Abstract

Keywords

1. Introduction

2. Methodology

2.1. LIBs and system boundaries

2.2. The battery system of electric passenger cars

2.3. The phase of production

2.4. The phase of usage

2.5. The phase of recycling

3. Life cycle environmental impact assessment

4. Conclusions

CRediT authorship contribution statement

Declaration of Competing Interest

Acknowledgments

Appendix.

References

Abstract

The use of electric vehicles is for reducing carbon emissions, thereby reducing environmental pollution caused by transportation. However, the large-scale production and application of electric vehicle batteries have brought another notable issue, i.e., the production and application of these batteries also cause environmental pollution. Particularly, the precious metal materials used in the batteries are harmful to human health and the surrounding ecological system. Nowadays, many types of batteries are available. It is essential to understand which of them is most suitable for electric vehicles from the perspective of environmental protection. To answer this question, the life cycle environmental impact assessment of LiFePO 4 battery and Li(NiCoMn)O2 battery, which are being popularly used in pure electric passenger vehicles, are conducted in this paper. The research has shown that the two types of batteries show different environmental impact features in different phases. For example, LiFePO 4 batteries are more environmentally friendly in the phase of production, while Li(NiCoMn)O2 batteries are more eco-friendly in the application and transportation phases. Despite this, LiFePO 4 batteries are generally more environmentally friendly than Li(NiCoMn)O2 batteries from the perspective of the entire life cycle. In addition, the research results also suggest that due to the heavier mass, LiFePO 4 batteries can probably gain more benefit when used for energy storage.

1. Introduction

Electric vehicles (EVs) are considered to be carbon-free, which helps to slow climate change, improve public health, and reduce ecological damage. Coupled with the increasing pressure to achieve the net-zero target, the global EV market has taken a huge leap forward in the past decade (Du et al., 2017). In 2019, the number of light EVs globally reached 2,264,400 units, which is 9% higher than in 2018. Take the world’s largest EV market, China, as an example, only 5,000 EVs were sold in the Chinese market in 2011. In 2018, China sold 984,000 pure EVs, which was an increase of 50.8% over the previous year (China Association of Automobile Manufacture, 2019). In 2019, more than 1 million EVs were sold in China, and the stock of EVs reached 3.8 million (Sun et al., 2020). These data imply that there will be more and more EVs running on the road in the following years.

Since batteries are the only source of power for EVs, the globally booming EV market means that a huge number of Lithium-ion power batteries (LIBs) will be produced, used, and disposed of in the future (IEA, 2020). For example, the cumulative installed capacity of LIBs reached about 206 GWh in China by the end of 2019 (MIIT, 2019). Among these LIBs, LiFePO4 batteries and Li(NiCoMn)O2 batteries dominate the market, but their market shares changed over time. The market shares of LiFePO4 batteries, Li(NiCoMn)O2 batteries, and lithium titanate (LTO) batteries were respectively 28%, 18%, and 21% before 2016 (MIIT, 2019). Since 2016, the market share of Li(NiCoMn)O2 batteries increases rapidly. During the period from 2016 to 2018, more than 80% of electric passenger cars in China used Li(NiCoMn)O2 batteries. This situation changed again in 2019 when manufacturers favored using LiFePO4 batteries to power electric passenger cars.

1- Introduction

2- Framework for resource recovery and CE into buildings

3- Study methodology

4- Results and discussion

5- Conclusions

References

Abstract

Buildings are responsible for a significant natural resources diminution and emissions to the environment. Thus, the building industry has become a global target for reducing environmental impacts and curbing resource depletion. Concerning the rapidly growth of buildings, life cycle assessment (LCA) is increasingly used for assessing and mitigating the associated environmental impacts from material selection to the whole building systems. However, many of the previous studies have focused on the impacts assessment from buildings within a restricted system boundary, especially lack of consideration of several critical factors when assessing the whole building, such as wastage level of raw materials during building construction and the disposal impacts, renovation and replacement of components of building and their treatment, and waste treatments during building demolition. As the industry is shifting from linear to circular, the consideration of those factors are essential for ensuring waste reduction, resources recovery and resource-efficient construction, not to mention about increasing the accuracy of such assessment. Therefore, the present study was conducted to assess the environmental impacts of the mentioned aspects at different life cycles of building by LCA. The results were then critically discussed after identifying the contribution of waste materials at different stages of building to the total impacts. The potential sustainable strategies for waste treatments during the construction, operation and end-of-life stages of building were then highlighted to help lay important foundation for adopting circular economy principle in the building industry and establishing benchmark for future reduction.

Introduction

The construction industry is one of the main contributors to environmental burdens, consuming significant amount of non-renewable bulk resources and raw materials, and causing considerable waste streams (Faleschini et al., 2016). While the industry plays an important role for economic contribution and social development throughout the world (Vitale et al., 2017), the industry also contributes to about 40% of depletion of natural resources, 18% of greenhouse gas emissions, and 25% of wastes globally (Teh et al., 2018). The building sector consumes a substantial amount of resources and is, therefore, one of the largest contributors towards environmental impacts (Atmaca, 2016; de Klijn-Chevalerias and Javed, 2017). For example, buildings are responsible for about 40% of the total energy consumption and 36% of the total CO2 emissions worldwide (Pal et al., 2017). Therefore, increasing attention has been devoted in the building sector to minimize the environmental impacts globally (Hossain and Poon, 2018a). In addition to the selection of low impact, sustainable and durable materials, consideration of sustainable management of construction and demolition (C&D) waste is also important to minimizing the disposal problem and reducing the associated environmental burdens, as a huge amount of land is currently occupied for the disposal of those materials, leading to an increase in the ecological footprint of the sector (Faleschini et al., 2016). Due to the volume, nature and high recycling potential, C&D waste is a priority waste stream in many part of the world including the European Union (EU) (Vitale et al., 2017; Borghi et al., 2018). Because C&D waste puts huge pressure on depleting landfills and affects the environment adversely (Butera et al., 2015; Bovea and Powell, 2016; Akinade et al., 2018), it is important to improve the sustainability by adopting design solutions with the aim to optimize resource usage and minimize waste material generation, as restated in the EU action plan for a circular economy (CE) (Vitale et al., 2017). Therefore, further policies and strategies are needed for resource-efficient management of C&D waste as the current trends are to the landfill or downcycling practices (Di Maria et al., 2018), and thus, EU proposed a new framework for this waste in the CE package (GálvezMartos et al., 2018).

1- Introduction

2- Materials and methods

3- Results

4- Discussion

5- Conclusions

References

Abstract

Phosphorus mining from phosphate rock is associated with economic as well as environmental concerns. Through phosphorus recovery from municipal wastewater, countries could decrease their dependency on the global phosphate rock market, however, conceivably leading to an increase in environmental impacts from fertilizer production. In this work 18 phosphorus recovery technologies are evaluated in terms of cumulative energy demand, global warming potential and acidification potential with the methodology of life cycle analysis. These indicators are then contrasted with other environmental criteria, i.e. recovery potential, heavy metal and organic micropollutant decontamination potential and fertilizer efficiency, to determine their overall environmental performance. The LCA shows that a broad spectrum of changes in gaseous emissions and energy demand can be expected through the implementation of P recovery from wastewater. Linkage to further environmental performance results exposes certain trade-offs for the different technologies. Recovery from the liquid phase has mostly positive or comparably little impacts on emissions and energy demand but the low recovery potential contradicts the demand for efficient recycling rates. For recovery from sewage sludge, those technologies that already are or are close to being applied full-scale, are associated with comparatively high emissions and energy demand. Recovery from sewage sludge ash shows varying results, partly revealing trade-offs between heavy metal decontamination, emissions and energy demand. Nevertheless, recovery from ash is correlated with the highest potential for an efficient recycling of phosphorus. Further research should include implications of local infrastructures and legal frameworks to determine economically and environmentally optimised P recovery and recycling concepts.

Introduction

Phosphorus (P), as an essential nutrient for all life, takes on a substantial and non-replaceable role in our environment. Nevertheless, current P use practices are accompanied by various environmental concerns, as mining of P from raw phosphate rock (PR) leads to emissions to the air and eutrophication of water bodies, land degradation through phosphogypsum stacks near the mining site (phosphoric acid production) and soil contamination through cadmium (Cd) and uranium (U) application with fertilizers (FEI, 2000; Silva and Kulay, 2003, 2005; Spiegel et al., 2003; Smidt et al., 2012; Hakkou et al., 2016; Kratz and Schnug, 2016). While these environmental concerns cannot be neglected, it were economic concerns, i.e. the increasing awareness of the concentrated PR-mining in only a handful of countries worldwide, the overall increasing demand for P and the fact that PR is a nonrenewable resource, that led the European Commission to declare PR as a critical raw material in 2014 (EC, 2014). Simultaneously, research, governments and industry recognised the importance of another, for the major part unexploited P source: municipal wastewater. Municipal wastewater has the potential to substitute a significant portion of the demand for PR (Binder et al., 2009; Egle et al., 2014; Zoboli et al., 2016a,b) and therefore to increase circular economy while simultaneously reducing overall environmental impacts from current P use practices. Intensive research and innovation in recent years has led to the development of a broad spectrum of technologies for phosphorus recovery from wastewater. Their development was accompanied by comparative studies, dealing mainly with the technical and economic assessment of these technologies, in order to identify those that are technically applicable and can be considered market-feasible alternatives to PR-mining and conventional fertilizer production (Cornel and Schaum, 2009; LfU, 2015; Fux et al., 2015; Egle et al., 2015, 2016; Nättorp et al., 2017). However, to provide a more comprehensive picture for legislators dealing with how future P-recycling can be best put into action, knowledge as to how different technologies could impact the environment is an additional prerequisite.

This study aims at analyzing the relationship between determinantfactors of disclosure of information on environmental impacts of Brazilian companies. A descriptive, documental and quantitative research was conducted through a sample of 97 Brazilian companies. In the Sustainability Reports and in the Annual Reports information, five environmental aspects were collected: emissions, effluents, wastes, products and services; and transport, which were used to measure the degree of environmental disclosure. This concludes that there is a relationship between the variables investigated in all analyzed years. The size, audit and Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) are associated with disclosure and the Corporate Sustainability Index (CSI), Pollution Potential(POTEN), governance, stocks, Return on Assets (ROA) and Return on Equity (ROE) are not.

Introduction

In the last 30 years,the impact of companies on the environment has become a growing concern among environmentalists, legislators, customers, public authorities and society in general. Thus, 15 years ago companies began to emphasize more on environmental strategies in the light of institutional pressures. These strategies are reported by using indicators and can be classified according to the environmental commitment they represent (Albertini, 2013). The Legitimacy Theory provides explanations on the motivation of the administration to disseminate information regarding the environment in environmental reports (Wilmshurst & Frost, 2000). In this sense, Magness (2006) points outthat one ofthe principles ofthe Legitimacy Theory is that companies use the disclosure to transmit information on how they deal with the environment. For Kuo and Chen (2013), in recent years, this theory has become dominant in research about environmental disclosure, since the environmental legitimacy discloses the company as environmentally responsible. Nossa (2002) emphasizes that awareness and concern with the environment are increasingly present in society. That is why companies invest in environmental programs, because they discover that polluting is the same as wasting, not being efficient and not being able to compete. After all, society pressures government and companies regarding the preservation of the environment, and this pressure increases as the pollution caused by the activities of organizations increases. This is when companies set goals to minimize environmental impacts on emissions of liquid and gaseous effluents, recycling of materials, among others, in order to legitimize their activities. This study assumes that the environmental performance, transparency and economic performance lead companies to disclose information on the environmental impacts. This expectation is also verified in studies conducted by Hackston and Milne (1996), Zeng, Xu, Dong, and Tam (2010), Bouten, Everaert, and Roberts (2012), Wegener, Elayan, Felton, and Li (2013), Rosa, Guesser, Hein, Pfitscher, and Lunkes (2013) and Rosa, Lunkes, Hein, Vogt, and Degenhart (2014), who have specifically investigated the factors that lead companies to evidence, from the perspective of the Theory of Legitimacy. From the perspective of the Theory of Disclosure, Braga, Oliveira, and Salotti (2009) and Murcia and Santos (2009) also found some factors that lead a company to disclosure. However, none of these studies in particular used the three factors seen in this study.

The notion of green practices has become strategic important for many companies. Due to the increased concern about environmental sustainability, green practices are emphasized not only by governments but also by companies (Mitra and Datta, 2014). Globalization has also extended the scope of green practices. As firms rely more on their supply chain partners to obtain competitive advantage, green practices have been extended from single firms to the supply chain (Ghadimi et al., 2015; Zhu and Sarkis, 2004). For example, a Hong Kong toy manufacturer went bankrupt because it was sued by its US customers for using toxic paints purchased from a supplier (Ang, 2007). Accordingly, an increasing number of firms, especially large multinational corporations, are experiencing greater pressure from stakeholders to incorporate green practices into operations and supply chain practices (Rueda et al., 2017; Wilhelm et al., 2016; Zhu et al., 2017). In line with this trend, many studies have been conducted to understand the antecedents and results of green practices in terms of companies’ economic and environmental performance (Sharma and Vredenburg, 1998; Subramanian and Gunasekaran, 2015; Walker et al., 2008). These studies address the concept of green supply chain management (GSCM), which is defined as the application of environmental management principles to the entire set of supply chain activities, including design, procurement, manufacturing, assembling, packaging, logistics, and distribution (Handfield et al., 1997). In a thorough literature review by Walker et al. (2008), internal and external drivers and barriers to GSCM practices are identified in prior studies. Although great progress has been made concerning the drivers of GSCM practices in recent years, several issues remain unresolved. First, there are few studies on the cost considerations driving GSCM practices; existing studies focus on outside pressures, such as the government and customers (Yu and Ramanathan, 2015). These few studies are case-based, and there is a need for further investigation of the impact of cost drivers conducted with a large sample. Second, very few studies have investigated the cost and customer motivations for GSCM implementation simultaneously. It would be interesting to understand how cost and customer drivers individually and simultaneously influence GSCM practices (Sarkis et al., 2011). Finally, extant studies focus on various drivers of GSCM practices with limited consideration of their contingent effects of firm characteristics. For example, there are debates on “whether SMEs are able to do good-enjoy high social and environmental performance – given their struggles to do well – to even survive given the high failure rate” (Arend, 2014). As such, a comparative study of large and small companies is needed to examine these firms’ differences in adopting GSCM practices.