Raw material ‘criticality’—sense or nonsense?. Frenzel, M., Kullik, J., Reuter, M. A., & Gutzmer, J. Journal of Physics D: Applied Physics, 50(12):123002, 2017. 00000![Raw material ‘criticality’—sense or nonsense? [link]](https://bibbase.org/img/filetypes/link.svg "link")
Paper doi abstract bibtex The past decade has seen a resurgence of interest in the supply security of mineral raw materials. A key to the current debate is the concept of ‘criticality’. The present article reviews the criticality concept, as well as the methodologies used in its assessment, including a critical evaluation of their validity in view of classical risk theory. Furthermore, it discusses a number of risks present in global raw materials markets that are not captured by most criticality assessments. Proposed measures for the alleviation of these risks are also presented. We find that current assessments of raw material criticality are fundamentally flawed in several ways. This is mostly due to a lack of adherence to risk theory, and highly limits their applicability. Many of the raw materials generally identified as critical are probably not critical. Still, the flaws of current assessments do not mean that the general issue of supply security can simply be ignored. Rather, it implies that new assessments are required. While the basic theoretical framework for such assessments is outlined in this review, detailed method development will require a major collaborative effort between different disciplines along the raw materials value chain. In the opinion of the authors, the greatest longer-term challenge in the raw materials sector is to stop, or counteract the effects of, the escalation of unit energy costs of production. This issue is particularly pressing due to its close link with the renewable energy transition, requiring more metal and mineral raw materials per unit energy produced. The solution to this problem will require coordinated policy action, as well as the collaboration of scientists from many different fields—with physics, as well as the materials and earth sciences in the lead.
@article{frenzel_raw_2017,
title = {Raw material ‘criticality’—sense or nonsense?},
volume = {50},
issn = {0022-3727},
url = {http://stacks.iop.org/0022-3727/50/i=12/a=123002},
doi = {10.1088/1361-6463/aa5b64},
abstract = {The past decade has seen a resurgence of interest in the supply security of mineral raw materials. A key to the current debate is the concept of ‘criticality’. The present article reviews the criticality concept, as well as the methodologies used in its assessment, including a critical evaluation of their validity in view of classical risk theory. Furthermore, it discusses a number of risks present in global raw materials markets that are not captured by most criticality assessments. Proposed measures for the alleviation of these risks are also presented. We find that current assessments of raw material criticality are fundamentally flawed in several ways. This is mostly due to a lack of adherence to risk theory, and highly limits their applicability. Many of the raw materials generally identified as critical are probably not critical. Still, the flaws of current assessments do not mean that the general issue of supply security can simply be ignored. Rather, it implies that new assessments are required. While the basic theoretical framework for such assessments is outlined in this review, detailed method development will require a major collaborative effort between different disciplines along the raw materials value chain. In the opinion of the authors, the greatest longer-term challenge in the raw materials sector is to stop, or counteract the effects of, the escalation of unit energy costs of production. This issue is particularly pressing due to its close link with the renewable energy transition, requiring more metal and mineral raw materials per unit energy produced. The solution to this problem will require coordinated policy action, as well as the collaboration of scientists from many different fields—with physics, as well as the materials and earth sciences in the lead.},
language = {en},
number = {12},
urldate = {2017-03-21},
journal = {Journal of Physics D: Applied Physics},
author = {Frenzel, M. and Kullik, J. and Reuter, M. A. and Gutzmer, J.},
year = {2017},
note = {00000},
keywords = {minerals, limits, collapse, metals, materials},
pages = {123002},
file = {Frenzel et al. - 2017 - Raw material ‘criticality’—sense or nonsense.pdf:C\:\\Users\\rsrs\\Documents\\Zotero Database\\storage\\MND44G6R\\Frenzel et al. - 2017 - Raw material ‘criticality’—sense or nonsense.pdf:application/pdf}
}
Downloads: 0
{"_id":"7cgunSCxTtuRK6JZc","bibbaseid":"frenzel-kullik-reuter-gutzmer-rawmaterialcriticalitysenseornonsense-2017","authorIDs":[],"author_short":["Frenzel, M.","Kullik, J.","Reuter, M. A.","Gutzmer, J."],"bibdata":{"bibtype":"article","type":"article","title":"Raw material ‘criticality’—sense or nonsense?","volume":"50","issn":"0022-3727","url":"http://stacks.iop.org/0022-3727/50/i=12/a=123002","doi":"10.1088/1361-6463/aa5b64","abstract":"The past decade has seen a resurgence of interest in the supply security of mineral raw materials. A key to the current debate is the concept of ‘criticality’. The present article reviews the criticality concept, as well as the methodologies used in its assessment, including a critical evaluation of their validity in view of classical risk theory. Furthermore, it discusses a number of risks present in global raw materials markets that are not captured by most criticality assessments. Proposed measures for the alleviation of these risks are also presented. We find that current assessments of raw material criticality are fundamentally flawed in several ways. This is mostly due to a lack of adherence to risk theory, and highly limits their applicability. Many of the raw materials generally identified as critical are probably not critical. Still, the flaws of current assessments do not mean that the general issue of supply security can simply be ignored. Rather, it implies that new assessments are required. While the basic theoretical framework for such assessments is outlined in this review, detailed method development will require a major collaborative effort between different disciplines along the raw materials value chain. In the opinion of the authors, the greatest longer-term challenge in the raw materials sector is to stop, or counteract the effects of, the escalation of unit energy costs of production. This issue is particularly pressing due to its close link with the renewable energy transition, requiring more metal and mineral raw materials per unit energy produced. The solution to this problem will require coordinated policy action, as well as the collaboration of scientists from many different fields—with physics, as well as the materials and earth sciences in the lead.","language":"en","number":"12","urldate":"2017-03-21","journal":"Journal of Physics D: Applied Physics","author":[{"propositions":[],"lastnames":["Frenzel"],"firstnames":["M."],"suffixes":[]},{"propositions":[],"lastnames":["Kullik"],"firstnames":["J."],"suffixes":[]},{"propositions":[],"lastnames":["Reuter"],"firstnames":["M.","A."],"suffixes":[]},{"propositions":[],"lastnames":["Gutzmer"],"firstnames":["J."],"suffixes":[]}],"year":"2017","note":"00000","keywords":"minerals, limits, collapse, metals, materials","pages":"123002","file":"Frenzel et al. - 2017 - Raw material ‘criticality’—sense or nonsense.pdf:C\\:\\\\Users\\s̊rs\\\\Documents\\\\Zotero Database\\\\storage\\\\MND44G6R\\\\Frenzel et al. - 2017 - Raw material ‘criticality’—sense or nonsense.pdf:application/pdf","bibtex":"@article{frenzel_raw_2017,\n\ttitle = {Raw material ‘criticality’—sense or nonsense?},\n\tvolume = {50},\n\tissn = {0022-3727},\n\turl = {http://stacks.iop.org/0022-3727/50/i=12/a=123002},\n\tdoi = {10.1088/1361-6463/aa5b64},\n\tabstract = {The past decade has seen a resurgence of interest in the supply security of mineral raw materials. A key to the current debate is the concept of ‘criticality’. The present article reviews the criticality concept, as well as the methodologies used in its assessment, including a critical evaluation of their validity in view of classical risk theory. Furthermore, it discusses a number of risks present in global raw materials markets that are not captured by most criticality assessments. Proposed measures for the alleviation of these risks are also presented. We find that current assessments of raw material criticality are fundamentally flawed in several ways. This is mostly due to a lack of adherence to risk theory, and highly limits their applicability. Many of the raw materials generally identified as critical are probably not critical. Still, the flaws of current assessments do not mean that the general issue of supply security can simply be ignored. Rather, it implies that new assessments are required. While the basic theoretical framework for such assessments is outlined in this review, detailed method development will require a major collaborative effort between different disciplines along the raw materials value chain. In the opinion of the authors, the greatest longer-term challenge in the raw materials sector is to stop, or counteract the effects of, the escalation of unit energy costs of production. This issue is particularly pressing due to its close link with the renewable energy transition, requiring more metal and mineral raw materials per unit energy produced. The solution to this problem will require coordinated policy action, as well as the collaboration of scientists from many different fields—with physics, as well as the materials and earth sciences in the lead.},\n\tlanguage = {en},\n\tnumber = {12},\n\turldate = {2017-03-21},\n\tjournal = {Journal of Physics D: Applied Physics},\n\tauthor = {Frenzel, M. and Kullik, J. and Reuter, M. A. and Gutzmer, J.},\n\tyear = {2017},\n\tnote = {00000},\n\tkeywords = {minerals, limits, collapse, metals, materials},\n\tpages = {123002},\n\tfile = {Frenzel et al. - 2017 - Raw material ‘criticality’—sense or nonsense.pdf:C\\:\\\\Users\\\\rsrs\\\\Documents\\\\Zotero Database\\\\storage\\\\MND44G6R\\\\Frenzel et al. - 2017 - Raw material ‘criticality’—sense or nonsense.pdf:application/pdf}\n}\n\n","author_short":["Frenzel, M.","Kullik, J.","Reuter, M. A.","Gutzmer, J."],"key":"frenzel_raw_2017","id":"frenzel_raw_2017","bibbaseid":"frenzel-kullik-reuter-gutzmer-rawmaterialcriticalitysenseornonsense-2017","role":"author","urls":{"Paper":"http://stacks.iop.org/0022-3727/50/i=12/a=123002"},"keyword":["minerals","limits","collapse","metals","materials"],"downloads":0,"html":""},"bibtype":"article","biburl":"http://www.collapsologie.fr/bib.bib","creationDate":"2019-06-13T15:56:08.553Z","downloads":0,"keywords":["minerals","limits","collapse","metals","materials"],"search_terms":["raw","material","criticality","sense","nonsense","frenzel","kullik","reuter","gutzmer"],"title":"Raw material ‘criticality’—sense or nonsense?","year":2017,"dataSources":["97shAbFSxL7A7SHoh"]}