Full life cycle assessment of an industrial lead–acid battery based on primary data

Overview

Although lead-acid batteries (LABs) are often used as a reference system, no study based on primary data from Europe or North America since 2010 could be found, and existing European studies rely on literature values from a few outdated sources. The authors close the gap with a cradle-to-grave LCA of an industrial LAB using up-to-date primary data from German manufacturer Hoppecke Batterien GmbH, covering production, use and end-of-life (EOL), and compare it with a lithium iron phosphate (LFP) battery in two use cases.

The data-centre case assumes a 10-year service life, 2 cycles/year (an annual test plus about 8 min/yr average German outage), 54 × 6 V blocks for 324 V DC, 10 min maximum supply duration, a 445.5 A 10-min discharge current to 1.65 V/cell and 0.1%/day self-discharge. Data centres account for about 37% of the roughly 3.4 billion USD global stationary-battery market, followed by telecom at 25%. With so few cycles, production and EOL dominate; production+EOL impact per kWh of capacity is GWP 40.52 kg CO2-eq (LAB) versus 50.04 (LFP), ecotoxicity 1469 versus 6364 CTUe and resource depletion 0.0502 versus 0.0274 kg Sb-eq.

In the data-centre case, use-phase impact per kWh delivered was 462 g CO2-eq for LAB versus 338 g for LFP, and the use phase is not very influential over the full life cycle. Full life-cycle GWP was 6397 g CO2-eq per kWh delivered for LAB and 7668 g for LFP; renewable electricity could cut the LAB figure by about 39% to 3909 g (7% from the use phase, 32% from production/EOL). In the cyclic home-storage case the same UPS-designed LAB lasts only 257 cycles at 90% DoD and would need replacement 14 times, so LFP is better in all categories.

The conclusion is that battery chemistry should be chosen per application, and that electricity sourcing in manufacturing is the biggest lever for lead-acid. Limits: data come from one manufacturer and one product line; use cases rest on specific assumptions (2 cycles/year, 10 years); and the text is internally inconsistent, with the discussion citing a GWP reduction of 'up to 47%' for the data-centre case and the conclusions 39%.

Key points

1. Data centres account for about 37% of the roughly 3.4 billion USD global stationary-battery market, followed by telecom at 25%.
2. Data-centre use case: 10-year service life, 2 cycles/year, 54 × 6 V blocks for 324 V DC, 10 min maximum supply duration, 445.5 A 10-min discharge current to 1.65 V/cell, 0.1%/day self-discharge.
3. Production+EOL impact per kWh of capacity: GWP 40.52 kg CO2-eq (LAB) vs 50.04 (LFP); ecotoxicity 1469 vs 6364 CTUe; resource depletion 0.0502 vs 0.0274 kg Sb-eq.
4. In the data-centre case, use-phase impact per kWh delivered was 462 g CO2-eq for LAB vs 338 g for LFP; the use phase is not very influential over the full life cycle.
5. Full life-cycle GWP was 6397 g CO2-eq per kWh delivered for LAB and 7668 g for LFP; renewable electricity could cut the LAB figure by about 39% to 3909 g (7% from the use phase, 32% from production/EOL).
6. In the cyclic home-storage case the UPS-designed LAB lasts only 257 cycles at 90% DoD and would need replacing 14 times, so LFP is better in all categories.
7. The text is inconsistent: the discussion cites a GWP reduction of up to 47% for the data-centre case while the conclusions cite 39%.

Using it in design

• For UPS duty with a few cycles a year and minutes of autonomy, compare battery chemistries by environmental impact categories (GWP, ecotoxicity, resource depletion) as well as energy density, because production and EOL dominate.
• Do not use a lead-acid battery designed for UPS in high-cycle duty (daily cycling, grid services); its life is about 257 cycles and LFP is the better fit.
• Make the supplier's manufacturing electricity source (renewable or not) a selection criterion for lead-acid batteries; it can cut GWP by about 39%.

Who should read it

Designers and procurement teams choosing UPS battery chemistry with life-cycle and sustainability in mind.

Document contents

1. 1 Introduction
2. 2 Methodology
3. 3 Results
4. 4 Discussion
5. 5 Conclusion

Related standards

• IEC 60896-21
• IEC 60896-22
• IEC 62485-2
• ISO 14040
• ISO 14044

Read the document

Publication details

Authors

Friedrich B. Jasper; Manuel Baumann; Milosch Stumpf; Andreas Husmann; Bernhard Riegel; Stefano Passerini; Marcel Weil

Publisher

Energy Advances (Royal Society of Chemistry (RSC))

Year

2025

Volume

4

Issue

7

Pages

910-929

Document language

English

Source type

Scientific

Access

Open licence — downloadable

DOI

10.1039/d5ya00057b

Licence

CC BY 3.0 — share with attribution

Licence evidence

doi.org

Citation