Table 3.
Analysis of second-life EVBs by economic methods
| Method | Scenarios | Cost and Technical Parameters | Research conclusions | Reference |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Payback period (PP) | Residential, industrial, and PV power plant application | Repurposed battery cost; operation & maintenance (O&M) cost; peak hour tariff; government electricity cost; number and lifetime of batteries | For residential application in Ahvaz, Iran, repurposed EVBs are not economical, i.e., PP is > 10 years. Industrial and PV plant applications were economical with PP of 2.7–9.1 and 3.6–4.9 years, respectively. |
Mirzaei Omrani and Jannesari80 |
| Residential energy storage for peak lopping, even discharging, and PV | Capital costs; electricity costs; lopping threshold; even discharge rate; hourly discharge limit; overnight charge level | The most beneficial residential operating scenario of second-life battery use is with PV generation with a PP of 14 years. For peak shaving and even discharging, second-life battery use is not economical with a PP of 30 and 25 years, respectively, longer than the battery lifetime of 16 years. | Gladwin et al.81 | |
| Uninterruptible Power System (UPS) energy storage | Used and new battery price; repurposing cost; capital and recurring cost; end-user revenue, i.e., quality & reliability (Q&R) value, time-of-use (TOU) and demand charge (DC) | Potential economic benefits over lead-acid batteries in the commercial and industrial UPS applications. PP is 6.9–10.3 years considering Q&R value. Adding TOU and DC service extends PP due to additional cost. |
Neubauer et al.73 | |
| Levelized cost of electricity (LCOE) Levelized cost of electricity (LCOE) |
Residential energy storage with PV; Utility peak shaving; Utility PV firming |
Costs of battery, PV, and inverter; Electricity prices; discount rate and inflation; project lifetime; efficiency and lifetime of battery, PV, and inverter; PV derating factor |
When replacing new LIBs, SLBs reduce LCOE by 12%–57%. Compared to no battery baseline, LCOE of SLB with residential PV decreases 15%–25% but that with utility PV firming increases by up to 74%, except for Detroit with 8% reduction. LCOE of SLB utility peak shaving decreases 39% in Michigan but increases 61% in Oregon. | Kamath et al.74 |
| EV fast-charging systems | Costs of battery, PV, and inverter; Electricity prices; discount rate and inflation; project lifetime; efficiency and lifetime of battery, PV, and inverter; battery materials replaced; PV derating factor; maximum grid power |
Replacing new with retired LIBs for energy storage reduces LCOE by 12%–41%. Compared with no battery baseline, adding second life EVBs reduces the LCOE compared to grid only for cities with high demand charges or peak electricity price. | Kamath et al.53 | |
| Second-life battery energy storage system (BESS) | Battery capacity, energy to power ratio; state of health, DOD, replacement interval, charging cost, and roundtrip efficiency; project years; operating days; construction time; discount rate; total capital cost; O&M; new and SLB module market and repurposing cost; capacity degradation | For a 15-year time horizon, levelized cost of storage (LCOS) of second-life BESS is $234–278/MWh while that for new BESS is $211/MWh. Total capital cost for second-life BESS is 64%–79% of new BESS. The results are most sensitive to discount rate, DOD, and repurposing cost. |
Steckel et al.82 | |
| Net Present Value (NPV) Net Present Value (NPV) |
PV combined energy storage charging station | EV charging income; subsidies; discount rate; cost and service life of PV and conventional and second-use battery energy storages; O&M costs; electricity prices; cost of testing & restructuring | The annual cumulative NPV of the PV charging station with second-life LFP battery is higher than that with the conventional energy storage system. | Han et al.52 |
| Distributed solar photovoltaics (DSPV) with reused batteries as energy storage systems (RBESS) | Cost of solar panel and balance of system; electricity tariff; subsidies; labor cost; reused battery cost and residual value after reuse; replacement cost; insolation; PV and battery capacity and losses | NPV of RBESS with DSPV in the residential sector is negative for most regions, while that for the commercial/industrial sector is mostly positive because of favorable load profiles. | Bai et al.83 | |
| Distributed PV system with EVB under sharing business model scenarios | Power load profile; solar irradiation; battery degradation; charging/discharging efficiency; state of charge; cost of repurposed battery, installation, and end-user system; maintenance cost; electricity price and feed-in-tariff; discount rate | Among scenarios of S1 (no storage/no PV), S2 (SLB/no PV), S3 (SLB/shared PV-same users), and S4 (SLB/shared PV-different users), the highest NPV, 2,287–3,205 RBM/kWh, is achieved for S4 between office and residential users. | Tang et al.75 | |
| Home energy storage - Distributed electrical storage appliances | New and repurposed battery cost; power conditioning, controls, interfaces; accessories, facilities, shipping, catch all; O&M; Installation, residential circuitry; benefits of application; discount rate | Net present residual value for energy storage of multiapplication combination with a 10-year service life: $397 (Prius PHV battery); $1,510 (Volt battery); $3,010 (Leaf battery) Reductions in monthly battery lease payment during the 8-year first life in EV: 11% (Prius PHV); 22% (Volt); 24% (Leaf) |
Williams84 | |
| Load-shifting in communication base station (CBS) | Project lifetime; cost of SLB purchasing, remanufacturing, installation, replacement and maintenance; VAT; battery lifetime; peak-off-peak electricity prices; subsidy; battery capacity and electricity losses | Load shifting with SLB (case 2) saves life cycle cost by 17.6% compared to grid-only scenario (case 1). New LIB (case 3) is not profitable with negative NPV throughout the project lifetime. Battery purchasing accounts for 61.9% and 91.1% of the total cost for case 2 and case 3, respectively, while the revenue from load shifting is 83.7% and 84% of the total revenue for each case. |
Yang et al.85 | |
| Dynamic payback period (DPP) | Battery energy storage system | Cost of initial investment, operation, and battery replacement; income from balancing power load, subsidy, and battery residual value; social value of postponing grid upgrade, increased grid reliability, reduced carbon emissions | DPP of old battery energy storage is 15 years, while that of new battery energy storage is 20 years. Key determining factors are battery cost, government subsidies, and electricity prices. |
Zhang et al.86 |
| Residential, industrial, and PV power plant application | Repurposed battery cost; O&M cost; peak hour tariff; government electricity cost; number and lifetime of batteries; discount rate; inflation | For an interest rate of 9%, use of second-life battery packs is more economical in the industrial than the residential sector. For PV power plants, DPP is ∼5 years. |
Mirzaei Omrani and Jannesari80 |