A Review of the Carbon Footprint of Cu and Zn Production from Primary and Secondary Sources

Abstract

Copper (Cu) and zinc (Zn) with their unique properties are central for economic growth, quality of life, and the creation of new jobs. The base-metal producing sector is, however, under growing public pressure in respect to energy and water requirements and needs to meet several challenges, including increased demand and lower ore grades, which are generally associated with larger resource use. The development of technologies for metal production from secondary sources is often motivated by increased sustainability, and this paper aims to provide further insights about one specific aspect of sustainability-namely, climate change. The paper presents a review of carbon footprints (CF) for Cu and Zn produced from primary and secondary raw materials by analyzing data taken from scientific literature and the Ecoinvent database. Comparisons are carried out based on the source of data selected as a reference case. The data available in the literature indicate that secondary production of Cu and Zn has the potential to be more beneficial compared to primary production regarding the impact on climate change. However, the technologies used today for the production of both metals from secondary sources are still immature, and more research on this topic is needed. The general variation of data suggests that the standardization of a comparison is needed when assessing the environmental benefits of production in line with the principles of waste valorization, the zero waste approach, and circular economy.

Leaching of Primary Copper Sulfide Ore in Chloride-Ferrous Media

“…Copper is considered the third most important metal for industry after iron and aluminum, with a yearly production of 10 Mt [1]. In the north of Chile there are many mining industries that produce copper in cathodes from oxidized minerals with the traditional process of leaching, followed by solvent extraction (SX), and electrowinning (LIX-SX-EW).…”

The Revised German Raw Materials Strategy in the Light of Global Political and Market Developments

“…The strategy will be achieved by several research funding measures to accelerate innovations, such as innovative design concepts and longer product lifetimes. The German raw materials strategy (BMWi, 2020) is in line with current developments in the EU (European Commission, 2015) and addresses the negative externalities caused by mining activities—secondary raw material production requires only a small proportion of energy and emits remarkably less CO 2 than primary raw material production (Binnemans et al, 2013; Damgaard, Larsen, & Christensen, 2009; Ekman Nilsson et al, 2017; Reck & Graedel, 2012). At the same time, recycling reduces the need for imports and, therefore, relaxes market concentration and supply dependence (Gaustad, Krystofik, Bustamante & Badami, 2018; Rademaker, Kleijn, & Yang, 2013).…”

Developing the objective and the scope of the ecological footprint assessment project

“…The international project team was also investigating the values of carbon footprint of Cu and Zn production, from primary and secondary sources [11]. For their research, they were using the data collected from the scientific literature and the Ecoinvent database [12].…”

“…The idea of this phase is to develop the measuring scale that can be used to evaluate the EF generated through production or creation of services in the local public and private sector. Namely, based on the already existing measuring tools, developed by different authors [4,5,[10][11][12][13][14][15], the adjustments will be made to enable the calculation of the EF of the products and services from the local public and private companies in the region of city of Bor. This phase will result in a clear picture of the present EF of the local economy and with the values of EF per capita in this region.…”