LCA/LCC analysis of Start-Light-Ignition lead-acid battery in China


Abstract

Background: China has the largest lead–acid battery (LAB) industry and market around the world, and this situation causes unavoidable emissions of Pb and other pollutants.

Methods: On the basis of a field survey on a starting–lighting–ignition (SLI) LAB plant in Zhejiang Province, this study applies life cycle assessment (LCA) and life cycle costing (LCC) methods to assess the environmental impacts and environment-related costs derived from the LAB industry during the life phases, including material preparation, battery assembly, transportation, and regeneration, of the plant.

Results: Material preparation and regeneration phases contribute 3.4 and 42.2 g to Pb emission, respectively, and result in 3.29×108 CHY of environmental cost for each function unit (1 KVA·h LAB capacity). The material preparation phase is the largest mass contributor to global warming potential (GWP, 97%), photo-chemical oxidation potential (POCP, 88.9%), and eutrophication potential (EP, 82.5%) and produces 2.68×108 CHY of environmental cost.

Discussion: Decision makers in the Chinese LAB industry should replace the pyrogenic process in smelting with the use of clean energy, increase the lead recovery rate while producing the same capacity of LABs, and develop new technologies to reduce heavy metal emission, especially in the regeneration phase.

Ask to review this manuscript

Notes for potential reviewers

  • Volunteering is not a guarantee that you will be asked to review. There are many reasons: reviewers must be qualified, there should be no conflicts of interest, a minimum of two reviewers have already accepted an invitation, etc.
  • This is NOT OPEN peer review. The review is single-blind, and all recommendations are sent privately to the Academic Editor handling the manuscript. That said, if the manuscript is accepted for publication then the reviewer reports can be optionally signed and made public (see below).
  • What happens after volunteering? It may be a few days before you receive an invitation to review with further instructions. You will need to accept the invitation to then become an official referee for the manuscript. If you do not receive an invitation it is for one of many possible reasons as noted above.

  • PeerJ does not judge submissions based on subjective measures such as novelty, impact or degree of advance. Effectively, reviewers are asked to comment on whether or not the submission is scientifically and technically sound and therefore deserves to join the scientific literature. Our Peer Review criteria can be found on the "Editorial Criteria" page - reviewers are specifically asked to comment on 3 broad areas: "Basic Reporting", "Experimental Design" and "Validity of the Findings".
  • Reviewers are expected to comment in a timely, professional, and constructive manner.
  • Until the article is published, reviewers must regard all information relating to the submission as strictly confidential.
  • When submitting a review, reviewers are given the option to "sign" their review (i.e. to associate their name with their comments). Otherwise, all review comments remain anonymous.
  • Each time a decision is made by the Academic Editor, each reviewer will receive a copy of the Decision Letter (which will include the comments of all reviewers).
  • If the article is accepted, then the authors are given the option to reproduce the reviewer reports, and their full revision history, alongside their finally published article. In those instances, the comments of the reviewers will be made public (although reviewers' names will never be revealed unless the reviewer opted to sign their review, as noted above).

If you have any questions about submitting your review, please email us at peer.review@peerj.com.