Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39604365›Full record

ArticleNature communications2024

Carbon footprint distributions of lithium-ion batteries and their materials.

Leopold Peiseler, Vanessa Schenker, Karin Schatzmann, Stephan Pfister, Vanessa Wood, Tobias Schmidt

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Nature communications, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

14 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Advanced Technologies for Characterizing and Detecting Battery Thermal Failure: A Review.Advanced science (Weinheim, Baden-Wurttemberg, Germany) · 2026
    Review
  2. Article
  3. Thermal Modulation of Electrodeposition Stability in Sodium Metal Electrodes.Advanced science (Weinheim, Baden-Wurttemberg, Germany) · 2026
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Leopold PeiselerEnergy and Technology Policy Group, ETH Zurich; Clausiusstrasse 37, CH-8092, Zurich, Switzerland. pleopold@ethz.ch.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0273-7052
Vanessa SchenkerChair of Ecological Systems Design, ETH Zurich; Laura-Hezner-Weg 7, CH-8093, Zurich, Switzerland.
Karin SchatzmannEnergy and Technology Policy Group, ETH Zurich; Clausiusstrasse 37, CH-8092, Zurich, Switzerland.
Stephan PfisterInstitute of Science, Technology and Policy, ETH Zurich; Universitätstrasse 41, CH-8092, Zurich, Switzerland.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8984-2041
Vanessa WoodMaterials and Device Engineering Group, ETH Zurich; Gloriastrasse 35, CH-8092, Zurich, Switzerland.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6435-0227
Tobias SchmidtEnergy and Technology Policy Group, ETH Zurich; Clausiusstrasse 37, CH-8092, Zurich, Switzerland.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7971-2187

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Lithium-ion batteries are pivotal in climate change mitigation. While their own carbon footprint raises concerns, existing studies are scattered, hard to compare and largely overlook the relevance of battery materials. Here, we go beyond traditional carbon footprint analysis and develop a cost-based approach, estimating emission curves for battery materials lithium, nickel and cobalt, based on mining cost data. Combining the emission curves with regionalised battery production announcements, we present carbon footprint distributions (5

Identifiers

PMID39604365
PMCPMC11603021

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.