Life Cycle Aspects of Nanoproducts, Nanostructured Materials, and Nanomanufacturing: Problem Definitions, Data Gaps, and Research Needs
Chicago, Illinois: November 5-6, 2009
Randolph Kirchain, Ph.D.
Associate Professor
Department of Materials Science & Engineering and Engineering Systems Division Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Are there sufficient quantities of low availability materials (e.g. In, Te) readily available for producing nanostructured devices and products on a large scale? If so, what is the waste burden created during their procurement? Might there be political or social factors that should be addressed as deposits of rare materials are accessed?
Note: The following discussion concerns the depletion of substitutable, non-renewable, non-perishable, non-consumable resources. To first order, metals and minerals (in non-biological applications) fit this description; fossil fuels do not. In 1950, the world had about 35 years worth of copper ore reserves. In 2009, the world has about 35 years worth of copper ore reserves. (See Figure 1) These figures and the seeming conundrum which they convey point to some of the complexity that confronts any discussion of non-renewable resource scarcity. One conceptual challenge is that the question “Will we run out?” is probably irrelevant. Everything that we know today about economics (and for many resources physics as well) says that we will not run out. Can we simply close the book and forget about the issue of resource use? Unfortunately, no. The question of running out is irrelevant not because we don’t expect for it to happen, but rather because other eventualities can create serious issues for technological progress directly and social welfare indirectly. Economic theory suggests that as resources become scarcer, rational markets will drive up prices, prompting resource users to switch away from scarce resources. Prominent economists have argued that this switch may not lead to declining welfare, most notably when the progress of technology (e.g., our efficiency at winning utility from a unit of resource) outpaces the rate of depletion. Again this conclusion begs the question: can we forget about the issue of resource use? Again, unfortunately, no.First, from a societal perspective, the scarcest resource may not be the mineral ore, but rather the capacity of ecosystem services to absorb the deleterious effects associated with the extraction of that ore. Given the foreseeable scale of resource use exclusively attributable to nano-technology, however, this constraint is not likely relevant other than for local environmental concerns.
Second, even if conventional economic mechanisms mitigate the economic impact of resource scarcity through substitution and efficiency, such a transition is not without consequence particularly for a specific industry. If raw materials become difficult to acquire, market forces may shift demand to other goods and therefore other supply chains. Such shifts can lead to irreparable economic harm. Historically, no case of significant global material depletion has been documented. Nevertheless, supply chains have been impacted by temporary examples of constrained materials availability. As examples consider the cobalt market in the late 1970’s or the palladium market in the late 1990’s. In both cases supply disruptions occurred, triggering acute price spikes and users substituted to other resources or otherwise adapted their processes. Interestingly, once prices returned to previous levels, not all of these changes were reversed. Automakers are reluctant to shift back to palladium catalysts and magnet makers still rely on low- and no-cobalt alloys. Even when the effects of resource scarcity are temporary, the effects on an industry’s technology trajectory appear to be permanent.In light of this, it is wise for nanotechnology developers and producers to be aware of their vulnerability to scarcity events, both of the long-term and short-term variety. The problem with ascertaining vulnerability to resource scarcity has been an ongoing effort. For the time being, the best way to approach such decisions is by looking at a materials system through several lenses. Two key ones are:
- institutional inefficiency: failures by markets, firms and governments can result in transitory resource unavailability
- physical constraints: the amount and quality of a resource is physically determined and ultimately limits resource availability
Specific metrics that have been proposed for examining these issues are shown in (Alonso, Gregory et al. 2007). Beyond that, it appears that simulation methods can provide more nuanced insight into the vulnerability of a specific materials market.
A few notes on Indium
Information in this section derives from:
(III-Vs 2005; NRC 2008; Phipps, Mikolajczak et al. 2008; Mikolajczak 2009; Tolcin 2009)
My group has not focused on Indium. Nevertheless, since it was explicitly called out in the question, I thought I would share some thoughts from a quick look at the state of the market. Why is indium an issue? Its concentration globally is similar to silver, but never developed an equivalent supply industry. Before flat panel displays came along indium was very much a niche material. In 1987 world indium production was about 50 tons (about 0.000007% of the size of the steel market in the same year). In 2007, this figure topped 500 tons. This type of dynamic raises questions about the sustainability of any resource.
So where does indium stand according to a couple of the metrics suggested at the end of the response? Some trade groups report that there are about 50kt of indium reserves globally. This figure yields a static depletion index of 90 years at 2008 primary production rates. More concerning is that the dynamic depletion index drops to about 25 years if recent consumption trends (CAGR ~11% per year) were to continue for that long.
In terms of industry concentration, as shown in Figure 2, there is strong concentration of primary production in China. Supply disruptions in China would be expected to be sufficient to create price perturbations of intensity and duration to cause real financial hardship to downstream firms. More detailed study of the underlying market for and supply of indium would be valuable to understand the ramifications of scarcity with more precision.
Figure 2 . Estimated Indium Primary Refinery Production by Country (in tones). Total market size in 2008 ~550t. Due to the small size of this market and the involved producers, there may be significant gaps in this data. (Tolcin 2009)
Alonso, E., J. Gregory, F. Field and R. Kirchain (2007). "Material Availability and the Supply Chain: Risks, Effects, and Responses." Environ. Sci. Technol. 41(19): 6649-6656.
III-Vs (2005). "Can indium supplies meet growing demand?" III-Vs Review 18(2): 17-17.
Mikolajczak, C. (2009, October 1, 2009). "Availability of Indium and Gallium." from www.indium.com/_dynamo/download.php?docid=552.
NRC (2008). Minerals, Critical Minerals, and the U.S. Economy. Washington, DC, The National Academies Press.
Phipps, G., C. Mikolajczak and T. Guckes (2008). "Indium and Gallium: long-term supply." Renewable Energy Focus 9(4): 56, 58-59.
Tolcin, A. C. (2009). Inidum [Advanced Release]. 2007 Minerals Yearbook, Volume I.-- Metals and Minerals, US Geological Survey.
U.S. Geological Survey (1932-2006). Minerals Information, U.S. Department of the Interior.
Are there certain nanotechnological products or systems that should be encouraged as replacements for current systems because the benefits are large in comparison to the potential environmental impacts?
Speaking very generally, I believe that there are three classes of products or systems into which nanotechnology could be particularly valuable from a sustainability perspective and should be encouraged. These are: 1) products which provide a level of utility or functionality in meeting basic human needs than would otherwise be unachievable without nanotechnology – if nanotechnology enables improved medicines, better or more access to food, or clean water, the benefits would outweigh even very high costs; 2) products that involve the use of toxics (e.g., heavy metals) where mobility, either during production or disposal, is of a concern; and 3) products where the primary burden comes during the use phase.