US Department of Energy: Critical Metals Strategy (March 2011)
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×
 

US Department of Energy: Critical Metals Strategy (March 2011)

on

  • 2,409 views

On Marhc 22, 2011, at the 2011 TREM (Technology & Rare Earth Metals Center) Conference, Diana Bauer from the US Department of Energy presented this Summary Brief on Critical Metals Strategy.

On Marhc 22, 2011, at the 2011 TREM (Technology & Rare Earth Metals Center) Conference, Diana Bauer from the US Department of Energy presented this Summary Brief on Critical Metals Strategy.

Statistics

Views

Total Views
2,409
Views on SlideShare
2,408
Embed Views
1

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
82
Comments
0

1 Embed 1

http://www.slashdocs.com 1

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Adobe PDF

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

    US Department of Energy: Critical Metals Strategy (March 2011) US Department of Energy: Critical Metals Strategy (March 2011) Presentation Transcript

    • Summary Briefing Diana Bauer, Ph.D.Technology and Rare Earth Metals (TREM) 1 March 22, 2011
    • Outline of BriefingI. BackgroundII. Analysis A. Supply B. Demand C. CriticalityIII. Program and Policy DirectionsIV. Next Steps 2
    • Project Timeline• March 2010 - Project launched TREM10 “I am today announcing that the Department of Energy will develop its first-ever strategic plan for addressing the role of rare earth and other strategic materials in clean energy technologies. “ “As a society, we have dealt with these types of issues before…We can and will do so again.” David Sandalow Assistant Secretary for Policy and International Affairs U.S. Department of Energy March 17, 2010• June 2010 – Responses to public Request for Information• Summer 2010 – Performed analysis, internal and inter-agency consultations, and drafted strategy• December 2010 – Public release of the Critical Materials Strategy• March 22, 2011 – TREM 11– 2nd public Request for Information• Fall 2011 – Release update of Critical Materials Strategy 3
    • Scope Vehicles Lighting Solar PV Wind 4
    • Strategic Pillars• Diversify global supply chains• Develop substitutes• Reduce, reuse and recycle UUPSTREAM DOWNSTREAM End-Use Extraction Processing Components Technologies Recycling and Reuse The supply chain for materials use 5
    • Supply Chain for Rare Earth Element Permanent Magnet Technologies• Illustrates the supply chain for vehicle and wind turbine applications using Neodymium-Iron-Boron (NdFeB) permanent magnets 6
    • Outline of Briefing II. Analysis 7
    • Supply >95% of rare earth supply currently from China Source: Industrial Minerals Rare earth metals are not rare – found in many countries including the United States 8
    • Current and Projected Rare Earth Supply by Element Rare Earth Supply by Element: Production Sources and Volume (tonnes/yr) Assumed Additional Production by 2015 Total Estimated Mountain Dubbo Nolans Hoidas Additional Estimated 2010 Mt. Weld Pass Zirconia Bore Dong Pao Lake Nechalacho Production 2015 Production (Australia) (USA) (Australia) (Australia) (Vietnam) (Canada) (Canada) by 2015 ProductionLanthanum 33,887 3,900 6,640 585 2,000 1,620 594 845 16,184 50,071Cerium 49,935 7,650 9,820 1,101 4,820 2,520 1,368 2,070 29,349 79,284Praseodymium 6,292 600 868 120 590 200 174 240 2,792 9,084Neodymium 21,307 2,250 2,400 423 2,150 535 657 935 9,350 30,657Samarium 2,666 270 160 75 240 45 87 175 1,052 3,718Europium 592 60 20 3 40 0 18 20 161 753Gadolinium 2,257 150 40 63 100 0 39 145 537 2,794Terbium 252 15 0 9 10 0 3 90 127 379Dysprosium 1,377 30 0 60 30 0 12 35 167 1,544Yttrium 8,750 0 20 474 0 4 39 370 907 9,657TOTAL 127,315 14,925 19,968 2,913 9,980 4,924 2,991 4,925 60,626 187,941Sources: Kingsnorth, Roskill, and USGS 9
    • Current and Projected Supply of Non-Rare Earth Elements76 Forindium, the additional amount is only the difference between the 2010 production andthe maximum current production capacity for mining and refining the material. No newcapacity is projected by 2015.77 Based on multiple correspondences with USGS, October 4-7, 2010.78 USGS, external review of Critical Materials Strategy draft, November 17, 2010. 10
    • Demand Projections: Four Trajectories Material Demand Factors Market Material Penetration Intensity Trajectory D High High Trajectory C High Low Trajectory B Low High Trajectory A Low Low• Market Penetration = Deployment (total annual units of a clean energy technology) X Market Share (% of units using materials analyzed)• Material Intensity = Material demand per unit of the clean energy technology 11
    • Low Technology Deployment Scenarios Electric Drive Vehicle Additions Wind Additions 40 70.00 35 Reference 60.00 Baseline EV 30 50.00 Million Vehicles PHEV Offshore 25 HEV 40.00 Onshore GW 20 30.00 15IEA Energy 10 IEA World 20.00Technology 5 Energy 10.00Perspectives - Outlook 0.00 Global CFL Demand Global PV Additions 2.2% Growth 35.00 30.00 Baseline 25.00 PV additions 20.00 GW 15.00IEA: Phase Out 10.00of 5.00Incandescent 0.00Lights 12
    • High Technology Deployment Scenarios Electric Drive Vehicle Additions Wind Additions 40 70.00 35 Blue Map 60.00 450 Stabilization 30 Million Vehicles 50.00 25 EV 40.00 20 PHEV 30.00 15 Offshore GWIEA Energy 10 HEV IEA World 20.00 OnshoreTechnology 5 Energy 10.00Perspectives - Outlook 0.00 Global CFL Demand Global PV Additions 3.5% Growth 35.00 30.00 450 Stabilization 25.00 20.00 GW IEA: Phase Out 15.00 PV additions of 10.00 Incandescent 5.00 Lights 0.00 13
    • Material IntensityTechnology Component Material High Intensity Low IntensityWind Generators Neodymium 186 kg/MW 124 kg/MW Dysprosium 33 kg/MW 22 kg/MWVehicles Motors Neodymium 0.62 kg/vehicle 0.31 kg/vehicle Dysprosium 0.11 kg/vehicle 0.055 kg/vehicle Li-ion Batteries Lithium 5.1-12.7 kg/vehicle 1.4-3.4 kg/vehicle (PHEVs and EVs) Cobalt 9.4 kg/vehicle 0 kg/vehicle NiMH Batteries Rare Earths (Ce, La, Nd, Pr) 2.2 kg/vehicle 1.5 kg/vehicle (HEVs) Cobalt 0.66 kg/vehicle 0.44 kg/vehiclePV Cells CIGS Thin Films Indium 110 kg/MW 16.5 kg/MW Gallium 20 kg/MW 4 kg/MW CdTe Thin Films Tellurium 145 kg/MW 43 kg/MWLighting Phosphors Rare Earths (Y, Ce, La, Eu, Tb) 6715 metric tons* total demand in 2010, 2.2% (low) or 3.5% (high) annually *rare earth oxide equivalent• Calculation methods differed by component based on available data• High Intensity = material intensity with current generation technology• Low Intensity = intensity with feasible improvements in material efficiency 14
    • Clean Energy’s share of Critical Material UseClean energy’s share of total material use currently small …but could grow significantly with increased deployment. 2010 Dysprosium Use 2025 Dysprosium Use (High Deployment) 4% 12% Dysprosium 9% US Clean Energy US Clean Energy Demand Demand 38% Rest of World Clean Rest of World Clean Energy Demand Energy Demand 53% Global Non-Clean Global Non-Clean 84% Energy Demand Energy Demand 16% is for Clean Energy 62% is for Clean Energy 15
    • Clean Energy’s share of Critical Material UseClean energy’s share of total material use currently small …but could grow significantly with increased deployment. 2010 Lithium Use 2025 Lithium Use 0% 0% (High Deployment) US Clean Energy Lithium 7% US Clean Energy Demand Demand Rest of World Clean Rest of World Clean Energy Demand 50% Energy Demand Global Non-Clean Global Non-Clean 100% Energy Demand 42% Energy Demand < 1% is for Clean Energy 50% is for Clean Energy 16
    • Neodymium - Supply and Demand Projections Neodymium Oxide Future Supply and Demand 80000 Demand 70000 High Deployment, Short Term Medium Term High Materials Intensity 60000 High Deployment, Low Material Intensity 50000 Low Deployment, High Material Intensitytonnes/yr 40000 Low Deployment, Low Material Intensity 30000 Non-Clean Energy Use Supply 20000 2015 Estimated Supply 10000 Plus Mountain Pass 0 Plus Mount Weld 2010 2015 2020 2025 2010 Supply 17
    • Dysprosium - Supply and Demand Projections Dysprosium Oxide Future Supply and Demand 8000 Demand 7000 High Deployment, Short Term Medium Term High Materials Intensity 6000 High Deployment, Low Material Intensity 5000 Low Deployment, High Material Intensitytonnes/yr 4000 Low Deployment, Low Material Intensity 3000 Non-Clean Energy Use 2000 Supply 2015 Estimated Supply 1000 Plus Mountain Pass 0 Plus Mount Weld 2010 2015 2020 2025 2010 Supply 18
    • Lanthanum – Supply and Demand Projections Lanthanum Oxide Future Supply and Demand 80000 Demand High Deployment, High 70000 Material Intensity Short Term Medium Term High Deployment, Low Material Intensity 60000 Low Deployment, High Material Intensitytonnes/yr Low Deployment, Low 50000 Material Intensity Non-Clean Energy Use 40000 Supply 30000 2015 Estimated Supply Plus Mountain Pass 20000 Plus Mount Weld 2010 2015 2020 2025 2010 Supply 19
    • Lithium – Supply and Demand Projections Lithium Carbonate Future Supply and Demand 900000 Demand 800000 Short Term Medium Term High Deployment, 700000 High Materials Intensity High Deployment, 600000 Low Material Intensity Low Deployment,tonnes/yr 500000 High Material Intensity Low Deployment, 400000 Low Material Intensity 300000 Non-Clean Energy Use 200000 Supply 100000 2015 Estimated Supply 2010 Supply 0 2010 2015 2020 2025 20
    • Criticality Assessments• Based on methodology developed by National Academy of Sciences• Criticality is a measure that combines • Importance to the clean energy economy • Risk of supply disruption• Time frames: • Short-term (0-5 years) • Medium-term (5-15 years) 21
    • Short-Term 4 Dysprosium (high)Importance to clean energy Cerium Gallium Lanthanum Europium Critical Tellurium Indium Neodymium 3 Terbium Yttrium Near-critical Not Critical Cobalt 2 Lithium Praseodymium 1 Samarium (low) 1 (low) 2 3 4 (high) Supply risk 22
    • Medium-Term Neodymium Dysprosium 4 (high)Importance to clean energy Indium Lithium Europium Terbium Critical Gallium Tellurium Yttrium 3 Near-critical Not Critical Cerium 2 Cobalt Lanthanum Praseodymium 1 Samarium (low) 1 (low) 2 3 4 (high) Supply risk 23
    • Criticality Movement: Short to Medium Term 4 (high) Neodymium DysprosiumImportance to clean energy Tellurium Critical Gallium Europium 3 Lithium Yttrium Near-critical Indium Terbium Not Critical Cerium 2 Lanthanum Cobalt Praseodymium 1 Samarium (low) 1 (low) 2 3 4 (high) Supply risk 24
    • Outline of BriefingIII. Program andPolicy Directions 25
    • Program and Policy Directions• Research and development• Information-gathering• Permitting for domestic production• Financial assistance for domestic production and processing• Stockpiles• Recycling• Education• DiplomacySome are within DOE’s core competence, others aren’t 26
    • Policy Options and Critical Materials Supply Chain 27
    • Research and Development• DOE is the nation’s leading funder of research on the physical sciences.• Long history of materials work – EERE, Office of Science, ARPA-E 28
    • DOE’s current programs – Office of ScienceBasic research at Ames Laboratory  Extraordinarily Responsive Rare Earth Magnetic Materials  NovelMaterials Preparation and Processing Methodologies  Correlations and Competition Between the Lattice, Electrons and Magnetism  Nanoscale and Ultrafast Correlations and Excitations in Magnetic Materials 29
    • DOE’s current programs – EERE Alternatives to permanent magnets and motorsPermanent Magnet Developmentfor Automotive Traction Motors Ames LabA New Class of SwitchedReluctance Motors Source: Universal (Ningbo) Oak Ridge Magnetech Co., Ltd.Novel Flux Coupling Machinewithout Permanent Magnets Oak RidgeDevelopment of Improved Powderfor Bonded Permanent Magnets Ames Lab Source: Honda Civic Hybrid 2003 30
    • DOE’s current programs – ARPA-E New magnet structure and chemistry have disruptive potential Transformational nanostructured permanent magnets (PM) 31
    • Recent DOE Critical Materials Workshops• Japan-US Workshop ( Lawrence Livermore National Lab - Nov 18-19)• Transatlantic Workshop (MIT - Dec 3)• ARPA-E Workshop (Ballston, VA – Dec 6) 32
    • Information Gathering• Data gaps • Individual materials: production, consumption and trading prices • Materials intensity of energy technologies • Potential for substitutes• Potential data resources • Recurring data collection: EIA, USGS and other stakeholders • Unique needs: Additional RFIs and workshops 33
    • Critical Materials Strategy Conclusions• Some materials analyzed at risk of supply disruptions. Five rare earth metals (dysprosium, neodymium, terbium, europium and yttrium) and indium assessed as most critical.• Clean energy’s share of material use currently small …but could grow significantly with increased deployment.• Critical materials are often a small fraction of the total cost of clean energy technologies. Demand does not respond quickly when prices increase. 34
    • Critical Materials Strategy Conclusions (continued)• Data are sparse. More information is required.• Sound policies and strategic investments can reduce risk. …especially in the medium and long term. 35
    • Outline of Briefing IV. Next Steps 36
    • Next Steps for U.S. Department of Energy• Develop an integrated research plan, building on three recent workshops.• Strengthen information-gathering capacity.• Analyze additional technologies .• Continue to work closely with: • International partners • Interagency colleagues • Congress • Public stakeholders• Update the strategy by the end of 2011. 37
    • Critical Materials Technology R&D Topics from ARPA-E Workshop Electric Motors Wind GeneratorsGeologic or Material PermanentRecycled ExtractionFeedstocks Magnets Processes Catalysts & Lighting Separators Phosphors Solid Oxide Fuel Cells Gasoline Refining Light Emitting Auto Exhaust Conversion Diodes (LED) Compact Fluorescent Lights (CFL) Supply Technologies Application Technologies 38
    • Critical Materials Innovation Hub: President’s FY 2012 Budget• Novel approaches to reducing dependencies on critical materials. • Including strategies for recycling, reuse and more efficient use that could significantly lower world demand• Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) Industrial Technologies Program.• $20 Million 39
    • DOE’s Second RFI on Critical Materials: Released Today• Critical Material Content• Supply Chain and Market Projections• Financing and Purchase Transactions• Research, Education and Training• Energy Technology Transitions and Emerging Technologies• Recycling Opportunities• Mine and Processing Plant Permitting• Additional Information 40
    • DOE welcomes commentsComments and additional information can be sent to materialstrategy@hq.doe.gov 41