Advertisement

Geopolitical-related supply risk assessment as a complement to environmental impact assessment: the case of electric vehicles

  • Eskinder D. Gemechu
  • Guido Sonnemann
  • Steven B. Young
ASSESSING AND MANAGING LIFE CYCLES OF ELECTRIC VEHICLES

Abstract

Purpose

Introducing a geopolitical-related supply risk (GeoPolRisk) into the life cycle sustainability assessment (LCSA) framework adds a criticality aspect to the current life cycle assessment (LCA) framework to more meaningfully address direct impacts on Natural Resource AoP. The weakness of resource indicators in LCA has been the topic of discussion within the life cycle community for some time. This paper presents a case study on how to proceed towards the integration of resource criticality assessment into LCA under the LCSA. The paper aims at highlighting the significance of introducing the GeoPolRisk indicator to complement and extend the established environmental LCA impact categories.

Methods

A newly developed GeoPolRisk indicator proposed by Gemechu et al., J Ind Ecol (2015) was applied to metals used in the life cycle of an electric vehicle, and the results are compared with an attributional LCA of the same resources. The inventory data is based on the publication by Hawkins et al., J Ind Ecol 17:53–64 (2013), which provides a current, transparent, and detailed life cycle inventory data of a European representative first-generation battery small electric vehicle.

Results and discussion

From the 14 investigated metals, copper, aluminum, and steel are the most dominant elements that pose high environmental impacts. On the other hand, magnesium and neodymium show relatively higher supply risk when geopolitical elements are considered. While, the environmental indicator results all tend to point the same hotspots which arise from the substantial use of resources in the electric vehicle’s life cycle, the GeoPolRisk highlights that there are important elements present in very small amounts but crucial to the overall LCSA. It provides a complementary sustainability dimension that can be added to conventional LCA as an important extension within LCSA.

Conclusions

Resource challenges in a short-term time perspective can be better addressed by including social and geopolitical factors in addition to the conventional indicators which are based on their geological availability. This is more significant for modern technologies such as electronic devices in which critical resources contribute to important components. The case study advances the use of the GeoPolRisk assessment method but does still face certain limitations that need further elaboration; however, directions for future research are promising.

Keywords

Criticality assessment Electric vehicle Environmental impacts Geopolitical-related supply risk Life cycle assessment Resources 

Notes

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank Christoph Helbig for helping to develop the Geopolitical Supply Risk method. The authors also acknowledge the financial support of the Region of Aquitaine for the Chair on Life Cycle Assessment (CyVi) at the University of Bordeaux to carry out this work.

References

  1. Althaus H-J, Classen M (2005) Life cycle inventories of metals and methodological aspects of inventorying material resources in ecoinvent. Int J Life Cycle Assess 10:43–49CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Andersson BA, Råde I (2001) Metal resource constraints for electric-vehicle batteries. Transp Res Part D: Transp Environ 6:297–324(28)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. DOE (2011) Critical materials strategy. US Department of Energy, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  4. Erdmann L, Graedel TE (2011) Criticality of non-fuel minerals: a review of major approaches and analyses. Environ Sci Technol 45:7620–7630CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. European Commission (2010) Critical raw materials for the EU, Report of the Ad-hoc Working Group on defining critical raw materials. Eucom 39:1–84Google Scholar
  6. European Commission (2011) International Reference Life Cycle Data System (ILCD) Handbook : Recommendations for Life Cycle Impact Assessment in the European context. EUR 24571 EN. Eur Comm 159. doi: 10.278/33030Google Scholar
  7. European Commission (2012) Security of supply and scarcity of raw materials: towards a methodological framework for sustainability assessment. Joint European Centre–Institute for Environment and SustainabilityGoogle Scholar
  8. European Commission (2014) Report on critical raw materials for the EU: report of the Ad-Hoc Working Group on Defining Critical Raw Materials. Brussels, BelgiumGoogle Scholar
  9. Finkbeiner M, Schau EM, Lehmann A, Traverso M (2010) Towards life cycle sustainability assessment. Sustainability 2:3309–3322CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Gaines L, Nelson P (2010) Lithium-ion batteries: examining material demand and recycling issues. Proc. 2010 TMS Annu Meet Exhib Sustain Mater Process Prod SympGoogle Scholar
  11. Gemechu ED, Helbig C, Sonnemann G et al (2015) Import-based indicator for the geopolitical supply risk of raw materials in life cycle sustainability assessments. J Ind Ecol. doi: 10.1111/jiec.12279
  12. Goedkoop M, Heijungs R, Huijbregts M et al. (2013) ReCiPe 2008: A life cycle impact assessment method which comprises harmonised category indicators at the midpoint and the endpoint level - Report I: CharacterisationGoogle Scholar
  13. Graedel TE, Barr R, Chandler C et al (2012) Methodology of metal criticality determination. Environ Sci Technol 46:1063–1070CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Graedel TE, Harper EM, Nassar NT, Reck BK (2013) On the materials basis of modern society. Proc Natl Acad Sci. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1312752110 Google Scholar
  15. Guinée JB, Gorrée M, Heijungs R et al (2002) Handbook on life cycle assessment: operational guide to the ISO standards. Kluwer Academic Publishers, DordrechtGoogle Scholar
  16. Hawkins TR, Gausen OM, Strømman AH (2012) Environmental impacts of hybrid and electric vehicles—a review. Int J Life Cycle Assess 17:997–1014CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Hawkins TR, Singh B, Majeau-Bettez G, Strømman AH (2013) Comparative environmental life cycle assessment of conventional and electric vehicles. J Ind Ecol 17:53–64CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Herrington R (2013) Road map to mineral supply. Nat Geosci 6:892–894CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. ISO (2006) ISO 14040 International Standard. In: Environmental management—life cycle assessment—requirements and guidelinesGoogle Scholar
  20. Kloepffer W (2008) Life cycle sustainability assessment of products. Int J Life Cycle Assess 13:89–95CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Long K, Van Gosen B, Foley N, Cordier D (2012) The principal rare earth elements deposits of the United States: a summary of domestic deposits and a global perspective. In: Sinding-Larsen R, Wellmer F-W (eds) Non-Renewable Resour. Issues SE - 7. Springer, Netherlands, pp 131–155CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Mancini L, Sala S, Recchioni M et al (2015) Potential of life cycle assessment for supporting the management of critical raw materials. Int J Life Cycle Assess 20:100–116CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Moran D, McBain D, Kanemoto K et al (2014) Global supply chains of coltan. J Ind Ecol. doi: 10.1111/jiec.12206 Google Scholar
  24. Moss R, Tzimas E, Willis P et al. (2013a) Critical metals in the path towards the decarbonisation of the EU energy sector—assessing rare metals as supply-chain bottlenecks in low-carbon energy technologies. Publication Office of the European Union, LuxembourgGoogle Scholar
  25. Moss RL, Tzimas E, Kara H et al (2013b) The potential risks from metals bottlenecks to the deployment of strategic energy technologies. Energy Policy 55:556–564CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Nassar NT, Barr R, Browning M et al (2012) Criticality of the geological copper family. Environ Sci Technol 46:1071–1078CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. National Research Council (2008) Minerals, critical minerals, and the U.S. economy. The National Academies Press, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  28. Nordelöf A, Messagie M, Tillman AM et al (2014) Environmental impacts of hybrid, plug-in hybrid, and battery electric vehicles—what can we learn from life cycle assessment? Int J Life Cycle Assess 19:1866–1890CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Norgate TE, Jahanshahi S, Rankin WJ (2007) Assessing the environmental impact of metal production processes. J Clean Prod 15:838–848CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Rydh CJ, Svärd B (2003) Impact on global metal flows arising from the use of portable rechargeable batteries. Sci Total Environ 302:167–184CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Schneider L, Berger M, Schüler-Hainsch E et al (2014) The economic resource scarcity potential (ESP) for evaluating resource use based on life cycle assessment. Int J Life Cycle Assess 19:601–610CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Sonnemann G, Castells F, Schuhmacher M (2003) Integrated life-cycle and risk assessment for industrial processes. Lewish Publishers, Boca RatonCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Sonnemann G, Gemechu ED, Adibi N et al (2015) From a critical review to a conceptual framework for integrating the criticality of resources into life cycle sustainability assessment. J Clean Prod 94:20–24CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. UN (2014) United Nations Commodity Trade Statistics Database. In: United Nations Stat. Div. http://comtrade.un.org/db/
  35. UNEP (2011) Towards a life cycle sustainability assessment: making informed choices on products. UNEP/SETAC, ParisGoogle Scholar
  36. USGS (2013) Mineral commodity summaries 2013. U.S. Geological Survey, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  37. USGS (2014) Mineral commodity summaries 2014. U.S. Geological Survey, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  38. USGS (2015) Mineral commodity summaries 2015. U.S. Geological Survey, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  39. Valdivia S, Ugaya CML, Hildenbrand J et al (2013) A UNEP/SETAC aproach towards a life cycle sustainability assessment—our contribution to Rio + 20. Int J Life Cycle Assess 18:1673–1685CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. World Bank (2014) Worldwide Governance Indicators. http://data.worldbank.org/data-catalog/worldwide-governance-indicators
  41. WTO (2013) China—measures related to the exportation of various raw materials—reports of the Appellate Body. Geneva, SwitzerlandGoogle Scholar
  42. WTO (2014) China—measures related to the exportation of rare earths, tungsten and molybdenum—reports of the Appellate Body. Geneva, SwitzerlandGoogle Scholar
  43. Young SB (2015) Responsible sourcing of metals: certification approaches for conflict minerals and conflict-free metalsGoogle Scholar
  44. Young SB, Dias G (2011) LCM of metals supply to electronics: tracking and tracing “Conflict Minerals.” Towar. Life Cycle Sustain. Manag.-Aug 29–31. Berlin, Germany, p 12Google Scholar
  45. Young SB, Yuan Z, Dias G (2014) Prospects for sustainability certification of metals. Metal Res Technol 111:131–135CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Zepf V, Reller A, Rennie C et al. (2014) Materials critical to the energy industry. An introduction, 2nd edn. London, United KingdomGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Eskinder D. Gemechu
    • 1
    • 2
  • Guido Sonnemann
    • 1
    • 2
  • Steven B. Young
    • 3
  1. 1.University of Bordeaux, ISM, UMR 5255TalenceFrance
  2. 2.CNRS, ISM, UMR 5255TalenceFrance
  3. 3.School of Environment, Enterprise and Development (SEED)University of WaterlooWaterlooCanada

Personalised recommendations