 
 
 
 
Follow-up feasibility study on sustainable batteries 

2.3.7. 

LCA modelling using the PEFCR method 

The primary activity data was sourced from the Peters et al (2016)5 study and modelled in SimaPro10. To develop 
the sodium-ion battery models the best available secondary datasets to populate the models were identified. At 
first a dataset was matched as much as possible with the default datasets specified in the PEFCR for batteries. 
Whenever a dataset needed to calculate the PEF-profile was not in the PEFCR for batteries, we chose between the 
following options (in hierarchical order): 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

Use an EF-compliant dataset available in a free or commercial source.  

Use another EF-compliant dataset considered to be a good proxy.  

Use an ILCD-entry level-compliant dataset.  

Use existing databases in commercially available software that are not EF or  ILCD compliant. For 
sodium-ion battery modelling, ecoinvent11 background datasets were used. The original LCA was also 
conducted using ecoinvent datasets.  

If none of the above is available, the process shall be excluded and also be mentioned in the project 
report as data gap. This situation was not encountered in the modelling of sodium-ion batteries. 

A list of processes that were not available as EF compliant datasets were also created during this step (Table 6). 
Another list was created which contains the specific to Na-ion battery datasets that were created using activity data 
from the Peters et al (2016) study (Table 7). These are not currently available as EF compliant datasets and are 
listed to highlight the newly modelled data that can be made available to a user of this PEF study.  

Table 6: List of processes not available as EF compliant datasets for Na-ion PEF modelling and for which ecoinvent 
datasets were used 

No. 
1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 

Name of process 
Soda ash, dense 
Sodium chloride, brine solution 
Lime, hydrated, loose 
Transformation, unknown to mineral extraction site 
Occupation, mineral extraction site 
Manganese dioxide production 
Chemical factory, organics 
Chemicals, inorganic 
Wastewater treatment, average 
N-methyl-2-pyrrolidone production 
Sodium fluoride production 
Phosphorous pentachloride production 
Hydrogen fluoride 
Battery Separator 
Used Lithium ion 
Printed wiring board, unspecified, Pb containing 
Printed wiring board, unspecified, Pb free 
Reinforcing steel 

10 PRé Consultants, "SimaPro software." SimaPro Version 9.0.0.48 (2019). 
11 Frischknecht, R., et al. "Overview and methodology. Data v2. 0 (2007). Ecoinvent report No." (2007). For this project we used 
ecoinvent version 3.5. 

20 

 
 
 
                                                        
Follow-up feasibility study on sustainable batteries 

No. 
19 

Name of process 
Sheet rolling, steel 

Table 7: List of newly modelled processes that were created using data from Peters et al (2016)5 for Na-ion batteries 
that are currently not available as EF compliant datasets 

No. 
1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 

Name of process 
Anode, hard carbon-Al, for Na-ion battery 
Cathode, NMMT layered oxide, for Na-ion battery 
Hard carbon, anode, from sugar 
NMMT active material, layered oxide 
Magnesium hydroxide production 
Nickel carbonate, anhydrous, production 
Sodium hexafluorophosphate production 
Electrolyte, sodium hexafluorophosphate based 
Cell container, 18650 battery type 
Battery cell, Na-ion, NMMT-HC, 18650, at plant 
Battery management system for Na-ion battery 
Battery pack, Na-ion, NMMT-HC, 18650, at plant 

2.3.8. 

PEF results for sodium-ion battery 

2.3.8.1. 

Characterized results for Na-ion battery 

The characterized result per functional unit of 1 kWh provided by the Na-ion battery is shown in Table 8. The impact 
assessment method used is: EF Method 2.0 (adapted version from SimaPro) V1/Global 2010) with tox categories.  

Table 8: Characterized results of 1 kWh of the total energy provided over the service life by the Na-ion battery 

Impact category 

Unit 

Total 

EndofLife_Ba
ttery 
Dismantling 

Na-ion 
battery 
pack, NMMT-
HC, 18650, 
at plant 

Na-ion 
battery 
pack, NMMT-
HC, 18650, 
at plant 

EndofLife
_Battery 
Dismantli
ng 

Climate change 

kg CO2 eq 

1,30E-01 

2,54E-02 

1,55E-01 

84% 

Ozone depletion 

kg CFC11 eq 

1,92E-09 

2,25E-09 

4,16E-09 

46% 

Ionising radiation, HH 

kBq U-235 eq 

1,83E-02 

2,35E-03 

2,06E-02 

89% 

Photochemical  ozone formation, 
HH 

kg NMVOC eq 

4,07E-04 

1,17E-04 

5,24E-04 

78% 

Respiratory inorganics 

disease inc. 

9,27E-09 

5,94E-09 

1,52E-08 

61% 

Non-cancer 
effects 

human 

health 

CTUh 

7,85E-08 

1,20E-08 

9,05E-08 

87% 

16% 

54% 

11% 

22% 

39% 

13% 

21 

 
 
 
 
Follow-up feasibility study on sustainable batteries 

Impact category 

Unit 

Total 

EndofLife_Ba
ttery 
Dismantling 

Na-ion 
battery 
pack, NMMT-
HC, 18650, 
at plant 

Na-ion 
battery 
pack, NMMT-
HC, 18650, 
at plant 

EndofLife
_Battery 
Dismantli
ng 

Cancer human health effects 

CTUh 

1,83E-09 

1,13E-09 

2,96E-09 

62% 

Acidification 
freshwater 

terrestrial 

and 

mol H+ eq 

1,88E-03 

7,76E-04 

2,65E-03 

71% 

38% 

29% 

Eutrophication freshwater 

kg P eq 

1,80E-05 

9,84E-06 

2,79E-05 

65% 

35% 

Eutrophication marine 

kg N eq 

4,63E-04 

2,85E-05 

4,92E-04 

94% 

Eutrophication terrestrial 

mol N eq 

2,88E-03 

3,03E-04 

3,19E-03 

91% 

Ecotoxicity freshwater 

CTUe 

4,92E-01 

4,10E-02 

5,33E-01 

92% 

Land use 

Pt 

6,43E+00 

1,29E-01 

6,55E+00 

98% 

Water scarcity 

m3 depriv. 

7,51E-02 

1,72E-02 

9,23E-02 

81% 

Resource use, energy carriers 

MJ 

1,64E+00 

4,29E-01 

2,07E+00 

79% 

Resource  use,  mineral  and 
metals 

kg Sb eq 

6,81E-07 

1,58E-06 

2,26E-06 

30% 

6% 

9% 

8% 

2% 

19% 

21% 

70% 

2.3.8.2. 

Normalized and weighted results for sodium-ion battery 

The normalized and weighted results for Na-ion battery are shown in Table 9. The EF Method (adapted) V1/Global 
(2010) with the toxicity categories is used to highlight the most relevant impact categories which have a cumulative 
contribution of greater than 80% to the total impact.  

Table 9: Normalized and weighted results for Na-ion battery. The highlighted impact categories are the most relevant 
impact categories that contribute >80% cumulatively to the total impact 

Impact category 

EF method (adapted)V1.00 Global (2010) with tox categories 

Na-ion battery pack  
manufacturing + EOL 

Contribution to total impact (%) 

Total 

Climate change 

Ozone depletion 

Ionising radiation, HH 

4.27E+01 

4.19E+00 

1.20E-02 

2.42E-01 

Photochemical ozone formation, HH 

6.13E-01 

10% 

0% 

1% 

1% 

22 

 
 
 
 
 
Follow-up feasibility study on sustainable batteries 

Impact category 

EF method (adapted)V1.00 Global (2010) with tox categories 

Na-ion battery pack  
manufacturing + EOL 

Contribution to total impact (%) 

Respiratory inorganics 

2.08E+00 

Non-cancer human health effects 

3.48E+00 

Cancer human health effects 

1.62E+00 

Acidification terrestrial and freshwater 

2.95E+00 

Eutrophication freshwater 

Eutrophication marine 

Eutrophication terrestrial 

Ecotoxicity freshwater 

Land use 

Water scarcity 

Resource use, energy carriers 

2.98E-01 

5.14E-01 

6.66E-01 

8.85E-01 

3.90E-01 

1.85E+01 

2.88E+00 

Resource use, mineral and metals 

3.37E+00 

5% 

8% 

4% 

7% 

1% 

1% 

2% 

2% 

1% 

43% 

7% 

8% 

2.3.8.3. 

Hotspots Analysis 

The most relevant life cycle stages based on the characterized results for each of the highlighted relevant impact 
categories is shown in Table 10. The most relevant process based on characterized results for each relevant impact 
category is shown in Table 11.  

Table 10: Most relevant life cycle stages based on characterized results  for the most relevant impact categories 

Impact category 

Production of the 
main product 

End-of-Life 

Climate Change (fossil) [kg CO2 eq.] 

Acidification terrestrial & freshwater [mol H+ eq.] 

Water scarcity [m3 depriv.] 

Resource use, energy carriers [MJ] 

Resource use, mineral and metals [kg Sb eq.] 

Respiratory inorganics [kg PM2.5 eq.] 

84% 

71% 

81% 

79% 

30% 

61% 

16% 

29% 

19% 

21% 

70% 

39% 

23 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Follow-up feasibility study on sustainable batteries 

Table 11: Most relevant processes during the life cycle of the Na-ion battery characterized for the most relevant impact 
categories 

Process Contribution (>80% contribution cumulative) 

Na-ion  
manufacturing + EOL 

Climate Change 

Sugar, from sugar beet| from sugar production, production mix| at plant| {EU+28} [LCI result] 

Electricity grid mix 1kV-60kV| AC, technology mix| consumption mix, at consumer| 1kV - 60kV 
{EU-28+3} [LCI result] 

Thermal energy from natural gas| technology mix regarding firing and flue gas cleaning| 
production mix, at heat plant| MJ, 100% efficiency {EU-28+3} [LCI result] 

Cobalt| hydro- and pyrometallurgical processes| production mix, at plant| >99% Co {GLO} [LCI 
result] 

Steel cast part alloyed| electric arc furnace route, from steel scrap, secondary production| single 
route, at plant| carbon steel {EU-28+EFTA} [LCI result] 

Nitrogen liquid production| technology mix| production mix, at plant| 100% active substance {RER} 
[LCI result] 

Process steam from natural gas| technology mix regarding firing and flue gas cleaning| 
production mix, at heat plant| MJ, 90% efficiency {EU-28+3} [LCI result] 

Nickel sulphate production| technology mix| production mix, at plant| 100% active substance {RER} 
[LCI result] 

Nickel| mining and processing| production mix, at plant| 8.9 g/cm3 {GLO} [LCI result] 

Manganese dioxide| Semisynthetic route from high-grade oxidic manganese ore| at plant| per kg 
{EU-28+3} [LCI result] 

28% 

18% 

12% 

7% 

3% 

3% 

3% 

2% 

2% 

1% 

Acidification terrestrial and freshwater 

Nickel sulphate production| technology mix| production mix, at plant| 100% active substance {RER} 
[LCI result] 

40% 

Sugar, from sugar beet| from sugar production, production mix| at plant| {EU+28} [LCI result] 

Nickel| mining and processing| production mix, at plant| 8.9 g/cm3 {GLO} [LCI result] 

Cobalt| hydro- and pyrometallurgical processes| production mix, at plant| >99% Co {GLO} [LCI 
result] 

Non-cancer human health effects 

Sugar, from sugar beet| from sugar production, production mix| at plant| {EU+28} [LCI result] 

Copper cathode| production mix| at plant| per kg {EU-28+3} [LCI result] 

Water scarcity 

Electricity grid mix 1kV-60kV| AC, technology mix| consumption mix, at consumer| 1kV - 60kV 
{EU-28+3} [LCI result] 

18% 

15% 

7% 

78% 

8% 

41% 

24 

 
 
 
  
  
  
  
Follow-up feasibility study on sustainable batteries 

Process Contribution (>80% contribution cumulative) 

Na-ion  
manufacturing + EOL 

Cobalt| hydro- and pyrometallurgical processes| production mix, at plant| >99% Co {GLO} [LCI 
result] 

15% 

Nickel sulphate production| technology mix| production mix, at plant| 100% active substance {RER} 
[LCI result] 

Sugar, from sugar beet| from sugar production, production mix| at plant| {EU+28} [LCI result] 

Nickel| mining and processing| production mix, at plant| 8.9 g/cm3 {GLO} [LCI result] 

Nitrogen liquid production| technology mix| production mix, at plant| 100% active substance {RER} 
[LCI result] 

Resource use, energy carriers 

Sugar, from sugar beet| from sugar production, production mix| at plant| {EU+28} [LCI result] 

Electricity grid mix 1kV-60kV| AC, technology mix| consumption mix, at consumer| 1kV - 60kV 
{EU-28+3} [LCI result] 

Thermal energy from natural gas| technology mix regarding firing and flue gas cleaning| 
production mix, at heat plant| MJ, 100% efficiency {EU-28+3} [LCI result] 

Cobalt| hydro- and pyrometallurgical processes| production mix, at plant| >99% Co {GLO} [LCI 
result] 

Steel cast part alloyed| electric arc furnace route, from steel scrap, secondary production| single 
route, at plant| carbon steel {EU-28+EFTA} [LCI result] 

Nitrogen liquid production| technology mix| production mix, at plant| 100% active substance {RER} 
[LCI result] 

Resource use, minerals and metals 

Copper cathode| production mix| at plant| per kg {EU-28+3} [LCI result] 

Cobalt| hydro- and pyrometallurgical processes| production mix, at plant| >99% Co {GLO} [LCI 
result] 

8% 

7% 

5% 

5% 

26% 

23% 

15% 

8% 

4% 

3% 

44% 

15% 

Nickel sulphate production| technology mix| production mix, at plant| 100% active substance {RER} 
[LCI result] 

14% 

Nickel| mining and processing| production mix, at plant| 8.9 g/cm3 {GLO} [LCI result] 

10% 

2.4. 

Sodium nickel chloride battery 

2.4.1. 

Functional unit 

Similar to sodium-ion, the PEFCR for batteries functional unit of 1 kWh of total energy provided by the battery over 
its service life was used. The functional unit for sodium nickel chloride or ZEBRA battery from hereon, is calculated 
using the method provided in the PEFCR and with information gathered from  Galloway et al (2003)4 . Table 12 
shows the parameters used to model the ZEBRA battery. 

25 

 
 
 
  
  
 
Follow-up feasibility study on sustainable batteries 

Table 12: Parameters used to calculate the functional unit, reference flow and the number of ZEBRA batteries applied 
within a residential ESS based on PEFCR for batteries1 method and data from Galloway et al (2003)4 

Parameter 

Nominal battery system capacity  

Unit 

kWh 

Economic lifetime of application (Tapp) 

y 

Depth of discharge (DoD) 

% 

Value 

Reference 

Galloway et al (2003) 

Ecodesign Batteries - Preparatory Study - 
Base Case 6 - Residential ESS (see Task 5 
report) 

21 

20 

- 

Energy delivered per cycle (Edc) 

kWh/cycle 

16.8 

Galloway et al (2003) 

Number of cycles for battery system over 
its service life (Nc) 

 Average capacity per cycle (Acc) 

Total weight of battery system 

- 

% 

kg 

Average net capacity per cycle until EoL 

kWh/cycle 

3 000 

Galloway et al (2003) 

Galloway et al (2003) 

Galloway et al (2003) 

0.8 

37 

- 

Functional unit over service life (QUa) 

kWh/service life 

40 320 

Calculated (Edc*Nc*Acc; as per PEFCR) 

Application Service (AS) (as defined in the 
preparatory study) 

kWh 

40 000 

Ecodesign Batteries - Preparatory Study - 
Base Case 6 - Residential ESS (see Task 5 
report) 

No. of battery systems per economic service 
life (Nb batt)  

- 

0.99 

Calculated (AS/Qua; as per PEFCR) 

Reference flow (Rf) 

kg  battery/kWh 

9.180E-04 

Calculated (Nb batt*mass/AS; as per 
PEFCR) 

26 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Follow-up feasibility study on sustainable batteries 

2.4.2. 

System boundary 

The system boundary includes the raw materials acquisition and manufacturing, and the end of life stages based 
on the availability of data.  

Life Cycle Stage 

Description 

Raw materials acquisition 

Included. Data sourced from Galloway et al (2003) 4 

Main product production 

Included. Data sourced from Galloway et al (2003) 4 

Distribution 

Not included. No data available 

Use  

Not included. Deviation from PEFCR for batteries 

End of life recycling 

Included. Data sourced from PEFCR for batteries1. Modified to suit data for 
ZEBRA batteries recycling4 

2.4.3. 

Raw materials acquisition and main product production stage 

The manufacturing of the ZEBRA battery was modelled by ecoinvent mainly based on Galloway et al (2003) and the 
dataset is available in SimaPro. This dataset was recreated using EF compliant datasets and activity data from 
Galloway et al (2003)4. The life cycle inventory used for modelling the raw materials acquisition and manufacturing 
ZEBRA battery is shown in Table 13.  

27 

 
 
 
Follow-up feasibility study on sustainable batteries 

Table 13: Life cycle inventory for manufacturing of ZEBRA battery. Activity data from Galloway et al (2003)4 

Material/Process 

Geographical 
reference 

EF compliant dataset name 

If no EF compliant dataset 
available, dataset name - source 

Unit 

Amount per kg 
battery 

Proxy: Y/N 

Manufacturing (production of main product) 

Power_battery 

EU-28+3 

Electricity grid mix 1kV-60kV| AC, technology mix| consumption 
mix, at consumer| 1kV - 60kV  

kWh/kg 
battery 

2.34E+00 

Active components per cell  

Anode 

Sodium chloride powder 
production 

Helium 

Cathode 

Nickel 

Copper 

Pig Iron 

Electrolyte 

RER 

GLO 

GLO 

Sodium chloride powder production| technology mix| production 
mix, at plant| 100% active substance 

Helium - ecoinvent database 

Nickel| mining and processing| production mix, at plant| 8.9 
g/cm3 

EU-28+3 

Copper cathode 

GLO 

Pig Iron - ecoinvent database 

Aluminium oxide production 

 GLO 

Aluminium oxide production| technology mix| production mix, at 
plant| 100% active substance 

Separator 

Polyethylene terephthalate 

EU-28 

Polyethylene terephthalate (PET) granulate secondary  no metal 
fraction | from post-consumer plastic waste, via grinding, metal 

28 

kg/kg 
battery 

kg/kg 
battery 

kg/kg 
battery 

kg/kg 
battery 

kg/kg 
battery 

kg/kg 
battery 

kg/kg 
battery 

2.61E-01 

5.57E-05 

1.78E-01 

3.56E-02 

1.66E-01 

1.66E-01 

2.20E-02 

 
 
 
  
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
 
 
 
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
 
  
  
 
  
  
  
  
 
  
Follow-up feasibility study on sustainable batteries 

Material/Process 

Geographical 
reference 

EF compliant dataset name 

If no EF compliant dataset 
available, dataset name - source 

Unit 

Amount per kg 
battery 

Proxy: Y/N 

separation, washing, pelletization | single route, at consumer | 
plastic waste without metal fraction 

Passive components per cell  

Battery casing 

Steel part 

EU-28+EFTA 

Steel cast part alloyed| electric arc furnace route, from steel 
scrap, secondary production| single route, at plant| carbon steel 

Cooling system 

EU-28+EFTA 

Tin plated chromium steel sheet| steel sheet tin plating| single 
route, at plant| chromium steel 

Silicone foam insulation 

GLO 

Silicone resins 

Battery Management System  

BMS 

World 

Capacitor, electrolyte| technology mix| production mix, at plant| 
electrolyte, height <2 cm 

kg/kg 
battery 

kg/kg 
battery 

kg/kg 
battery 

4.12E-02 

9.89E-02 

4.12E-02 

p/kg battery 

8.72E-03 

29 

 
 
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
 
  
 
  
 
 
 
  
 
 
Follow-up feasibility study on sustainable batteries 

2.4.4. 

Distribution stage 

Due to lack of data, this phase is not included within this assessment. 

2.4.5. 

Use stage impact from energy losses 

Due to uncertainties arising in the use phase energy consumption and losses, this phase is not considered within the 
scope of this study. Related to this it is important to know that a major drawback of the ZEBRA battery is that it is 
a high temperature technology but as we do not model the losses this drawback is not considered and taken into 
account. 

Note however that the functional unit depends on the life time assumptions which depend on the use stage and 
therefore this impact is taken into account. 

2.4.6. 

End of Life stage  

The ZEBRA battery recycling is modelled based on data from Galloway et al (2003) and supplemented with the 
PEFCR for batteries end of life model. The first step in the recycling process is the dismantling of the ZEBRA battery 
system including cell and box. The box material of steel and silicon dioxide is recycled. The cells contain nickel, iron, 
salts and ceramic which are recycled by adding to the steel melting process of stainless steel production4.  

To model the end of life of the ZEBRA battery, the battery recycling process used in the PEFCR batteries is used as 
a baseline. Additionally, the passive components materials (steel) are recycled as per Galloway et al (2003). The 
stainless steel production is modified with additions of nickel and iron. The salt from the cell collects as the slag 
and is sold as replacement for lime in road construction. The CFF formula and the parameters remain the same as 
applied for sodium-ion.  

The CFF formula for calculating the environmental impact of the EOL stage reduces to : 

(1-A)R2 x ErecyclingEoL for recycling of materials and  

(1-A)R2 x (-E*v x QSout/Qp) for lime replacement 

The life cycle inventory used for modelling the end of life of ZEBRA battery is provided in Table 14. 

30 

 
 
 
 
 
Follow-up feasibility study on sustainable batteries 

Table 14: Life cycle inventory of the end of life modelling for ZEBRA battery (based on data from Galloway et al (2003) and supplemented with the PEFCR for batteries end of life 
model) 

Material/Process 

Geographical 
reference 

EF compliant dataset name 

Battery cell recycling 

EU-27 

Electricity grid mix 

EU-27 

EU-27 

EU-27 

DE 

EU-27 

EU-27 

EU-27 

EU-27 

EU-27 

EU-27 

DE 

DE 

GLO 

GLO 

Thermal energy from natural gas 

Process steam from natural gas 

Tap water 

Lime production 

Hard coal mix 

Sodium hydroxide production 

Sulphuric acid production (100%) 

Landfill of inert (steel) 

Treatment of residential wastewater, large plant 

Process steam from natural gas 

Manganese 

Nickel (updated) 

Cobalt 

Copper cathode 

Battery cell recycling 
credits (depending on cell 
composition) 

EU-27 

Steel cold rolled coil / Steel cast part alloyed 

Passive parts recycling 

EU-28+EFTA 

Recycling of steel into steel scrap: Steel billet (St) 

31 

Unit 

Amount per kg battery 

MJ/kg battery 

6.90E-01 

MJ/kg battery 

2.07E+00 

MJ/kg battery 

6.48E+00 

kg/kg battery 

7.63E+00 

kg/kg battery 

4.00E-02 

kg/kg battery 

3.00E-02 

kg/kg battery 

1.90E-01 

kg/kg battery 

6.60E-01 

kg/kg battery 

9.00E-02 

kg/kg battery 

8.27E+00 

kg/kg battery 

1.46E+00 

kg/kg battery 

2.00E-01 

kg/kg battery 

4.00E-02 

kg/kg battery 

5.00E-02 

kg/kg battery 

3.00E-02 

kg/kg battery 

0.00E+00 

kg/kg battery 

4.70E-01 

 
 
 
Follow-up feasibility study on sustainable batteries 

Material/Process 

Geographical 
reference 

EF compliant dataset name 

Unit 

Amount per kg battery 

EU-28+EFTA 

Landfill of inert (steel) 

kg/kg battery 

n.a. 

EU-28+EFTA 

Recycling of aluminium into aluminium scrap - from post-consumer 

kg/kg battery 

1.66E-01 

EU-28+EFTA 

Landfill of inert material (other materials) 

EU-28+EFTA 

Recycling of copper from electronic and electric waste 

DE 

Lime (CaO finelime) | technology mix | production mix, at plant | CaO finelime, density of CaO: 3,37 g·cm-3 
(20 °C), molar mass of CaO: 56,08 g·mol-1 

Passive parts credits 

EU-28+EFTA 

Aluminium ingot mix (high purity) 

EU-28+EFTA 

Copper cathode 

EU-28+EFTA 

LDPE granulates 

EU-28+EFTA 

Steel cast part alloyed 

kg/kg battery 

n.a. 

kg/kg battery 

3.56E-02 

kg/kg battery 

-1.31E-02 

kg/kg battery 

6.00E-02 

kg/kg battery 

9.00E-03 

kg/kg battery 

2.20E-02 

kg/kg battery 

5.00E-02 

32 

 
 
 
 
 
2.4.7. 

LCA modelling using the PEFCR method 

The similar hierarchical way of selecting the type of dataset as described in section 2.3.7 was applied for the ZEBRA 
battery. The processes that were not available for modelling the ZEBRA batteries is listed. Since the ZEBRA battery 
model exists in ecoinvent, processes that were not available as EF compliant datasets were replaced with ecoinvent 
3.5 data (Table 15).  

Table 15: List of processes not available as EF compliant datasets for ZEBRA battery PEF modelling and for which 
ecoinvent datasets were used 

No. 
1 
2 
3 
4 

Name of process 
Helium production 
Metal working, average for metal product manufacturing processing 
Pig iron 
Electronics, for control units 

2.4.8. 

PEF results for ZEBRA battery 

2.4.8.1. 

Characterized results for ZEBRA battery 

The characterized results for ZEBRA battery are shown in  Table 16. The impact assessment method used is: EF 
method (adapted) V1.00 Global (2010) with tox categories.  

Table 16: Characterized results per 1 kWh functional unit of ZEBRA battery 

Impact category 

Unit 

Battery 
production,NaCl 
rechargeable, 
38Ah/2,58V 

Total 

EndofLife_B
attery Cell 
Dismantling 

Battery 
production,NaCl 
rechargeable, 
38Ah/2,58V 

EndofLife_B
attery Cell 
Dismantling 

Climate change 

kg CO2 eq 

5.59E-03 

1.48E-03 

Ozone depletion 

kg CFC11 eq 

6.99E-10 

1.18E-10 

Ionising radiation, HH 

kBq U-235 eq 

7.01E-04 

1.11E-04 

Photochemical ozone 
formation, HH 

kg NMVOC eq 

3.68E-05 

3.02E-06 

Respiratory inorganics 

disease inc. 

2.02E-09 

8.41E-11 

Non-cancer human health 
effects 

CTUh 

3.82E-09 

9.57E-11 

Cancer human health effects 

CTUh 

3.21E-10 

1.25E-11 

Acidification terrestrial and 
freshwater 

mol H+ eq 

3.17E-04 

9.47E-06 

7,07E-03 

8,17E-10 

8,12E-04 

3,98E-05 

2,10E-09 

3,92E-09 

3,33E-10 

3,26E-04 

79% 

86% 

86% 

92% 

96% 

98% 

96% 

97% 

Eutrophication freshwater 

kg P eq 

2.51E-06 

3.10E-08 

2,54E-06 

99% 

21% 

14% 

14% 

8% 

4% 

2% 

4% 

3% 

1% 

 
 
 
 
Impact category 

Unit 

Battery 
production,NaCl 
rechargeable, 
38Ah/2,58V 

Total 

EndofLife_B
attery Cell 
Dismantling 

Battery 
production,NaCl 
rechargeable, 
38Ah/2,58V 

EndofLife_B
attery Cell 
Dismantling 

Eutrophication marine 

kg N eq 

6.45E-06 

8.61E-07 

Eutrophication terrestrial 

mol N eq 

8.08E-05 

9.24E-06 

Ecotoxicity freshwater 

CTUe 

1.33E-02 

4.66E-04 

Land use 

Pt 

3.83E-02 

3.03E-03 

Water scarcity 

m3 depriv. 

1.13E-03 

7.45E-04 

Resource use, energy carriers 

MJ 

6.27E-02 

2.52E-02 

Resource use, mineral and 
metals 

kg Sb eq 

3.22E-07 

1.37E-08 

7,31E-06 

9,00E-05 

1,37E-02 

4,14E-02 

1,87E-03 

8,79E-02 

3,36E-07 

88% 

90% 

97% 

93% 

60% 

71% 

96% 

12% 

10% 

3% 

7% 

40% 

29% 

4% 

2.4.8.2. 

Normalized and weighted Results for ZEBRA battery 

The  normalized  and  weighted  results  are  shown  in  Table  17.  The  most  relevant  impact  categories  based  on  a 
cumulative contribution of greater than 80% to the total impact are highlighted in the table. The EF methodV1.0.6 
without toxic categories is used for calculating the contribution to the total impact.  

Table 17: Normalized and Weighted impacts of 1kWh of ZEBRA battery. The impact categories with a total cumulative 
contribution of >80% are highlighted as the most relevant impact categories 

Impact category 

EF method (adapted) V1,00 Global (2010) with tox categories 

Battery production + EOL, 
NaCl, rechargeable, 
38Ah/2,58V 

Contribution to total impact (%) 

Total 

Climate change 

Ozone depletion 

Ionising radiation, HH 

3.09E+00 

1.89E-01 

2.21E-03 

9.63E-03 

Photochemical ozone formation, HH 

4.66E-02 

Respiratory inorganics 

2.95E-01 

Non-cancer human health effects 

1.52E-01 

6.1% 

0.1% 

0.3% 

1.5% 

9.5% 

4.9% 

 
 
 
 
 
Impact category 

EF method (adapted) V1,00 Global (2010) with tox categories 

Battery production + EOL, 
NaCl, rechargeable, 
38Ah/2,58V 

Contribution to total impact (%) 

Cancer human health effects 

1.84E-01 

Acidification terrestrial and freshwater 

3.63E-01 

Eutrophication freshwater 

Eutrophication marine 

Eutrophication terrestrial 

Ecotoxicity freshwater 

Land use 

Water scarcity 

Resource use, energy carriers 

2.79E-02 

7.57E-03 

1.87E-02 

2.22E-02 

2.45E-03 

1.13E+00 

1.46E-01 

Resource use, mineral and metals 

4.95E-01 

2.4.8.3. 

Hotspot Analysis 

5.9% 

11.7% 

0.9% 

0.2% 

0.6% 

0.7% 

0.1% 

36.6% 

4.7% 

16.0% 

Based on the most relevant impact categories, the life cycle stages which have the most relevant contributions are 
calculated (Table 18). These calculations are made based on the characterized results shown in Table 16. 

Table 18: Most relevant life cycle stages based on most relevant impact categories 

Impact category 

Production of the 
main product 

End-of-Life 

Climate Change [kg CO2 eq.] 

Respiratory inorganics [kg PM2.5 eq.] 

Acidification terrestrial & freshwater [mol H+ eq.] 

Water scarcity [m3 depriv.] 

Resource use, mineral and metals [kg Sb eq.] 

80% 

96% 

97% 

92% 

96% 

20% 

4% 

3% 

8% 

4% 

The  most  relevant  processes  for  each  of  the  most  relevant  impact  categories  is  also  calculated  based  on  the 
characterized results. The cumulative contribution of the processes >80% to each of the relevant impact categories 
is shown in Table 19.  

Table 19: Most relevant processes contributing >80% cumulative impacts to the relevant impact categories 

 
 
 
Process Contribution (>80% contribution cumulative) 

ZEBRA Battery 
manufacturing + EOL 

Climate Change 

Nickel| mining and processing| production mix, at plant| 8.9 g/cm3 {GLO} [LCI result] 

Electricity grid mix 1kV-60kV| AC, technology mix| consumption mix, at consumer| 1kV - 60kV 
{EU-28+3} [LCI result] 

Process steam from natural gas| technology mix regarding firing and flue gas cleaning| 
production mix, at heat plant| MJ, 90% efficiency {EU-28+3} [LCI result] 

Silicone resins| Technology mix| Production mix, at plant|  {GLO} [LCI result] 

Pig iron {GLO}| production | Cut-off, U 

25% 

14% 

8% 

4% 

3% 

Stainless steel hot rolled| hot rolling| production mix, at plant| stainless steel {ROW} [LCI result] 

3% 

Copper cathode| production mix| at plant| per kg {EU-28+3} [LCI result] 

Aluminium oxide production| technology mix| production mix, at plant| 100% active substance 
{GLO} [LCI result] 

Heat, district or industrial, other than natural gas {Europe without Switzerland}| heat production, 
light fuel oil, at industrial furnace 1MW | Cut-off, U 

Sodium hydroxide production| technology mix| production mix, at plant| 100% active substance 
{RER} [LCI result] 

Thermal energy from natural gas| technology mix regarding firing and flue gas cleaning| 
production mix, at heat plant| MJ, 100% efficiency {EU-28+3} [LCI result] 

Sulphuric acid production| technology mix| production mix, at plant| 100% active substance {RER} 
[LCI result] 

Heat, district or industrial, natural gas {Europe without Switzerland}| heat production, natural gas, 
at boiler modulating >100kW | Cut-off, U 

Capacitor, electrolyte| technology mix| production mix, at plant| electrolyte, hight <2 cm {World} 
[LCI result] 

Recycling of aluminium into aluminium scrap - from post-consumer| collection, transport, 
pretreatment, remelting| production mix, at plant| aluminium waste, efficiency 90% {EU-28+EFTA} 
[LCI result] 

3% 

3% 

3% 

2% 

2% 

2% 

1% 

1% 

1% 

Heat, district or industrial, other than natural gas {RoW}| heat production, at hard coal industrial 
furnace 1-10MW | Cut-off, U 

1% 

 
 
 
 
Process Contribution (>80% contribution cumulative) 

ZEBRA Battery 
manufacturing + EOL 

Steel cast part alloyed| electric arc furnace route, from steel scrap, secondary production| single 
route, at plant| carbon steel {EU-28+EFTA} [LCI result] 

Hard coal {CN}| hard coal mine operation and hard coal preparation | Cut-off, U 

Sinter, iron {GLO}| production | Cut-off, U 

Electricity, high voltage {DE}| electricity production, lignite | Cut-off, U 

Recycling of steel into steel scrap| collection, transport, pretreatment, remelting| production mix, 
at plant| steel waste, efficiency 95% {EU-28+EFTA} [LCI result] 

1% 

1% 

1% 

1% 

1% 

Acidification terrestrial and freshwater 

Nickel| mining and processing| production mix, at plant| 8.9 g/cm3 {GLO} [LCI result] 

83% 

Respiratory inorganics 

Nickel| mining and processing| production mix, at plant| 8.9 g/cm3 {GLO} [LCI result] 

82% 

Water scarcity 

Nickel| mining and processing| production mix, at plant| 8.9 g/cm3 {GLO} [LCI result] 

Electricity grid mix 1kV-60kV| AC, technology mix| consumption mix, at consumer| 1kV - 60kV 
{EU-28+3} [LCI result] 

Resource use, minerals and metals 

Copper cathode| production mix| at plant| per kg {EU-28+3} [LCI result] 

Nickel| mining and processing| production mix, at plant| 8.9 g/cm3 {GLO} [LCI result] 

59% 

24% 

49% 

44% 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
3. 

Conclusion for implementing PEFCR for batteries 

This study shows the application of the PEFCR for batteries to two stationary battery types: sodium-ion and sodium 
nickel chloride.  

In principle, the PEFCR for Batteries can be applied for the current and emerging technologies in its current form. 
But there needs to be deviations to applying the PEFCR as the use phase is currently included in the PEFCR while 
this study has explicitly not included the use phase in the calculations.  

There were some underlying issues identified in applying the PEFCR for batteries for the two battery types selected 
for this study. The following paragraphs detail the missing details. 

3.0. 

Functional Unit 

The functional unit calculations in this study are based on assumptions about stationary battery systems and data 
from publicly available data sources for particular battery types. Some of the assumptions such as mass of battery, 
number of cycles and depth of discharge have an impact on the functional unit and need to be reported for the 
calculation of the functional unit. The formula as is used in the PEFCR for batteries requires additional values to 
calculate the parameters used in the functional unit. For example, the energy delivered per cycle (Edc) for the Na-
ion battery was not available. A calculation was made in this study based on the nominal battery system capacity 
and the depth of discharge which were parameters based on the preparatory study for stationary application case. 
But such information might not be readily available for emerging battery solutions which hinders the functional unit 
calculation. The PEFCR for batteries does not include a calculation for any of the battery types included. An example 
of functional unit calculation for the relevant battery types of the PEFCR will be a useful addition to model other 
battery types.  

3.1. 

Lifetime calculation 

The Economic lifetime of application (Tapp) was expressed in a Number of cycles for battery system over its service 
life (Nc). This value was used to calculate the amount of needed batteries. However, batteries age also over time. 
This is expressed as Calendar life. In the Ecodesign Batteries - Preparatory Study (see Task 5 report) both the Cycle 
life and the Calendar life were taken into account by taking the inverse proportional value of both lives. This is a 
hypothetical construction since in reality not a clear split can be made between calendar life and cycle life. Still both 
ageing mechanisms exist and using only Cycle life leads to an under-estimation of the needed amount of batteries.  

3.2. 

Availability of primary data 

The study is dependent on primary activity data from manufacturers to model the different battery chemistries. In 
addition,  datasets  used  to  model  different  battery  chemistries  beyond  Li-ion  are  also  necessary.  This  study 
highlighted some of the EF datasets that are currently unavailable to model the studied batteries. The more datasets 
that are available, the less the proxy data or datasets from other databases will be used for LCA modelling of 
different batteries. The data collection process is the most time consuming process and this study emphasised the 
need for more EF compliant datasets to model batteries.  

3.3. 

End of Life Modelling 

The end of life modelling of batteries is dependent on each battery technology and its recycling method in place. 
This can be a challenge for emerging technologies. The PEFCR for batteries has information for modelling the end 
of  life  for  Li-ion  batteries.  However,  the  PEFCR  Excel  output  is  not  uidetailed  enough  to  model  a  battery  type 

 
 
 
 
accurately. The blocks for battery cell, passive parts, OEM recycling and credits are not represented intuitively for a 
LCA modeler.  The screenshots for the Gabi model do not match with all the blocks for battery cell and other parts 
recycling and credits in the EoL phase in the PEFCR Excel. This can be a challenge for a modeler relying only on the 
PEFCR Excel for guidance and also to use any LCA software tool other than Gabi.  

The battery cell recycling process is specific to battery types. Emerging and new battery types that do not have an 
established recycling process will not be able to accurately model this phase and will have to rely on lithium ion 
recycling processes.  

The activity data along with the default parameters can be used to apply the Circular Footprint Formula when there 
is lack of data available.  The parameters are material specific and should be applied as is material and region 
specific to the manufacture. The more specific activity data a manufacturer provides, the better the PEF profile will 
be for a particular battery type.  

The application of the Circular Footprint Formula (CFF) method as is currently in the PEFCR to implement the method 
for modelling is not sufficiently explained. A more detailed description of the mass balance and an example of how 
the parameters are applied for an example material will be useful to clearly understand how to use the PEFCR for 
batteries for other battery types. Currently, the PEFCR for batteries Excel does not clearly show the application of 
the CFF, which will be a challenge to modelers.  

The results shown in this study are not a PEF benchmark as they represent only one data point for each battery 
type. This study is an example application for batteries that are currently not in the PEFCR for batteries.  

 
 
 
GETTING IN TOUCH WITH THE EU 

In person  

All over the European Union, there are hundreds of Europe Direct information centres. You 
can  find  the  address  of  the  centre  nearest  you  at: https://europa.eu/european-union/contact/meet-
us_en  

On the phone or by email 

Europe Direct is a service that answers your questions about the European Union. You can 
contact this service: 

- by Freephone: 00 800 6 7 8 9 10 11 (certain operators may charge for these calls), 

- at the following standard number: +32 2 299 96 96, or 

- by email via: https://europa.eu/european-union/contact_en  

FINDING INFORMATION ABOUT THE EU 

Online  

Information about the European Union in all the official languages of the EU is available 
on the Europa website at: https://europa.eu/european-union/index_en 

EU publications 

You can download or order free and priced EU publications from: 

https://publications.europa.eu/en/publications.  

Multiple copies of free publications may be obtained by contacting Europe Direct or your 
local information centre (see https://europa.eu/european-union/contact/meet-us_en ).  

EU law and related documents 

For  access  to  legal  information  from  the  EU,  including  all  EU  law  since  1952  in  all  the 
official language versions, go to EUR-Lex at: http://eur-lex.europa.eu  

Open data from the EU 

The  EU  Open Data Portal (http://data.europa.eu/euodp/en) provides access to datasets 
from the EU. Data can be downloaded and reused for free, for both commercial and non-
commercial purposes.