{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.03145917001338688, 'fraction_numerical': 0.006024096385542169, 'mean_word_length': 6.119047619047619, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
A Comparative Techno‐Economic and Lifecycle Analysis of Biomass‐Derived Anode Materials for Lithium‐ and Sodium‐Ion Batteries

The transition towards renewable energy and electric transportation depends on the development of efficient energy storage technologies. Lithium‐ion batteries (LIBs) have gained increasing popularity despite rising prices and uncertainty around sourcing the component materials. This has recently prompted the development of alternative alkali batteries, such as sodium‐ion batteries (SIBs). However, despite academic efforts focused on optimizing technical performance, few have studied the underlying economic and environmental impacts of alkali batteries. Therefore, this research examines the techno‐economic and environmental performance of SIBs, using a “cradle‐to‐gate” life cycle assessment of cell manufacturing, comparing sodium‐ion half cells (coin cells) with their lithium counterparts. An optimal charge capacity of 312.4 mAh g−1 for sodium‐ion half‐cells has been achieved using glucose‐derived hard‐carbons, a 45% charge capacity increase compared to lithium. Sodium half‐cells are shown to be 18% cheaper compared to lithium. From the life cycle analysis, it is found that sodium‐ion half‐cells show the lowest environmental footprint across all impact categories compared to lithium. It can be concluded that sodium is a credible alternative to LIBs with a preference for SIBs when environmental factors are jointly considered with techno‐economics.