IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/recore/v73y2013icp180-187.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Quantifying the impacts of primary metal resource use in life cycle assessment based on recent mining data

Author

Listed:
  • Swart, Pilar
  • Dewulf, Jo

Abstract

The quantification of impacts in the abiotic resource category in life cycle assessment is still controversial. However, this is a pertinent issue because of the growing dependence of our industrial society on these resources, particularly on metal resources. One of the important shortcomings of the existing assessment methods used today is that characterization factors are not based on actual mining practice data. In this paper, a new characterization factor derived from recent (1998–2010) and representative (more than 50% coverage of global primary metal production) mining data was established for nine metals: copper, zinc, lead, nickel, molybdenum, gold, silver, platinum and palladium. The quantification of this new characterization factor is based on the annual increase in mass of ore required per unit mass of metal in the ore. This quantification relies on the concept that the mining of resources is threatened not by lack of ores but by changing ore characteristics, e.g., the percentage of metal in the ore, mineral type and location. The characterization factors determined in this study ranged from below 0.1kgorekg−1y−1 for zinc to more than 15,000kgorekg−1y−1 for gold. These results indicate that in 1999, 370,000kg of ore was required per kg of gold in the ore, whereas in 2008, 530,000kg of ore was required per kg of gold in the ore (an increase of approximately 4% per annum). When comparing these results with traditional life cycle impact assessment methods, it was found that in all but one method gold, palladium and platinum have the highest characterization factors among the nine metals. In all methods based on ore grade changes lead and zinc are the metals with the lowest characterization factors. However, an important difference in the proposed method is that it assigns higher relative values to precious metals. This suggests that the supply of precious metals may be under more pressure than indicated by other methods, which in the framework of the proposed method implies greater efforts in mining and mineral processing. There is still scope for improvement of the proposed method if more data become readily available.

Suggested Citation

  • Swart, Pilar & Dewulf, Jo, 2013. "Quantifying the impacts of primary metal resource use in life cycle assessment based on recent mining data," Resources, Conservation & Recycling, Elsevier, vol. 73(C), pages 180-187.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:recore:v:73:y:2013:i:c:p:180-187
    DOI: 10.1016/j.resconrec.2013.02.007
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921344913000360
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.resconrec.2013.02.007?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Mudd, Gavin M., 2007. "Global trends in gold mining: Towards quantifying environmental and resource sustainability," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 32(1-2), pages 42-56.
    2. Svedberg, Peter & Tilton, John E., 2006. "The real, real price of nonrenewable resources: copper 1870-2000," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 34(3), pages 501-519, March.
    3. Steen, Bengt & Borg, Gunnar, 2002. "An estimation of the cost of sustainable production of metal concentrates from the earth's crust," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 42(3), pages 401-413, September.
    4. Mudd, Gavin M., 2010. "The Environmental sustainability of mining in Australia: key mega-trends and looming constraints," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(2), pages 98-115, June.
    5. Crowson, Phillip, 2003. "Mine size and the structure of costs," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 29(1-2), pages 15-36.
    6. Crowson, Phillip, 2012. "Some observations on copper yields and ore grades," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(1), pages 59-72.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Hernandez, Maria & Messagie, Maarten & De Gennaro, Michele & Van Mierlo, Joeri, 2017. "Resource depletion in an electric vehicle powertrain using different LCA impact methods," Resources, Conservation & Recycling, Elsevier, vol. 120(C), pages 119-130.
    2. Northey, S. & Mohr, S. & Mudd, G.M. & Weng, Z. & Giurco, D., 2014. "Modelling future copper ore grade decline based on a detailed assessment of copper resources and mining," Resources, Conservation & Recycling, Elsevier, vol. 83(C), pages 190-201.
    3. Hatayama, Hiroki & Daigo, Ichiro & Tahara, Kiyotaka, 2014. "Tracking effective measures for closed-loop recycling of automobile steel in China," Resources, Conservation & Recycling, Elsevier, vol. 87(C), pages 65-71.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Fizaine, Florian & Court, Victor, 2015. "Renewable electricity producing technologies and metal depletion: A sensitivity analysis using the EROI," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 110(C), pages 106-118.
    2. Florian Fizaine & Victor Court, 2014. "Energy transition toward renewables and metal depletion: an approach through the EROI concept," Working Papers 1407, Chaire Economie du climat.
    3. Magnus Ericsson & Johannes Drielsma & David Humphreys & Per Storm & Pär Weihed, 2019. "Why current assessments of ‘future efforts’ are no basis for establishing policies on material use—a response to research on ore grades," Mineral Economics, Springer;Raw Materials Group (RMG);Luleå University of Technology, vol. 32(1), pages 111-121, April.
    4. Michael Priester & Magnus Ericsson & Peter Dolega & Olof Löf, 2019. "Mineral grades: an important indicator for environmental impact of mineral exploitation," Mineral Economics, Springer;Raw Materials Group (RMG);Luleå University of Technology, vol. 32(1), pages 49-73, April.
    5. Ki‐Hoon Lee, 2017. "Does Size Matter? Evaluating Corporate Environmental Disclosure in the Australian Mining and Metal Industry: A Combined Approach of Quantity and Quality Measurement," Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 26(2), pages 209-223, February.
    6. Henning Wigger & Till Zimmermann & Christian Pade, 2015. "Broadening our view on nanomaterials: highlighting potentials to contribute to a sustainable materials management in preliminary assessments," Environment Systems and Decisions, Springer, vol. 35(1), pages 110-128, March.
    7. Prince Amoah & Gabriel Eweje, 2021. "Impact mitigation or ecological restoration? Examining the environmental sustainability practices of multinational mining companies," Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 30(1), pages 551-565, January.
    8. Nadine Rötzer & Mario Schmidt, 2018. "Decreasing Metal Ore Grades—Is the Fear of Resource Depletion Justified?," Resources, MDPI, vol. 7(4), pages 1-14, December.
    9. R. H. E. M. Koppelaar & H. Koppelaar, 2016. "The Ore Grade and Depth Influence on Copper Energy Inputs," Biophysical Economics and Resource Quality, Springer, vol. 1(2), pages 1-16, December.
    10. Shen, Lixin & Muduli, Kamalakanta & Barve, Akhilesh, 2015. "Developing a sustainable development framework in the context of mining industries: AHP approach," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 46(P1), pages 15-26.
    11. Florian Fizaine, 2019. "The Economics of Recycling Rate: new insights from a Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment," Policy Papers 2019.01, FAERE - French Association of Environmental and Resource Economists.
    12. Fuisz-Kehrbach, Sonja-Katrin, 2015. "A three-dimensional framework to explore corporate sustainability activities in the mining industry: Current status and challenges ahead," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 46(P1), pages 101-115.
    13. Larona S. Teseletso & Tsuyoshi Adachi, 2023. "Future availability of mineral resources: ultimate reserves and total material requirement," Mineral Economics, Springer;Raw Materials Group (RMG);Luleå University of Technology, vol. 36(2), pages 189-206, June.
    14. Adomako, Samuel & Tran, Mai Dong, 2022. "Sustainable environmental strategy, firm competitiveness, and financial performance: Evidence from the mining industry," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 75(C).
    15. Northey, S. & Mohr, S. & Mudd, G.M. & Weng, Z. & Giurco, D., 2014. "Modelling future copper ore grade decline based on a detailed assessment of copper resources and mining," Resources, Conservation & Recycling, Elsevier, vol. 83(C), pages 190-201.
    16. Tuusjärvi, Mari, 2013. "Tracking changes in the global impacts of metal concentrate acquisition for the metals industry in Finland," Resources, Conservation & Recycling, Elsevier, vol. 76(C), pages 12-20.
    17. Cameron Perks & Gavin Mudd, 2021. "A detailed assessment of global Zr and Ti production," Mineral Economics, Springer;Raw Materials Group (RMG);Luleå University of Technology, vol. 34(3), pages 345-370, October.
    18. Jose-Luis, Palacios & Abadias, Alejandro & Valero, Alicia & Valero, Antonio & Reuter, Markus, 2019. "The energy needed to concentrate minerals from common rocks: The case of copper ore," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 181(C), pages 494-503.
    19. Ousman Gajigo & Mouma Ben Dhaou, 2015. "Working Paper 222 - Economies of Scale in Gold Mining," Working Paper Series 2161, African Development Bank.
    20. Ben White & Graeme J. Doole & David J. Pannell & Veronique Florec, 2012. "Optimal environmental policy design for mine rehabilitation and pollution with a risk of non‐compliance owing to firm insolvency," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 56(2), pages 280-301, April.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:recore:v:73:y:2013:i:c:p:180-187. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Kai Meng (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.journals.elsevier.com/resources-conservation-and-recycling .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.