## 3 Life Cycle Impact Assessment: Results and Interpretations  
### NMC Battery Impact Assessment  
The life cycle impact assessment (LCIA) of the NMC battery described in the previous sections is reported in Figures 3 and 4 per 1 kWh of the battery pack. Figure 3: Impacts of NMC111 production and EoL per 1 kWh of battery pack (N.B. : the contribution of the battery use phase is not reported in this plot). Figure 3 shows the contributions of battery production and EoL to LCIA for the selected impact categories (abiotic resource depletion potential, global warming potential, cumulative energy demand, photochemical oxidation potential, acidification potential, and eutrophication potential). Since the production of cathodes is a key driver of LIB cradle-to-gate impacts [9], the impact due to cathode materials is reported separately in this figure. In particular, battery production is split into the production of the cathode (green bars), of the battery cell, excluding the cathode (orange bars), and of the non-cell materials (dark blue bars), along with the contributions of battery transport from the manufacturing plant to the customer (magenta bars). The total energy required for the manufacturing (of the cathode, cells, and the final assembly) is reported as a distinct contribution (light blue bars). Detailed results of all the impact categories are reported in Tables 10-11. The battery EoL includes the impact of both the cell and non-cell materials divided into three parts: for recycling (red bar), for further disposal (black bars) to quantify the impact due to the incineration and landfilling of materials, and environmental credits (yellow bars, negative values) in order to avoid the production of primary materials. The contributions related to the transport of used batteries to the recycling plant is also reported (purple bars). Detailed results of all the impact categories are reported in Table 10 (cell materials-EoL), Table 10 (cell material recycling) and Table 10 (non-cell materials -EoL). The solid black circles in Figure 3 indicate the net impact of each category (i.e., environmental credits are taken into account). Figure 3 shows, with reference to the Abiotic Depletion Potential (ADP), that the main impacts are related to cathode production (green bar, 69% of the total cathode production impact results from the extraction of Nickel) and cell production (orange bar, mainly because of Copper extraction). It is worth pointing out that the credits (yellow bar) have an important impact (\(-24\%\)), which is mainly due to the avoided extraction of raw materials for the cell. The main contributor to the global warming potential (GWP) is the total energy required for the manufacturing (light blue bar). This is mainly due to the production of the cathode, electrolyte, and battery pack. The percentage of the GWP impact attributable to the cathode is substantial, because of the extraction of Nickel and Cobalt. The main contributor, at the cell level, is Aluminium extraction. These outcomes are in line with other studies in the literature [34]. Considering the EoL stage, the main contributor is the recycling process (red bar), followed by further waste disposal (black bar). Sodium Hydroxide, Hydrogen Peroxide, Diesel oil, and the Electricity consumed during the process all contribute in nearly the same manner to the recycling process, whereas the incineration of graphite and carbon black are the main contributors to further waste disposal. It is worth noting that the GWP estimates depend to a great extent on the chosen electricity  
Figure 4: Cradle-to-grave life cycle assessment of the NMC111 battery. mix. As already mentioned, the case study assumes that the battery production occurs in China, whereas recycling is assumed to take place in Europe. The resulting GWP for the production and EoL phases is equal to 20.2 kgCO\({}_{2}\)/kgbattery-pack, including credits. If the battery production was moved to Europe, the electricity mix would change, and the transport logistics would be affected.