Life cycle assessment of emerging Ni–Co hydroxide charge storage electrodes: impact of graphene oxide and synthesis route
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Decoupling energy supply from fossil fuels through electrification and sustainable energy management requires efficient and environmentally low-impact energy storage technologies. Potential candidates are charge storage electrodes that combine nickel and cobalt hydroxides with reduced graphene oxide (rGO) designed to achieve high-energy, high-power density and long cycling lifetimes. An early eco-efficiency analysis of these electrodes seeks to examine the impacts of materials and processes used in the synthesis, specifically while focusing on the use of rGO. The emerging electrodes synthesized by means of electrodeposition, are further compared with electrodes obtained by an alternative synthesis route involving co-precipitation. Life cycle assessment (LCA) method was applied to compare a baseline nickel-cobalt hydroxide electrode (NCED), the focal electrode integrating rGO (NCED-rGO), and the benchmark co-precipitated electrode (NCCP), for delivering the charge of 1000 mA h. Contribution analysis reveals that the main environmental hotspots in the synthesis of the NCED-rGO are the use of electricity for potentiostat, ethanol for cleaning, and rGO. Results of comparison show significantly better performance of NCED-rGO in comparison to NCED across all impact categories, suggesting that improved functionalities by addition of rGO outweigh added impacts of the use of material itself. NCED-rGO is more impactful than NCCP except for the indicators of cumulative energy demand, climate change, and fossil depletion. To produce a functional equivalent for the three electrodes, total cumulative energy use was estimated to be 78 W h for NCED, 25 W h for NCED-rGO, and 35 W h for NCCP. Sensitivity analysis explores the significance of rGO efficiency uptake on the relative comparison with NCCP, and potential impact of rGO on the category of freshwater ecotoxicity given absence of removal from the process effluent. Scenario analysis further shows relative performance of the electrodes at the range of alternative functional parameters of current density and lifetime. Lastly, the environmental performance of NCED-rGO electrodes is discussed in regard to technology readiness level and opportunities for design improvements.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".