Search

Over the past 150 years, our ability to produce and transform engineered materials has been responsible for our current high standards of living, especially in developed economies. However, we must carefully think of the effects our addiction to creating and using materials at this fast rate will have on the future generations. The way we currently make and use materials detrimentally affects the planet Earth, creating many severe environmental problems. It affects the next generations by putting in danger the future of the economy, energy, and climate. We are at the point where something must drastically change, and it must change now. We must create more sustainable materials alternatives using natural raw materials and inspiration from nature while making sure not to deplete important resources, i.e. in competition with the food chain supply. We must use less materials, eliminate the use of toxic materials and create a circular materials economy where reuse and recycle are priorities. We must develop sustainable methods for materials recycling and encourage design for disassembly. We must look across the whole materials life cycle from raw resources till end of life and apply thorough life cycle assessments (LCAs) based on reliable and relevant data to quantify sustainability. We need to seriously start thinking of where our future materials will come from and how could we track them, given that we are confronted with resource scarcity and geographical constrains. This is particularly important for the development of new and sustainable energy technologies, key to our transition to net zero. Currently 'critical materials' are central components of sustainable energy systems because they are the best performing. A few examples include the permanent magnets based on rare earth metals (Dy, Nd, Pr) used in wind turbines, Li and Co in Li-ion batteries, Pt and Ir in fuel cells and electrolysers, Si in solar cells just to mention a few. These materials are classified as

Over the past 150 years, our ability to produce and transform engineered materials has been responsible for our current high standards of living, especially in developed economies. However, we must carefully think of the effects our addiction to creating and using materials at this fast rate will have on the future generations. The way we currently make and use materials detrimentally affects the planet Earth, creating many severe environmental problems. It affects the next generations by putting in danger the future of the economy, energy, and climate. We are at the point where something must drastically change, and it must change now. We must create more sustainable materials alternatives using natural raw materials and inspiration from nature while making sure not to deplete important resources, i.e. in competition with the food chain supply. We must use less materials, eliminate the use of toxic materials and create a circular materials economy where reuse and recycle are priorities. We must develop sustainable methods for materials recycling and encourage design for disassembly. We must look across the whole materials life cycle from raw resources till end of life and apply thorough life cycle assessments (LCAs) based on reliable and relevant data to quantify sustainability. We need to seriously start thinking of where our future materials will come from and how could we track them, given that we are confronted with resource scarcity and geographical constrains. This is particularly important for the development of new and sustainable energy technologies, key to our transition to net zero. Currently ‘critical materials’ are central components of sustainable energy systems because they are the best performing. A few examples include the permanent magnets based on rare earth metals (Dy, Nd, Pr) used in wind turbines, Li and Co in Li-ion batteries, Pt and Ir in fuel cells and electrolysers, Si in solar cells just to mention a few. These materials are classified as, Peer Reviewed

Over the past 150 years, our ability to produce and transform engineered materials has been responsible for our current high standards of living, especially in developed economies. However, we must carefully think of the effects our addiction to creating and using materials at this fast rate will have on the future generations. The way we currently make and use materials detrimentally affects the planet Earth, creating many severe environmental problems. It affects the next generations by putting in danger the future of the economy, energy, and climate. We are at the point where something must drastically change, and it must change now. We must create more sustainable materials alternatives using natural raw materials and inspiration from nature while making sure not to deplete important resources, i.e. in competition with the food chain supply. We must use less materials, eliminate the use of toxic materials and create a circular materials economy where reuse and recycle are priorities. We must develop sustainable methods for materials recycling and encourage design for disassembly. We must look across the whole materials life cycle from raw resources till end of life and apply thorough life cycle assessments (LCAs) based on reliable and relevant data to quantify sustainability. We need to seriously start thinking of where our future materials will come from and how could we track them, given that we are confronted with resource scarcity and geographical constrains. This is particularly important for the development of new and sustainable energy technologies, key to our transition to net zero. Currently ‘critical materials’ are central components of sustainable energy systems because they are the best performing. A few examples include the permanent magnets based on rare earth metals (Dy, Nd, Pr) used in wind turbines, Li and Co in Li-ion batteries, Pt and Ir in fuel cells and electrolysers, Si in solar cells just to mention a few. These materials are classified as

The most critical question for climate research is no longer about the problem, but about how to facilitate the transformative changes necessary to avoid catastrophic climate-induced change. Addressing this question, however, will require massive upscaling of research that can rapidly enhance learning about transformations. Ten essentials for guiding action-oriented transformation and energy research are therefore presented, framed in relation to second-order science. They include: (1) Focus on transformations to low-carbon, resilient living; (2) Focus on solution processes; (3) Focus on 'how to' practical knowledge; (4) Approach research as occurring from within the system being intervened; (5) Work with normative aspects; (6) Seek to transcend current thinking; (7) Take a multi-faceted approach to understand and shape change; (8) Acknowledge the value of alternative roles of researchers; (9) Encourage second-order experimentation; and (10) Be reflexive. Joint application of the essentials would create highly adaptive, reflexive, collaborative and impact-oriented research able to enhance capacity to respond to the climate challenge. At present, however, the practice of such approaches is limited and constrained by dominance of other approaches. For wider transformations to low carbon living and energy systems to occur, transformations will therefore also be needed in the way in which knowledge is produced and used.

The rising demand for electric vehicles is changing the geopolitical landscape, as the world pivots away from fossil fuels towards the materials critical to the EV supply chain. As manufacturers and countries race to secure the supply of raw materials for EV batteries, new opportunities and geopolitical risks are emerging. Benjamin Jones, Viet Nguyen-Tien, Robert Elliott and Gavin Harper write about the implications of the race for battery-critical resources.

The market dynamics, and their impact on a future circular economy for lithium-ion batteries (LIB), are presented in this roadmap, with safety as an integral consideration throughout the life cycle. At the point of end-of-life, there is a range of potential options – remanufacturing, reuse and recycling. Diagnostics play a significant role in evaluating the state of health and condition of batteries, and improvements to diagnostic techniques are evaluated. At present, manual disassembly dominates end-of-life disposal, however, given the volumes of future batteries that are to be anticipated, automated approaches to the dismantling of end-of-life battery packs will be key. The first stage in recycling after the removal of the cells is the initial cell-breaking or opening step. Approaches to this are reviewed, contrasting shredding and cell disassembly as two alternative approaches. Design for recycling is one approach that could assist in easier disassembly of cells, and new approaches to cell design that could enable the circular economy of LIBs are reviewed. After disassembly, subsequent separation of the black mass is performed before further concentration of components. There are a plethora of alternative approaches for recovering materials; this roadmap sets out the future directions for a range of approaches including pyrometallurgy, hydrometallurgy, short-loop, direct, and the biological recovery of LIB materials. Furthermore, anode, lithium, electrolyte, binder and plastics recovery are considered in the range of approaches in order to maximise the proportion of materials recovered, minimise waste and point the way towards zero-waste recycling. The life-cycle implications of a circular economy are discussed considering the overall system of LIB recycling, and also directly investigating the different recycling methods. The legal and regulatory perspectives are also considered. Finally, with a view to the future, approaches for next-generation battery chemistr

The UK needs an electric vehicle (EV) battery recycling industry. This could strengthen the British EV supply chain and support the future development of UK-based gigafactories (large-scale battery factories) and electric vehicle production. Viet Nguyen-Tien, Robert Elliott, Gavin Harper, and Laura Lander discuss how a new clean tech industry can contribute to net-zero targets.

Rapid electrification of the transport system will generate substantial volumes of Lithium-ion-battery (LiB) waste as batteries reach their end-of-life. Much attention focuses on the recycling processes, neglecting a broader systemic view that considers the concentration of the costs and impacts associated with logistics and transportation. This paper provides an economic, environmental and geospatial analysis of a future LiB recycling industry in the UK. Hitherto, state-of-the-art assessment methods have evaluated life cycle impacts and costs but have not considered the geographical layer of the problem. This paper develops a GSC derived supply chain model for the UK electric vehicle and end-of-life vehicle battery industry. Considering both pyrometallurgical and hydrometallurgical recycling technologies, the optimisation process takes into account anticipated EV volumes, and, based on anticipated near-term technological evolution of LiBs, the evolution of the mix of battery cathodes in production, and presents a number of scenarios to show where LiB recycling facilities should ideally be geographically located. An economic and environmental assessment based on a customised EverBatt model is provided.

This paper aims to provide a clearer understanding of the role which corporate social responsibility (CSR) currently plays in influencing the activities of companies involved in the nanotechnologies industry in the UK, and how CSR may contribute to building the material and social sustainability of the industry as part of a regime of adaptive and anticipatory governance. The paper employs a conceptual framework in which a model of continuous improvement and a classification of “modes” of CSR (“do no harm”, “positive social force”) are used to evaluate the extent to which nanotechnology companies report on their impact management activities (based on an online survey of 78 companies), and to interpret attitudes towards CSR (drawing on 15 semi-structured interviews with company representatives). It is argued that the general level of CSR reporting is low, although companies themselves often demonstrate awareness of the requirements of a “do no harm” model of CSR. It is suggested that, if CSR is to be positioned as contributing to an adaptive and anticipatory governance framework for nanotechnology in the UK, serious shortcomings and obstacles need to be addressed in order to move closer to the “positive social force” mode of CSR.

This thesis explores whether ‘business model innovation’ could hold the key to advancing the ultra-low and zero carbon vehicle industry in the United Kingdom. This thesis presents a critical comparison of two case studies drawn from qualitative research conducted with a broad cross-section of UK vehicle manufacturers (VMs) that are interested in introducing zero carbon vehicles to the marketplace. The two cases, looking at large established producers of vehicles with trans-national presence (herein termed TNC/MNC VMs) and smaller producers (herein termed SME VMs). The two cases consist of a number of grouped embedded cases focusing on the activities of vehicle producers that are in the process of introducing Ultra-Low Emission Vehicles (ULEVs) to the UK marketplace. These cases are constructed and informed by both primary research, semi-structured interviews conducted with representatives of these VMs, secondary analysis of interviews conducted with VM representatives and industry commentators and documentary analysis of contemporary sources and industry commentary. The thesis is framed within a broader academic debate regarding the nature of achieving socio-technical transitions. Within this frame of reference, particular attention is paid to the role of large incumbents vs. new start-up insurgents in bringing innovative technologies to the marketplace; innovative technologies being seen as a key component of a transition to a more sustainable world. In comparing the business models of large, well-established vehicle manufacturers, with smaller, newer, SME providers the ontology of Business Models developed by Osterwalder & Pigneur (2002) is used to interrogate, analyse and make comparisons between the business models of a range of companies that are very dissimilar in nature. Context is crucial to understanding the detail of case studies; as such, the thesis is also informed by the perspectives, gained through interviews, of a number of industry commentat

This thesis explores whether ‘business model innovation’ could hold the key to advancing the ultra-low and zero carbon vehicle industry in the United Kingdom. This thesis presents a critical comparison of two case studies drawn from qualitative research conducted with a broad cross-section of UK vehicle manufacturers (VMs) that are interested in introducing zero carbon vehicles to the marketplace. The two cases, looking at large established producers of vehicles with trans-national presence (herein termed TNC/MNC VMs) and smaller producers (herein termed SME VMs). The two cases consist of a number of grouped embedded cases focusing on the activities of vehicle producers that are in the process of introducing Ultra-Low Emission Vehicles (ULEVs) to the UK marketplace. These cases are constructed and informed by both primary research, semi-structured interviews conducted with representatives of these VMs, secondary analysis of interviews conducted with VM representatives and industry commentators and documentary analysis of contemporary sources and industry commentary. The thesis is framed within a broader academic debate regarding the nature of achieving socio-technical transitions. Within this frame of reference, particular attention is paid to the role of large incumbents vs. new start-up insurgents in bringing innovative technologies to the marketplace; innovative technologies being seen as a key component of a transition to a more sustainable world. In comparing the business models of large, well-established vehicle manufacturers, with smaller, newer, SME providers the ontology of Business Models developed by Osterwalder & Pigneur (2002) is used to interrogate, analyse and make comparisons between the business models of a range of companies that are very dissimilar in nature. Context is crucial to understanding the detail of case studies; as such, the thesis is also informed by the perspectives, gained through interviews, of a number of industry commentat