Defining regional recycling indicators for metals

Tin is an important metal for society with a high risk of supply disruptions. It is, therefore, classified as a critical material in many parts of the world. An exception is the European Union, for which tin was classified as a non‐critical material in 2023. However, there are many discrepancies in the literature regarding the definitions and values of the indicators used to determine tin criticality in general, and recycling indicators in particular. Values for end‐of‐life recycling rate (EoL RR) range between 20% and 75%, and values for end‐of‐life recycling input rate (EoL RIR) range between 11% and 32%. In this paper, we critically assess the circularity and criticality indicator values for tin and calculate new values using material flow analysis. The new values for tin recycling indicators are lower than those used in most previous research, with a global EoL RR of 16% and an EoL RIR of 11% in 2017. Based on the updated recycling values, combined with a highly concentrated supply, high import reliance, and difficult substitution, we argue that the European Union should classify tin as a critical material. This reclassification can lead to more policy attention for tin, which can help reduce the impact of future supply disruptions and increase the resilience of the European and global tin supply chains.

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Reassessing tin circularity and criticality

Bradley,

Auping,

Kleijn

et al. 2024

“…Six performance indicators described in Table 1 were selected to assess the efficiency of the EU LIB and raw materials system in terms of the EU: (i) self‐sufficiency for supplying raw materials to the LIB sector with the self‐sufficiency potential (SSP) indicator, (ii) recycling capability with three indicators: end‐of‐life recycling rate (EoL–RR), recycling process efficiency rate (RPER), total scrap recycling input rate (TS–RIR), (iii) accumulation of raw materials in the use phase with the in‐use accumulation rate (IUAR) indicator, and (iv) raw materials losses after use through waste streams indicated by the post‐consumer waste rate (PC–WR). The recycling indicators were obtained from UNEP (2011) and Tercero Espinoza and Soulier (2018), while the updated recycling rates data were extracted from the individual papers (see Supporting Information S1 for more information). The SSP, IUAR, and PC‐WR were developed to characterize the results of this study.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Material system analysis: A novel multilayer system approach to correlate EU flows and stocks of Li‐ion batteries and their raw materials

Matos

Mathieux

Ciacci

et al. 2022

Lithium-ion batteries (LIBs) will play a crucial role in achieving decarbonization and reducing greenhouse gases. If the EU wants to be competitive in the global market of LIBs, it has to ensure a sustainable and secure supply of the raw materials needed for the manufacturing of these batteries. Limited understanding of how the battery material cycles are linked with raw materials supply chains may hinder policy measures targeting the set-up of a domestic supply chain in the EU since no precise information on where to intervene will be available. The novelty of this work lies in a multilayer system approach developed to reveal interlinkages between the flows of five raw materials contained in LIBs (cobalt, lithium, manganese, natural graphite, and nickel) in the EU.This was achieved by aligning material system analysis datasets of raw materials contained in LIBs with datasets on stocks and flows of this type of batteries in the EU. The results demonstrate the EU's strong import dependency on LIBs and battery raw materials. The EU recycling of lithium and natural graphite is low/nonexistent hindering the sustainable supply of these materials. The results also show that the majority of battery materials are increasingly accumulated in use or hoarding stocks. The proposed approach is designed to help identify bottlenecks and possible solutions to increase the efficiency of the EU LIB system, which could go unnoticed if each material supply chain were examined individually. This study also highlights how the lessons learned can support EU resource-management policies.

“…Six indicators were calculated to characterize the Co cycle in the EU: Total scrap recycling input rate (TS‐RIR), old scrap ratio (OSR), end‐of‐life recycling rate (EoL‐RR), recycling process efficiency rate (RPER), self‐sufficiency potential (SSP), and pre‐consumer loss rate (PCLR). The former four were obtained from UNEP (2011) (in UNEP (2011) the TS‐RIR is named RIR), and Tercero Espinoza and Soulier (2018); the fifth one comes from Eurostat (2021); and the last one was developed by Matos, Ciacci, et al. (2020) to characterize the results of the Co system and the other four battery‐related raw materials systems.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Material system analysis: Functional and nonfunctional cobalt in the EU, 2012–2016

León

Matos

Georgitzikis

et al. 2022

A comprehensive data inventory of the current materials cycle in industry and society is crucial for an informed discussion and for decision‐making on the supply of raw materials. Particularly, it is key to understand how these materials are functionally and nonfunctionally recycled, and enable the assessment of recycling indicators needed for the monitoring of circular economy. In this context, a material system analysis (MSA) of cobalt for the European Union (EU) from 2012 to 2016 is presented and discussed. Detailed results are provided for the year 2016, and the evolution of the flows over time is presented from 2012 to 2016. In addition, six indicators are calculated to characterize the cobalt cycle. In 2016, the EU28 embedded around 24,000 metric tons (t) of cobalt in manufactured products, and 33,700 t were put into use. The main losses of the system are due to nonselective collection of postconsumer waste (disposed), and nonfunctional recycling of old scrap. From the years analyzed, it was possible to detect a shift in the imports; the import of primary material decreased more than 99% between 2012 and 2016, and the import of semiprocessed and processed materials increased around 31% in the same period. This indicates that after 2012, the EU became more dependent on imports in downstream stages of the supply chain. One way to decrease this dependency is to establish higher collection targets, and to establish recycling targets based on the recovery of single materials, in order to decrease the amount dissipated through nonfunctional recycling.