battery cell production, Li-S

Metadata & sources Methods, scope, reference years, publications, contributors, projects and funding.

Scientific journal publication

Wickerts et al. (2023). Prospective Life Cycle Assessment of Lithium-Sulfur Batteries for Stationary Energy Storage. ACS Sustainable Chemistry & Engineering. Based on Chordia et al. (2021).

Background database: ecoinvent / 3.9
Background system model: cut-off
Biosphere database: ecoinvent / 3.9

These are the stored source profiles for this version. Foreground methodology is recorded in Scientific metadata.

External references

Publication DOI: 10.1021/acssuschemeng.3c00141
Publication DOI: 10.1007/s11367-021-01976-0

Declarations describe this version's foreground inventory. Missing information is not evidence of a particular allocation method or data origin.

Source publication year: 2023
Inventory reference year: Not specified
Foreground modelling approach: Not specified
Allocated product inventory: Not specified
Allocation or multifunctionality treatment: Not specified
Inventory contributions: Not specified
Methodology notes: Study and model basis
Wickerts et al. (2023) models prospective lithium-metal/sulfur pouch cells and stationary wind-electricity storage. Its six industrial scenarios use ecoinvent 3.7.1 cut-off and laboratory/literature chemistry scaled with engineering estimates. The then-current manufacturing readiness MRL 4–5 and assumed MRL 10 are not TRL values or observed commercial performance. Production timing is uncertain; the publication date and possible operation after 2030 do not establish a measurement year. The cell study uses 1 kWh theoretical storage capacity; the complete system uses 1 MWh AC electricity delivered over 20 years. Source impact methods include IPCC AR5 GWP100, crustal scarcity indicator and ReCiPe 2016 indicators, implemented with OpenLCA 2.1.2; this does not identify the software that created the CLIC adaptation.

Current static cell/module basis
The ingredient-sum cell is 47.319 g; the source's 46 g average is a separate reported reference. A module contains 408 cells and 6.203 kg noncell hardware, totaling 25.509152 kg. Initial gross specific cell energy is assumed to be 150 Wh/kg, giving 8.808643655832261 kg module per nominal kWh. This is not the source optimistic 500 Wh/kg scenario or lifetime usable energy. Factory allocation is 5e-7 operating-factory units per nominal kWh, equivalent to 7.5e-8 per kg cell, retained once in cell production. The capacity uncertainty remains the source-model representation, without certified joint dependence.
System boundary: The declared kilogram reference for battery cell, LiS, with its recorded suppliers and signed services. Precursor manufacture, component assembly, installation manufacture, charging operation and retirement remain separate processes.
Included life cycle stages: Manufacturing
Technology description: One kg assembled cell is combined with manufacturing electricity and the existing factory-construction/operation allocation. Factory manufacture is owned here rather than added again at the capacity wrapper.
Intended application: Reuse within the documented prospective Li–S model with compatible physical unit, source scenario, current engineering configuration and manufacturing/operating/retirement boundary.
Use limitations: The prospective source model and current supplier/profile adaptation do not certify measured industrial performance, complete chemistry or native supplier equivalence. Original uncertainty and background profiles retain their documented scope.
Data origins: Literature

Other fields not yet completed (5)

Data period start year, Data period end year, Valid until year, Multifunctionality applicable, Process type

Publications (2)

Citation: Originally from Wickerts et al. (2023). Prospective Life Cycle Assessment of Lithium-Sulfur Batteries for Stationary Energy Storage. ACS Sustainable Chemistry & Engineering. Based on Chordia et al. (2021).
Title: Prospective Life Cycle Assessment of Lithium-Sulfur Batteries for Stationary Energy Storage
Doi: 10.1021/acssuschemeng.3c00141
Url: https://doi.org/10.1021/acssuschemeng.3c00141
Source type: Scientific journal
Publication year: 2023
Relation: Primary source
Authors: Sanna Wickerts · 0000-0002-7833-0849; Rickard Arvidsson · 0000-0002-9258-0641; Anders Nordelöf · 0000-0002-7455-7341; Magdalena Svanström · 0000-0001-8468-1293; Patrik Johansson · 0000-0002-9907-117X

Citation: Sanna Wickerts; Rickard Arvidsson; Anders Nordelöf; Magdalena Svanström; Patrik Johansson (2024). Correction to “Prospective Life Cycle Assessment of Lithium–Sulfur Batteries for Stationary Energy Storage”. https://doi.org/10.1021/acssuschemeng.4c01782
Title: Correction to “Prospective Life Cycle Assessment of Lithium–Sulfur Batteries for Stationary Energy Storage”
Doi: 10.1021/acssuschemeng.4c01782
Url: https://doi.org/10.1021/acssuschemeng.4c01782
Source type: Scientific journal
Publication year: 2024
Relation: Supporting source
Authors: Sanna Wickerts · 0000-0002-7833-0849; Rickard Arvidsson · 0000-0002-9258-0641; Anders Nordelöf · 0000-0002-7455-7341; Magdalena Svanström · 0000-0001-8468-1293; Patrik Johansson · 0000-0002-9907-117X

Projects (1)

Name: Wickerts et al. (2023): Li-S stationary-storage LCA
Url: https://doi.org/10.1021/acssuschemeng.3c00141
Grant identifier: 50099-1
Relation: Source study

Funding (1)

Organization: Swedish Energy Agency · https://ror.org/0359z7n90
Award identifier: 50099-1
Project: Wickerts et al. (2023): Li-S stationary-storage LCA

Evidence and qualifications (19)

Target field: data_origins
Origin: Source import
Source reference: Existing published CLIC inventory documentation
Source location: source
Qualification: Tags describe documented input origins of this exact supplied version. Literature does not assert direct measurements; engineering and proxy tags describe stated assumptions, not validated industrial performance.

Target field: included_life_cycle_stages
Origin: Source import
Source reference: Existing published CLIC inventory documentation
Source location: name
Qualification: Minimum explicitly named stage(s); no assertion that all upstream/downstream stages of the cited study are present. Manufacturing rejects alone do not create an end-of-life stage.

Target field: publications
Origin: Editor verification
Source reference: https://api.crossref.org/works/10.1021%2Facssuschemeng.3c00141
Source location: DOI registration: title, publication dates and byline
Qualification: Bibliographic details refer to this explicitly cited DOI. Existing citation text is retained, including any additional sources. Publication year does not establish the inventory reference year; publication authors are not assigned as inventory compilers.

Target field: publications
Origin: Editor verification
Source reference: https://doi.org/10.1021/acssuschemeng.3c00141
Source location: Original article byline/affiliations, 2024 published correction and corrected SI
Qualification: Original paper remains 2023; supporting correction is 2024. Four original author ORCIDs are printed in the original paper; Svanström's additional ORCID is verified using her public record and the same five-author correction. Institutional identifiers preserve department labels and distinct employers; no contributor-role changes.

Target field: publications
Origin: Editor verification
Source reference: https://doi.org/10.1021/acssuschemeng.4c01782
Source location: 2024 correction; corrected SI S35/S36/S38/S41 and Figure S17
Qualification: A correction exists even though the original registry update query returned none. Its corrected recycling-loop 30/70 primary/recycled lithium accounting is not certified by treatment-node quantity agreement. No blanket factor is applied to chemical manufacture, other chemistries or source result tables.

Target field: methodology_notes
Origin: Editor verification
Source reference: https://doi.org/10.1021/acssuschemeng.3c00141
Source location: Main paper Materials and Methods; SI S2/S3; version-specific comparison artifact
Qualification: Source review: Wickerts et al. (2023), with the 2024 correction and revised supplement, supports this Li-S lineage. This CLIC node declares kilogram of battery cell, LiS; it must not inherit the functional unit of the complete study. The source considers six future industrial scenarios: base, material selection, energy system, technical performance, recycling and combined. Its cell study uses 1 kWh theoretical storage capacity; the complete storage system uses 1 MWh AC electricity delivered over 20 years. Background data are ecoinvent 3.7.1 cut-off, with laboratory/literature chemistry upscaled to prospective industrial operation. The paper distinguishes then-current manufacturing readiness MRL 4–5 from assumed MRL 10; neither is a numeric TRL. Production timing is uncertain and described as unlikely before 2030, which does not establish a measured inventory reference year. CLIC supplier substitutions, reconstruction and uncertainty are separate from source assumptions. Source quantity agreement, where available, does not establish supplier/biosphere identity, mass closure or reproduction of published impact results.

Target field: funding
Origin: Editor verification
Source reference: https://doi.org/10.1021/acssuschemeng.3c00141
Source location: Original paper Acknowledgments
Qualification: Swedish Energy Agency grant 50099-1 and the Vinnova competence centre Batteries Sweden (BASE) supported the source study. The source_study relation does not establish funding of CLIC. Do not attach grant 50099-1 to Vinnova/BASE or infer an unprinted Vinnova award; the centre and agency remain separate entities.

Target field: technology_description
Origin: Editor verification
Source reference: https://doi.org/10.1021/acssuschemeng.3c00141
Source location: fields/design_capacity; corrected SI S29-S31; exact static current model
Qualification: Technical-characterisation review TC-1178. Design capacity: Unspecified. Basis: No independent parameter value established for this exact node. Component/precursor/service references do not inherit installation capacity or life; cycling and storage energy are separate context. Evidence classification: corrected source and guarded model scope review. Confidence: high for model assumption not measured performance. A retained model value is not a measured observation or industrial certification. Source-specific assumptions and detailed technical parameters accompany this plan.

Target field: technology_description
Origin: Editor verification
Source reference: https://doi.org/10.1021/acssuschemeng.3c00141
Source location: fields/design_capacity_unit; corrected SI S29-S31; exact static current model
Qualification: Technical-characterisation review TC-1178. Design capacity unit: Unspecified. Basis: No independent parameter value established for this exact node. Component/precursor/service references do not inherit installation capacity or life; cycling and storage energy are separate context. Evidence classification: corrected source and guarded model scope review. Confidence: high for model assumption not measured performance. A retained model value is not a measured observation or industrial certification. Source-specific assumptions and detailed technical parameters accompany this plan.

Target field: technology_description
Origin: Editor verification
Source reference: https://doi.org/10.1021/acssuschemeng.3c00141
Source location: fields/capacity_factor_percent; corrected SI S29-S31; exact static current model
Qualification: Technical-characterisation review TC-1178. Capacity factor (%): Unspecified. Basis: No independent parameter value established for this exact node. Component/precursor/service references do not inherit installation capacity or life; cycling and storage energy are separate context. Evidence classification: corrected source and guarded model scope review. Confidence: high for model assumption not measured performance. A retained model value is not a measured observation or industrial certification. Source-specific assumptions and detailed technical parameters accompany this plan.

Target field: technology_description
Origin: Editor verification
Source reference: https://doi.org/10.1021/acssuschemeng.3c00141
Source location: fields/annual_production_volume; corrected SI S29-S31; exact static current model
Qualification: Technical-characterisation review TC-1178. Annual production volume: Unspecified. Basis: No independent parameter value established for this exact node. Component/precursor/service references do not inherit installation capacity or life; cycling and storage energy are separate context. Evidence classification: corrected source and guarded model scope review. Confidence: high for model assumption not measured performance. A retained model value is not a measured observation or industrial certification. Source-specific assumptions and detailed technical parameters accompany this plan.

Target field: technology_description
Origin: Editor verification
Source reference: https://doi.org/10.1021/acssuschemeng.3c00141
Source location: fields/annual_production_volume_unit; corrected SI S29-S31; exact static current model
Qualification: Technical-characterisation review TC-1178. Annual production volume unit: Unspecified. Basis: No independent parameter value established for this exact node. Component/precursor/service references do not inherit installation capacity or life; cycling and storage energy are separate context. Evidence classification: corrected source and guarded model scope review. Confidence: high for model assumption not measured performance. A retained model value is not a measured observation or industrial certification. Source-specific assumptions and detailed technical parameters accompany this plan.

Target field: technology_description
Origin: Editor verification
Source reference: https://doi.org/10.1021/acssuschemeng.3c00141
Source location: fields/annual_production_volume_year; corrected SI S29-S31; exact static current model
Qualification: Technical-characterisation review TC-1178. Annual production volume year: Unspecified. Basis: No independent parameter value established for this exact node. Component/precursor/service references do not inherit installation capacity or life; cycling and storage energy are separate context. Evidence classification: corrected source and guarded model scope review. Confidence: high for model assumption not measured performance. A retained model value is not a measured observation or industrial certification. Source-specific assumptions and detailed technical parameters accompany this plan.

Target field: technology_description
Origin: Editor verification
Source reference: https://doi.org/10.1021/acssuschemeng.3c00141
Source location: fields/plant_lifetime_years; corrected SI S29-S31; exact static current model
Qualification: Technical-characterisation review TC-1178. Plant or represented-asset lifetime (years): Unspecified. Basis: No independent parameter value established for this exact node. Component/precursor/service references do not inherit installation capacity or life; cycling and storage energy are separate context. Evidence classification: corrected source and guarded model scope review. Confidence: high for model assumption not measured performance. A retained model value is not a measured observation or industrial certification. Source-specific assumptions and detailed technical parameters accompany this plan.

Target field: technology_description
Origin: Editor verification
Source reference: https://doi.org/10.1021/acssuschemeng.3c00141
Source location: Main prospective modelling section; corrected SI S29-S31 and TablesS35/S36/S38; lithium-sulfur-source-reading.json
Qualification: Technical-characterisation review TC-1178. Commercial maturity stage: Unspecified. Basis: The source distinguishes laboratory/prototype cell manufacturing MRL4-5 from a model of future mature production/use/recycling. It does not assign demonstration/TRL6 to this exact component, chemical recipe or integrated static configuration. Manufacturing readiness is a different scale and cannot be converted into numeric TRL. Leave exact readiness unspecified. Evidence classification: primary source readiness scale and prospective scope review. Confidence: high for MRL TRL scope distinction. A retained model value is not a measured observation or industrial certification. Source-specific assumptions and detailed technical parameters accompany this plan.

Target field: technology_description
Origin: Editor verification
Source reference: https://doi.org/10.1021/acssuschemeng.3c00141
Source location: Main prospective modelling section; corrected SI S29-S31 and TablesS35/S36/S38; lithium-sulfur-source-reading.json
Qualification: Technical-characterisation review TC-1178. Technology readiness level: Unspecified. Basis: The source distinguishes laboratory/prototype cell manufacturing MRL4-5 from a model of future mature production/use/recycling. It does not assign demonstration/TRL6 to this exact component, chemical recipe or integrated static configuration. Manufacturing readiness is a different scale and cannot be converted into numeric TRL. Leave exact readiness unspecified. Evidence classification: primary source readiness scale and prospective scope review. Confidence: high for MRL TRL scope distinction. A retained model value is not a measured observation or industrial certification. Source-specific assumptions and detailed technical parameters accompany this plan.

Target field: technology_description
Origin: Editor verification
Source reference: https://doi.org/10.1021/acssuschemeng.3c00141
Source location: Main prospective modelling section; corrected SI S29-S31 and TablesS35/S36/S38; lithium-sulfur-source-reading.json
Qualification: Technical-characterisation review TC-1178. Technological representativeness: 4. Basis: Curator assessment of a prospective/upscaled or transferred inventory and current static hybrid assumptions, not a representative measured industrial Li-S process. Retain any existing more conservative rating. Evidence classification: primary source readiness scale and prospective scope review. Confidence: medium curator judgement. A retained model value is not a measured observation or industrial certification. Source-specific assumptions and detailed technical parameters accompany this plan.

Target field: technology_description
Origin: Editor verification
Source reference: https://doi.org/10.1021/acssuschemeng.3c00141
Source location: Main prospective modelling section; corrected SI S29-S31 and TablesS35/S36/S38; lithium-sulfur-source-reading.json
Qualification: Technical-characterisation review TC-1178. Geographical representativeness: 3. Basis: Curator assessment of generic/regional supplier transfers and scenario electricity, not an exact production-weighted sample for every constituent process. Keep any existing geographical proxy score4. Evidence classification: primary source readiness scale and prospective scope review. Confidence: medium curator judgement. A retained model value is not a measured observation or industrial certification. Source-specific assumptions and detailed technical parameters accompany this plan.

Target field: technology_description
Origin: Editor verification
Source reference: https://doi.org/10.1021/acssuschemeng.3c00141
Source location: Main prospective modelling section; corrected SI S29-S31 and TablesS35/S36/S38; lithium-sulfur-source-reading.json
Qualification: Technical-characterisation review TC-1178. Temporal representativeness: 4. Basis: The model describes prospective mature production without a dated observed full inventory. The 2024erratum corrects the modelling basis, not the observation period or deployment vintage. Retain prospective/mixed score4 rather than using publication as inventory year. Evidence classification: primary source readiness scale and prospective scope review. Confidence: medium curator judgement. A retained model value is not a measured observation or industrial certification. Source-specific assumptions and detailed technical parameters accompany this plan.

Technology characterization Scale, utilization, production, lifetime, technology readiness and representativeness.

Commercial maturity stage: Not provided

Design capacity: Not provided

Design capacity unit: Not provided

Capacity factor: Not provided

Annual production volume: Not provided

Annual production volume unit: Not provided

Annual production volume year: Not provided

Plant lifetime: Not provided

Technology readiness level Not assessed

Technological representativeness

Geographical representativeness

Temporal representativeness

Missing exchange uncertainty generation: Requested

Representativeness scores use a 1–5 scale when provided. Lower scores indicate a closer fit to the modeled technology, geography, or time period.

Inventory & impacts 4 exchanges · exchange table, supply-chain graph and environmental screening.

Precalculated screening profile

Environmental impacts

Results per kilogram, using UVEK 2025 and the ecoinvent 3.10 biosphere. Exchange rows are shaded from green to red by relative contribution to the selected indicator.

Exchange impact indicator (EF v3.1)

Climate change 55.1056 kg CO2-Eq / kilogram

Screening result

This screening result uses Brightpath mappings from the source background to UVEK 2025; mapped suppliers are not claims of scientific equivalence.

Show all 16 indicator totals

Acidification 0.160469 mol H+-Eq / kilogram

Climate change 55.1056 kg CO2-Eq / kilogram

Freshwater ecotoxicity 268.078 CTUe / kilogram

Freshwater eutrophication 0.0147559 kg P-Eq / kilogram

Marine eutrophication 0.0320538 kg N-Eq / kilogram

Terrestrial eutrophication 0.341772 mol N-Eq / kilogram

Human toxicity, cancer 3.3008e-08 CTUh / kilogram

Human toxicity, non-cancer 6.3568e-07 CTUh / kilogram

Ionising radiation 35.7196 kBq U235-Eq / kilogram

Land use 193.586 dimensionless / kilogram

Ozone depletion 0.0272202 kg CFC-11-Eq / kilogram

Particulate matter 1.6869e-06 disease incidence / kilogram

Photochemical ozone formation 0.117953 kg NMVOC-Eq / kilogram

Resource use, fossils 1042.85 MJ, net calorific value / kilogram

Resource use, minerals and metals 0.000307575 kg Sb-Eq / kilogram

Water use 242.429 m3 world Eq deprived / kilogram

Calculation details

Profile uvek-2025-ef-v3-1-4e70d56a85b1 · artifact 4e70d56a85b1 · calculated 2026-11-03 09:05 UTC. These screening results do not replace a reviewed comparative LCA.

Reference flow 1 row Reference production exchanges extracted from the uploaded inventory.

Exchange	Reference / categories	Amount	Unit	Metadata	Climate change contribution
battery cell production, Li-S GLO	battery cell, LiS	1	kilogram	-	Reference flow

Technosphere inputs 3 rows Linked foreground or background product inputs used by this dataset.

Exchange	Reference / categories	Amount	Unit	Metadata	Climate change contribution
battery cell assembly, Li-S GLO	battery cell	1	kilogram	-	53.7924 kg CO2-Eq / kilogram 97.6% of total CLIC v1.0.1
market group for electricity, medium voltage Europe without Switzerland	electricity, medium voltage	4.75	kilowatt hour	Metadata (1) Comment C082: source 0.225 kWh formation per selected 47.319 g cell. Historical source note: multiplied by (1/0.046) to convert from unit of cell to kg of cell	0.425957 kg CO2-Eq / kilogram 0.8% of total BAFU:2025
factory construction and operation, for LiS battery GLO	operating battery factory	7.50e-08	unit	Metadata (1) Comment C082: 5e-7 operating-factory units per nominal kWh * 0.15 kWh/kg cell; not a per-cell coefficient. Historical source note: multiplied by (1/0.046) to convert from unit of cell to kg of cell	0.887313 kg CO2-Eq / kilogram 1.6% of total CLIC v1.0.0

Parameters 0 source definitions · values, formulas and uncertainty.

Read-only definitions preserved with this inventory version. Values are supplied by the source; CLIC does not evaluate formulas or recalculate exchange amounts and impact scores from them.

No parameter definitions were supplied with this inventory snapshot.

Versions & changes 2 versions · change rationale, release notes and comparisons.

Oldest to newest. Arrows show recorded revision links; each node describes the change introduced by that version.

Version 1.0.0
Published 2026-07-15

First published inventory; no earlier version is available for comparison.
Superseded
Version 1.0.1
Published 2026-11-03

The Li–S cell and module quantities now use the summed 47.319 g cell ingredients and 408 cells per module. The resulting module mass and…
Published · Viewing · Latest

Show full version history table (2 versions)

Version	Published	Reason for this version	Link
Version 1.0.1	2026-11-03	The Li–S cell and module quantities now use the summed 47.319 g cell ingredients and 408 cells per module. The resulting module mass and nominal capacity define manufacture and factory allocation consistently.	Current view
Version 1.0.0 Superseded	Published 2026-07-15	First published inventory; no earlier version is available for comparison.	Open version

Back to browse

About this version

Why this version changed

The Li–S cell and module quantities now use the summed 47.319 g cell ingredients and 408 cells per module. The resulting module mass and nominal capacity define manufacture and factory allocation consistently.

Release notes

The retained 150 Wh/kg cell performance and uncertainty are model assumptions, not new measurements.

Source: https://doi.org/10.1021/acssuschemeng.3c00141.

Declared foreground licence: CC-BY-4.0. Source publications and external supplier inventories retain their own terms.

Changes from version 1.0.0 Compare this version with its predecessor. Exchanges are grouped by type and change; biosphere labels include their environmental compartments. Open the base version. Show changes Hide changes

Why this version changed

The Li–S cell and module quantities now use the summed 47.319 g cell ingredients and 408 cells per module. The resulting module mass and nominal capacity define manufacture and factory allocation consistently.

Public revision record

This comparison is permanently visible with the published version so users can assess every detected change before reuse.

Modified exchanges: 2
Added exchanges: 0
Removed exchanges: 0
Inventory metadata: 0
Version metadata: 9

Technosphere exchanges modified 2

Technosphere exchanges modified
Exchange / scope	Field	Previous value	Revised value	Reason
market group for electricity, medium voltage (technosphere / Europe without Switzerland / kilowatt hour)	Amount	4.891304347826087	4.754961009319723	The quantity of electricity, medium voltage follows the selected material or process reference. The detailed ingredient sum is used as the engineering reference rather than treating the separately reported 46 g average as the same quantity. The Li–S cell and module quantities now use the summed 47.319 g cell ingredients and 408 cells per module.
market group for electricity, medium voltage (technosphere / Europe without Switzerland / kilowatt hour)	Inventory comment	multiplied by (1/0.046) to convert from unit of cell to kg of cell	C082: source 0.225 kWh formation per selected 47.319 g cell. Historical source note: multiplied by (1/0.046) to convert from unit of cell to kg of cell	The annotation now explains the role and assumptions of electricity, medium voltage within this inventory. The detailed ingredient sum is used as the engineering reference rather than treating the separately reported 46 g average as the same quantity. The Li–S cell and module quantities now use the summed 47.319 g cell ingredients and 408 cells per module.
factory construction and operation, for LiS battery (technosphere / GLO / unit)	Amount	2.5000000000000004e-07	7.5e-08	The quantity of operating battery factory follows the selected material or process reference. The detailed ingredient sum is used as the engineering reference rather than treating the separately reported 46 g average as the same quantity. The Li–S cell and module quantities now use the summed 47.319 g cell ingredients and 408 cells per module.
factory construction and operation, for LiS battery (technosphere / GLO / unit)	Inventory comment	multiplied by (1/0.046) to convert from unit of cell to kg of cell	C082: 5e-7 operating-factory units per nominal kWh * 0.15 kWh/kg cell; not a per-cell coefficient. Historical source note: multiplied by (1/0.046) to convert from unit of cell to kg of cell	The annotation now explains the role and assumptions of operating battery factory within this inventory. The detailed ingredient sum is used as the engineering reference rather than treating the separately reported 46 g average as the same quantity. The Li–S cell and module quantities now use the summed 47.319 g cell ingredients and 408 cells per module.

Metadata changes 9

Metadata changes
Exchange / scope	Field	Previous value	Revised value	Reason
Version metadata	Commercial maturity stage	demonstration	Not set	No explanation was recorded for this change.
Version metadata	Methodology and allocation explanation	Source context: prospective industrial scenarios, ecoinvent 3.7.1 cut-off; chemistry scaling combines literature and engineering estimates. Source impact methods include IPCC AR5 GWP100, crustal scarcity indicator and ReCiPe 2016 indicators, reported as implemented in the OpenLCA package version 2.1.2. This does not identify the creation software of the CLIC adaptation. The source LiTFSI process uses mass allocation; do not apply that partitioning to every process. Preserve node-specific declared units, CLIC supplier profiles and source/CLIC uncertainty distinctions.	Study and model basis Wickerts et al. (2023) models prospective lithium-metal/sulfur pouch cells and stationary wind-electricity storage. Its six industrial scenarios use ecoinvent 3.7.1 cut-off and laboratory/literature chemistry scaled with engineering estimates. The then-current manufacturing readiness MRL 4–5 and assumed MRL 10 are not TRL values or observed commercial performance. Production timing is uncertain; the publication date and possible operation after 2030 do not establish a measurement year. The cell study uses 1 kWh theoretical storage capacity; the complete system uses 1 MWh AC electricity delivered over 20 years. Source impact methods include IPCC AR5 GWP100, crustal scarcity indicator and ReCiPe 2016 indicators, implemented with OpenLCA 2.1.2; this does not identify the software that created the CLIC adaptation. Current static cell/module basis The ingredient-sum cell is 47.319 g; the source's 46 g average is a separate reported reference. A module contains 408 cells and 6.203 kg noncell hardware, totaling 25.509152 kg. Initial gross specific cell energy is assumed to be 150 Wh/kg, giving 8.808643655832261 kg module per nominal kWh. This is not the source optimistic 500 Wh/kg scenario or lifetime usable energy. Factory allocation is 5e-7 operating-factory units per nominal kWh, equivalent to 7.5e-8 per kg cell, retained once in cell production. The capacity uncertainty remains the source-model representation, without certified joint dependence.
Version metadata	Contributors, publications, projects and supporting evidence	Funding: 1. Project: Url: https://doi.org/10.1021/acssuschemeng.3c00141 Funding: 1. Project: Name: Wickerts et al. (2023): Li-S stationary-storage LCA Funding: 1. Project: Acronym: Not set Funding: 1. Project: Relation: source_study Funding: 1. Project: Grant identifier: 50099-1 Funding: 1. Organization: Ror: https://ror.org/0359z7n90 Funding: 1. Organization: Url: https://www.energimyndigheten.se/ Funding: 1. Organization: Name: Swedish Energy Agency Funding: 1. Award identifier: 50099-1 Evidence: 1. Origin: source_import Evidence: 1. Target field: data_origins Evidence: 1. Qualification: Tags describe documented input origins of this exact supplied version. Literature does not assert direct measurements; engineering and proxy tags describe stated assumptions, not validated industrial performance. Evidence: 1. Source location: source Evidence: 1. Source reference: Existing published CLIC inventory documentation Evidence: 2. Origin: source_import Evidence: 2. Target field: included_life_cycle_stages Evidence: 2. Qualification: Minimum explicitly named stage(s); no assertion that all upstream/downstream stages of the cited study are present. Manufacturing rejects alone do not create an end-of-life stage. Evidence: 2. Source location: name Evidence: 2. Source reference: Existing published CLIC inventory documentation Evidence: 3. Origin: editor_verification Evidence: 3. Target field: publications Evidence: 3. Qualification: Bibliographic details refer to this explicitly cited DOI. Existing citation text is retained, including any additional sources. Publication year does not establish the inventory reference year; publication authors are not assigned as inventory compilers. Evidence: 3. Source location: DOI registration: title, publication dates and byline Evidence: 3. Source reference: https://api.crossref.org/works/10.1021%2Facssuschemeng.3c00141 Evidence: 4. Origin: editor_verification Evidence: 4. Target field: publications Evidence: 4. Qualification: Original paper remains 2023; supporting correction is 2024. Four original author ORCIDs are printed in the original paper; Svanström's additional ORCID is verified using her public record and the same five-author correction. Institutional identifiers preserve department labels and distinct employers; no contributor-role changes. Evidence: 4. Source location: Original article byline/affiliations, 2024 published correction and corrected SI Evidence: 4. Source reference: https://doi.org/10.1021/acssuschemeng.3c00141 Evidence: 5. Origin: editor_verification Evidence: 5. Target field: publications Evidence: 5. Qualification: A correction exists even though the original registry update query returned none. Its corrected recycling-loop 30/70 primary/recycled lithium accounting is not certified by treatment-node quantity agreement. No blanket factor is applied to chemical manufacture, other chemistries or source result tables. Evidence: 5. Source location: 2024 correction; corrected SI S35/S36/S38/S41 and Figure S17 Evidence: 5. Source reference: https://doi.org/10.1021/acssuschemeng.4c01782 Evidence: 6. Origin: editor_verification Evidence: 6. Target field: methodology_notes Evidence: 6. Qualification: Source review: Wickerts et al. (2023), with the 2024 correction and revised supplement, supports this Li-S lineage. This CLIC node declares kilogram of battery cell, LiS; it must not inherit the functional unit of the complete study. The source considers six future industrial scenarios: base, material selection, energy system, technical performance, recycling and combined. Its cell study uses 1 kWh theoretical storage capacity; the complete storage system uses 1 MWh AC electricity delivered over 20 years. Background data are ecoinvent 3.7.1 cut-off, with laboratory/literature chemistry upscaled to prospective industrial operation. The paper distinguishes then-current manufacturing readiness MRL 4–5 from assumed MRL 10; neither is a numeric TRL. Production timing is uncertain and described as unlikely before 2030, which does not establish a measured inventory reference year. CLIC supplier substitutions, reconstruction and uncertainty are separate from source assumptions. Source quantity agreement, where available, does not establish supplier/biosphere identity, mass closure or reproduction of published impact results. This is an archived superseded version. References above to current CLIC reconstruction, hardware or retirement conventions describe the later lineage and do not certify that this earlier recipe already implements them. Its quantity differences remain separately visible in the comparison artifact; preserve the original exchanges. Evidence: 6. Source location: Main paper Materials and Methods; SI S2/S3; version-specific comparison artifact Evidence: 6. Source reference: https://doi.org/10.1021/acssuschemeng.3c00141 Evidence: 7. Origin: editor_verification Evidence: 7. Target field: funding Evidence: 7. Qualification: Swedish Energy Agency grant 50099-1 and the Vinnova competence centre Batteries Sweden (BASE) supported the source study. The source_study relation does not establish funding of CLIC. Do not attach grant 50099-1 to Vinnova/BASE or infer an unprinted Vinnova award; the centre and agency remain separate entities. Evidence: 7. Source location: Original paper Acknowledgments Evidence: 7. Source reference: https://doi.org/10.1021/acssuschemeng.3c00141 Projects: 1. Url: https://doi.org/10.1021/acssuschemeng.3c00141 Projects: 1. Name: Wickerts et al. (2023): Li-S stationary-storage LCA Projects: 1. Acronym: Not set Projects: 1. Relation: source_study Projects: 1. Grant identifier: 50099-1 Publications: 1. Doi: 10.1021/acssuschemeng.3c00141 Publications: 1. Url: https://doi.org/10.1021/acssuschemeng.3c00141 Publications: 1. Title: Prospective Life Cycle Assessment of Lithium-Sulfur Batteries for Stationary Energy Storage Publications: 1. Scientific authors: 1. Name: Sanna Wickerts Publications: 1. Scientific authors: 1. Orcid: 0000-0002-7833-0849 Publications: 1. Scientific authors: 1. Affiliations: 1. Ror: https://ror.org/040wg7k59 Publications: 1. Scientific authors: 1. Affiliations: 1. Url: https://www.chalmers.se/ Publications: 1. Scientific authors: 1. Affiliations: 1. Name: Environmental Systems Analysis, Chalmers University of Technology, Gothenburg 412 96, Sweden Publications: 1. Scientific authors: 2. Name: Rickard Arvidsson Publications: 1. Scientific authors: 2. Orcid: 0000-0002-9258-0641 Publications: 1. Scientific authors: 2. Affiliations: 1. Ror: https://ror.org/040wg7k59 Publications: 1. Scientific authors: 2. Affiliations: 1. Url: https://www.chalmers.se/ Publications: 1. Scientific authors: 2. Affiliations: 1. Name: Environmental Systems Analysis, Chalmers University of Technology, Gothenburg 412 96, Sweden Publications: 1. Scientific authors: 3. Name: Anders Nordelöf Publications: 1. Scientific authors: 3. Orcid: 0000-0002-7455-7341 Publications: 1. Scientific authors: 3. Affiliations: 1. Ror: https://ror.org/040wg7k59 Publications: 1. Scientific authors: 3. Affiliations: 1. Url: https://www.chalmers.se/ Publications: 1. Scientific authors: 3. Affiliations: 1. Name: Environmental Systems Analysis, Chalmers University of Technology, Gothenburg 412 96, Sweden Publications: 1. Scientific authors: 3. Affiliations: 2. Ror: https://ror.org/04p2pa451 Publications: 1. Scientific authors: 3. Affiliations: 2. Url: https://www.toi.no/ Publications: 1. Scientific authors: 3. Affiliations: 2. Name: Institute of Transport Economics, Gaustadalléen 21, Oslo 0349, Norway Publications: 1. Scientific authors: 4. Name: Magdalena Svanström Publications: 1. Scientific authors: 4. Orcid: 0000-0001-8468-1293 Publications: 1. Scientific authors: 4. Affiliations: 1. Ror: https://ror.org/040wg7k59 Publications: 1. Scientific authors: 4. Affiliations: 1. Url: https://www.chalmers.se/ Publications: 1. Scientific authors: 4. Affiliations: 1. Name: Environmental Systems Analysis, Chalmers University of Technology, Gothenburg 412 96, Sweden Publications: 1. Scientific authors: 5. Name: Patrik Johansson Publications: 1. Scientific authors: 5. Orcid: 0000-0002-9907-117X Publications: 1. Scientific authors: 5. Affiliations: 1. Ror: https://ror.org/040wg7k59 Publications: 1. Scientific authors: 5. Affiliations: 1. Url: https://www.chalmers.se/ Publications: 1. Scientific authors: 5. Affiliations: 1. Name: Materials Physics, Department of Physics, Chalmers University of Technology, Gothenburg 412 96, Sweden Publications: 1. Scientific authors: 5. Affiliations: 2. Ror: https://ror.org/01wy0hc37 Publications: 1. Scientific authors: 5. Affiliations: 2. Url: http://www.alistore.eu/ Publications: 1. Scientific authors: 5. Affiliations: 2. Name: ALISTORE−European Research Institute, Rue Baudelocque, Amiens 80000, France Publications: 1. Citation: Originally from Wickerts et al. (2023). Prospective Life Cycle Assessment of Lithium-Sulfur Batteries for Stationary Energy Storage. ACS Sustainable Chemistry & Engineering. Based on Chordia et al. (2021). Publications: 1. Relation: primary_source Publications: 1. Source type: scientific_journal Publications: 1. Publication year: 2023 Publications: 2. Doi: 10.1021/acssuschemeng.4c01782 Publications: 2. Url: https://doi.org/10.1021/acssuschemeng.4c01782 Publications: 2. Title: Correction to “Prospective Life Cycle Assessment of Lithium–Sulfur Batteries for Stationary Energy Storage” Publications: 2. Scientific authors: 1. Name: Sanna Wickerts Publications: 2. Scientific authors: 1. Orcid: 0000-0002-7833-0849 Publications: 2. Scientific authors: 2. Name: Rickard Arvidsson Publications: 2. Scientific authors: 2. Orcid: 0000-0002-9258-0641 Publications: 2. Scientific authors: 3. Name: Anders Nordelöf Publications: 2. Scientific authors: 3. Orcid: 0000-0002-7455-7341 Publications: 2. Scientific authors: 4. Name: Magdalena Svanström Publications: 2. Scientific authors: 4. Orcid: 0000-0001-8468-1293 Publications: 2. Scientific authors: 5. Name: Patrik Johansson Publications: 2. Scientific authors: 5. Orcid: 0000-0002-9907-117X Publications: 2. Citation: Sanna Wickerts; Rickard Arvidsson; Anders Nordelöf; Magdalena Svanström; Patrik Johansson (2024). Correction to “Prospective Life Cycle Assessment of Lithium–Sulfur Batteries for Stationary Energy Storage”. https://doi.org/10.1021/acssuschemeng.4c01782 Publications: 2. Relation: supporting_source Publications: 2. Source type: scientific_journal Publications: 2. Publication year: 2024	Funding: 1. Project: Url: https://doi.org/10.1021/acssuschemeng.3c00141 Funding: 1. Project: Name: Wickerts et al. (2023): Li-S stationary-storage LCA Funding: 1. Project: Acronym: Not set Funding: 1. Project: Relation: source_study Funding: 1. Project: Grant identifier: 50099-1 Funding: 1. Organization: Ror: https://ror.org/0359z7n90 Funding: 1. Organization: Url: https://www.energimyndigheten.se/ Funding: 1. Organization: Name: Swedish Energy Agency Funding: 1. Award identifier: 50099-1 Evidence: 1. Origin: source_import Evidence: 1. Target field: data_origins Evidence: 1. Qualification: Tags describe documented input origins of this exact supplied version. Literature does not assert direct measurements; engineering and proxy tags describe stated assumptions, not validated industrial performance. Evidence: 1. Source location: source Evidence: 1. Source reference: Existing published CLIC inventory documentation Evidence: 2. Origin: source_import Evidence: 2. Target field: included_life_cycle_stages Evidence: 2. Qualification: Minimum explicitly named stage(s); no assertion that all upstream/downstream stages of the cited study are present. Manufacturing rejects alone do not create an end-of-life stage. Evidence: 2. Source location: name Evidence: 2. Source reference: Existing published CLIC inventory documentation Evidence: 3. Origin: editor_verification Evidence: 3. Target field: publications Evidence: 3. Qualification: Bibliographic details refer to this explicitly cited DOI. Existing citation text is retained, including any additional sources. Publication year does not establish the inventory reference year; publication authors are not assigned as inventory compilers. Evidence: 3. Source location: DOI registration: title, publication dates and byline Evidence: 3. Source reference: https://api.crossref.org/works/10.1021%2Facssuschemeng.3c00141 Evidence: 4. Origin: editor_verification Evidence: 4. Target field: publications Evidence: 4. Qualification: Original paper remains 2023; supporting correction is 2024. Four original author ORCIDs are printed in the original paper; Svanström's additional ORCID is verified using her public record and the same five-author correction. Institutional identifiers preserve department labels and distinct employers; no contributor-role changes. Evidence: 4. Source location: Original article byline/affiliations, 2024 published correction and corrected SI Evidence: 4. Source reference: https://doi.org/10.1021/acssuschemeng.3c00141 Evidence: 5. Origin: editor_verification Evidence: 5. Target field: publications Evidence: 5. Qualification: A correction exists even though the original registry update query returned none. Its corrected recycling-loop 30/70 primary/recycled lithium accounting is not certified by treatment-node quantity agreement. No blanket factor is applied to chemical manufacture, other chemistries or source result tables. Evidence: 5. Source location: 2024 correction; corrected SI S35/S36/S38/S41 and Figure S17 Evidence: 5. Source reference: https://doi.org/10.1021/acssuschemeng.4c01782 Evidence: 6. Origin: editor_verification Evidence: 6. Target field: methodology_notes Evidence: 6. Qualification: Source review: Wickerts et al. (2023), with the 2024 correction and revised supplement, supports this Li-S lineage. This CLIC node declares kilogram of battery cell, LiS; it must not inherit the functional unit of the complete study. The source considers six future industrial scenarios: base, material selection, energy system, technical performance, recycling and combined. Its cell study uses 1 kWh theoretical storage capacity; the complete storage system uses 1 MWh AC electricity delivered over 20 years. Background data are ecoinvent 3.7.1 cut-off, with laboratory/literature chemistry upscaled to prospective industrial operation. The paper distinguishes then-current manufacturing readiness MRL 4–5 from assumed MRL 10; neither is a numeric TRL. Production timing is uncertain and described as unlikely before 2030, which does not establish a measured inventory reference year. CLIC supplier substitutions, reconstruction and uncertainty are separate from source assumptions. Source quantity agreement, where available, does not establish supplier/biosphere identity, mass closure or reproduction of published impact results. Evidence: 6. Source location: Main paper Materials and Methods; SI S2/S3; version-specific comparison artifact Evidence: 6. Source reference: https://doi.org/10.1021/acssuschemeng.3c00141 Evidence: 7. Origin: editor_verification Evidence: 7. Target field: funding Evidence: 7. Qualification: Swedish Energy Agency grant 50099-1 and the Vinnova competence centre Batteries Sweden (BASE) supported the source study. The source_study relation does not establish funding of CLIC. Do not attach grant 50099-1 to Vinnova/BASE or infer an unprinted Vinnova award; the centre and agency remain separate entities. Evidence: 7. Source location: Original paper Acknowledgments Evidence: 7. Source reference: https://doi.org/10.1021/acssuschemeng.3c00141 Evidence: 8. Origin: editor_verification Evidence: 8. Target field: technology_description Evidence: 8. Qualification: Technical-characterisation review TC-1178. Design capacity: Unspecified. Basis: No independent parameter value established for this exact node. Component/precursor/service references do not inherit installation capacity or life; cycling and storage energy are separate context. Evidence classification: corrected source and guarded model scope review. Confidence: high for model assumption not measured performance. A retained model value is not a measured observation or industrial certification. Source-specific assumptions and detailed technical parameters accompany this plan. Evidence: 8. Source location: fields/design_capacity; corrected SI S29-S31; exact static current model Evidence: 8. Source reference: https://doi.org/10.1021/acssuschemeng.3c00141 Evidence: 9. Origin: editor_verification Evidence: 9. Target field: technology_description Evidence: 9. Qualification: Technical-characterisation review TC-1178. Design capacity unit: Unspecified. Basis: No independent parameter value established for this exact node. Component/precursor/service references do not inherit installation capacity or life; cycling and storage energy are separate context. Evidence classification: corrected source and guarded model scope review. Confidence: high for model assumption not measured performance. A retained model value is not a measured observation or industrial certification. Source-specific assumptions and detailed technical parameters accompany this plan. Evidence: 9. Source location: fields/design_capacity_unit; corrected SI S29-S31; exact static current model Evidence: 9. Source reference: https://doi.org/10.1021/acssuschemeng.3c00141 Evidence: 10. Origin: editor_verification Evidence: 10. Target field: technology_description Evidence: 10. Qualification: Technical-characterisation review TC-1178. Capacity factor (%): Unspecified. Basis: No independent parameter value established for this exact node. Component/precursor/service references do not inherit installation capacity or life; cycling and storage energy are separate context. Evidence classification: corrected source and guarded model scope review. Confidence: high for model assumption not measured performance. A retained model value is not a measured observation or industrial certification. Source-specific assumptions and detailed technical parameters accompany this plan. Evidence: 10. Source location: fields/capacity_factor_percent; corrected SI S29-S31; exact static current model Evidence: 10. Source reference: https://doi.org/10.1021/acssuschemeng.3c00141 Evidence: 11. Origin: editor_verification Evidence: 11. Target field: technology_description Evidence: 11. Qualification: Technical-characterisation review TC-1178. Annual production volume: Unspecified. Basis: No independent parameter value established for this exact node. Component/precursor/service references do not inherit installation capacity or life; cycling and storage energy are separate context. Evidence classification: corrected source and guarded model scope review. Confidence: high for model assumption not measured performance. A retained model value is not a measured observation or industrial certification. Source-specific assumptions and detailed technical parameters accompany this plan. Evidence: 11. Source location: fields/annual_production_volume; corrected SI S29-S31; exact static current model Evidence: 11. Source reference: https://doi.org/10.1021/acssuschemeng.3c00141 Evidence: 12. Origin: editor_verification Evidence: 12. Target field: technology_description Evidence: 12. Qualification: Technical-characterisation review TC-1178. Annual production volume unit: Unspecified. Basis: No independent parameter value established for this exact node. Component/precursor/service references do not inherit installation capacity or life; cycling and storage energy are separate context. Evidence classification: corrected source and guarded model scope review. Confidence: high for model assumption not measured performance. A retained model value is not a measured observation or industrial certification. Source-specific assumptions and detailed technical parameters accompany this plan. Evidence: 12. Source location: fields/annual_production_volume_unit; corrected SI S29-S31; exact static current model Evidence: 12. Source reference: https://doi.org/10.1021/acssuschemeng.3c00141 Evidence: 13. Origin: editor_verification Evidence: 13. Target field: technology_description Evidence: 13. Qualification: Technical-characterisation review TC-1178. Annual production volume year: Unspecified. Basis: No independent parameter value established for this exact node. Component/precursor/service references do not inherit installation capacity or life; cycling and storage energy are separate context. Evidence classification: corrected source and guarded model scope review. Confidence: high for model assumption not measured performance. A retained model value is not a measured observation or industrial certification. Source-specific assumptions and detailed technical parameters accompany this plan. Evidence: 13. Source location: fields/annual_production_volume_year; corrected SI S29-S31; exact static current model Evidence: 13. Source reference: https://doi.org/10.1021/acssuschemeng.3c00141 Evidence: 14. Origin: editor_verification Evidence: 14. Target field: technology_description Evidence: 14. Qualification: Technical-characterisation review TC-1178. Plant or represented-asset lifetime (years): Unspecified. Basis: No independent parameter value established for this exact node. Component/precursor/service references do not inherit installation capacity or life; cycling and storage energy are separate context. Evidence classification: corrected source and guarded model scope review. Confidence: high for model assumption not measured performance. A retained model value is not a measured observation or industrial certification. Source-specific assumptions and detailed technical parameters accompany this plan. Evidence: 14. Source location: fields/plant_lifetime_years; corrected SI S29-S31; exact static current model Evidence: 14. Source reference: https://doi.org/10.1021/acssuschemeng.3c00141 Evidence: 15. Origin: editor_verification Evidence: 15. Target field: technology_description Evidence: 15. Qualification: Technical-characterisation review TC-1178. Commercial maturity stage: Unspecified. Basis: The source distinguishes laboratory/prototype cell manufacturing MRL4-5 from a model of future mature production/use/recycling. It does not assign demonstration/TRL6 to this exact component, chemical recipe or integrated static configuration. Manufacturing readiness is a different scale and cannot be converted into numeric TRL. Leave exact readiness unspecified. Evidence classification: primary source readiness scale and prospective scope review. Confidence: high for MRL TRL scope distinction. A retained model value is not a measured observation or industrial certification. Source-specific assumptions and detailed technical parameters accompany this plan. Evidence: 15. Source location: Main prospective modelling section; corrected SI S29-S31 and TablesS35/S36/S38; lithium-sulfur-source-reading.json Evidence: 15. Source reference: https://doi.org/10.1021/acssuschemeng.3c00141 Evidence: 16. Origin: editor_verification Evidence: 16. Target field: technology_description Evidence: 16. Qualification: Technical-characterisation review TC-1178. Technology readiness level: Unspecified. Basis: The source distinguishes laboratory/prototype cell manufacturing MRL4-5 from a model of future mature production/use/recycling. It does not assign demonstration/TRL6 to this exact component, chemical recipe or integrated static configuration. Manufacturing readiness is a different scale and cannot be converted into numeric TRL. Leave exact readiness unspecified. Evidence classification: primary source readiness scale and prospective scope review. Confidence: high for MRL TRL scope distinction. A retained model value is not a measured observation or industrial certification. Source-specific assumptions and detailed technical parameters accompany this plan. Evidence: 16. Source location: Main prospective modelling section; corrected SI S29-S31 and TablesS35/S36/S38; lithium-sulfur-source-reading.json Evidence: 16. Source reference: https://doi.org/10.1021/acssuschemeng.3c00141 Evidence: 17. Origin: editor_verification Evidence: 17. Target field: technology_description Evidence: 17. Qualification: Technical-characterisation review TC-1178. Technological representativeness: 4. Basis: Curator assessment of a prospective/upscaled or transferred inventory and current static hybrid assumptions, not a representative measured industrial Li-S process. Retain any existing more conservative rating. Evidence classification: primary source readiness scale and prospective scope review. Confidence: medium curator judgement. A retained model value is not a measured observation or industrial certification. Source-specific assumptions and detailed technical parameters accompany this plan. Evidence: 17. Source location: Main prospective modelling section; corrected SI S29-S31 and TablesS35/S36/S38; lithium-sulfur-source-reading.json Evidence: 17. Source reference: https://doi.org/10.1021/acssuschemeng.3c00141 Evidence: 18. Origin: editor_verification Evidence: 18. Target field: technology_description Evidence: 18. Qualification: Technical-characterisation review TC-1178. Geographical representativeness: 3. Basis: Curator assessment of generic/regional supplier transfers and scenario electricity, not an exact production-weighted sample for every constituent process. Keep any existing geographical proxy score4. Evidence classification: primary source readiness scale and prospective scope review. Confidence: medium curator judgement. A retained model value is not a measured observation or industrial certification. Source-specific assumptions and detailed technical parameters accompany this plan. Evidence: 18. Source location: Main prospective modelling section; corrected SI S29-S31 and TablesS35/S36/S38; lithium-sulfur-source-reading.json Evidence: 18. Source reference: https://doi.org/10.1021/acssuschemeng.3c00141 Evidence: 19. Origin: editor_verification Evidence: 19. Target field: technology_description Evidence: 19. Qualification: Technical-characterisation review TC-1178. Temporal representativeness: 4. Basis: The model describes prospective mature production without a dated observed full inventory. The 2024erratum corrects the modelling basis, not the observation period or deployment vintage. Retain prospective/mixed score4 rather than using publication as inventory year. Evidence classification: primary source readiness scale and prospective scope review. Confidence: medium curator judgement. A retained model value is not a measured observation or industrial certification. Source-specific assumptions and detailed technical parameters accompany this plan. Evidence: 19. Source location: Main prospective modelling section; corrected SI S29-S31 and TablesS35/S36/S38; lithium-sulfur-source-reading.json Evidence: 19. Source reference: https://doi.org/10.1021/acssuschemeng.3c00141 Projects: 1. Url: https://doi.org/10.1021/acssuschemeng.3c00141 Projects: 1. Name: Wickerts et al. (2023): Li-S stationary-storage LCA Projects: 1. Acronym: Not set Projects: 1. Relation: source_study Projects: 1. Grant identifier: 50099-1 Publications: 1. Doi: 10.1021/acssuschemeng.3c00141 Publications: 1. Url: https://doi.org/10.1021/acssuschemeng.3c00141 Publications: 1. Title: Prospective Life Cycle Assessment of Lithium-Sulfur Batteries for Stationary Energy Storage Publications: 1. Scientific authors: 1. Name: Sanna Wickerts Publications: 1. Scientific authors: 1. Orcid: 0000-0002-7833-0849 Publications: 1. Scientific authors: 1. Affiliations: 1. Ror: https://ror.org/040wg7k59 Publications: 1. Scientific authors: 1. Affiliations: 1. Url: https://www.chalmers.se/ Publications: 1. Scientific authors: 1. Affiliations: 1. Name: Environmental Systems Analysis, Chalmers University of Technology, Gothenburg 412 96, Sweden Publications: 1. Scientific authors: 2. Name: Rickard Arvidsson Publications: 1. Scientific authors: 2. Orcid: 0000-0002-9258-0641 Publications: 1. Scientific authors: 2. Affiliations: 1. Ror: https://ror.org/040wg7k59 Publications: 1. Scientific authors: 2. Affiliations: 1. Url: https://www.chalmers.se/ Publications: 1. Scientific authors: 2. Affiliations: 1. Name: Environmental Systems Analysis, Chalmers University of Technology, Gothenburg 412 96, Sweden Publications: 1. Scientific authors: 3. Name: Anders Nordelöf Publications: 1. Scientific authors: 3. Orcid: 0000-0002-7455-7341 Publications: 1. Scientific authors: 3. Affiliations: 1. Ror: https://ror.org/040wg7k59 Publications: 1. Scientific authors: 3. Affiliations: 1. Url: https://www.chalmers.se/ Publications: 1. Scientific authors: 3. Affiliations: 1. Name: Environmental Systems Analysis, Chalmers University of Technology, Gothenburg 412 96, Sweden Publications: 1. Scientific authors: 3. Affiliations: 2. Ror: https://ror.org/04p2pa451 Publications: 1. Scientific authors: 3. Affiliations: 2. Url: https://www.toi.no/ Publications: 1. Scientific authors: 3. Affiliations: 2. Name: Institute of Transport Economics, Gaustadalléen 21, Oslo 0349, Norway Publications: 1. Scientific authors: 4. Name: Magdalena Svanström Publications: 1. Scientific authors: 4. Orcid: 0000-0001-8468-1293 Publications: 1. Scientific authors: 4. Affiliations: 1. Ror: https://ror.org/040wg7k59 Publications: 1. Scientific authors: 4. Affiliations: 1. Url: https://www.chalmers.se/ Publications: 1. Scientific authors: 4. Affiliations: 1. Name: Environmental Systems Analysis, Chalmers University of Technology, Gothenburg 412 96, Sweden Publications: 1. Scientific authors: 5. Name: Patrik Johansson Publications: 1. Scientific authors: 5. Orcid: 0000-0002-9907-117X Publications: 1. Scientific authors: 5. Affiliations: 1. Ror: https://ror.org/040wg7k59 Publications: 1. Scientific authors: 5. Affiliations: 1. Url: https://www.chalmers.se/ Publications: 1. Scientific authors: 5. Affiliations: 1. Name: Materials Physics, Department of Physics, Chalmers University of Technology, Gothenburg 412 96, Sweden Publications: 1. Scientific authors: 5. Affiliations: 2. Ror: https://ror.org/01wy0hc37 Publications: 1. Scientific authors: 5. Affiliations: 2. Url: http://www.alistore.eu/ Publications: 1. Scientific authors: 5. Affiliations: 2. Name: ALISTORE−European Research Institute, Rue Baudelocque, Amiens 80000, France Publications: 1. Citation: Originally from Wickerts et al. (2023). Prospective Life Cycle Assessment of Lithium-Sulfur Batteries for Stationary Energy Storage. ACS Sustainable Chemistry & Engineering. Based on Chordia et al. (2021). Publications: 1. Relation: primary_source Publications: 1. Source type: scientific_journal Publications: 1. Publication year: 2023 Publications: 2. Doi: 10.1021/acssuschemeng.4c01782 Publications: 2. Url: https://doi.org/10.1021/acssuschemeng.4c01782 Publications: 2. Title: Correction to “Prospective Life Cycle Assessment of Lithium–Sulfur Batteries for Stationary Energy Storage” Publications: 2. Scientific authors: 1. Name: Sanna Wickerts Publications: 2. Scientific authors: 1. Orcid: 0000-0002-7833-0849 Publications: 2. Scientific authors: 2. Name: Rickard Arvidsson Publications: 2. Scientific authors: 2. Orcid: 0000-0002-9258-0641 Publications: 2. Scientific authors: 3. Name: Anders Nordelöf Publications: 2. Scientific authors: 3. Orcid: 0000-0002-7455-7341 Publications: 2. Scientific authors: 4. Name: Magdalena Svanström Publications: 2. Scientific authors: 4. Orcid: 0000-0001-8468-1293 Publications: 2. Scientific authors: 5. Name: Patrik Johansson Publications: 2. Scientific authors: 5. Orcid: 0000-0002-9907-117X Publications: 2. Citation: Sanna Wickerts; Rickard Arvidsson; Anders Nordelöf; Magdalena Svanström; Patrik Johansson (2024). Correction to “Prospective Life Cycle Assessment of Lithium–Sulfur Batteries for Stationary Energy Storage”. https://doi.org/10.1021/acssuschemeng.4c01782 Publications: 2. Relation: supporting_source Publications: 2. Source type: scientific_journal Publications: 2. Publication year: 2024
Version metadata	Technology description	battery cell production, Li-S. Derived from prospective lithium-metal/sulfur pouch-cell stationary storage research; the record may represent a precursor, service, component or adapted capacity wrapper rather than a complete battery. Published future industrial maturity assumptions are not observed commercial performance.	One kg assembled cell is combined with manufacturing electricity and the existing factory-construction/operation allocation. Factory manufacture is owned here rather than added again at the capacity wrapper.
Version metadata	Technology readiness level	6	Not set
Version metadata	Description	Source: Wickerts et al. (2023). Prospective Life Cycle Assessment of Lithium-Sulfur Batteries for Stationary Energy Storage. ACS Sustainable Chemistry & Engineering. https://doi.org/10.1021/acssuschemeng.3c00141. Manufacturing of Li-S cells was based on the work by Chordia, M.; Nordelöf, A.; Ellingsen, L. A.-W. Environmental life cycle implications of upscaling lithium-ion battery production. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 2021, 26, 2024– 2039, DOI: 10.1007/s11367-021-01976-0 8. Note that the factory construction and operation is included in this activity, and not in the "1 kWh storage capacity" as it is in the supporting information. Source review: Wickerts et al. (2023), with the 2024 correction and revised supplement, supports this Li-S lineage. This CLIC node declares kilogram of battery cell, LiS; it must not inherit the functional unit of the complete study. The source considers six future industrial scenarios: base, material selection, energy system, technical performance, recycling and combined. Its cell study uses 1 kWh theoretical storage capacity; the complete storage system uses 1 MWh AC electricity delivered over 20 years. Background data are ecoinvent 3.7.1 cut-off, with laboratory/literature chemistry upscaled to prospective industrial operation. The paper distinguishes then-current manufacturing readiness MRL 4–5 from assumed MRL 10; neither is a numeric TRL. Production timing is uncertain and described as unlikely before 2030, which does not establish a measured inventory reference year. CLIC supplier substitutions, reconstruction and uncertainty are separate from source assumptions. Source quantity agreement, where available, does not establish supplier/biosphere identity, mass closure or reproduction of published impact results. This is an archived superseded version. References above to current CLIC reconstruction, hardware or retirement conventions describe the later lineage and do not certify that this earlier recipe already implements them. Its quantity differences remain separately visible in the comparison artifact; preserve the original exchanges.	Lithium–sulfur cell manufacture, per kg of the declared cell or module reference.	Describe the actual reference flow, process boundary, engineering assumptions and source limitations in reader-facing language. Remove operational review/release instructions and distinguish capacity/component services from operating-energy inputs; the inventory content and declared terms are preserved.
Version metadata	Intended application	Not set	Reuse within the documented prospective Li–S model with compatible physical unit, source scenario, current engineering configuration and manufacturing/operating/retirement boundary.	Apply reviewed discovery metadata and change explanations from the curated release.
Version metadata	System boundary	Not set	The declared kilogram reference for battery cell, LiS, with its recorded suppliers and signed services. Precursor manufacture, component assembly, installation manufacture, charging operation and retirement remain separate processes.
Version metadata	Limitations on use	Not set	The prospective source model and current supplier/profile adaptation do not certify measured industrial performance, complete chemistry or native supplier equivalence. Original uncertainty and background profiles retain their documented scope.

Review & discussion Publication provenance, scientific review and community discussion.

Public review record Curator-led bulk import. Public evidence is shown without participant accounts, assignments, recommendations, or private editor notes. Show review Hide review

Publication route

Curator-led bulk import

This inventory was restored from a public CLIC archive. Its original publication route is Curator-led bulk import; private review and workflow records were not transferred.

No public review transcript is available for this version.

Discussion 0 public comments · questions, context and problem reports.

No public comments yet. Start the discussion if you have a question about this inventory.

Report this dataset or version

Use this form to report a problem with this dataset or version. To report an individual public comment, use “Report this comment” beside that comment. To propose better numerical inventory data, use “Suggest an inventory improvement” in the inventory section.

Log in to report content

battery cell production, Li-S

Overview

Description

Dataset details

Keywords

Source

External references

Scientific metadata

Environmental impacts

Supply-chain graph

Downloads & files

Add to download basket

Version history

Why this version changed

Release notes

Why this version changed

Public revision record

Curator-led bulk import

Description

Dataset details

Keywords

Source

External references

Scientific metadata

Environmental impacts

Dataset contents

Supply-chain graph

Add to download basket

Version history

Why this version changed

Release notes

Why this version changed

Public revision record

Curator-led bulk import

Public discussion