sustainability

Article
GHG Emissions from the Production of Lithium-Ion
Batteries for Electric Vehicles in China
Han Hao, Zhexuan Mu, Shuhua Jiang, Zongwei Liu and Fuquan Zhao *
State Key Laboratory of Automotive Safety and Energy, Tsinghua University, Beijing 100084, China;
hao@tsinghua.edu.cn (H.H.); mzx0910@163.com (Z.M.); thujsh@163.com (S.J.);
liuzongwei@tsinghua.edu.cn (Z.L.)
* Correspondence: zhaofuquan@tsinghua.edu.cn; Tel.: +86-10-6279-7400

Academic Editors: Liexun Yang, Peng Zhou and Ning Zhang

Received: 14 January 2017; Accepted: 21 March 2017; Published: 4 April 2017

Abstract: With the mass market penetration of electric vehicles, the Greenhouse Gas (GHG)
emissions associated with lithium-ion battery production has become a major concern. In this
study, by establishing a life cycle assessment framework, GHG emissions from the production of
lithium-ion batteries in China are estimated. The results show that for the three types of most
commonly used lithium-ion batteries, the (LFP) battery, the (NMC) battery and the (LMO) battery,
the GHG emissions from the production of a 28 kWh battery are 3061 kgCO2 -eq, 2912 kgCO2 -eq and
2705 kgCO2 -eq, respectively. This implies around a 30% increase in GHG emissions from vehicle
production compared with conventional vehicles. The productions of cathode materials and wrought
aluminum are the dominating contributors of GHG emissions, together accounting for around three
quarters of total emissions. From the perspective of process energy use, around 40% of total emissions
are associated with electricity use, for which the GHG emissions in China are over two times higher
than the level in the United States. According to our analysis, it is recommended that great efforts
are needed to reduce the GHG emissions from battery production in China, with improving the
production of cathodes as the essential measure.

Keywords: greenhouse gas; life cycle assessment; lithium-ion battery; electric vehicle; China

1. Introduction
In recent years, the great promotion of electric vehicles (EVs) by the Chinese government has
boosted the development of the EV battery industry. Among all sorts of EV batteries, lithium ion
batteries are currently the best sellers on the market due to the advantages of high energy density,
high power density, long service life, and favorable environmental properties compared to lead-acid
batteries and Ni-MH batteries. In 2015, China’s EV battery yield reached 15.45.GWh, up 277.7%
compared to 2014 [1]. This boom for the lithium ion battery industry will surely leave a considerable
burden on the environment.
Vehicle-use lithium ion batteries are currently divided into three categories depending on their
different anodes, i.e., the (LFP) battery, the (NMC) battery, and the (LMO) battery. Among the battery
distribution on the Chinese market in 2015, LFP accounted for 52%, NMC 39%, and LMO 3% (relatively
preferred for Japanese and Korean cars) [2]. At present, domestic research on lithium ion batteries is
primarily focused on performance, falling short of further understanding the environmental impact of
the battery, particularly of the manufacturing process of the battery.
This study focuses on the manufacturing process of vehicle-use lithium ion batteries in China.
Based on the life cycle assessment (LCA) method, it establishes a local model for study of the green
gas (GHG) emissions of vehicle-use lithium ion batteries, reveals the carbon emission strength of all
components in the “Cradle-to-Gate” phase, analyzes the GHG emission reduction potential of all

Sustainability 2017, 9, 504; doi:10.3390/su9040504 www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability

Sustainability 2017, 9, 504 2 of 12

components, and makes a transverse comparison and Sino-US comparison of the GHG emissions of
LFP, NMC, and LMO batteries. In addition, it analyzes the uncertainty of the GHG emission model
based on study results in the existing literature.

2. Overview of Relevant Studies

As the life cycle database has been established and gradually improved, many foreign studies
have adopted LCA for automobiles or accessories. Notter and other foreign scholars have studied
the entire-life environment and energy impacts of LMO batteries [3], giving the mean values of input
and output materials during the production of LMO batteries. Zackrisson et al. have explored
the environmental impact of different binders during the production of LFP batteries based on
experimental data [4], suggesting that it is environmentally preferable to use water as a solvent
instead of N-methyl-2-pyrrolidone, NMP, in the slurry for casting the cathode and anode of lithium-ion
batteries. Majeau-Bettez et al. have studied the environmental and energy impact of LFP and NMC
batteries based on secondary data [5], contributing a public and detailed inventory, which can easily
be adapted to any electricitytrain, along with readily usable environmental performance assessments.
Ellingsen et al. have researched the GHG emissions during the manufacturing process of NMC
batteries based on primary data provided by the battery manufacturers [6], providing us with a
transparent inventory for a lithium-ion nickel-cobalt-manganese traction battery. Dunn et al. from
the Argonne National Laboratory in the U.S. have researched the energy flow and material flow
during the production of all materials of the NMC, LFP, LMO and LCO batteries [7,8], and have
calculated total (full fuel cycle) energy consumption associated with the production of each of the
cathode materials. Other foreign studies on lithium ion batteries include the Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) Amarakoon et al. [9] of the US, who have presented a life-cycle assessment (LCA) study
of lithium-ion (Li-ion) batteries used in electric and plug-in hybrid electric vehicles, Kim et al. [10], who
reported the first cradle-to-gate emissions assessment for a mass-produced battery in a commercial
battery electric vehicle, and Hendrickson et al. [11], whose study combined life-cycle assessment and
geographic information systems(GIS) to analyze the energy, (GHG) emissions, etc. for lithium-ion
batteries in California.
Domestically, Wang Qi from South China University of Technology assessed the environmental
effect and life cycle cost of three lithium battery anode materials (NMC, LMO, and LFP) [12], and
the results show that the environmental benefits of LMO is the highest, with greater environmental
benefits than the LFP and the life cycle environment cost of LFP is the lowest, followed by LMO and
NMC. Lu Qiang from Jilin University analyzed the GHG emissions throughout the entire cycle of LFP
batteries [13], providing us with the values of energy consumption and greenhouse gases emission in
the “cradle to use” stage. Chen Bo from Beijing Institute of Technology assessed the environmental
impact of lithium batteries with such anode materials as NMC, LNM, LFLM, and LFP [14], and the life
cycle environmental impact scores of these batteries were 275 Pt, 129 Pt, 142 Pt and 100 Pt respectively.
Above all, while more foreign studies on the energy and environmental impact of EV batteries
were carried out earlier, the domestic study of this topic still in the initial phases. Additionally, electric
vehicle is becoming a main application field of lithium-ion batteries, whereas there is no specialized
study on these kinds of batteries. As such, this study mainly assesses the environmental impact of the
vehicle-use lithium-ion battery.

3. Research Content and Methods

3.1. Research Framework and System Boundary

Based on the LCA study method, the study process is divided into four parts: Definition of
Target and Scope, Inventory, Impact Assessment, and Results Interpretation. For collection of life cycle
inventory, this study primarily adopts the literary consultation and factory investigation methods
(Figure 1).
Sustainability 2017, 9, 504 3 of 12
Sustainability 2016, 8, x FOR PEER REVIEW 3 of 12

Sustainability 2016, 8, x FOR PEER REVIEW 3 of 12

Figure 1. Study Framework.

Figure 1. Study Framework.
Figure 1. Study Framework.
In the LCA process, the manufacturing process of lithium ion batteries is also called the “Cradle-
In the LCA
to-Gate” phase.process, the manufacturing
The manufacturing process is process
divided intoof lithium
the four ion
linksbatteries
of material is exploitation,
also called the
In the LCA process, the manufacturing process of lithium ion batteries is also called the “Cradle-
“Cradle-to-Gate” phase.
material processing, The
part manufacturing
manufacturing process
and battery is divided
manufacturing. into
Sincethe four
vehicle-use
to-Gate” phase. The manufacturing process is divided into the four links of material exploitation,
links of material
lithium ion
batteries
exploitation, are not widely recycled
material processing, in China now,
part manufacturingit is hard to find data to support
and battery manufacturing. the research.
Since Thus,
vehicle-use
material processing, part manufacturing and battery manufacturing. Since vehicle-use lithium ion
lithiuminstead of an analysis
ion batteries are notofrecycled
the GHG
widely emissions
recycled throughout itthe entire
tobattery life,tothis studythesimply
batteries are not widely in China in
now,China
it is now,
hard to is hard
find data find
to data
support thesupport
research. research.
Thus,
studies
insteadthe
Thus,instead manufacturing process (Figure 2).
ofofanananalysis
analysisof ofthethe GHG
GHG emissions
emissions throughout
throughout the the entire
entire battery
battery life, study
life, this this study
simplysimply
studies
studies the manufacturing
the manufacturing process
process (Figure2).
(Figure 2).

Figure 2. System Boundary.

Figure 2. System Boundary.

Commonly used functional units Figure 2. System
for the energy Boundary.
and environmental impact of batteries include
“per km of travel”, “per kWh of battery”, and “per kg of battery”. A study with “per km of travel” as
Commonly used functional units for the energy and environmental impact of batteries include
the functional
Commonly unitfunctional
used will always have for the usage phase of the batteries within its system boundaries,
“per km of travel”, “per kWh ofunitsbattery”, the
and energy
“per kg and environmental
of battery”. A study withimpact“per of
kmbatteries
of travel”include
as
which
“per km can intuitively
of travel”,unit
“per embody
kWh the usage
of battery”, features
and “per of the battery, and facilitate the comparison with
the functional will always have the usage phasekgofof battery”.
the batteries A study
within itswith
system“per km of
boundaries,travel”
other energy-driven cars in terms of energy and environmental impact. Since this study focuses on
as thewhich
functional unit willembody
can intuitively alwaysthe have the features
usage usage phase
of theof the batteries
battery, within
and facilitate theitscomparison
system boundaries,
with
the manufacturing process of the battery, it is more intuitive and accurate to select “per kWh of
which other
canenergy-driven cars in terms
intuitively embody of energy
the usage and environmental
features of the battery, impact. Since thisthe
and facilitate study focuses on with
comparison
battery” as the functional unit. The index used for assessment of GHG emissions in this study is the
the manufacturing
other emission
energy-driven process
carsdioxide of
in terms the battery,
of energy and it is more intuitive and accurate to select “per kWh of
of carbon as equivalent to theenvironmental impact.
energy production Since
of each kWh thisofstudy focuses
battery (kgCOon2-
the
battery” as the functional unit. The index used for assessment of GHG emissions in this study is the
manufacturing
eq/kWh). process of the battery, it is more intuitive and accurate to select “per kWh of battery” as
emission of carbon dioxide as equivalent to the energy production of each kWh of battery (kgCO2-
the functional unit. The index used for assessment of GHG emissions in this study is the emission of
eq/kWh).
carbon3.2.dioxide
Calculation Method
as equivalent to the energy production of each kWh of battery (kgCO2 -eq/kWh).
3.2. Calculation Methodof GHG emissions includes two parts, the GHG emissions from the “raw
The calculation
3.2. Calculation Method
material exploitation, material processing, and parts manufacturing” process of all
The calculation of GHG emissions includes two parts, the GHG emissions from the “raw
components/materials
The calculation of GHG(Formula
emissions(1)),includes
and the GHGparts,
emissions from emissions
the single cell production and
material exploitation, material processing,twoand the GHG
parts manufacturing” from the “raw
process of material
all
assembly
exploitation, process
material (Formula (2)).
processing, As
and most emissions
parts during
manufacturing” the battery
process manufacturing
of all process come
components/materials
components/materials (Formula (1)), and the GHG emissions from the single cell production and
from combustion, we need to know the energy and material input of each process, as well as the
(Formula
assembly(1)),process
and the GHG(2)).
(Formula emissions from theduring
As most emissions singlethe
cell production
battery and assembly
manufacturing process come process
process energy consumed by this process, and substitute the GHG emission factor for the process
from (2)).
(Formula combustion,
As mostweemissions
need to know
during thethe
energy and manufacturing
battery material input ofprocess
each process,
come as
fromwellcombustion,
as the
energy, so as to work out the GHG emissions. It should be noted that while GHG emissions
process
we need energy
to know theconsumed
energy by material
and this process, and
input of substitute
each the GHG emission factor for the process
originating from non-combustion are not shown in theprocess,
formula,astheywell as be
can theneglected
process energy consumed
if they are too
energy,
by this so as to work out the GHG emissions. It should be noted that while
process, and substitute the GHG emission factor for the process energy, so as to work out theGHG emissions
small.
originating from non-combustion are not shown in the formula, they can be neglected if they are too
GHG emissions. It should be noted that while GHG emissions originating from non-combustion are
small. 𝐶𝐸𝑀𝑃 = ∑𝑖 ∑𝑗 𝐸𝐹𝑗 · ∑𝑘 𝐸𝐶𝑖,𝑗,𝑘 , (1)
not shown in the formula, they can be neglected if they are too small.
𝐶𝐸𝑀𝑃 = ∑𝑖 ∑𝑗 𝐸𝐹𝑗 · ∑𝑘 𝐸𝐶𝑖,𝑗,𝑘 , (1)
CE MP = ∑i ∑ j EFj ·∑k ECi,j,k , (1)

CEBP = CE MP + CEBA , (2)

Sustainability 2017, 9, 504 4 of 12

wherein, i refers to the material, j to the energy, and k to the process (to the GHG emissions of each
component/material, to the GHG emissions from the single cell production and assembly process,
and to the GHG emissions during the battery manufacturing process).

3.3. Establishment of Battery Model

For battery modeling, this study adopts the BatPac Model of the Argonne National Laboratory
of the US. For the battery capacity option, investigation of the EV market in mainland China in 2015
and 2016 and relevant literature revealed that the capacity of lithium ion batteries carried by purely
electric vehicles normally ranges between 20 kWh and 30 kWh [15]. With reference to the GREET-2015
Model (The Greenhouse Gases, Regulated Emissions, and Energy Use in Transportation Model of the
Argonne National Laboratory ), as total battery capacity of 28 kWh comparatively conforms to the
current technical mainstream, 28 kWh is presumed as the total battery capacity in this study.
The BatPac Model and GREET-2015 Model of the Argonne National Laboratory are adopted
because (i) they are relatively reliable due to their summarization of research findings of
Majeau-Bettez et al. [12], and Notter et al. [10], to establish a rather complete assessment chain for a
car’s life cycle; and (ii) it’s easy to compare the GHG emissions calculated by local data in the Chinese
market with that of the Laboratory (Table 1).

Table 1. Setup of Lithium Ion Battery Parameters.

Battery Type LFP NMC LMO

Rated Capacity (kWh) 28 28 28
Battery Weight (kg) 230 170 210
Battery’s Energy Density (Wh/kg) 122 165 133
Qty. of Battery Cells 100 96 96

The mass fraction of each material/component of the three lithium ion batteries fitted through the
BatPac Model is shown in Table 2. Among all of these, the anode active materials take up the biggest
share, respectively 24.4%, 28.2%, and 33.6% for LFP, NMC, and LMO batteries. Wrought aluminum
then follows. Aluminum is also heavily used in the batteries, including the anode current collector,
anode tab, aluminum plastic film of battery cell, battery package, and module shell. Plastics include
PP, PT and PET, used in the membrane and aluminum plastic film.

Table 2. Battery Mass Composition.

Battery Components LFP NMC LMO

Anode Active Materials 24.4% 28.2% 33.6%
Graphite 15.2% 18.3% 14.7%
Binder 2.1% 2.4% 2.5%
Copper 12.4% 11.4% 10.9%
Wrought aluminum 20.3% 19.7% 18.7%
Electrolyte: LiPF6 2.7% 1.9% 1.9%
Electrolyte: EC 7.8% 5.4% 5.4%
Electrolyte: DMC 7.8% 5.4% 5.4%
Plastic: PP 1.9% 1.7% 1.7%
Plastic: PT 0.3% 0.3% 0.3%
Plastic: PET 1.3% 1.2% 1.2%
Steel 1.5% 1.4% 1.4%
Fiberglass 0.3% 0.4% 0.3%
Coolant: Glycol 1.0% 1.0% 0.9%
Battery Management System(BMS) 1.0% 1.3% 1.1%
Sustainability 2017, 9, 504 5 of 12

3.4. Data Localization

The most important step in establishing the local model for GHG emission of lithium ion batteries
in China is to localize the database. Energy consumption or carbon emission data of each process is
shown in Table 3.

Table 3. Source of Energy Consumption/Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emission Data of the Battery
Manufacturing Process.

Material Data Source

Anode Active Material (LFP, NMC, LMO) [12]
Carbonization [16]
Graphite
Graphitization GREET-2015
Binder GREET-2015
Production of Copper Ingot [17]
Copper
Brushing [18]
Production of Aluminum Ingot [19]
Wrought aluminum Punching (Cold Rolling) GREET-2015
Extruding GREET-2015
Electrolyte: LiPF6, EC, DMC GREET-2015
Plastic: PP, PT, PET GREET-2015
Steel [20]
Glass fiber GREET-2015
Coolant: Glycol GREET-2015
Battery Management System GREET-2015
Single Cell Production and Battery Assembly [13]
Note: When the data come from GREET-2015 (The Greenhouse Gases, Regulated Emissions, and Energy Use
in Transportation Model of the Argonne National Laboratory), the energy consumption data adopt those in
GREET-2015, and the GHG emission factor of the energy is localized.

Since many production processes and technologies are still under research and development
amid the rapid development of the lithium ion battery industry, most enterprises are reluctant to
disclose their primary data for process details and energy consumption of the production process.
The study on energy consumption of the manufacturing process of anode active materials mostly
relies upon the process flow, coupled with the physical and chemical parameters of the material.
By presumption of the production equipment, reaction temperature and finished product yield,
it estimates the thermal consumption of the reaction process. Representative studies include those
carried out by Majeau-Bettez et al. [5], and Dunn et al. [7].
The data from the study on the whole-life environmental impact of anode materials
(LiMn2 O4 , LiNi1/3 Co1/3 Mn1/3 O2 and LiFePO4 ) based on LCA method as carried out by Wang Qi
from South China University of Technology in 2012 primarily come from the China Energy Statistical
Yearbook [12]. As it directly refers to the research of Majeau-Bettez et al., it is relatively compliant with
China’s current production reality [5]. Due to the difficulty in gaining first-hand data on the anode
materials, the data on GHG emissions during the exploitation, transportation, and production process
in this study all originate from Wang’s study (Table 4).

Table 4. GHG Emissions of Three Anode Materials* [12].

Raw Material Raw Material Anode Material

Material
Exploitation Transportation Production
LiMn2 O4 11,600 796 7200
LiNi1/3 Co1/3 Mn1/3 O2 18,200 522 18,100
LiFePO4 13,200 1130 12,100
* Unit: kgCO2 /t-Anode Material.
Sustainability 2016, 8, x FOR PEER REVIEW 6 of 12

Sustainability 2017, 9, 504 6 of 12

Graphite is chiefly used in the cathode material of the battery. Graphite in this study is presumed
to be artificial, which undergoes the carbonization and graphitization phases during the
manufacturing
Graphite isprocess.
chiefly While
used inthe
thecarbonization dataof
cathode material come from the
the battery. GHG emission
Graphite data is
in this study during
presumed
carbon cathodewhich
to be artificial, production in the carbonization
undergoes aluminum industry, the energyphases
and graphitization consumption data
during the of the
manufacturing
graphitization
process. While process originate fromdata
the carbonization GREET-2015.
come from the GHG emission data during carbon cathode
production in the aluminum industry, the energy consumption data of the graphitization process
3.5. GHG Emission Factor of Process Energy
originate from GREET-2015.
Commonly seen GHG emission factors of process energy are shown in Table 5, which have all
3.5. GHG
been Emission
localized, withFactor of Process
the data Energy
source listed in the table below.
Commonly seen GHG emission factors of process energy are shown in Table 5, which have all
Table 5. Commonly Seen GHG Emission Factors in China.
been localized, with the data source listed in the table below.
GHG Emission Factor
Process Energy Data Source
Table 5. Commonly
(g-CO 2/MJ, g-CO2Seen
/kWh)GHG Emission Factors in China.
Coal 94.8 Chen Yisong, 2014 [21]
Electricity GHG834.5
Emission Factor NBSC, 2016 [22], Ma Cuimei, et al., 2014 [23]
Process Energy Data Source
Natural Gas (g-CO263.5
/MJ, g-CO2 /kWh) Chen Yisong, 2014 [21]
Coke 1 Coal 105.994.8 NDRC,
Chen 2014 [24];
Yisong, IPCC,
2014 [21] 2006 [25]
Residual OilElectricity 89.3834.5 NBSC, 2016 [22],
Chen MaYisong,
Cuimei,2014
et al.,[21]
2014 [23]
GasolineNatural Gas 82.063.5 Chen
Chen Yisong, 20142014
Yisong, [21][21]
1 105.9 NDRC, Chen
2014 [24]; IPCC, 2006[21][25]
Diesel Coke 79.9 Yisong, 2014
Residual Oil 89.3 Chen Yisong, 2014 [21]
COG 1 44.4 IPCC, 2006 [25]
Gasoline 82.0 Chen Yisong, 2014 [21]
BFG1 Diesel 260.079.9 IPCC, 2006
Chen Yisong, 2014 [25]
[21]
1 Coke, LPG and COG 1
BFG are generated during
44.4 the production of coke. Although
IPCC, 2006IPCC
[25] only specifies
BFG 1 260.0could be used for the wholeIPCC, 2006 [25]
emission factors during the use phase, they life cycle.
1 Coke, LPG and BFG are generated during the production of coke. Although IPCC only specifies emission factors
during the
4. Research use phase,
Findings andthey could be used for the whole life cycle.
Discussion

4. Research
4.1. Findings
GHG Emissions and Discussion
Calculation Result
UsingEmissions
4.1. GHG the data above, Formula
Calculation (1) and Formula (2), we calculated that the production of a rated
Result
capacity of 28 kWh of LFP, NMC, and LMO vehicle-use lithium ion batteries respectively leads to
Using2-eq,
3061 kgCO the data
2912 above, Formula
kgCO2-eq, (1) and
and 2705 kgCO Formula (2), we
2-eq of GHG calculated
emissions. thatthe
With thesame
production
capacity,ofthe
a rated
capacity ofof28LMO
production kWh of LFP,results
batteries NMC,inand LMO lower
relatively vehicle-use lithium ion
GHG emissions, batteries
while LFP and respectively leads to
NMC batteries,
3061 kgCO
taking -eq,
the largest
2 2912
sharekgCO
in the -eq,
Chinese
2 and 2705
market,kgCO
generate
2 -eq of GHG
basically emissions.
the same With
amount ofthe
GHGsame capacity,
emissions. the
production of LMO batteries results in relatively lower GHG emissions, while LFP
Anode active materials take up the greatest share of the contribution to GHG emissions made by all and NMC batteries,
components of theshare
taking the largest battery, respectively
in the 48.4%, 60.7%
Chinese market, andbasically
generate 51.1%; followed
the samebyamount
wrought of aluminum,
GHG emissions.
respectively
Anode active 26.2%, 19.7%,take
materials andup 24.9%
the (Figure
greatest3).share of the contribution to GHG emissions made by all
components of the battery, respectively 48.4%, 60.7% and 51.1%; followed by wrought aluminum,
respectively 26.2%, 19.7%, and 24.9% (Figure 3).

1.20E+02
Battery cell production and assembly

1.00E+02 Others

BMS
kgCO2-eq per battery

8.00E+01
Plastic products

Electrolyte
6.00E+01
Forging aluminum

4.00E+01 Copper

Binder
2.00E+01 Graphite

Anode active material

0.00E+00
LFP_China NCM_China LMO_China

Figure 3. Comparison of GHG Emission Strengths of the Manufacturing of Three Commonly Used
Lithium Ion Batteries.
Sustainability 2016, 8, x FOR PEER REVIEW 7 of 12

Figure 3. Comparison of GHG Emission Strengths of the Manufacturing of Three Commonly Used
Sustainability
Lithium 2017,
Ion9, Batteries.
504 7 of 12

What do such high GHG emissions mean? The manufacturing process of a traditional car will
What do such high GHG emissions mean? The manufacturing process of a traditional car will
emit about 9 t of GHG [20], while LFP batteries emit nearly 3 t. Carrying the 28 kWh LFP battery will
emit about 9 t of GHG [20], while LFP batteries emit nearly 3 t. Carrying the 28 kWh LFP battery will
increase the GHG emission of the whole car manufacturing process by 30%. While the car consumes
increase the GHG emission of the whole car manufacturing process by 30%. While the car consumes
electricity throughout the entire use phase and GHG emissions in the manufacturing process account
electricity throughout the entire use phase and GHG emissions in the manufacturing process account
for merely 5% of the whole life cycle, only a limited impact is left for GHG emissions from the battery
for merely 5% of the whole life cycle, only a limited impact is left for GHG emissions from the battery
manufacturing process on the total life cycle.
manufacturing process on the total life cycle.
4.2.Comparison
4.2. ComparisonofofGHG
GHGEmissions
Emissionsbetween
betweenChinese
Chineseand
andAmerican
AmericanLithium
LithiumIon
IonBatteries
Batteries
The data
The data on
onAmerican
American batteries
batteries come
come from
from the
the GREET-2015
GREET-2015 Model
Model ofofthe
theArgonne
ArgonneNational
National
Laboratory. Generally
Laboratory. Generally speaking,
speaking, GHG
GHG emissions
emissions during
during the
the manufacturing
manufacturing process
process of of Chinese
Chinese LFP,
LFP,
NMC, and LMO batteries are respectively 3, 2.8 and 2.9 times greater than those of
NMC, and LMO batteries are respectively 3, 2.8 and 2.9 times greater than those of their American their American
counterparts. Anode
counterparts. Anode active
active materials
materials and
and wrought
wrought aluminum
aluminum are are the
the main
main causes
causes ofof the
the differences.
differences.
Due to complexity of the process and uncertainty of the data, the GHG emissions
Due to complexity of the process and uncertainty of the data, the GHG emissions in production of in production of
anode materials show an apparent difference with those in the U.S. The second biggest
anode materials show an apparent difference with those in the U.S. The second biggest contribution contribution
isisfrom
fromwrought
wroughtaluminum,
aluminum,particularly
particularlyininChina.
China. As
AsChina’s
China’s average
average electrical
electrical structure
structure leads
leads to
to
higher GHG emission factors and aluminum production consumes a considerable
higher GHG emission factors and aluminum production consumes a considerable amount of electricity, amount of
itelectricity,
generatesita generates
remarkable a remarkable amount
amount of GHG of GHG(Figure
emissions emissions
4). (Figure 4).

120

100
kgCO2-eq per kWh battery

80

60

40

20

0
LFP_China LFP_USA NCM_China NCM_USA LMO_China LMO_USA

Anode active material Graphite

Binder Copper
Forging aluminum Electrolyte
Plastic product BMS
Others Battery cell production and assembly

Figure4.4.Comparison
Figure Comparisonof
ofGHG
GHGEmissions
Emissionsby
byChinese
Chineseand
andAmerican
AmericanLithium
LithiumIon
IonBatteries.
Batteries.

4.3.Exploration
4.3. ExplorationofofGHG
GHGEmission
EmissionReduction
ReductionPotential
Potential
BecauseChina’s
Because China’s electricity
electricityfeatures
featureshigher
higherGHG
GHGemission
emissionfactors,
factors,different
differentelectrical
electricalproduction
production
structures lead
structures lead to
togreatly
greatlyvarying
varyingGHG GHGemission
emissionfactors
factorsinindifferent
differentprovinces.
provinces. Therefore,
Therefore, GHGGHG
emissions caused
emissions caused by by electricity
electricity consumption
consumption are areseparated.
separated. GHG
GHG emissions
emissions due
due to to electrical
electrical
consumption during
consumption during the
the manufacturing
manufacturing of of LFP,
LFP, NMC,
NMC, and
andLMOLMObatteries
batteriesrespectively
respectively account
account for
for
46.1%, 35.2%,
46.1%, 35.2%, and
and 43.8%
43.8% of
of the
thetotal
totalGHG
GHGemissions.
emissions. Though
Though GHG GHG emissions
emissions due
due to to electricity
electricity
consumptiontake
consumption takeupup a considerable
a considerable share,
share, an optimized
an optimized electricity
electricity production
production structurestructure could
could greatly
greatlythe
impact impact
GHGthe GHG emissions
emissions of batteries
of batteries (Figure 5).
(Figure 5).
Sustainability
Sustainability 2017, 9, 504 8 of 12
Sustainability 2016,
2016, 8,
8, xx FOR
FOR PEER
PEER REVIEW
REVIEW 8 of
of 12
12

100.00%
100.00%
90.00%
90.00%
80.00%
80.00%
70.00%
70.00%
60.00%
60.00%
50.00%
50.00%
40.00%
40.00%
30.00%
30.00%
20.00%
20.00%
10.00%
10.00%
0.00%
0.00%
LFP_China NCM_China LMO_China
LFP_China NCM_China LMO_China
GHG Emissions from Electricity Consumption GHG Emissions not from Electricity Consumption
GHG Emissions from Electricity Consumption GHG Emissions not from Electricity Consumption

Figure 5. Proportion
Figure5. Proportion of
ofGHG
GHGEmissions
Emissionsfrom Electricity
fromElectricity Consumption.
ElectricityConsumption.
Consumption.

We
We have
Wehave explored
haveexplored
exploredthe the GHG
theGHG emissions
GHGemissions reduction
emissionsreduction potential
reductionpotential
potential ofof
allall
of battery
battery
all battery components.
components.
components. InIn Figure
Figure
In Figure6,
6, different
different
6, different colors
colors of
of of
colors circles
circles refer
refer
circles refer to
to to different
different
different battery
battery components
batterycomponents
componentsand and
andtheirtheir sizes
theirsizes according
sizesaccording
accordingto to their
to their
their
respective
respective mass
respective mass fractions.
mass fractions. While
Whilethe
While thetransverse
the transversecoordinates
transverse coordinatesstand
coordinates standfor
stand forthe
for the
the GHG
GHG
GHG emissions
emissions
emissions of aa unit
ofof a unit
unit of
of
mass
of mass
mass of the
ofofthe battery
thebattery component,
batterycomponent,
component,risingrising from
risingfrom left
fromleft to
left to right,
to right, the horizontal coordinates
right, the horizontal coordinates signify
coordinates signifysignify thethe
the
proportion
proportion
proportionof of GHG
ofGHG emissions
GHGemissions
emissionsdue due
dueto to electricity
toelectricity consumption
electricityconsumption
consumptionof of each
ofeach component,
eachcomponent,
component,rising rising from
risingfrom bottom
frombottom
bottom
to
to top.
to top. The
top. The bigger
The bigger the
bigger the circle
the circle and
circle and the
and the further
the further the
further the position
the position
position is is toward
is toward
toward the the upper
the upper right,
upper right, the
right, the higher
the higher
higher thethe
the
component’s
component’s
component’sGHG GHG emissions
GHGemissions
emissions reduction
reduction
reduction potential.
potential.
potential. It
It is It is
obviousobvious that
that wrought
is obvious wrought
that wroughtaluminum aluminum has
has the
has the highest
aluminum the
highest
potential potential
of GHG of GHG
emissions emissions
reduction. reduction.
Though Though
positioned positioned
at the upper
highest potential of GHG emissions reduction. Though positioned at the upper right, the battery at the
right, upper
the right,
battery the battery
management
management
system (BMS)system
management and LiPF6
system (BMS)
(BMS) and
and LiPF6
account account
for a small
LiPF6 account for
mass aa small
small mass
for fraction. Though
mass fraction.
showing
fraction. Though
Though showing
a rather high alevel
showing a rather of
rather
high
GHG level
high level of GHG
emissions,
of GHG emissions,
the three anode
emissions, the three
the active anode active
materials
three anode active materials
currently
materials currently
carry carry
a low carry
currently a
potential low
a low potential
forpotential for
for GHG
GHG emissions GHG
emissions
reduction
emissionsdue reduction due
due to
to the limited
reduction to the
GHG
the limited GHG
emissions
limited emissions
GHGduring
emissions the during
during the the manufacturing
manufacturing process. process.
manufacturing process.

Figure6.6. GHG
Figure GHG Emissions
Emissions Reduction
ReductionPotential
Potential of
ofDifferent
DifferentBattery
BatteryComponents.
Components.
Components.

4.4.
4.4. Result
Result Comparison
Comparisonand
andDiscussion
Discussion
As
Aslithium
lithiumion ionbatteries
batteries have
have been
been widely
widely used
used inin the
theEV
EVindustry
industry onlyonly in
inrecent
recentyears,
recent years,studies
years, studies
studies
on GHG
GHG emissions
emissions during
during the
the battery
battery manufacturing
manufacturing process
process vary
vary greatly.
greatly.
on GHG emissions during the battery manufacturing process vary greatly. While research findings While research findings
findings
from
from some
some of of theliterature
of the
the literatureare
literature arelisted
are listedin
listed ininTable
Table
Table 6, 6,
6, thethe
the comparison
comparison
comparison is is intuitively
is intuitively
intuitively shownshown
shown in in Figure
in Figure
Figure 7. 7.
7. The
The
The difference
difference
difference in in such
in such
such studies
studies
studies primarily
primarily
primarily comes
comes comes
fromfrom
from the the uncertainty
the uncertainty
uncertainty of theofbattery
of the the battery
battery structure
structure
structure and and
and the
the GHGthe
GHG
emissions
emissions in the assembly process. While the difference of physical batteries and battery models is
in the assembly process. While the difference of physical batteries and battery models is
Sustainability 2017,
Sustainability 9, 504
2016, 8, x FOR PEER REVIEW 9 of
9 of 12 12

inevitable in different studies, only the gradually improving battery standardization can reduce this
GHG emissions in the assembly process. While the difference of physical batteries and battery models
uncertainty. The difference in research findings due to different production processes and channels
is inevitable in different
of data acquisition studies,
during theonly the gradually
battery improving
cell production battery standardization
and assembly can reduce
process is also worth this
deeper
uncertainty. The
exploration difference
in the future. in research findings due to different production processes and channels
of data acquisition during the battery cell production and assembly process is also worth deeper
exploration in the future. Table 6. Summary of Literature Research Findings.

GHG Emission (kgCO2-eq/kWh Battery)

Literature Battery
Table 6. Summary ofBattery Research Findings. Battery Cell
Reference Battery Type Capacity Material/Part
Mass (kg) Production Total
(kWh) GHGProduction
Emission (kgCO
and2 -eq/kWh Battery)
Assembly
Battery
Notter et al. (2010) [3] Battery Battery Cell
Reference Battery LMO
Type 300 34.2
Capacity 51
Material/Part
2 53
Mass (kg) Production53and Total
Majeau-Bettez et al. (2011) [5] NMC - (kWh)- 143
Production 196
Assembly
Majeau-Bettez et al. (2011) [5] LFP - - 177 69 246
Notter et al. (2010)
EPA (2013) [9] [3] LMO LMO 300 - 34.2 - 51 61.5 2 1.9 5363.4
Majeau-Bettez et al. (2011) [5] NMC - - 143 53 196
EPA (2013) [9] NMC - - 86.7 34.3 121
Majeau-Bettez et al. (2011) [5] LFP - - 177 69 246
EPA (2013)
EPA (2013) [9] [9] LMO LFP - - - - 61.590.8 1.9 60.2 63.4151
Ellingsen et al. [9]
EPA (2013) (2014) [6] NMC NMC - 253 - 26.6 86.765 34.3107 121172
KimEPAet (2013) [9] [10]
al. (2016) LFP + NMC
LMO - 303 - 24 90.870 60.2 70 151140
Ellingsen et al. (2014) [6] NMC 253 26.6 65 107 172
GREET-2015 LFP 230 28 34.6 1.9 36.5
Kim et al. (2016) [10] LMO + NMC 303 24 70 70 140
GREET-2015
GREET-2015 LFPNMC 230 170 28 28 34.6 35 1.9 1.9 36.9
36.5
GREET-2015
GREET-2015 NMC LMO 170 210 28 28 35 31 1.9 1.9 32.9
36.9
GREET-2015
This Study LMOLFP 210 230 28 28 31103.8 1.9 5.5 32.9
109.3
This
ThisStudy
Study LFPNMC 230 170 28 28 103.899.9 5.5 4.1 109.3104
This Study NMC 170 28 99.9 4.1 104
This Study LMO 210 28 91.5 5.1 96.6
This Study LMO 210 28 91.5 5.1 96.6

This Study-LMO
This Study-NCM
This Study-LFP
GREET-2015-LMO
GREET-2015-NCM
GREET-2015-LFP
Kim et al.(2016)-LMO+NCM
Ellingsen et al.(2014)-NCM
EPA(2013)-LFP
EPA(2013)-NCM
EPA(2013)-LMO
Majeau-Bettez et al.(2011)-LFP
Majeau-Bettez et al.(2011)-NCM
Notter et al.(2010)-LMO

0 50 100 150 200 250

kgCO2-eq per kWh battery

Material/component production Battery cell production and assembly

Figure7.7.Comparison
Figure Comparisonamong
among Research Findings.
Research Findings.

In In
thisthis research,
research, anodeactive
anode activematerials
materials make
make the
the largest
largest contribution,
contribution,far
farlarger
largerthan
thanother
other
components,
components, to toGHG
GHGemissions.
emissions. Due
Due toto limited
limited local
local data
data acquisition
acquisitionininthe
theChinese
Chinesemarket,
market,
uncertainty
uncertainty of of
thetheGHG
GHGemissions
emissions of
of anode
anodeactive
activematerials
materialsmust
mustbe be
considered. Multiplying
considered. by theby
Multiplying
uncertainty factors of 0.8, 1.0 and 1.2, the GHG emissions of the three batteries show great changes.
the uncertainty factors of 0.8, 1.0 and 1.2, the GHG emissions of the three batteries show great changes.
As discussed above, there is the issue of uncertainty in the calculation of the GHG emissions.
As discussed above, there is the issue of uncertainty in the calculation of the GHG emissions.
The uncertainties arise from several sources. For example, the BatPac Model, which reflects the U.S.
The uncertainties arise from several sources. For example, the BatPac Model, which reflects the U.S.
condition, is adopted to calculate battery mass composition in China. There is a certain deviation
 Sustainability 2016, 8, x FOR PEER REVIEW 10 of 12
Sustainability 2017, 9, 504 10 of 12

condition, is adopted to calculate battery mass composition in China. There is a certain deviation
between
between thethe models
models establishedrespectively
established respectivelyinin U.S.
U.S. and
and China.
China. We
We also
alsoneglected
neglectedsome
sometiny
tinyGHG
GHG
emission contributors such as non-combustion emissions. Although the issue of uncertainty
emission contributors such as non-combustion emissions. Although the issue of uncertainty issue issue
is is
not
not quantitatively addressed in this study, the comparison of the results from different studies
quantitatively addressed in this study, the comparison of the results from different studies in Figure 7 in
Figure 7 and the parametric analysis in Figure 8 can show some general implications for the
and the parametric analysis in Figure 8 can show some general implications for the uncertainties.
uncertainties. The issue of uncertainty could be further explored in future study.
The issue of uncertainty could be further explored in future study.

LMO_China

NCM_China

LFP_China

0.0 500.0 1000.0 1500.0 2000.0 2500.0 3000.0 3500.0 4000.0

1.2 1 0.8

Figure 8. 8.Parametric
Figure ParametricAnalysis
Analysisof
of Anode Active Materials.
Anode Active Materials.

5. Summary and
5. Summary Prospects
and Prospects
This
Thisstudy
studyfocused
focused ononthe
theGHGGHGemissions
emissionsduring
during thethe manufacturing
manufacturing of ofLFP,
LFP,NMC,
NMC,and andLMOLMO
batteries, and established a GHG emissions model for lithium ion batteries
batteries, and established a GHG emissions model for lithium ion batteries in the Chinese market in the Chinese market asas
based
based on on
thetheLCALCA method.As
method. Asshown
shownininthethestudy
study findings,
findings, production
productionof of28
28kWh
kWhofofLFP,LFP,NMC,
NMC, and
and
LMO LMO batteries
batteries in China
in China results
results in the
in the respective
respective GHG GHG emissions
emissions of 3061
of 3061 kgCOkgCO
2 2-eq,
-eq, 2912
2912 kgCO
kgCO 2 2-eq,
-eq, and
and 2705 kgCO -eq, with LMO batteries emitting the least. Carrying the
2705 kgCO2 -eq, with LMO batteries emitting the least. Carrying the 28 kWh LFP battery will increase
2 28 kWh LFP battery will
theincrease the GHGof
GHG emissions emissions
the whole of car
the manufacturing
whole car manufacturing
process byprocess by 30%.
30%. While theWhile the car consumes
car consumes electricity
electricity throughout the entire use phase and GHG emissions in
throughout the entire use phase and GHG emissions in the manufacturing process account the manufacturing processfor
account
merely
for merely 5% of the whole life cycle, the impact of GHG emissions
5% of the whole life cycle, the impact of GHG emissions in the battery manufacturing process isin the battery manufacturing
process is not significant on the total life cycle. By battery composition, anode active materials and
not significant on the total life cycle. By battery composition, anode active materials and wrought
wrought aluminum make the greatest contribution to the GHG emissions, while by process energy,
aluminum make the greatest contribution to the GHG emissions, while by process energy, GHG
GHG emissions from electricity consumption take up a larger share. Chiefly due to China’s higher
emissions from electricity consumption take up a larger share. Chiefly due to China’s higher GHG
GHG emission factor and production of anode active materials, GHG emissions from the
emission factor and production of anode active materials, GHG emissions from the manufacturing of
manufacturing of lithium ion batteries in China are some three times greater than those in the U.S.
lithium
Fromion batteriesof
exploration inthe
China
GHG areemissions
some three times greater
reduction potentialthan those
of all in the
battery U.S. Fromimplemented
components exploration of
theinGHG
this study, improving the electricity production structure and optimizing the productionimproving
emissions reduction potential of all battery components implemented in this study, process
theofelectricity
anode activeproduction
materials structure and optimizing
can significantly theGHG
lower the production
emissionsprocess
during of anode active materials
the manufacturing of
canlithium
significantly lower in
ion batteries theChina.
GHGAdditionally,
emissions during the manufacturing
the uncertainty of lithium
in battery models andion batteries
data in China.
was compared
Additionally,
and analyzed theinuncertainty
the study inin battery models
combination and dataliterature.
with relevant was comparedRecyclingandandanalyzed
reuse ofinthe
the study in
batteries
combination with relevant
was not discussed literature.
in this study, Recycling
and will and reuse
be considered in aoffuture
the batteries was not
study. Battery discussed
materials in this
specified
study, andstudy
in this will beareconsidered
disposable.in a future study. Battery materials specified in this study are disposable.
Acknowledgments:
Acknowledgments: This
This study
study wassponsored
was sponsoredbybythe
theNational
National Natural
Natural Science
ScienceFoundation
FoundationofofChina
China(71403142,
(71403142,
71690241, 71572093), the Beijing Natural Science Foundation (9162008), and the State Key Laboratoryof of
71690241, 71572093), the Beijing Natural Science Foundation (9162008), and the State Key Laboratory
Automotive
Automotive Safety
Safety andand Energy
Energy (ZZ2016-024).
(ZZ2016-024).
Author
Author Contributions:
Contributions: Han
HanHao,
Hao,Zongwei
ZongweiLiuLiuand
andFuquan
Fuquan Zhao
Zhao designed the whole
designed the wholestudy;
study;Han
HanHaoHao and
and
Shuhua Jiang
Shuhua conducted
Jiang data
conducted collection,
data collection,modeling,
modeling,and
andresults
results analysis; ZhexuanMu
analysis; Zhexuan Murefined
refinedthe
theanalysis
analysis based
based
on previous work;
on previous Zhexuan
work; ZhexuanMu, Shuhua
Mu, ShuhuaJiang
Jiangand
andHan
HanHao
Haowrote
wrote the
the paper.
paper.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest. The founding sponsors had no role in the design
of the study; in the collection, analyses, or interpretation of data; in the writing of the manuscript, and in the
decision to publish the results.
Sustainability 2017, 9, 504 11 of 12

References
1. China Automotive Technology Research Center; Beijing National Energy Information Technology Co., Ltd.;
Energy Saving and New Energy Automobile Yearbook Office (Eds.) 2015 Energy Saving and New Energy
Automotive Industry Yearbook; China Economic Publishing House: Beijing, China, 2015.
2. China Automotive Industry Association; China Automotive Technology Research Center; Toyota Auto Body
Co. (Eds.) Annual Report on the Development of China’s Automobile Industry; Social Sciences Academic Press:
Beijing, China, 2016.
3. Notter, D.A.; Gauch, M.; Widmer, R.; Wager, P.; Stamp, A.; Zah, R.; Althaus, H.J. Contribution of Li-ion
batteries to the environmental impact of electric vehicles. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2010, 44, 6550–6556.
[CrossRef] [PubMed]
4. Zackrisson, M.; Avellán, L.; Orlenius, J. Life cycle assessment of lithium-ion batteries for plug-in hybrid
electric vehicles—Critical issues. J. Clean. Prod. 2010, 18, 1519–1529. [CrossRef]
5. Majeau-Bettez, G.; Hawkins, T.R.; Strømman, A.H. Life cycle environmental assessment of lithium-ion and
nickel metal hydride batteries for plug-in hybrid and battery electric vehicles. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2011, 45,
4548–4554. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
6. Ellingsen, L.A.W.; Majeau-Bettez, G.; Singh, B.; Srivastava, A.K.; Valøen, L.O.; Strømman, A.H. Life cycle
assessment of a lithium-ion battery vehicle pack. J. Ind. Ecol. 2014, 18, 113–124. [CrossRef]
7. Dunn, J.B.; James, C.; Gaines, L.G.; Gallagher, K.; Dai, Q.; Kelly, J.C. Material and Energy Flows in the Production
of Cathode and Anode Materials for Lithium Ion Batteries; Argonne National Laboratory (ANL): Argonne, IL,
USA, 2014.
8. Dunn, J.B.; Gaines, L.; Barnes, M.; Wang, M.; Sullivan, J. Material and Energy Flows in the Materials Production,
Assembly, and End-of-Life Stages of the Automotive Lithium-Ion Battery Life Cycle; Argonne National Laboratory
(ANL): Lemont, IL, USA, 2012.
9. Amarakoon, S.; Smith, J.; Segal, B. Application of Life-Cycle Assessment to Nanoscale Technology:
Lithium-Ion Batteries for Electric Vehicles. Available online: https://trid.trb.org/view.aspx?id=1300236
(accessed on 22 March 2017).
10. Kim, H.C.; Wallington, T.J.; Arsenault, R.; Bae, C.; Ahn, S.; Lee, J. Cradle-to-Gate Emissions from
a Commercial Electric Vehicle Li-Ion Battery: A Comparative Analysis. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2016, 50,
7715–7722. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
11. Hendrickson, T.P.; Kavvada, O.; Shah, N.; Sathre, R.; Scown, C.D. Life-cycle implications and supply chain
logistics of electric vehicle battery recycling in California. Environ. Res. 2015. [CrossRef]
12. Wang, Q. Comparative Analysis of Cathode Materials Based on Life Cycle Assessment. Ph.D. Dissertation,
South China University of Technology, Guangzhou, China, 2012.
13. Lu, Q. Life Cycle Analysis and Evaluation of Electric Vehicle Battery. Ph.D. Dissertation, Jilin University,
Changchun, China, 2014.
14. Bo, C. Synthesis and Environmental Analysis of Lithium Ion Battery Materials Based on Life Cycle
Assessment. Ph.D. Dissertation, Beijing Institute of Technology, Beijing, China, 2015.
15. Zhang, J.; Lu, L.; Li, Z. Key Technologies and Fundamental Academic Issues for Traction Battery Systems.
Auto. Saf. Energy 2012, 2, 87–104.
16. IAI. Primary Aluminum Production. Available online: http://www.world-aluminium.org/statistics
(accessed on 20 March 2016).
17. Zeng, G.; Yang, J.; Song, X. Analysis of Copper Smelting Energy Consumption and Carbon Emission
Scenarios Based on the Life Cycle Perspective. China Popul. Resour. Environ. 2012, 22, 46–50.
18. Sullivan, J.L.; Burnham, A.; Wang, M. Energy-Consumption and Carbon-Emission Analysis of Vehicle and
Component Manufacturing; Argonne National Laboratory (ANL): Lemont, IL, USA, 2010.
19. Hao, H.; Geng, Y.; Hang, W. GHG Emissions from Primary Aluminum Production in China: Regional
Disparity and Policy Implications. Appl. Energy 2015, 166, 264–272. [CrossRef]
20. Hao, H.; Qiao, Q.; Liu, Z.; Zhao, F.; Chen, Y. Comparing the Life Cycle CO2 Emissions from Vehicle
Production in China and the US: Implications for Targeting the Reduction Opportunities. Clean. Technol.
Environ. Policy 2016. [CrossRef]
21. Chen, Z. Life Cycle Ecological Benefit Evaluation of Automobile Parts. Ph.D. Dissertation, Hunan University,
Changsha, China, 2014; pp. 42–48.
Sustainability 2017, 9, 504 12 of 12

22. National Bureau of Statistics of China. Annual Provincial Electricity Generation. Available online:
http://data.stats.gov.cn/easyquery.htm?cn=C01 (accessed on 30 March 2016).
23. Ma, C.; Li, S.; Ge, Q. Research on greenhouse gas emission factors of provincial electricity grid. Resou. Sci.
2014, 5, 1005–1012.
24. National Development and Reform Commission. Low Carbon Development and Provincial Greenhouse
Gas Inventory Preparation Training Materials. Available online: http://qhs.ndrc.gov.cn/gzdt/201403/
t20140328_604827.html (accessed on 20 March 2016).
25. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas
Inventories. Available online: http://www.ipcc-nggip.iges.or.jp/public/2006gl (accessed on 20 March 2016).

© 2017 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access
article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution
(CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).