
EV battery production could increase SO2 pollution, with China and India facing distinct challenges. Clean supply chains, strict pollution standards, and alternative battery chemistries like lithium iron phosphate are essential to mitigating these effects while advancing decarbonization.
Electric vehicles are a key component of the global shift toward sustainable energy, but a new study from Princeton University highlights a significant challenge: the refining of critical minerals for EV batteries could lead to pollution hotspots near manufacturing centers.
The study focused on China and India, revealing that fully domesticating their supply chains for EV production could drive national sulfur dioxide (SO2) emissions up by as much as 20% compared to current levels. Most of these emissions would stem from the refining and production of nickel and cobalt, essential materials for modern electric vehicle batteries.
“Many discussions about electric vehicles focus on minimizing emissions from the transport and power sectors,” said corresponding author Wei Peng, an assistant professor of public and international affairs and the Andlinger Center for Energy and the Environment. “But we show here that the impacts of electric vehicles don’t end with vehicle tail-pipe emissions or electricity. It’s also about your entire supply chain.”
Publishing their findings in Environmental Science & Technology, the researchers argued that countries must think strategically about building clean supply chains as they develop decarbonization plans.
In the case of battery manufacturing, the team underscored the importance of developing and enforcing strict air pollution standards to avoid unintended consequences of the transition to electric vehicles. They also suggested the development of alternative battery chemistries to avoid the process-based SO2 emissions of manufacturing today’s batteries.
“If you dig deep enough into any clean energy technology, you will find there are challenges or tradeoffs,” said first author Anjali Sharma, who completed the work as a postdoctoral researcher in Peng’s group and is now an assistant professor in the Centre for Climate Studies and Ashank Desai Centre for Policy Studies at the Indian Institute of Technology, Bombay. “The existence of these tradeoffs doesn’t mean that we stop the energy transition, but it does mean that we need to act proactively to mitigate these tradeoffs as much as possible.”
A tale of two countries
Both China and India have good reasons to avoid SO2 emissions: the compound is a precursor to fine particulate matter, contributing to a host of cardiovascular and respiratory problems. The two countries already suffer from high levels of air pollution. In 2019 alone, around 1.4 million premature deaths in China and around 1.7 million premature deaths in India were attributable to fine particulate matter exposure.
However, the two countries are at different stages of development for electric vehicles. Peng said that in China, a domestic supply chain for electric vehicles is the status quo, but that India is still in the early stages of supply chain development. The comparison helped the researchers identify near-term priorities as they continue or begin to build a domestic supply chain for electric vehicles.
“China needs to be thinking about how to clean up a supply chain that already exists, while India has the opportunity to build a better supply chain from the ground up,” said Peng, who is also a core faculty at the Center for Policy Research on Energy and the Environment. “Both situations come with their own challenges and opportunities.”
In India, the lowest-hanging fruit would be to focus first on cleaning up pollution from the power sector. This would require enforcing stringent SO2 pollution control measures for thermal power plants, using mature technologies like flue-gas desulfurization. For China, which already has stringent emissions controls for the power sector, the focus needs to shift to mitigating SO2 emissions from the battery manufacturing process, which the researchers said is less familiar.
However, the researchers underscored that ignoring emissions from battery manufacturing would be a critical misstep. In scenarios where China and India fully onshored their supply chains, prioritizing a cleaner grid did little to nothing to lower SO2 emissions. Instead, only scenarios focused on cleaning up battery manufacturing processes avoided SO2 pollution hotspots.
“People generally assume the transition to a greener technology is always going to be a win-win — there will be climate and air quality benefits,” said Sharma. “But without considering manufacturing, you might lower carbon and nitrogen oxide emissions but end up increasing the air pollution burden for communities near manufacturing centers.”
Human-centered approaches to decarbonization
While the analysis focused on China and India, the researchers argued that if left unaddressed, pollution from battery manufacturing will become an increasingly global challenge as electric vehicle adoption rates rise. Even if countries like China and India were to outsource battery manufacturing, Sharma said that without strategies to mitigate SO2 emissions, they would simply be offloading the problem to another country.
“It’s important to look at electric vehicles from a global supply chain perspective,” Sharma said. “Even if India were to decide against building a domestic supply chain and instead chose to import them from somewhere else, the pollution wouldn’t go away. It would just be outsourced to another country.”
In addition to their policy recommendation for proactive air pollution standards, which would likely happen at the national or subnational level, the researchers also examined how changing the battery chemistry in electric vehicles could avoid unwanted SO2 emissions at a more global scale.
While most electric vehicle batteries today rely on cobalt and nickel, the rise of alternative chemistries that use iron and phosphate (so-called lithium iron phosphate batteries) could circumvent some of the concerns associated with mining and refining cobalt and nickel. By avoiding the two minerals, scenarios with high penetration of lithium phosphate batteries resulted in far fewer SO2 emissions from manufacturing.
In all events, Peng said the findings serve as a reminder to keep people at the top of mind when designing decarbonization plans, as even the most promising technologies could come with unwanted and unintended consequences.
“We know about many of the important technologies for cutting carbon emissions,” said Peng. “But the other part is how people will be affected by those technologies. My approach is to think about the best ways for technologies and people to intersect, because those strategies will have the best outcomes for the greatest number of people.”
Reference: “Multisectoral Emission Impacts of Electric Vehicle Transition in China and India” by Anjali Sharma, Wei Peng, Johannes Urpelainen, Hancheng Dai, Pallav Purohit and Fabian Wagner, 25 October 2024, Environmental Science & Technology.
DOI: 10.1021/acs.est.4c02694
In addition to Peng and Sharma, authors include Johannes Urpelainen of Johns Hopkins University, Hancheng Dai of Peking University, and Pallav Purohit and Fabian Wagner of the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA). The work was supported by the Wellcome Trust Climate Change and Health Award, as well as Princeton’s School of Public and International Affairs.
Never miss a breakthrough: Join the SciTechDaily newsletter.
Follow us on Google and Google News.
13 Comments
Another EV hit piece using FUD (Fear Uncertainty and Doubt).
Can’t handle the truth?
The truth is the excess death is a trivial number with about 8 million due to petroleum alone. Dig about in the excess death numbers is not healthy for your mental health
You crybaby.
This magazine does nothing but hype up not only EVs but all kinds of alt-tech all the time.
So, if they now came up with criticism, it’s for a good reason.
Whenever I see finger wagging at the EV makers for using cobalt in batteries, I have to chime in to point out that it’s the petroleum industry that’s still (for the last 100 years) the biggest user of cobalt, in the refining process.
Nobody seems the least concerned with making the petroleum industry deal with this.
And a Google search found this information.
The amount of cobalt in lithium-ion batteries has been reduced significantly, but there is still room for improvement:
First generation: The first generation of lithium-ion batteries for consumer electronics contained 60% cobalt in the cathodes.
EV batteries: The first generation of EV batteries contained 33% cobalt in the cathodes, but current commercial cathodes contain 15-20% cobalt.
Tesla: Tesla reduced its cobalt consumption by 59% between 2012 and 2018.
Industry: The industry is actively developing 10% cobalt cathodes.
———————
And of course Li-ion batteries can be completely recycled – AFTER they are used for stationary grid backup for more years, After being used in BEVs.
“Most batteries will become available for second use at the end of the expected PEV service life of approximately 15 years. NREL studies show that these batteries—with as much as 70% of their initial capacity—potentially can continue to operate for another 10 years in second use as energy storage for utilities, translating into a total service life of up to 25 years.”
National Renewable Energy Lab (NREL)
And that 2nd use of used EV batteries has already begun, including a joint venture between Honda and Mitsubishi, and at least 3 other companies. – The ReVolve battery energy storage product; and Germany’s Voltfang; and California-based B2U Storage Solutions.
I had five ways to make Hydrogen FREE, 50 years ago. (when I was young) Hydrogen allows all the progress of pistons engines to continue, which means immediate exchange with just some marvelous new materials for an aqueous environment, ceramics among them.
At this time batteries prohibit much of the electric dream for vehicles – and certainly power storage for a solar-based grid. They will create more pollution than all previous industry – which means they are no good.
And of course, they weight too much – and we don’t have the solar development to account the purpose of clean energy.
No, Hydrogen – clean, beautiful – we have endless supply –
And there’s an easy fix to solar development for the whole world, but that’s another story.
Both media and journal claims that solar PV can somehow “replace” fossil fuels for power have not addressed the “non-renewable reality”
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/335083312_Why_do_we_burn_coal_and_trees_to_make_solar_panels
It seems like most of these articles are arguing about the here and now. EV technology is still in it’s infancy and has come along way in the past decade or so. Of coarse there will be environmental problems to deal with and engineers are working on all of these issues. Rome wasn’t built in a day but it has already been proven that an EV’s life span is a lot longer than what was originally thought. when you have EVs lasting 15 – 20 years, the savings are in the plus column. Is it a perfect science? No. Are EVs for everyone? No. but over time, ICE vehicles will be the minority.
The problem with your handwaving is that the EVs are being marketed as a miracle technology that will singlehandedly save the planet.
Now you come up and say “nah, not really”. Then what was the point of making the switch in the first place?
As we back slowly away from polluting our home we must realize that our real enemy is not ourselves but the merry old Sun; which will fry us all and which presents us with our Mission on Earth; getting the hell out of here. All our wars were nonsense but supplied the tools for this magnificent task and made us martyrs to our own cause. Nature is jerking us around like She uses all creatures and plants, to serve HER. All we need is the right “words” that were there “in the beginning”; our 3D printers, and we’re off !
Shouldn’t the negative side effects of a design on environment and/or climate be incorporated from the start of the scientific research and design process?
This study highlights an important yet often overlooked challenge in the push for electric vehicles: the environmental impact of fully domesticating EV supply chains, particularly in China and India. The potential rise in sulfur dioxide emissions from nickel and cobalt production is concerning, as these materials are crucial for battery technology. It underscores the need for a more balanced approach, considering both the environmental benefits and the costs associated with raw material extraction.
How do you think we can mitigate these emissions while still progressing towards cleaner transportation?