## 3 Life Cycle Impact Assessment: Results and Interpretations
### Comparison of the NMC and ZEBRA Batteries  
Figure 6 compares the environmental impacts of the NMC111 and ZEBRA battery-pack production stages (cathode, cell and non-cell material production, energy use, and battery transport from the manufacturing plant to the customer). The production of the ZEBRA battery had been analysed in a previous study by the same authors [35] for application to the same LDCV as that of the present paper. The impacts are compared on both an energy basis (per 1 kWh of the battery pack, Figure 6a) and on a mass basis (per 1 kg of battery pack, Figure 6b). The results are normalised with respect to the highest value of each category and are reported as a percentage of that value.  
Figure 5: Impacts per kWh of different NMC chemistries (**a**) for the global warming potential (GWP) impact; (**b**) for the abiotic resource depletion potential (ADP) impact; (**c**) for the photochemical oxidation potential (POP) impact; (**d**) for the AP impact.  
The impacts of the NMC111 production have already been discussed in detail in Section 3.1, whereas the ZEBRA battery production impacts are summarised in Figure S3. The production of Nickel for the ZEBRA battery and the electricity required for the production process have an important impact in all the categories. It should be recalled that Nickel is responsible for up to 91% of the POP and 92% of the AP.  
The comparison of NMC111 and ZEBRA on an energy basis (Figure 6a) shows a better environmental impact of NMC111 for most of the categories, except for GWP, ADP-FF, CED, and ODP. It should be pointed out that the energy mix of the production location affects the GWP of the batteries, and the NMC111 battery is produced in China in this  
Figure 6: Comparison of the NMC111 and ZEBRA manufacturing stages (**a**) energy basis; (**b**) mass basis. The impacts are normalised to the highest score in each category.  
study, whereas the ZEBRA battery is produced in Switzerland. Similar results to those of Figure 6a are apparent from the comparison on a mass basis in Figure 6b, even though the ZEBRA impacts are closer to those of NMC111 for most of the categories in which NMC111 performs better on an energy basis, and become better than NMC111 for EP. Moreover, the impacts of ZEBRA are further reduced, with respect to NMC111, for the categories in which NMC111 performs worse on an energy basis.  
The EoL of NMC111 was analysed and discussed in Section 3.1. As far as the EoL of ZEBRA is concerned, there is a general lack of data on the recycling ecoprofiles [4]. For example, the EoL step was accounted for in the life cycle assessment of the ZEBRA battery reported in [46]. That study considered the average data of a European recycling process made up of a combination of the recycling processes for Lithium-ion and Nickel-metal hydride batteries. In this study, although all the components of a ZEBRA battery can be recycled, the EoL stage always increases the battery impact categories (GWP, ODP, HTP, M-ECOTP, F-ECOTP, T-ECOTP, POP, and AP were analysed in [46]) and accounts for \(1.79\div 7.13\%\) of the total impact derived from the ZEBRA battery, depending on which impact category is considered (e.g., 4.07% for GWP). On the basis of these considerations, the EoL stage would not change the ranking of ZEBRA and NMC111 for the impact categories reported in Figure 6. In other words, EoL would further reduce the environmental impact of NMC111 for the impact categories in which the manufacturing stage of NMC111 shows smaller values than ZEBRA. EoL would not change the comparison of the other categories to any great extent, except for ODP, where the impact of NMC111 would further increase with respect to ZEBRA.