A CRITICAL ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS OF STRATEGIC MATERIALS TOWARDS ENERGY TRANSITION
- Michela Gallo - Department of Civil, Chemical and Environmental Engineering (DICCA), University of Genoa, Italy
- Luca Moreschi - Department of Civil, Chemical and Environmental Engineering (DICCA), University of Genoa, Italy
- Adriana Del Borghi - Department of Civil, Chemical and Environmental Engineering (DICCA), University of Genoa, Italy
- Available online in Detritus - Volume 20 - September 2022
- Pages 3-12
Released under CC BY-NC-ND
Copyright: © 2022 CISA Publisher
Abstract
Global consumption of materials is rising rapidly leading to an increase in environmental impacts associated with the supply chain. Similar issues also affect a set of materials strategic for the transition towards a sustainable energy production and distribution system: i.e. materials employed in renewable energy (wind turbines and photovoltaic panels), energy storage, electrolysers, electricity distribution networks and electric vehicle charging infrastructure. The analysis identifies, maps and defines a priority hierarchy for the environmental risks generated along the life-cycle of strategic raw materials. Standard construction material such as iron, steel and concrete showed the lowest environmental risks whereas platinum and iridium presented by far the highest impacts (respectively 24.098,04 and 14.732,51 kg CO2 eq, 353.893,39 and 215.934,28 MJ, and 140,24 and 83,20 m3 of water for 1 kg of raw material). Recycled materials have shown to enable the lowering of the environmental risk associated with some raw material production processes (i.e. copper, lead, aluminium, nickel, manganese), whereas specific materials (i.e. platinum, iridium, indium, dysprosium) and related applications will need to be monitored to guarantee a sustainable transition towards renewable energies.Keywords
Editorial History
- Received: 22 Jun 2022
- Revised: 17 Aug 2022
- Accepted: 15 Sep 2022
- Available online: 30 Sep 2022
References
EC. (2006). Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council on the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH)
EC. (2020a). European Commission. Study on the EU’s list of Critical Raw Materials (2020) – Critical Raw Materials Factsheets
EC. (2020b). European Commission. Study on the EU’s list of Critical Raw Materials (2020) – Non-Critical Raw Materials Factsheets
Eurometaux. (n.d.). https://www.eurometaux.eu/about-our-industry/introducing-metals/
European Commission. (2017). Study on the review of the list of Critical Raw Materials—Final Report
Magrassi, F., Rocco, E., Barberis, S., Gallo, M., & Del Borghi, A. (2019). Hybrid solar power system versus photovoltaic plant: A comparative analysis through a life cycle approach. Renewable Energy, 130, 290–304.
DOI 10.1016/j.renene.2018.06.072
Nuss, P., & Eckelman, M. J. (2014). Life Cycle Assessment of Metals: A Scientific Synthesis. PLoS ONE, 9(7), e101298.
DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0101298
Strazza, C., Del Borghi, A., Magrassi, F., & Gallo, M. (2016). Using environmental product declaration as source of data for life cycle assessment: A case study. Journal of Cleaner Production, 112, Part 1, 333–342.
DOI 10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.07.058
Weber, S., Peters, J. F., Baumann, M., & Weil, M. (2018). Life Cycle Assessment of a Vanadium Redox Flow Battery. Environmental Science & Technology, 52(18), 10864–10873.
DOI 10.1021/acs.est.8b02073
Wernet, G., Bauer, C., Steubing, B., Reinhard, J., Moreno-Ruiz, E., & Weidema, B. (2016). The ecoinvent database version 3 (part I): Overview and methodology. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 21(9), 1218–1230.
DOI 10.1007/s11367-016-1087-8
Zapp, P., Marx, J., Schreiber, A., Friedrich, B., & Voßenkaul, D. (2018). Comparison of dysprosium production from different resources by life cycle assessment. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 130, 248–259.
DOI 10.1016/j.resconrec.2017.12.006