Bridging tools to better understand environmental performances and raw materials supply of traction batteries in the future EU fleet

Sustainable and smart mobility and associated energy systems are key to decarbonise the EU and develop a clean, resource efficient, circular and carbon-neutral future. To achieve the 2030 and 2050 targets, technological and societal changes are needed. This transition will inevitably change the composition of the future EU fleet, with an increasing share of electric vehicles (xEVs). To assess the potential contribution of lithium-ion traction batteries (LIBs) in decreasing the environmental burdens of EU mobility, several aspects should be included. Even though environmental assessments of batteries along their life-cycle have been already conducted using life-cycle assessment, a single tool does not likely provide a complete overview of such a complex system. Complementary information is provided by material flow analysis and criticality assessment, with emphasis on supply risk. Bridging complementary aspects can better support decision-making, especially when different strategies are simultaneously tackled. The results point out that the future life-cycle GWP of traction LIBs will likely improve, mainly due to more environmental-friendly energy mix and improved recycling. Even though second-use will postpone available materials for recycling, both these end-of-life strategies allow keeping the values of materials in the circular economy, with recycling also contributing to mitigate the supply risk of Lithium and Nickel

Assessment of the methodology for establishing the EU list of critical raw materials : background report

This report presents the results of work carried out by the Directorate General (DG) Joint Research Centre (JRC) of the European Commission (EC), in close cooperation with Directorate-General for Internal Market, Industry, Entrepreneurship and SMEs (GROW), in the context of the revision of the EC methodology that was used to identify the list of critical raw materials (CRMs) for the EU in 2011 and 2014 (EC 2011, 2014). As a background report, it complements the corresponding Guidelines Document, which contains the "ready-to-apply" methodology for updating the list of CRMs in 2017. This background report highlights the needs for updating the EC criticality methodology, the analysis and the proposals for improvement with related examples, discussion and justifications. However, a few initial remarks are necessary to clarify the context, the objectives of the revision and the approach. As the in-house scientific service of the EC, DG JRC was asked to provide scientific advice to DG GROW in order to assess the current methodology, identify aspects that have to be adapted to better address the needs and expectations of the list of CRMs and ultimately propose an improved and integrated methodology. This work was conducted closely in consultation with the adhoc working group on CRMs, who participated in regular discussions and provided informed expert feedback. The analysis and subsequent revision started from the assumption that the methodology used for the 2011 and 2014 CRMs lists proved to be reliable and robust and, therefore, the JRC mandate was focused on fine-tuning and/or targeted incremental methodological improvements. An in depth re-discussion of fundamentals of criticality assessment and/or major changes to the EC methodology were not within the scope of this work. High priority was given to ensure good comparability with the criticality exercises of 2011 and 2014. The existing methodology was therefore retained, except for specific aspects for which there were policy and/or stakeholder needs on the one hand, or strong scientific reasons for refinement of the methodology on the other. This was partially facilitated through intensive dialogue with DG GROW, the CRM adhoc working group, other key EU and extra-EU stakeholders

Social life cycle hotspot analysis of future hydrogen use in the EU

Purpose: The widespread use of hydrogen in the EU aimed at reducing greenhouse gas emissions may involve complex value chains (e.g. importation from third countries) with potential effects (positive or negative) on the different sectors of society. Achieving sustainable hydrogen deployment must be motivated not only by environmental and economic aspects but also by social responsibility and the search for human well-being. Given this, and the scarcity of studies currently available on prospective social impacts of hydrogen production, the present purpose of this article is to unveil and assess the main social impacts linked to the future hydrogen value chains. Methods: The methodological approach adopted in this article encompasses the following steps: (i) analysis of two potential value chains for hydrogen use in EU: an on-site option, where hydrogen is produced and used in the same European country, and an off-site option, where hydrogen is produced in a European country different from its usage involving more unit processes, in terms of storage and transport activities, and working time to deliver the same quantity of hydrogen. This framework will include (i) scenario analysis and a forward-looking perspective taking into account the critical raw materials employed across the entire value chain, (ii) identification of a list of relevant social impact categories and indicators through a systematic procedure, (iii) social hotspot analysis using Product Social Impact Life Cycle Assessment (PSILCA) to assess the selected representative value chains, and (iv) conducting scenario analysis and subsequently interpreting of results. Results and discussion: The off-site value chain shows a relatively worse social performance (6 to 72 times) than the on-site value chain across most selected indicators due to the more complex value chain. Although the identification of social hotspots depends on the specific social indicator under evaluation, the power source components (wind and solar PV) manufacturing processes and the relatively increased complexity of the off-site option highly conditioned the social performance of the hydrogen value chains in most of the indicators considered. A scenario analysis was carried out comparing both value chains with two additional locations for hydrogen production: Northern Africa and Western Asia. The findings indicate that the on-site value chain presents the lowest impact scores. For the off-site option, the production of hydrogen in a European country is the most preferable scenario in terms of the social indicators evaluated. Conclusions: According to findings, producing hydrogen in a different location than where it is consumed increases the social impacts of its deployment. Measures at mid and long term should be considered for improving the social impact of hydrogen deployment in Europe. This includes increasing reuse and recycling, responsibly sourcing raw materials, and creating regulatory frameworks ensuring safe working conditions across global value chains. Furthermore, this article highlights the crucial role of the S-LCA methodology in evaluating social aspects as a support for targeted policy interventions, and the need to adapt this to the specific case study. At the same time, it acknowledges that other relevant social aspects that can influence the social sustainability of the hydrogen technology are not captured with this methodology (in particular social acceptance, affordability and energy security). Improvements in selecting indicators and refined geographical and temporal representations of the value chains to better represent hydrogen technologies and future size market are research gaps filled in the present scientific work

Critical raw materials and the circular economy

This report is a background document used by several European Commission services to prepare the EC report on critical raw materials and the circular economy, a commitment of the European Commission made in its Communication ‘EU action plan for the Circular Economy’. It represents a JRC contribution to the Raw Material Initiative and to the EU Circular Economy Action Plan. It combines the results of several research programmes and activities of the JRC on critical raw materials in a context of circular economy, for which a large team has contributed in terms of data and knowledge developments. Circular use of critical raw materials in the EU is analysed, also taking a sectorial perspective. The following sectors are analysed in more detail: extractive waste, landfills, electric and electronic equipment, batteries, automotive, renewable energy, defence and chemicals and fertilisers. Conclusions and opportunities for further work are also presented