39

Resource Management for Carbon Management:
A Literature Review
Seiji HASHIMOTO1* and Yuichi MORIGUCHI2
1

College of Science and Engineering, Ritsumeikan University
1-1-1 Noji-higashi, Kusatsu, Shiga 525-8577, Japan
2
Graduate School of Engineering, The University of Tokyo
7-3-1 Hongo, Bunkyo-ku, Tokyo 113-8656, JAPAN*e-mail: shashimo@fc.ritsumei.ac.jp

Abstract
Resource use and climate change are closely related, therefore resource management also needs to be
discussed in terms of carbon management. The authors conducted a literature review to identify important
aspects of resource management from the viewpoint of greenhouse gas (GHG) emission reductions. As for
management of carbon- intensive materials such as steel, cement and paper, it would be impossible to reduce
GHGs by significant amounts without lowering global levels of material consumption. However this option
has not been explored in detail. Identifying reasons for differences in current material consumption in different countries is an important first step for exploring development in Asia that would be less resource-intense.
At the same time, measures such as demand management, weight saving, substitution and lifetime extension
need to be explored in more detail. As for management of minor metals associated with mitigation technologies, criticality analyses of metals show that rare earth elements are important to the penetration of mitigation
technologies. Recycling, substitution and reduction of intensity of use need to be further investigated for these
metals.
Key words: criticality analysis, dematerialization, lifetime extension, recycling, reuse, weight saving

1. Linkages between Resource Management
and Carbon Management
The growth rate of China’s crude steel production in
the 1990s and 2000s has been astonishing: production
reached 637 Mt in 2010, nearly ten times greater than the
66 Mt of 1990 (World Steel Association, 2012). The Asiaand Oceania regions (including China, Japan, India andKorea) accounted for 65% (45%, 8%, 5%, and 4%,
respectively) of the global crude steel production of
1,429 Mt in 2010. China is also an important player incement production: it produced 1.6 Gt in 2009, which
was more than half the global cement production of
3.0 Gt (US Geological Survey, 2012). China and India
have more than doubled their cement production in thelast decade. Looking at paper and paperboard production,
China produced 97 Mt in 2010, which was about 24% of
the global production of 400 Mt (ForeSTAT, 2012).
China and India have increased their production to
three times that of twelve years ago. The Asian region
accounted for 44% of global production in 2010.
Further increases in resource demand are expected in
the coming decades in Asian developing countries,
considering their current per capita resource consumpGlobal Environmental Research
17/2013: 39-46
printed in Japantion level and their promising economic growth. These
increases in resource demand will inevitably affectgreenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. In particular, demandfor carbon- intensive materials such as steel, cement,
paper and plastics are important when considering global
GHG emissions.
As climate change has become an important global
issue, various new technologies to reduce GHG emissions, such as energy-saving vehicles, fuel cells, photovoltaic cells, and wind power, have been developed andhave penetrated. For example, the global photovoltaic
power capacity of 40 GW in 2010 was about thirty times
larger than that of 1.4 GW in 2000; and the global wind
power capacity of 198 GW in 2010 was more than ten
times greater than that of 17 GW in 2000 (Renewable
Energy Policy Network for the 21st Century, 2011).
These technologies require the use of various minor
metals. For instance, electric vehicle technology needs
secondary battery technologies, which require metals
such as lithium; fuel cell technology needs precious
metals such as platinum; photovoltaic cell technologies
require metals such as indium and gallium; and permanent magnets need rare earth elements. Large-scale deployments of these technologies will be necessary for©2013 AIRIES40

S. HASHIMOTO and Y. MORIGUCHI

significant reduction of GHG emissions in the future.
This, however, implies that strong demand for someminor metals will occur. The supply of those metals may
be a factor restricting the diffusion of these mitigation
technologies.
As described above, resource use and climate change
are closely related: resource management also needs tobe discussed in terms of carbon management. For thispaper, the authors conducted a literature review to identify important aspects of resource management from theviewpoint of GHG emission reductions. In Section 2, we
focus on management of carbon intensive materials.
Major questions include, what amounts of carbon intensive materials will be required in coming decades, andwhat the potential will be for reducing GHG emissions
through sustainable resource management. In Section 3,
we focus on management of minor metals associatedwith mitigation technologies. Major questions include,
what amounts of minor metals will be required forlarge-scale deployment of mitigation technologies, andwhat countermeasures will be needed if demand is notmet.

2. Management of Carbon Intensive Materials
2.1 Modeling for estimating materials demand andmitigation measures
Estimating materials demand in the future is the firststep toward discussing future GHG emissions and resource management. Several approaches have been
adopted for this:1) Extrapolation approach,2) GDP-oriented approach, and
3) Service-oriented approach.
Approach 1 extrapolates past trends into the future.
This approach may be effective in the short term, butthere is no clear reason to assume continuation of pasttrends in the long term. Approach 2 analyzes the correlation between materials demand and GDP and uses thiscorrelation to estimate materials demand under a given
GDP scenario. Approach 3 estimates materials demand
based on demand for services, e.g., for housing and transportation, in the future. While GDP plays as a proxy ofservice demand in Approach 2, services in physical terms
are defined in Approach 3. This would be the most
reasonable way to estimate materials demand becausematerials demand is more directly correlated to services
than GDP. However, a large amount of data is required
for this modeling. Demand estimates in the following
sections apply to Approaches 2 and 3.
From the resource management point of view, several
measures are effective at reducing GHG emissions:A) Demand management,B) Weight saving / lower intensity of material use.
C) Substitution of materials,
D) Extension of product lifetimes, and
E) Recycling of byproducts and end-of-life products.
Dynamic material flow modeling is necessary for
analyzing the effectiveness of lifetime extension and thefuture scrap supply for recycling. In some studies,
Approach 1 (extrapolation) has been adopted for estimating the future scrap supply, but this is less meaningful,considering the dynamics of the scrap supply fromend-of-life durables. In addition, the modeling of othermaterials’ demand and supply is necessary when therecycling of byproducts from other industries is considered. This issue is discussed in more detail in Sections 2.2
and 2.3.
2.2 Steel demand and mitigation measures
The iron and steel sector (coke-making process included) is the largest source of GHG emissions from theindustrial sector: its global emissions were 2.6 GtCO2 in2006 (IEA, 2009a), including indirect emissions fromelectricity. There are three steelmaking routes: blast furnace (BF)/basic oxygen furnace (BOF), electric arc furnace (EAF), and direct reduced iron (DRI). The EAF
route uses only 30% to 40% of the energy of the BF/BOF
route, with GHG emission reduction being a function of
the source of electricity. Significant energy savings canbe achieved by switching from BF/BOF to EAF production (measure E). However, such changes may be limited
by factors such as scrap availability and the demand forhigher grades of steel.
Table 1 shows that global steel demand can be doubled at most in 2050 from the 2010 level of 1.4 Gt, which
will lead to a corresponding increase in GHG emissions
from the iron and steel sector. China’s steel demand is
expected to increase and then decrease after reaching apeak. The demand in 2050 may be slightly increased or
decreased from the current level of 0.6 Gt in 2010,
depending on the estimate. Hatayama et al. (2010) andPauliuk et al. (2012) use per capita stock as a driver of
future steel demand and their estimates show lower values than those of the IEA (2009) and Zhou et al. (2011).
The range of Pauliuk et al.’s estimate is the result of
assumptions on the per capita stock level and lifetimes of
products. A lower per capita stock (0.8 t/cap) (measures
A, B, and/or C), which is the saturation level of France
and the UK, would decrease steel demand in China
significantly to the lower level of 0.3 Gt in 2050. Thismeans that significant GHG reduction could be achieved
if a lower per capita stock is realized. Note that Pauliuk
et al. (2012) reported that longer lifetimes (measure D)
would not affect China’s steel demand until 2050. Few
quantitative studies have been made regarding thepotential reduction of steel demand through lightweight
design and high-performance steels such as corrosionresistant steels and high-strength low-alloy steels(measure B). Carruth et al. (2011) examined the opportunity to reduce requirements for steel by lightweight
design of structural beams, food cans, car bodies,reinforcing bar, and deep sea oil and gas pipelines. If the
proposed savings in their design case studies are possible
in all steel products, total steel requirements could be
reduced by 25%-30%. This means a potential reductionof corresponding GHG emissions.
As for recycling (measure E), the IEA (2009a) esti-

Resource Management for Carbon Management

41

Table 1 Recent estimates of demand for carbon-intensive materials and their scrap supply in 2050.
Annual demand (Gt)Annual scrap supply (Gt)Steel
2.3-2.8
1.2-??
1.8a
1.5ab
a
1.5
1.2ab
0.6-0.7
0.8
0.3-0.5
0.3-0.5b
0.3-0.4
Cement3.7-4.4
0.8-0.9
1.1
0.5-0.9c
0.6-0.7
Paper and paperboard
0.69-0.92

IEA (2009a)
Hatayama et al. (2010)
Hatayama et al. (2010)
IEA (2009a)
Zhou et al. (2011)
Pauliuk et al. (2012)
IEA (2009a)

GlobalGlobal
Asia
China
China
China
India

IEA (2009a)
IEA (2009a)
Zhou et al. (2011)
Shi et al. (2012)
IEA (2009a)

Global
China
China
China
India

IEA (2009a)

GlobalKayo et al. (2012)

Asia

0.42-0.57d

IEA (2009a)
Zhou et al. (2011)
Kayo et al. (2012)
IEA (2009a)
Kayo et al. (2012)

China
China
China
India
India

0.18-0.25
0.12
0.26-0.27
0.05-0.07
0.05-0.14

Scenarios on scrap reuse (Gt)
1.2-??

0.38-0.56(55%-61%)
0.34-0.46(81%)d

0.21-0.22(81%)
0.04-0.11(81%)

aSteel use for civil engineering, building, and vehicles is considered.
Only end-of-life scrap is considered.
c
Cement demand for building and transportation infrastructure is considered.
dTen Asian countries are considered: China and Taiwan, India, Indonesia, Japan, Malaysia, Philippines, Singapore, South Korea, Thailand andVietnam.
bmates that the share of steel produced from scrap will
increase to 54% in 2050 from 33% in 2006 and showsthat recycling will play an important role in GHG reduction, especially in the short term. About 11%-14% of thetotal abatement of 2.2-2.7 GtCO2 in 2050 can be attributed to increased recycling. Hatayama et al. (2010)
determined that the potential scrap supply from end-oflife (EOL) products corresponded to 80% of steel
demand. Pauliuk et al. (2012) estimated almost the samelevel of EOL product scrap supply with steel demand in
China in 2050. Therefore, scrap availability is not a restricting factor for increased recycling in their scenarios.
Combining their lower steel demand and higher recycling
potential, significant GHG reduction can be expected. As
shown above, scrap availability is an important factor
when potential usage of EAF is analyzed. Therefore, theassumptions used in estimating the scrap supply should
be clarified and discussed in detail. In terms of recycling(measure E), waste plastic can also be used as a substitutefor coal in blast furnaces and coke ovens, although its
contribution to GHG reduction would be small. Whenconsidering this scenario, waste plastic availability needs
to be assessed because there will be high competition for
waste plastic recycling. The IEA (2009a) reported thatthe near-decarbonisation of the electricity sector would
play a major role in achieving emissions reductions.
Therefore, recycling of scrap with clean energy is criticalfor low-carbon resource management.

2.3 Cement demand and mitigation measures
Cement production processes emit CO2 from thecalcination of limestone. They are also energy-intensive
processes. Global emissions from the cement industry
were 2.0 GtCO2 in 2006 (IEA, 2009a), including indirectemissions from electricity. The GHG emissions intensity(kgCO2/kgCement) depends on the clinker content of thecement produced, energy efficiency, carbon intensity of
the clinker fuel, and carbon intensity of the electricity
used. Currently adopted measures to reduce GHG emissions from the resource-management point of view
include the replacement of clinker by alternative cementitious materials such as blast furnace slag and fly ash
from coal-fired power plants (measure E); and the use ofalternative fuels such as waste tyres, plastics, wood andsewage sludge (measure E).
Table 1 shows that the global cement demand in 2050
is expected to increase by about 50% at most from ademand of 3.0 Gt in 2009. While China will increase andthen decrease its demand from 1.6 Gt in 2009, India’s
demand in 2050 will be more than tripled from 0.2 Gt in2009.
Shi et al. (2012) estimated cement demand for several
scenarios depending on the lifetimes of building andinfrastructure, showing the lowest estimate of cement
demand to be 0.5 Gt for longer lifetimes (measure D),compared with 0.9 Gt for shorter lifetimes. Extension of
lifetime (measure D) would have a significant impact on

42

S. HASHIMOTO and Y. MORIGUCHI

cement demand, and thus GHG emissions from cement
production.
The potential level of clinker replacement can be
estimated at an accessible level of 30% to an extreme
level of 50% (Habert et al., 2010) (measure E). The
replacement ratio of 30% in the IEA’s global estimate
implies the use of about 1.1 to 1.3 Gt of clinker substitutes in 2050 (IEA, 2009a). Scenarios of steel production
with BF/BOF and coal-fired power generation need to be
discussed at the same time when we consider scenarios ofthis replacement. The same applies to the use of alternative fuels. Cement plants in some European countries
have reached average substitution rates of from 35% tomore than 70% of the total energy used, and someindividual plants have even achieved 100% substitution
using appropriate waste materials (Taylor et al., 2006).
However, we need to discuss the availability of alternative fuels when we consider high substitution rates.
From the viewpoint of GHG reduction, replacementof clinker and the use of alternative fuels can make acertain contribution but not significant. Other measuresfor lowering the level of cement consumption (measures
A to D) need to be more fully explored.
2.4 Paper and paperboard
The pulp and paper industry is also an energy intensive sector. Its global emissions were 410 MtCO2 in 2006
(IEA, 2009a), including indirect emissions from electricity. Options to reduce GHG emissions, currently
adopted from a resource-management point of view,
include the use of black liquor and wastepaper recycling(measure E). Black liquor is the residue from chemical
processing to produce wood pulp for papermaking. It
contains a significant amount of biomass (dissolved
lignin and other materials from the wood) and can beused as a fuel. Recycling of wastepaper has a complex
impact on the emissions profile of paper plants, forestsand landfills. A number of studies have examined theimpacts of recycling on life-cycle GHG emissions(Finnveden & Ekvall, 1998; Villanueva & Wenzel, 2007).
In general, the environmental benefits of that ascompared to incineration or landfill options have been
illustrated.
Table 1 shows that global paper and paperboard demand may double in 2050 from the 2010 level of 0.4 Gt,
leading also to a corresponding increase in GHG emissions from the pulp and paper sector. Paper and paperboard consumption and GDP are correlated, and thus
GDP, i.e., wealth, can be seen as a key driving force for
an increase in paper consumption. Kayo et al. (2012)’s
estimate for China is similar to the high-demand case of
the IEA (2009a). In both estimates, developing countries’
consumption will follow developed countries’ trajectory.
For the IEA’s low-demand case, growth in paper andpaperboard consumption in developing countries isassumed to rise at a slower rate than under the highdemand case.
The IEA (2009a) expects recovered paper utilization
to reach 55% - 61% in 2050, while Kayo et al. (2012)

assume an upper limit of 81% based on the current recycling rate for Malaysia. As for reduction of paper
consumption itself, Counsell and Allwood (2008) examined reuse of paper, i.e., erasing the print on office
paper to allow its immediate re-use (measure E (or D)).
This is ambitious, but if all existing process improvements are implemented and if a significant amount ofdemand is met by un-printing and re-use, we can reduce asignificant amount of GHG emissions, because a preliminary energy analysis shows that to prepare a sheet ofpaper for re-use requires around 10% of the energy
required for a new sheet (Counsell & Allwood, 2008).
2.5 Summary
The five measures for resource management (A to E)
are considered in discussing the GHG emission reduction
potential associated with carbon-intensive materials.
Recycling (measure E) is an important measure for
reducing GHG emissions. It would be impossible, however, to reduce significant amounts of GHGs without
lowering the levels of global materials consumption(measures A to D), therefore dematerialized development
scenarios are required. So far, these options have notbeen explored in detail, but some studies have shown asignificant potential for reducing materials demand.
Identifying reasons for differences in current material
consumption in different countries is an important firststep in exploring less resource-intensive development in
Asia. At the same time, measures A to D described in
Section 2.1 need to be explored in more detail.

3. Management of Minor Metals Associatedwith Mitigation Technologies
3.1 Criticality of minor metals
As stated in Section 1, a variety of minor metals areused in mitigation technologies and those metals’ availability in the future may be a factor restricting thepenetration of those technologies.
The United States National Research Council (NRC)
defined the criticality of minerals as a function of two
variables, supply risk (availability) and impact of supply
restriction (importance of minerals in use) (USNRC,
2008). Graedel et al. (2012) extended this NRC framework by adding a third variable, i.e., environmental
implications. In their proposed methodology, supply risk
is evaluated on the basis of three components: (1)geological, technological and economic, (2) social andregulatory, and (3) geopolitical. The first component
measures the potential availability of a mineral, including
both primary and secondary (recycled) sources, while thelatter two address the degree to which the availability ofthat supply might be constrained. The social and regulatory component reflects social attitudes toward andregulations of mining development, while the geopolitical component addresses the political stability of a resource-producing country. Additionally, the impact of
supply restriction, which is called vulnerability to supply
restriction in the framework of Graedel et al. (2012), isResource Management for Carbon Management

evaluated on the basis of components such as importance,
substitutability, and the ability to innovate (or susceptibility). The ability to innovate is important because
more innovative corporations or countries are likely to beable to adapt more quickly to supply restrictions. Lastly,
the environmental implications are evaluated using alife-cycle assessment methodology, i.e., the use of energy
and water in processing, or emissions to air, water or land
are assessed.
Keeping these various components of supply risks
and the impact of supply restriction in mind, we will
discuss the management of minor metals associated with
important mitigation technologies below.
3.2 Batteries: lithium
Secondary batteries are a key component in electricvehicle (EV) technologies, including plug-in hybridelectric vehicles (PHEVs) and hybrid-electric vehicles(HEVs). Current generation HEVs use nickel metal
hydride (NiMH) batteries, while EVs and PHEVs employ lithium-ion batteries because they require greater
storage capacity and higher power ratings than HEVs.
The demand for lithium and other materials associatedwith lithium-ion batteries will likely grow substantiallywith the large-scale deployment of EVs and PHEVs.
As Table 2 shows, global lithium demand could increase substantially in coming decades in high penetration scenarios of EVs and PHEVs. Since there are sufficient reserves of lithium, the absolute amount of
resources will not be a restricting factor. In addition, there
are no significant political, regulatory or social factors in
the lithium producing countries. However, expansion of
the supply may not keep pace with the expected rapid
demand growth in coming decades, so there is a supply
risk for lithium. Yaksic and Tilton (2009) and Gruber
et al. (2011) assumed a recycling rate of 80% and 90%,
respectively (measure E). If such high recycling rates
cannot be achieved, the cumulative lithium demand inhigh penetration scenarios may reach the amount ofidentified resource in the lithosphere.
3.3 Fuel cells: platinum
Currently platinum is an indispensable component of
catalytic converters for controlling automobile emissions
because of its outstanding catalytic properties. It is also
expected to play an important role in the envisionedhydrogen economy as catalytic electrodes in hydrogenfuel-cells. With the large-scale deployment of fuel cells,
the demand for platinum will likely grow.
As Table 2 shows, global platinum demand could
increase significantly in coming decades in scenarioswith high penetration of fuel cell vehicles (FCVs). Kondo
et al. (2006) and Saurat and Bringezu (2009) estimatedprimary platinum demand, while Sun et al. (2011) andHashimoto et al. (2010) estimated platinum demand, including both primary and secondary. Saurat and Bringezu(2009) reported higher cumulative demand until 2050
than Hashimoto et al. (2010) because of their muchhigher FCV penetration scenario (80% and 20% of

43vehicle sales in 2050, respectively). The higher platinum
demand of 44,000 t is 1.5 times larger than the current
platinum reserves of 29,000 t estimated by Gordon et al.
(2006). The platinum supply has been inelastic due toconstraints from producers’ sociopolitical environment
and infrastructure (Sun et al., 2011). In addition few
substitutes are available. Therefore, if fuel cell technology cannot reduce the platinum loading (measure B) andif efficient recycling systems for platinum (measure E)
cannot be established, widespread commercialization of
FCVs will not be possible. For example, platinum use
intensities of 4.55-39.11 g/FCV are used for estimating
demands in 2050 by Saurat and Bringezu (2009) andHashimoto et al. (2010), so lower platinum use intensities must be achieved. The recycling rate assumed in
Saurat and Bringezu (2009)’s estimates is 75% for all
scenarios, so higher recycling rates need to be achieved
as well. Note that Sun et al. (2011) estimated a platinum
demand of 250 t in 2050 for other products such as
catalytic converters for automobile emissions control andjewelry. Their share is small compared with growing
demand for FCVs.
3.4 Photovoltaic cells: indium, gallium and tellurium
Various types of photovoltaic (PV) cells have beendeveloped. So far, crystalline silicon-based cells havebeen the dominant PV technology. Thin film technologies, however, are increasingly prominent among PV
technologies. In particular, deployment of copper indium
gallium diselenide (CIGS) and cadmium telluride (CdTe)
thin films is increasing.
Table 2 shows recent estimates of global indium, gallium and tellurium demand in coming decades. There are
big differences among the three estimates even though
they are not directly comparable because of different
timeframes. Reasons include the following. Firstly, theUS Department of Energy (USDOE, 2010)’s estimate
includes demand for other uses, while Zuser andRechberger (2011) and Hashimoto et al. (2010)’s estimates target photovoltaic cells only. Secondly, theirestimates are based on penetration scenarios in the World
Energy Outlook 2009 (IEA, 2009b), Renewable Energy
Scenario to 2040 (EREC, 2004) and Energy Technology
Perspective 2010 (IEA, 2010), respectively. The second
scenario is more ambitious than the other two. Thirdly,
they use different assumptions of market share andintensity of metal use. They assume that the market shareof CIGS PV will be 10-50%, 25%, and 20-40%, respectively. The USDOE (2010) and Zuser and Rechberger(2011) also assume that the market share of CdTe PV willbe 10-50% and 25%, respectively. Further, the USDOE
and Hashimoto et al. (2010) use metal intensities of
16.5-110 kg-Indium/MW, 4-20 kg-Gallium/MW and
16.3 kg-Indium/MW, 6.7 kg-Gallium/MW, respectively.
Zuser and Rechberger (2011) also consider yield in production processes. Consequently, Zuser and Rechberger’s
high estimates are the largest, and Hashimoto et al.’s highestimates are smaller than the USDOE’s.
As for indium, demand for it in the UEDOE’s sce-

44

S. HASHIMOTO and Y. MORIGUCHI
Table 2 Recent estimates of demand for minor metals associated with mitigation technologies.
Annual demand

Batteries
USDOE (2010)
Hashimoto et al. (2010)
Yaksic & Tilton (2009)
Gruber et al. (2011)
Fuel cells
Kondo et al. (2006)
Sun et al. (2011)
Hashimoto et al. (2010)
Saurat & Bringezu (2009)
Photovoltaic cells
USDOE (2010)
Zuser & Rechberger (2011)
Hashimoto et al. (2010)
USDOE (2010)
Zuser & Rechberger (2011)
Hashimoto et al. (2010)
USDOE (2010)
Zuser & Rechberger (2011)
Permanent magnets
USDOE (2010)
Hashimoto et al. (2010)
USDOE (2010)
Hashimoto et al. (2010)

GlobalGlobalGlobalGlobalLithium
Lithium
Lithium
Lithium

GlobalGlobalGlobalGlobalPlatinum
Platinum
Platinum
Platinum

GlobalGlobalGlobalGlobalGlobalGlobalGlobalGlobalIndiumIndiumIndiumGallium
Gallium
Gallium
Tellurium
Tellurium

GlobalGlobalGlobalGlobalNeodymium
Neodymium
Dysprosium
Dysprosium

0.02 Mt (2010)

Cumulative demand
0.03-0.16 Mt (2025)
0.21-0.33 Mta (2050)

368-468 tb (2030)
500-700 t (2050)
150-1,290 tc (2050)

250 t (2010)

1,300 t (2010)

460-1,128 t (2050)
300-600 t (2025)d

500 t (2010)

1,300-10,800 tc (2010-2050)
1,000-44,000 tbc (2010-2050)

2,100-3,800 t (2025)d

200 t (2010)

2.5-4.1 Mta (2010-2050)
17.5 Mtb (2008-2100)
20-32 Mt, 11-20 Mtb (2010-2100)

99-197 t (2050)
700-2,800 t (2025)

11,000-44,000 td (2010-2040)
10,000-24,000 td (2010-2050)
5,000-19,000 td (2010-2040)
2,000-4,000 td (2010-2050)
52,000-245,000d t (2010-2050)

18 kt (2010)
1 kt (2010)27-61 kt (2025)
41-48 kte (2050)
1.5-6.2 kt (2025)8-16 kte (2050)

0.56-0.66 Mte (2010-2050)
0.11-0.21 Mte (2010-2050)

aLithium demand other than for batteries of EVs, PHEVs and HEVs is not considered.
Recycling is considered, and demand for primary metal is estimated.
c
Platinum demand other than for fuel cell vehicles is not considered.
dDemand for indium, gallium and tellurium, other than for photovoltaic cells, is not considered.
eDemand for neodymium and dysprosium, other than for permanent magnets for wind turbines and electric vehicles, is not considered.
bnario of 50% market share of CIGS and indium use of
16.5 kg/MW accounts for only 11% of the total demandof 2,400 t in 2025. Other uses will be dominant if indium
intensity can be reduced. Therefore, reducing the intensity of indium use in CIGS (to 16.5kg-Indium/MW from110) (measure B) would provide a significant reductionof overall demand. This conclusion is also derived fromtwo other estimates. On the supply side, China is now thedominant producer, but mines in other countries could
expand their capacity. Increasing recovery from tailings(measure E) could also expand production dramaticallyin the medium term (USDOE, 2010). However, there areno significant options for additional production in the
short term (USDOE, 2010).
As for gallium, demand for other uses dominates in
the USDOE’s scenario of 50% market share of CIGS andgallium use intensity of 4 kg/MW. High penetration of
CIGS PV without reduction in intensity of gallium use(measure B) would require a significant increase in the
global supply. Gallium resources are distributed worldwide, so there would be no shortage of raw ore (USDOE,
2010). However, expansion of the supply may not keep
pace with the expected rapid demand growth in coming
decades.
As for tellurium, the USDOE (2010) concludes that if

anticipated new supplies become available and the material intensity (measure B) is reduced, it appears that
supply will be sufficient to meet projected demand until
2025.
3.5 Permanent magnets: neodymium anddysprosium
Permanent magnets are a key component of lightweight and high-power motors and generators. Permanent magnet motors are used in EVs, HEVs and PHEVs,
and permanent magnet generators are used in wind turbines. Rare earth elements such as neodymium anddysprosium increase the function of these magnets.
Table 2 shows two estimates of global neodymium
and dysprosium demand in coming decades. As for
Neodymium, about half of the USDOE (2010)’s highestimate of 61 kt in 2025 is for permanent magnets, ofwhich wind turbines account for one-sixth. As for dysprosium, about a quarter of the USDOE (2010)’s highestimate of 6.2 kt in 2025 is for permanent magnets, ofwhich wind turbines account for about one-fifth. On theother hand, the share of wind turbines in Hashimoto
et al. (2010)’s estimates is only a few percent. This isbecause they adopt different metal use intensities forwind turbines: the USDOE assumes 124-186 kg-Nd/MW

Resource Management for Carbon Managementand 22-33 kg-Dy/MW, while Hashimoto et al. (2010)
assume 27 kg-Nd/MW and 4.8 kg-Dy/MW. They also use
different market shares of wind power using permanent
magnets: the USDOE assumes a 25% and 75% market
share for onshore and offshore wind turbines, respectively, while Hashimoto et al. (2010) assumes 100%. In
both estimates, however, demand for electric vehicles isdominant.
Neodymium and dysprosium are predominantly produced in China, which has instituted significant export
quotas and tariffs on all rare earth elements based on
resource conservation and environmental regulatory
concerns. High dependence on China’s exports would
lead to a critical shortage of rare earth elements. Researchis needed to reduce the intensity of neodymium anddysprosium use in magnets (measure B) or to develop
substitutes (measure C). Recycling (measure E) is also an
important option.
3.6 Summary
The USDOE (2010) carried out criticality analyses
based on NRC methodology (see Section 3.1) andconcluded that rare earth elements including neodymium
and dysprosium will be critical in the medium term.
Hashimoto et al. (2010) also conducted criticality analyses applying simplified NRC methodology, in which theCO2 reduction potential of each technology was used as
an indicator of impact of supply restriction, and concluded that metals used for EVs and PHEVs (i.e., lithium,neodymium and dysprosium) are of critical importance.
According to these analyses, rare earth elements areimportant to the penetration of mitigation technologies
and this result is consistent with the discussion above.
Note that platinum could also be critical based on thediscussion in Section 3.3; however, the total CO2
reduction potential of fuel cell technology is smaller thanthose of other technologies (Hashimoto et al., 2010). In
that sense, platinum can be treated as less critical,
although it could also be critical if fuel cell technology
were to penetrate drastically.
The same set of five measures for resource management (A to E) applies to these metals. Reduction of
intensity of use, recycling and substitution need to befurther investigated for these metals. Recently development of magnets not using neodymium or dysprosium(measure C) has begun.

Acknowledgements
This research was supported by the Environment
Research and Technology Development Fund (S-6-4) of
the Ministry of the Environment, Japan.
References
Carruth, M., J.M. Allwood and M.C. Moynihan (2011) The technical potential for reducing metal requirements through lightweight product design. Resources, Conservation and Recycling,
57: 48-60.

45

Counsell, T.A.M. and J.M. Allwood (2008) Meeting the 2050
carbon target for paper by print removal. CIRP Annals –Manufacturing Technology, 57: 25-28.
European Renewable Energy Council (EREC) (2004) Renewable
Energy Scenario to 2040, EREC.
Finnveden, G. and T. Ekvall (1998) Life-cycle assessment as adecision-support tool–the case of recycling versus incinerationof paper. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 24: 235-256.
ForeSTAT (2012)<http://faostat.fao.org/site/626/default.aspx#ancor>
Gordon, R.B., M. Bertram and T.E. Graedel (2006) Metal stocks
and sustainability. Proceedings of National Academy of Science,
103: 1209-1214.
Graedel, T.E., R. Barr, C. Chandler, T. Chase, J. Choi, L.
Christoffersen, E. Friedlander, C. Henly, C. Jun, N.T. Nassar, D.
Schechner, S. Warren, M. Yang and C. Zhu (2012) Methodology
of Metal Criticality Determination. Environmental Science andTechnology, 46: 1063-1070.
Gruber, P.W., P.A. Medina, G.A. Keoleian, S.E. Kesler, M.P.
Everson and T.J. Wallington (2011) Global lithium availability –A constraint for electric vehicles?. Journal of Industrial Ecology,
15: 760-775.
Habert, G., C. Billard, P. Rossi, C. Chen and N. Roussel (2010)
Cement production technology improvement compared to factor
4 objectives. Cement and Concrete Research, 40: 820-826.
Hashimoto, S., K. Sabase, S. Murakami and Y. Moriguchi (2010)
Penetration of technologies for climate change mitigationand criticality of associated metals. Proceedings of 38th Annual
Meeting of Environmental Systems Research: 291-296.
Hatayama, H., I. Daigo, Y. Matsuno and Y. Adachi (2010) Outlookof the world steel cycle based on the stock and flow dynamics.
Environmental Science and Technology, 44: 6457-6463.
International Energy Agency (IEA) (2009a) Energy Technology
Transitions for Industry, OECD/IEA.
IEA (2009b) World Energy Outlook 2009, OECD/IEA.
IEA (2010) Energy Technology Perspectives 2010: Scenarios &Strategies to 2050, OECD/IEA.
Kayo, C., S. Hashimoto and Y. Moriguchi (2012) Paper andpaperboard demand and associated carbon dioxide emissions in
Asia through 2050. Journal of Industrial Ecology, 16: 529-540.
Kondo, S., A. Takeyama and T. Okura (2006) A study on theforecasts of supply and demand of platinum group metals.
Shigen-to-Sozai, 122: 386-395.
Pauliuk, S., T. Wang and D. Muller (2012) Moving toward thecircular economy: The role of stocks in the Chinese steel cycle.
Environmental Science and Technology, 46: 148-154.
Renewable Energy Policy Network for the 21st Century (2011)
Renewables 2011 Global Status Report. REN21, Paris.
Saurat, M. and S. Bringezu (2009) Platinum group metal flows ofEurope, Part II. Journal of Industrial Ecology, 13: 406-421.
Shi, F., T. Hang, H. Tanikawa, J. Han, S. Hashimoto and Y.
Moriguchi (2012) Toward a low carbon-dematerializationsociety: Measuring the materials demand and CO2 emissions ofbuilding and transport infrastructure construction in China.
Journal of Industrial Ecology, 16: 493-505.
Sun, Y., M. Delucchi and J. Ogden (2011) The impact ofwidespread deployment of fuel cell vehicles on platinum
demand and price. International Journal of Hydrogen Energy,
36: 11116-11127.
Taylor, M., C. Tam and D. Gielen (2006) Energy Efficiency andCO2 Emissions from the Global Cement Industry. IEA, Paris.
United States National Research Council (2008) Minerals, Critical
Minerals, and the U.S. Economy. National Academies Press,
Washington, DC.
US Department of Energy (2010) Critical Materials Strategy, US
Department of Energy.
US Geological Survey (2012)<http://minerals.usgs.gov/minerals/ pubs/commodity/cement/>
Villanueva, A. and H. Wenzel (2007) Paper waste – recycling,

46

S. HASHIMOTO and Y. MORIGUCHI

incineration or landfilling? A review of existing life cycle
assessments. Waste Management, 27: S29-S46.
World Steel Association (2012) <http://www.worldsteel.org/>
Yaksic, A. and J.E. Tilton (2009) Using the cumulative availability
curve to assess the threat of mineral depletion: The case oflithium. Resources Policy, 34: 185-194.
Zhou, N., D. Fridley, M. McNeil, N. Zheng, J. Ke and M. Levine(2011) China’s Energy and Carbon Emissions Outlook to 2050.
Ernest Orlando Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory.
Zuser, A. and H. Rechberger (2011) Considerations of resource
availability in technology development strategies: The casestudy of photovoltaics. Resources, Conservation and Recycling,56: 56-65.

Seiji HASHIMOTO
Seiji HASHIMOTO is a Professor in the Department of Environmental Systems Engineering,
Ritsumeikan University, Japan. He has been
engaged in research related to assessment anddesign of sustainable resource and waste management systems. His recent research interests
include eco-efficiency indicators, sustainablebiomass resource use, and material stock management. He was a leadauthor of Working Group III for the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report.

Yuichi MORIGUCHI
Yuichi MORIGUCHI is a Professor in the Department of Urban Engineering, the University ofTokyo. Previously, he directed the ResearchCenter for Material Cycles and Waste Management at NIES, Japan. His research fields coverenvironmental indicators, GHG emission inventories, life-cycle assessment, material flows
and stock analysis, as well as 3R policy analysis. He is a member of the
UNEP International Resource Panel (IRP).

(Received 9 July 2012, Accepted 25 January 2013)