I think you're rather far off the mark here. NB: I work in this field, so, take that for what it's worth.
Yes, material recycling could be better from a pyrometallurgic perspective, but that's only an issue once a significant amount of batteries approach their EOL, so, 20+ years down the road.
It's clearly incorrect to compare the sum emissions of battery construction + lithium acquisition + cell fab + energy cost + implementation to just the diesel engine's CO2 during its burn. This is not even close to the same ballpark, as you're neglecting the costs associated with the extraction, transport and chemical treatment of the fuel.
Further, you're comparing the CO2-eq to out of date fab processes and cell chemistries, which, while based on a study published in 2014, means that it actually ignores significant industrial advances over the past decade. But, even granting little advancement in cell fab/chems, the comparison is wrong because the quality of energy available during manufacturing (the lions share of the CO2-eq) is better than the quality of energy available when the ship actually wants to use it (eg: at sea).
Lastly, comparing CO2-eq from the batteries to 100% efficient diesel is misguided. Ships don't typically use diesel--they use bunker fuel (with much worse CO2-eq than diesel), and the actual energy conversion is nowhere near 100% efficient. Inefficiencies made even more pronounced once you take into account regenerative effects on the batteries and the energy-availability delay of the fuel (lithium is on-demand, burning fuel has latency).
By "not in the same ballpark", do you mean that diesel co2 emissions are hugely bigger vs the co2 released from its combustion? I don't know the figures but this sounds surprising.
Yes, material recycling could be better from a pyrometallurgic perspective, but that's only an issue once a significant amount of batteries approach their EOL, so, 20+ years down the road.
It's clearly incorrect to compare the sum emissions of battery construction + lithium acquisition + cell fab + energy cost + implementation to just the diesel engine's CO2 during its burn. This is not even close to the same ballpark, as you're neglecting the costs associated with the extraction, transport and chemical treatment of the fuel.
Further, you're comparing the CO2-eq to out of date fab processes and cell chemistries, which, while based on a study published in 2014, means that it actually ignores significant industrial advances over the past decade. But, even granting little advancement in cell fab/chems, the comparison is wrong because the quality of energy available during manufacturing (the lions share of the CO2-eq) is better than the quality of energy available when the ship actually wants to use it (eg: at sea).
Lastly, comparing CO2-eq from the batteries to 100% efficient diesel is misguided. Ships don't typically use diesel--they use bunker fuel (with much worse CO2-eq than diesel), and the actual energy conversion is nowhere near 100% efficient. Inefficiencies made even more pronounced once you take into account regenerative effects on the batteries and the energy-availability delay of the fuel (lithium is on-demand, burning fuel has latency).