IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jeners/v17y2024i11p2685-d1406722.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Lithium Supply Chain Optimization: A Global Analysis of Critical Minerals for Batteries

Author

Listed:
  • Erick C. Jones

    (Department of Industrial, Manufacturing, and Systems Engineering, College of Engineering, University of Texas at Arlington, 701 S Nedderman Dr, Arlington, TX 76019, USA)

Abstract

Energy storage is a foundational clean energy technology that can enable transformative technologies and lower carbon emissions, especially when paired with renewable energy. However, clean energy transition technologies need completely different supply chains than our current fuel-based supply chains. These technologies will instead require a material-based supply chain that extracts and processes massive amounts of minerals, especially critical minerals, which are classified by how essential they are for the modern economy. In order to develop, operate, and optimize the new material-based supply chain, new decision-making frameworks and tools are needed to design and navigate this new supply chain and ensure we have the materials we need to build the energy system of tomorrow. This work creates a flexible mathematical optimization framework for critical mineral supply chain analysis that, once provided with exogenously supplied projections for parameters such as demand, cost, and carbon intensity, can provide an efficient analysis of a mineral or critical mineral supply chain. To illustrate the capability of the framework, this work also conducts a case study investigating the global lithium supply chain needed for energy storage technologies like electric vehicles (EVs). The case study model explores the investment and operational decisions that a global central planner would consider in order to meet projected lithium demand in one scenario where the objective is to minimize cost and another scenario where the objective is to minimize CO 2 emissions. The case study shows there is a 6% cost premium to reduce CO 2 emissions by 2%. Furthermore, the CO 2 Objective scenario invested in recycling capacity to reduce emissions, while the Cost Objective scenario did not. Lastly, this case study shows that even with a deterministic model and a global central planner, asset utilization is not perfect, and there is a substantial tradeoff between cost and emissions. Therefore, this framework—when expanded to less-idealized scenarios, like those focused on individual countries or regions or scenarios that optimize other important evaluation metrics—would yield even more impactful insights. However, even in its simplest form, as presented in this work, the framework illustrates its power to model, optimize, and illustrate the material-based supply chains needed for the clean energy technologies of tomorrow.

Suggested Citation

  • Erick C. Jones, 2024. "Lithium Supply Chain Optimization: A Global Analysis of Critical Minerals for Batteries," Energies, MDPI, vol. 17(11), pages 1-31, May.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jeners:v:17:y:2024:i:11:p:2685-:d:1406722
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/17/11/2685/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/17/11/2685/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Gavin Harper & Roberto Sommerville & Emma Kendrick & Laura Driscoll & Peter Slater & Rustam Stolkin & Allan Walton & Paul Christensen & Oliver Heidrich & Simon Lambert & Andrew Abbott & Karl Ryder & L, 2019. "Recycling lithium-ion batteries from electric vehicles," Nature, Nature, vol. 575(7781), pages 75-86, November.
    2. Nicola Jones, 2024. "The new car batteries that could power the electric vehicle revolution," Nature, Nature, vol. 626(7998), pages 248-251, February.
    3. Li, Lin & Dababneh, Fadwa & Zhao, Jing, 2018. "Cost-effective supply chain for electric vehicle battery remanufacturing," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 226(C), pages 277-286.
    4. Erick C. Jones & Ariadna Reyes, 2023. "Identifying Themes in Energy Poverty Research: Energy Justice Implications for Policy, Programs, and the Clean Energy Transition," Energies, MDPI, vol. 16(18), pages 1-15, September.
    5. Franca, Rodrigo B. & Jones, Erick C. & Richards, Casey N. & Carlson, Jonathan P., 2010. "Multi-objective stochastic supply chain modeling to evaluate tradeoffs between profit and quality," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 127(2), pages 292-299, October.
    6. Pranjal Barman & Lachit Dutta & Brian Azzopardi, 2023. "Electric Vehicle Battery Supply Chain and Critical Materials: A Brief Survey of State of the Art," Energies, MDPI, vol. 16(8), pages 1-23, April.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Nguyen-Tien, Viet & Dai, Qiang & Harper, Gavin D.J. & Anderson, Paul A. & Elliott, Robert J.R., 2022. "Optimising the geospatial configuration of a future lithium ion battery recycling industry in the transition to electric vehicles and a circular economy," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 321(C).
    2. Hu, Xiaoqian & Wang, Chao & Lim, Ming K. & Chen, Wei-Qiang & Teng, Limin & Wang, Peng & Wang, Heming & Zhang, Chao & Yao, Cuiyou & Ghadimi, Pezhman, 2023. "Critical systemic risk sources in global lithium-ion battery supply networks: Static and dynamic network perspectives," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 173(C).
    3. Lander, Laura & Tagnon, Chris & Nguyen-Tien, Viet & Kendrick, Emma & Elliott, Robert J.R. & Abbott, Andrew P. & Edge, Jacqueline S. & Offer, Gregory J., 2023. "Breaking it down: A techno-economic assessment of the impact of battery pack design on disassembly costs," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 331(C).
    4. Hao Hao & Wenxian Xu & Fangfang Wei & Chuanliang Wu & Zhaoran Xu, 2022. "Reward–Penalty vs. Deposit–Refund: Government Incentive Mechanisms for EV Battery Recycling," Energies, MDPI, vol. 15(19), pages 1-18, September.
    5. Scott, James & Ho, William & Dey, Prasanta K. & Talluri, Srinivas, 2015. "A decision support system for supplier selection and order allocation in stochastic, multi-stakeholder and multi-criteria environments," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 166(C), pages 226-237.
    6. Guido Busca, 2024. "Critical Aspects of Energetic Transition Technologies and the Roles of Materials Chemistry and Engineering," Energies, MDPI, vol. 17(14), pages 1-32, July.
    7. Tuğba Yeğin & Muhammad Ikram, 2022. "Analysis of Consumers’ Electric Vehicle Purchase Intentions: An Expansion of the Theory of Planned Behavior," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(19), pages 1-27, September.
    8. Jun-bin Wang & Lufei Huang, 2021. "A Game-Theoretic Analytical Approach for Fostering Energy-Saving Innovation in the Electric Vehicle Supply Chain," SAGE Open, , vol. 11(2), pages 21582440211, June.
    9. Gu, Xubo & Bai, Hanyu & Cui, Xiaofan & Zhu, Juner & Zhuang, Weichao & Li, Zhaojian & Hu, Xiaosong & Song, Ziyou, 2024. "Challenges and opportunities for second-life batteries: Key technologies and economy," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 192(C).
    10. Hache, Emmanuel & Seck, Gondia Sokhna & Simoen, Marine & Bonnet, Clément & Carcanague, Samuel, 2019. "Critical raw materials and transportation sector electrification: A detailed bottom-up analysis in world transport," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 240(C), pages 6-25.
    11. Gutsch, Moritz & Leker, Jens, 2024. "Costs, carbon footprint, and environmental impacts of lithium-ion batteries – From cathode active material synthesis to cell manufacturing and recycling," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 353(PB).
    12. Kılkış, Şiir & Ulpiani, Giulia & Vetters, Nadja, 2024. "Visions for climate neutrality and opportunities for co-learning in European cities," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 195(C).
    13. Guanjun Ji & Di Tang & Junxiong Wang & Zheng Liang & Haocheng Ji & Jun Ma & Zhaofeng Zhuang & Song Liu & Guangmin Zhou & Hui-Ming Cheng, 2024. "Sustainable upcycling of mixed spent cathodes to a high-voltage polyanionic cathode material," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 15(1), pages 1-10, December.
    14. Shahjalal, Mohammad & Roy, Probir Kumar & Shams, Tamanna & Fly, Ashley & Chowdhury, Jahedul Islam & Ahmed, Md. Rishad & Liu, Kailong, 2022. "A review on second-life of Li-ion batteries: prospects, challenges, and issues," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 241(C).
    15. Wang, Mengmeng & Liu, Kang & Dutta, Shanta & Alessi, Daniel S. & Rinklebe, Jörg & Ok, Yong Sik & Tsang, Daniel C.W., 2022. "Recycling of lithium iron phosphate batteries: Status, technologies, challenges, and prospects," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 163(C).
    16. Tang, Yanyan & Zhang, Qi & Li, Yaoming & Li, Hailong & Pan, Xunzhang & Mclellan, Benjamin, 2019. "The social-economic-environmental impacts of recycling retired EV batteries under reward-penalty mechanism," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 251(C), pages 1-1.
    17. Fatmawati Fatmawati & Nuryanti Mustari & Haerana Haerana & Risma Niswaty & Abdillah Abdillah, 2022. "Waste Bank Policy Implementation through Collaborative Approach: Comparative Study—Makassar and Bantaeng, Indonesia," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(13), pages 1-15, June.
    18. Andrzej Pacana & Dominika Siwiec & Robert Ulewicz & Malgorzata Ulewicz, 2024. "A Novelty Model Employing the Quality Life Cycle Assessment (QLCA) Indicator and Frameworks for Selecting Qualitative and Environmental Aspects for Sustainable Product Development," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 16(17), pages 1-24, September.
    19. Hongxia Chen & Jeongsoo Yu & Xiaoyue Liu, 2022. "Development Strategies and Policy Trends of the Next-Generation Vehicles Battery: Focusing on the International Comparison of China, Japan and South Korea," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(19), pages 1-12, September.
    20. Costa, C.M. & Barbosa, J.C. & Castro, H. & Gonçalves, R. & Lanceros-Méndez, S., 2021. "Electric vehicles: To what extent are environmentally friendly and cost effective? – Comparative study by european countries," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 151(C).

    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:gam:jeners:v:17:y:2024:i:11:p:2685-:d:1406722. 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: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    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.