One possibility for electrification of road transport consists of battery electric vehicles in combination with carbon-free sources of electricity. It is highly likely that lithium-ion batteries will provide the basis for this development. In the present paper, we use a recently developed, semi-quantitative assessment scheme to evaluate the relative supply risks associated with the elements used in the functional materials of six different lithium-ion battery types. Eleven different indicators in four supply risk categories are applied to each element; the weighting of the indicators is determined by external experts within the framework of an Analytic Hierarchy Process. The range of supply risk values on the elemental level is distinctly narrower than in our previous work on photovoltaic materials. The highest values are obtained for lithium and cobalt; the lowest for aluminium and titanium. Copper, iron, nickel, carbon (graphite), manganese and phosphorous form the middle group. We then carry out the assessment of the six battery types, to give comparative supply risks at the technology level. For this purpose the elemental supply risk values are aggregated using four different methods. Due to the small spread at the elemental level the supply risk values in all four aggregation methods also lie in a narrow range. Removing lithium, aluminium and phosphorous from the analysis, which are present in all types of battery, improves the situation. For aggregation with the simple arithmetic mean, an uncertainty analysis shows that only lithium-iron phosphate has a measurably lower supply risk compared to the other battery types. For the “cost-share” aggregation using seven elements, lithium cobalt oxide has a substantially higher supply risk than most other types

Purpose: Assessing impacts of abiotic resource use has been a topic of persistent debate among life cycle impact assessment (LCIA) method developers and a source of confusion for life cycle assessment (LCA) practitioners considering the different interpretations of the safeguard subject for mineral resources and the resulting variety of LCIA methods to choose from. Based on the review and assessment of 27 existing LCIA methods, accomplished in the first part of this paper series (Sonderegger et al. 2020), this paper provides recommendations regarding the application-dependent use of existing methods and areas for future method development. Method: Within the “global guidance for LCIA indicators and methods” project of the Life Cycle Initiative hosted by UN Environment, 62 members of the “task force mineral resources” representing different stakeholders discussed the strengths and limitations of existing LCIA methods and developed initial conclusions. These were used by a subgroup of eight members at the Pellston Workshop® held in Valencia, Spain, to derive recommendations on the application-dependent use and future development of impact assessment methods. Results and discussion: First, the safeguard subject for mineral resources within the area of protection (AoP) natural resources was defined. Subsequently, seven key questions regarding the consequences of mineral resource use were formulated, grouped into “inside-out” related questions (i.e., current resource use leading to changes in opportunities for future users to use resources) and “outside-in” related questions (i.e., potential restrictions of resource availability for current resource users). Existing LCIA methods were assigned to these questions, and seven methods (ADP_{ultimate reserves}, SOP_URR, LIME2_endpoint, CEENE, ADP_{economic reserves}, ESSENZ, and GeoPolRisk) are recommended for use in current LCA studies at different levels of recommendation. All 27 identified LCIA methods were tested on an LCA case study of an electric vehicle, and yielded divergent results due to their modeling of impact mechanisms that address different questions related to mineral resource use. Besides method-specific recommendations, we recommend that all methods increase the number of minerals covered, regularly update their characterization factors, and consider the inclusion of secondary resources and anthropogenic stocks. Furthermore, the concept of dissipative resource use should be defined and integrated in future method developments. Conclusion: In an international consensus-finding process, the current challenges of assessing impacts of resource use in LCA have been addressed by defining the safeguard subject for mineral resources, formulating key questions related to this safeguard subject, recommending existing LCIA methods in relation to these questions, and highlighting areas for future method development.

The Critical Raw Materials Act (CRMA) is an essential regulatory framework designed to address the pressing challenges faced by the European Union (EU) in the strategic sectors of decarbonization, digitalization, and aerospace and defense. It aims to tackle the lack of secure and sustainable access to critical raw materials (CRMs) by increasing anticipation and mitigation of supply risks, fostering domestic CRM potential, and promoting sustainable sourcing practices. Part of a broader “Green Industrial Plan” and aligned with the “Net-Zero Industry Act” (NZIA), the CRMA strives to position the EU as a leading hub for clean tech industries. The NZIA and CRMA packages respond to international trends of protecting clean energy technology and resources, akin to the US Inflation Reduction Act. Defining materials as “strategic” based on their relevance and expected demand for strategic technologies, the CRMA regulation establishes benchmarks for minimum shares of EU demand to be covered by domestically sourced and processed as well as recycled raw materials and aims at reducing dependencies on single third country suppliers in all steps of the supply chain. A communication complements the regulation by focusing on increasing CRM supply security and sustainability through circularity, standardization efforts, skill development, and strategic actions for research and innovation. Establishing a “CRM Club” and partnerships with like-minded countries intend to strengthen international partnerships to safeguard CRM supply security and facilitate sustainable investment in resource-rich nations. Challenges arise concerning the concept of “strategic raw materials” and meeting benchmarks, particularly in materials availability, recycling targets, diversification, and the establishment of necessary skills. Data gaps, potential national differences, coherence with national legislation, long-term economic viability, and potential fuelling of international tensions also pose significant challenges to the effective implementation of the CRMA. Addressing these challenges and embracing the opportunities presented by the CRMA are crucial steps toward achieving sustainable resource management and advancing the EU’s clean tech industries.