A review of methods and data to determine raw material criticality

Schrijvers, Dieuwertje; Hool, Alessandra; Blengini, Gian Andrea; Chen, Weiqiang; Dewulf, Jo; Eggert, Roderick G.; Ellen, Layla van; Gauß, Roland; Goddin, James; Habib, Komal; Hagelüken, Christian; Hirohata, Atsufumi; Hofmann-Amtenbrink, Margarethe; Kosmol, J.; Gleuher, Maïté Le; Grohol, Milan; Ku, Anthony Y.; Lee, Min Ha; Liu, Gang; Nansai, Keisuke; Nuss, Philip; Peck, David; Reller, Armin; Sonnemann, Guido; Tercero, Luis; Thorenz, Andrea; Wäger, Patrick

doi:10.1016/j.resconrec.2019.104617

Cited by 176 publications

(140 citation statements)

References 46 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

139

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Following thin-film photovoltaics and Li-ion battery materials [24,25] this has been the third application of the present supply risk assessment scheme to a potential supply problem in the "hightech" sector. Future applications should also review the choice of indicators, based on recent reviews of state-of-the art in criticality assessments [50] and on upcoming reviews of evidence-based supply risk indicators.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…However, the R 2 value of the linear trend calculated from these twelve elements is only 0.18 and, therefore, high supply risks do not necessarily result in high prices. This observation is important, however, because supply risk assessments are intended to be test cases for the likelihood of future supply disruption events, expressed in physical shortages or price increases (not current prices) [49,50].…”

Section: Supply Risk On the Elemental Levelmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Thirdly, semi-quantitative indicator-based supply risk assessments depend on the selection and weighting of the indicators and on whether there is a dynamic assessment [54]. The indicator choice of supply risk has been discussed by Achzet and Helbig [55] and, more recently, for criticality assessments in general by Schrijvers and colleagues [50]. The indicators used here do not constitute a dynamic assessment, but rather a snapshot in time, or "static" assessment [56].…”

Section: Limitationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Supply Risk Considerations for the Elements in Nickel-Based Superalloys

et al. 2020

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Nickel-based superalloys contain various elements which are added in order to make the alloys more resistant to thermal and mechanical stress and to the adverse operating environments in jet engines. In particular, higher combustion temperatures in the gas turbine are important, since they result in higher fuel efficiency and thus in lower CO2 emissions. In this paper, a semi-quantitative assessment scheme is used to evaluate the relative supply risks associated with elements contained in various Ni-based superalloys: aluminium, titanium, chromium, iron, cobalt, niobium, molybdenum, ruthenium, tantalum, tungsten, and rhenium. Twelve indicators on the elemental level and four aggregation methods are applied in order to obtain the supply risk at the alloy level. The supply risks for the elements rhenium, molybdenum and cobalt are found to be the highest. For three of the aggregation schemes, the spread in supply risk values for the different alloy types (as characterized by chemical composition and the endurance temperature) is generally narrow. The fourth, namely the cost-share’ aggregation scheme, gives rise to a broader distribution of supply risk values. This is mainly due to the introduction of rhenium as a component starting with second-generation single crystal alloys. The resulting higher supply risk appears, however, to be acceptable for jet engine applications due to the higher temperatures these alloys can endure.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Supply Risk On the Elemental Levelmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Limitationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Supply Risk Considerations for the Elements in Nickel-Based Superalloys

et al. 2020

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The criticality assessment of raw materials is an arduous task, with considerable variations among the different processes that exist to identify and evaluate them [68][69][70][71]. However, the quantification of the presence of critical raw materials can be a first approximation that allows scientists and engineers to carry out a better selection of materials, taking into account minimizing the use of these materials identified as critical [72].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Influence of the Composition on the Environmental Impact of a Casting Magnesium Alloy

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The influence of the composition of magnesium alloys on their environmental impact was analyzed. In order to perform a more accurate environmental impact calculation, life cycle assessment (LCA) with the ReCiPe 2016 Endpoint and IPCC 2013 GWP (100 y) methodology was used, taking the EcoInvent AZ91 magnesium alloy dataset as reference. This dataset has been updated with the material composition range of several alloys included in the European standard EN 1753:2019. The balanced, maximum, and minimum environmental impact values were obtained. In general, the overall impact of the studied magnesium alloys varied from 3.046 Pt/kg to 4.853 Pt/kg and from 43.439 kg CO2 eq./kg to 55.427 kg CO2 eq./kg, depending on the composition. In the analysis of maximum and minimum environmental impacts, the alloy that had the highest uncertainty was 3.5251, with a range of ±7.20%. The element that contributed the most to increase its impact was silver. The AZ91 alloy, provided by the EcoInvent dataset, had a lower environmental impact than all the magnesium alloys studied in this work. The content of critical raw materials (CRMs) was also assessed, showing a high content in CRMs, between 89.72% and 98.22%.

show abstract

“…We cautiously examined a number of criticality studies published (British Geological Survey, 2015;Calvo et al, 2018;Ciacci et al, 2016;Daw, 2017;Dewulf et al, 2016;European Commission, 2010;European Commission, 2017;Fang et al, 2018;Glöser-Chahoud et al, 2016;Graedel et al, 2012;Hatayama and Tahara, 2015;Nassar et al, 2012;Öko-Institut, 2009;Rosenau-Tornow et al, 2009;United States National Research Council, 2008;Yuan et al, 2019;Zepf et al, 2014); however, some drawback could be observed in adopting these methods for each metal at the national level. Particularly, certain indicators presented in some methodologies are a challenge to determine since data acquisition obstacles (Schrijvers et al, 2020). Overall, the supply risk of elements has been prioritized in many assessments (British Geological Survey, 2015;European Commission, 2010;Glöser-Chahoud et al, 2016;Rosenau-Tornow et al, 2009;United States National Research Council, 2008).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

A method to assess national metal criticality: the environment as a foremost measurement

Eheliyagoda

Zeng

2020

Humanit Soc Sci Commun

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Ever-increasing mineral demand inspires nations to inspect the metal criticality situation that would be an indispensable path to ensure supply security in a foreseeable future. A diverse range of methods has been used to analyze the criticality; however, except a few, their applicability is questionable due to varying results. This article presents and discusses an advanced method to measure the degree of national criticality of metals conjoining both previously noted and pioneer indicators while considering China as the sample at the necessary point. The formulated methodology consists of a three-dimensional framework: supply risk, environmental risk, and supply restriction risk. The risk score of each indicator under each dimension is calculated through a specifically designed methodology. The risk score range is interpreted to a general 0-100 scale. The final risk score of each dimension is determined by averaging the total indicator risk score of that dimension. The developed criticality method is applicable for countries, which take part in the mineral production. The environmental-risk assessment is performed for 56-62 countries in reference to copper and aluminum production. Further discussion in relation to the country-specific criticality is decentralized observing the risk severity of indicators under two succinct approaches: singlemetal approach and multiple-metal approach. The obtained results associated with China demonstrate that substantial criticalities can be aggregated in supply restriction and environmental sides regarding copper and aluminum, respectively. However, the environmentalrisk assessment conducted for various nations in the world shows a very low risk status except the China's situation. Although, such indicator quantifications in the proposed method are transparent, robust, reliable, and flexible to encounter medium-term perspectives, the conducted assessment is relatively static since the evaluation is almost based on the year 2015 statistics and information. Nevertheless, the created methodology will be advantageous as a decision-making tool to implement productive national strategies and policies to achieve resource sustainability. Here, a national government can address certain issues related to the metal production by distinghushing indicator values. A government can also determine what optimizations would strategically profitable in short and medium terms such as recycling, substitutes, and imports.

show abstract

A review of methods and data to determine raw material criticality

Cited by 176 publications

References 46 publications

Supply Risk Considerations for the Elements in Nickel-Based Superalloys

Supply Risk Considerations for the Elements in Nickel-Based Superalloys

Influence of the Composition on the Environmental Impact of a Casting Magnesium Alloy

A method to assess national metal criticality: the environment as a foremost measurement

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About