Raw material ‘criticality’—sense or nonsense?

Frenzel, Max; Kullik, Jakob; Reuter, M.A.; Gutzmer, Jens

doi:10.1088/1361-6463/aa5b64

Cited by 106 publications

(64 citation statements)

References 53 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In a subsequent review, Helbig, Wietschel, Thorenz, and Tuma () identified substitution potential (or “substitutability”) as the most frequently applied notion of vulnerability in criticality assessment, followed by several “importance” calculations like value of products, value of materials, and strategic importance. As argued by Glöser, Tercero Espinoza, Gandenberger, and Faulstich () and Frenzel, Kullik, Reuter, and Gutzmer (), what is commonly termed “supply risk” in criticality assessment arguably represents probability of supply disruption. Therefore, in accordance with classical risk theory, we define “supply risk” as a function of supply disruption probability and vulnerability.…”

Section: Description Of Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Raw material criticality assessment as a complement to environmental life cycle assessment: Examining methods for product‐level supply risk assessment

Cimprich

Bach

Helbig

et al. 2019

J of Industrial Ecology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Summary The diversity of raw materials used in modern products, compounded by the risk of supply disruptions—due to uneven geological distribution of resources, along with socioeconomic factors like production concentration and political (in)stability of raw material producing countries—has drawn attention to the subject of raw material “criticality.” In this article, we review the state of the art regarding the integration of criticality assessment, herein termed “product‐level supply risk assessment,” as a complement to environmental life cycle assessment. We describe and compare three methods explicitly developed for this purpose—Geopolitical Supply Risk (GeoPolRisk), Economic Scarcity Potential (ESP), and the Integrated Method to Assess Resource Efficiency (ESSENZ)—based on a set of criteria including considerations of data sources, uncertainties, and other contentious methodological aspects. We test the methods on a case study of a European‐manufactured electric vehicle, and conclude with guidance for appropriate application and interpretation, along with opportunities for further methodological development. Although the GeoPolRisk, ESP, and ESSENZ methods have several limitations, they can be useful for preliminary assessments of the potential impacts of raw material supply risks on a product system (i.e., “outside‐in” impacts) alongside the impacts of a product system on the environment (i.e., “inside‐out” impacts). Care is needed to not overlook critical raw materials used in small amounts but nonetheless important to product functionality. Further methodological development could address regional and firm‐level supply risks, multiple supply‐chain stages, and material recycling, while improving coverage of supply risk characterization factors.

show abstract

Section: Description Of Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Raw material criticality assessment as a complement to environmental life cycle assessment: Examining methods for product‐level supply risk assessment

Cimprich

Bach

Helbig

et al. 2019

J of Industrial Ecology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Achzet and Helbig compared the methodologies of the 15 different criticality studies and concluded that the criticality-assessment methods are very heterogeneous [24]. Frenzel et al discussed recently in detail the concept of ''criticality'' [25]. These authors came to the conclusion that current assessments of raw material criticality are fundamentally flawed in several ways and that many of the raw materials generally identified as critical are probably not critical.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Rare Earths and the Balance Problem: How to Deal with Changing Markets?

Binnemans

Jones

Müller

et al. 2018

J. Sustain. Metall.

241

136

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The balance between the market demand and the natural abundance of the rare-earth elements (REEs) in ores, often referred to as the Balance Problem (or the Balancing Problem), is a major issue for REE suppliers. The ideal situation is a perfect match between the market demand for and the production of REEs, so that there are no surpluses of any of the REEs. This means that the rare-earth industry must find new uses for REEs that are available in excess and search for substitutes for REEs that have either limited availability or are high in demand. We present an overview of the trends in the applications for the different REEs and show that the demand for REEs for use in magnets, catalysts, and alloys is still increasing, while the application of REEs in polishing agents, glass, and ceramics are stable. On the other hand, the use of REEs in nickel-metal-hydride (NiMH) batteries and lamp phosphors is decreasing. These changes in the REE market have an influence on the Balance Problem, because the REEs that can be recycled from fluorescent lamps, cathode-ray tubes (CRTs), and NiMH batteries have to be at least partly reused in other applications. Magnesium and aluminum alloys offer an opportunity to mitigate the Balance Problem caused by these changes in the REE market. This is illustrated for REEs that can be recycled from fluorescent-lamp phosphor waste, CRT phosphors, and NiMH batteries. At present, five REEs (Nd, Eu, Tb, Dy, and Y) are being considered as very critical by Europe, the United States, and Japan, but we forecast that in the medium term, only neodymium will remain a critical REE. This paper discusses the relationship between criticality and the Balance Problem and shows how this relationship influences the market for specific REEs.

show abstract

“…Static‐indicator‐based methodologies have limitations: First, they do not account for time‐dependencies (Knoeri, Wäger, Stamp, Althaus, & Weil, ); furthermore, the relationships between the indicators used and the dynamics of minerals’ market systems and industrial ecology have not been statistically validated (Frenzel, Kullik, Reuter, & Gutzmer, ). Knoeri et al.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Toward a dynamic evaluation of mineral criticality: Introducing the framework of criticality systems

Yuan

Yellishetty

Muñoz

et al. 2019

J of Industrial Ecology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A new methodology to quantify minerals’ criticalities is proposed—the criticality systems of minerals. In this methodology, four types of agents—mineral suppliers, consumers, regulators of the market, and others, such as the communities near mining operations—interact with each other through three types of indicators: constraints, such as the political stability in the mining regions, the mineral's substitutability and economic importance; agents’ interactions, such as buyer–seller bargaining; and interactive variables, such as the demand, supply, and price. When the criticality systems of two mineral groups are constructed, analyses that compare the indicators of these criticality systems can determine which group is more critical than the other. This methodology allows evaluation of criticality in a dynamic and systemic manner.

show abstract

Raw material ‘criticality’—sense or nonsense?

Cited by 106 publications

References 53 publications

Raw material criticality assessment as a complement to environmental life cycle assessment: Examining methods for product‐level supply risk assessment

Raw material criticality assessment as a complement to environmental life cycle assessment: Examining methods for product‐level supply risk assessment

Rare Earths and the Balance Problem: How to Deal with Changing Markets?

Toward a dynamic evaluation of mineral criticality: Introducing the framework of criticality systems

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About