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

Pilar Swart and Jo Dewulf

Resources, Conservation & Recycling, 2013, vol. 73, issue C, 180-187

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.

Keywords: Life cycle impact assessment; Abiotic resources; Metals; Mining; Ore grade (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2013
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (3)

Downloads: (external link)
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921344913000360
Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:eee:recore:v:73:y:2013:i:c:p:180-187

DOI: 10.1016/j.resconrec.2013.02.007

Access Statistics for this article

Resources, Conservation & Recycling is currently edited by Ming Xu

More articles in Resources, Conservation & Recycling from Elsevier
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Kai Meng ().