Impact of transport electrification on critical metal sustainability with a focus on the heavy-duty segment

Abstract

The majority of transport electrification studies, examining the demand and sustainability of critical metals, have focused on light-duty vehicles. Heavy-duty vehicles have often been excluded from the research scope due to their smaller vehicle stock and slower pace of electrification. This study fills this research gap by evaluating the lithium resource impacts from electrification of the heavy-duty segment at the global level. Our results show that a mass electrification of the heavy-duty segment on top of the light-duty segment would substantially increase the lithium demand and impose further strain on the global lithium supply. The significant impact is attributed to the large single-vehicle battery capacity required by heavy-duty vehicles and the expected battery replacement needed within the lifetime of heavy-duty vehicles. We suggest that the ambition of mass electrification in the heavy-duty segment should be treated with cautions for both policy makers and entrepreneurs.

Future material demand for automotive lithium-based batteries

“…However, synthetic graphite has begun to dominate the LIB graphite anode market (56% market share in 2018) due to its superior performance and decreasing cost over natural graphite 17 . Thus, among EV battery materials Co and Li, and to a lesser extent Ni and graphite, can be considered to be most critical concerning the upscaling of production capacities (see Supplementary Table 9), reserves and other supply risks, which confirms previous findings 5,9,10,33,34 even without taking into consideration the potential additional demand from heavy-duty vehicles 15 and other sectors 16 . In contrast to Li and Ni, Co reserves are also geographically more concentrated and partly in conflict areas 35 , thus increasing potential supply risks 5 .…”

“…According to our model, lithium demand for EV batteries in 2050 (0.6-1.5 Mt) could be significantly lower than projected by Weil et al 9 (1.1-1.7 Mt) and likely higher than projected by Hao et al 15 (0.65 Mt), Deetman et al 16 (0.05-0.8 Mt), and Ziemann et al 14 (0.37-1.43 Mt). For cobalt our estimations (0.25-1.25 Mt) are in-line with the predictions by Weil et al 9 (0.3-1.1 Mt) despite important differences in underlying scenarios and likely considerably higher than Deetman et al 16 (0.06-0.62 Mt).…”

“…20 for annual demand and Table 12 for cumulative demand). On the other hand, batteries in a state-ofhealth that would typically be considered to mark their EoL (i.e., 70-80%) may still be used by consumers who prefer to accept a shorter range over the expense of a battery replacement 15 (EVs with 80% residual battery capacity could still meet daily travel requirements in 85% of cases in the US 40 and widespread charging infrastructure could further support this 41 ).…”

“…Understanding the magnitude of future demand for EV battery raw materials is essential to guide strategic decisions in policy and industry and to assess potential supply risks as well as social and environmental impacts. Several studies have quantified the future demand for EV battery materials for specific world regions such as Europe 10 , the United States 11,12 , and China 13 , or for specific battery materials only [14][15][16] . Weil et al 9 assess the material demand for EV batteries at the global level and find that shortages for key materials, such as Li and Co, can be expected.…”

Battery cost forecasting: a review of methods and results with an outlook to 2050

“…Market analysts express a growing concern regarding the impact of rising raw material prices on battery cost. 159,160 On the one hand material demand is expected to grow significantly, 161,162 on the other, currently committed investments for future mining View Article Online and refining capacities are considered insufficient 163,164 and recycling volumes will not have a notably easing impact before 2030. 161,165 The studies in our analysis that examine material price fluctuations send less alarming signals with regard to battery cost.…”