Raw Materials: Study on Innovative Technologies … · Raw Materials: study on Innovative...

Raw Materials: study on Innovative Technologies and Possible Pilot Plants – Final Report - Draft

1

Raw Materials: Study on Innovative Technologies and Possible Pilot Plants Draft Final Report

March, 2013

Prepared by: Emile Elewaut (TNO) and Ton Bastein (TNO), with contributions from the

consortium members, D’Appolonia (IT), NTUA (GR), University of Leoben (AU), CIKTN (UK), Euromines (B) and sub-contractor BRGM (F)

Tasked by: DG ENTERPRISE


2

PREFACE

This report presents the final results of the project “Raw Materials: Study on Innovative Technologies and Possible Pilot Plants” (tender no. 112/PP/ENT/CIP/11/C/N06S001) that was performed under the supervision of DG Enterprise. The project was aimed at collecting suggestions on innovative technologies and pilot plants, and at developing transparent unbiased criteria that enable to select proposals for pilot plants that will be developed within the scope of the European Innovation Partnership on Raw Materials. Furthermore, an initial analysis is presented on the list of innovative technologies and pilot plants, that was collected within the framework of this project.

This report is the responsibility of the coordinator of this project, TNO, and is a joint effort from the consortium partners CIKTN, D’Appolonia, EUROMINES, NTUA and University of Leoben (and subcontractors BRGM and IFREMER).


3

Contents EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................................................9

Background.........................................................................................................................................9

Project goals .......................................................................................................................................9

1 Project goals and scope ................................................................................................................13

1.1 Background ...........................................................................................................................13

1.2 Project goals..........................................................................................................................13

1.3 Scope and definitions............................................................................................................14

1.3.1 Definition for innovative technologies and pilot plants ...............................................14

1.3.2 Scope of materials.........................................................................................................14

1.3.3 Definition of the value chain for this study...................................................................15

1.4 Experts and stakeholders......................................................................................................16

2 A mapping of innovative technologies and pilot plant suggestions .............................................16

2.1 Web Based Questionnaire .................................................................................................... 16

2.1.1 The ‘Technical questionnaire ........................................................................................17

2.1.2 The ‘Challenges’ Questionnaire: an instrument for policy makers...............................17

2.2 General characteristics of the collected pilot plant suggestions ..........................................17

2.2.1 Countries, organisations, activity..................................................................................18

2.2.2 Level of response to questions .....................................................................................20

2.2.3 Materials addressed by the pilots.................................................................................21

2.2.4 Economic aspects of pilots: CAPEX , OPEX, cost price .................................................23

2.2.5 Environmental dimension: how to deal with insufficient information?.......................24

2.2.6 The impact on relevant challenges ...............................................................................25

2.2.7 Technological maturity and intellectual property ........................................................26

2.3 Identifying pilot areas ...........................................................................................................30

2.3.1 Exploration and exploitation.........................................................................................31

2.3.2 Recycling and Processing ..............................................................................................31

2.3.3 Substitution...................................................................................................................33

2.3.4 Pilots on the renewable materials paper and wood.....................................................33

2.4 Results from the Challenges questionnaire ..........................................................................34

2.5 Gap analysis ..........................................................................................................................37

2.6 Conclusions ...........................................................................................................................41

3 Pilot areas: a closer look ...............................................................................................................42


4

3.1 Trends related to raw materials............................................................................................ 43

3.2 Trajectories ...........................................................................................................................43

3.3 Analyzing the pilot areas.......................................................................................................47

3.3.1 Deep underground exploration and exploitation .........................................................48

3.3.2 Deep sea exploration / exploitation .............................................................................50

3.3.3 Processing industrial minerals with improved processing efficiency ...........................51

3.3.4 Processing aggregates and dimensional stones with improved efficiency...................52

3.3.5 Treatment of mining and processing waste and low grade, complex ores ..................54

3.3.6 Recycling of industrial manufacturing and end-of-life waste .......................................55

3.3.7 Metallurgy Processes ....................................................................................................57

3.3.8 Application-led and material-led substitution ..............................................................58

3.3.9 Resource Efficient Paper Recycling Processes ..............................................................61

3.4 Concluding remarks ..............................................................................................................62

4 Criteria for assessing and prioritising pilots..................................................................................63

4.1 Introduction ..........................................................................................................................63

4.2 The process of developing and validating criteria ................................................................63

4.3 Main criteria for evaluation of pilot areas ............................................................................64

4.4 Economy................................................................................................................................65

4.4.1 Impact on cost price of a product .................................................................................65

4.4.2 Absolute economic benefit ...........................................................................................66

4.4.3 Jobs created in the EU................................................................................................... 68

4.4.4 Impact on skills and knowledge ....................................................................................68

4.4.5 Conclusion.....................................................................................................................68

4.5 Raw Materials Availability.....................................................................................................68

4.6 Environment, health and safety............................................................................................69

4.6.1 Environmental performance.........................................................................................69

4.6.2 Health and safety aspects .............................................................................................70

4.7 The Stage of Innovation ........................................................................................................70

4.7.1 Impact on relevant challenges ......................................................................................71

4.7.2 Technology Readiness...................................................................................................72

4.7.3 Dealing with (potential) barriers for innovation...........................................................73

4.7.4 Clarification for government support ...........................................................................75

4.8 Overall quality and consistency ............................................................................................ 75

4.9 Applicability of criteria to pilots aimed at substitution ........................................................76

4.10 Summary and conclusions: criteria for pilot selection..........................................................78

5 Cooperating with non-EU-27 Countries........................................................................................82


5

Annex 1 Glossary of terms describing the Minerals Value Chain .........................................................85

Annex 2 Stakeholder overview ...........................................................................................................89

Annex 3 Complete list of materials ......................................................................................................93

Annex 4 Technology Readiness Level (TRL) definitions and descriptions............................................94

Annex 5 Trends analysis and effect on roadmaps of European technology platforms ........................97

Annex 6 Environmental performance profiling .................................................................................... 98

Annex 7 Challenges identified by the consortium related to Raw Materials ....................................100

Annex 8 Feedback on criteria: results from the 1st workshop............................................................102

Introduction to the workshop.........................................................................................................102

Feedback on criteria: the break-out sessions .................................................................................103

Annex 9 Description of pilot areas......................................................................................................104

Deep Underground Exploration and exploitation ..........................................................................105

Deep sea exploration / exploitation ...............................................................................................107

Processing industrial minerals with improved processing efficiency .............................................109

Processing aggregates and dimensional stones with improved efficiency ....................................111

Treatment of mining and processing waste and low grade, complex ores ....................................113

Metallurgy Processes ......................................................................................................................117

Application-led substitution............................................................................................................119

Material-led substitution ................................................................................................................122

Resource Efficient Paper Recycling Processes ................................................................................123

Annex 10 Innovation Systems Analysis: a tool for analysis and accelerating innovation systems....125


6

List of Tables

Table 1 List of Abbreviations...................................................................................................................8 Table 2 Overview of most and least answered questions ....................................................................21 Table 3 Activities related to materials most often mentioned.............................................................23 Table 4 Environmental aspects of pilot plants......................................................................................25 Table 5 TRL current pilot status per sector...........................................................................................27 Table 6 Comparison identified challenges in both questionnaires.......................................................35 Table 7 European stance on selected raw materials in comparison with numbers of suggested pilots..............................................................................................................................................................39

Table 8 Pilot areas.................................................................................................................................42 Table 9 Trends for each of the core areas ............................................................................................43 Table 10 Raw materials challenges suggested by the consortium .......................................................71 Table 11 Summary of criteria for Substitution .....................................................................................78 Table 12 Summary of criteria for Exploration.......................................................................................79 Table 13 Summary of criteria for Exploitation, Processing and Recycling............................................80 Table 14 Overview of criteria for all areas............................................................................................81 Table 15 Long list of countries related to mining and processing ........................................................82 Table 16 Performance indicators for potential partnering nations......................................................83 Table 17 European Technology Platforms as stakeholders ..................................................................90 Table 18 Associations as stakeholders..................................................................................................91 Table 19 ERA-MIN participants ............................................................................................................92 Table 20 Sources used for identification of trends...............................................................................97 Table 21 NACE activities within the mining sector ...............................................................................98 Table 22 Sources to estimate prices for weighing of environmental impacts......................................99


7

List of figures

Figure 1 Schematic representation of the raw materials value chain covered by the activities of this study; the red boxes represent the main segments that will be considered. ......................................15 Figure 2 Overview of pilot background: top: country of origin of participating stakeholder; middle: type of participating, organisation types; bottom: type of materials addressed.................................19 Figure 3 Distribution of pilots over raw materials sectors....................................................................20 Figure 4 Materials targeted by submitted pilot suggestions ................................................................22 Figure 5 CAPEX estimates for 64 pilots .................................................................................................23 Figure 6 Share of useful replies on each environmental parameter ....................................................24 Figure 7 Main challenges addressed by the pilots................................................................................26 Figure 8 Specific challenges w.r.t. Processing.......................................................................................26 Figure 9 TRL at current pilot status.......................................................................................................27 Figure 10 TRL at completion of the pilot ..............................................................................................28 Figure 11 Supposed increase of TRL by pilot ........................................................................................28 Figure 12 Relation between initial TRL and supposed TRL increase.....................................................29 Figure 13 Proposed lead time for pilot start.........................................................................................30 Figure 14Mining value chain and relation to pilots ..............................................................................31 Figure 16 Distribution of participants for the challenges questionnaire..............................................34 Figure 17 Distribution of countries participating in the challenges questionnaire ..............................35 Figure 18 Distribution of responses related to socio-economic aspects..............................................36 Figure 19 Distribution of responses related to improving conditions ..................................................37 Figure 20 Schematic representation of validation of criteria ...............................................................63 Figure 21 Preference of workshop participants for criteria ...............................................................103 Figure 22 Preference of workshop participants for economic sub-criteria........................................103


8

Table 1 List of Abbreviations

Abbreviation Explanation BAT Best Available Technology

BRGM Bureau de Recherche Géologiques et Minières CAPEX Capital Expenditures CIKTN Chemistry Innovation Knowledge Transfer Network COM Communication

CP Cost Price CRM Critical Raw Material DAPP D’Appolonia

EC European Commission EIP European Innovation Partnership

EIP-RM European Innovation Partnership on Raw Materials ENERC European non-energy mineral raw materials research community

ENV Environmental Benefits EoL End of Life

EPRTR European Pollutant Register and Transfer Protocol ER Economic relevance

ERA-MIN ERA-NET project on non-energy mineral resources ERA-NET European Research Area Network

ETP European Technology Platform EU European Union

GHG Green House Gas IP(R) Intellectual Property (Rights) IZT Institut für Zukunftsforschung und Technologiebewertung LCA Life Cycle Assessment Mt Metric tonnes

NACE Nomenclature générale des Activités économiques dans les Communautés Européenne NCP National Contact Point NGO Non-governmental Organisation NMP Nanotechnology, Materials, Processes

NTUA National Technical University of Athens OECD Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development OPEX Operational Expenditures PGM Platinum Group Metals PQ Product Quantity Q Question

R&D Research and Development REE Rare Earth Elements RM Raw Material RMI Raw Material Initiative RTO Research and Technology Organisation SR Supply Risk

SME Small and Medium Sized Enterprise SMR Sustainable Minerals and Resources SRA Strategic Research Agenda

SusChem (ETP) Sustainable Chemistry TRL Technology Readiness Level TNO The Netherlands Organisation for Applied Scientific Research TNO UVP Unlocked Volumetric Potential WC (price of) Water Consumption WGI World Governance Indicators


9

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Background On February 29th , 2012, the European Commission issued a communication titled “Making Raw Materials available for Europe's future well-being - proposal for a European Innovation Partnership (EIP) on Raw materials” (hereafter referred to as EIP-RM). The partnership is aimed at creating cooperation and coordination of activities that will lead to a more robust and sustainable supply of raw materials (metals, minerals, aggregates, and specific renewable materials of primary and secondary origin) to Europe, thereby stimulating the European economy.

On October 11th, 2012, The Competitiveness Council of the European Union called on the Commission to launch the Raw Materials EIP.

Among the medium term (2014-2020) ambitions of the EIP-RM, the roadmap presented in this communication covers:

- to enable up to ten innovative pilot areas for raw materials extraction, processing, product design and recycling;

- to enable activities that lead to industrially viable alternatives for at least three substitutes applications to critical raw materials (or groups thereof)

Project goals The project goals are:

- To evaluate and map a long-list of innovative technologies and pilot plant suggestions which have the potential for significantly-improving sustainability and supply of raw materials - in particular critical raw materials - along the entire value chain.

- To enable the European Commission to discriminate and ultimately select technological areas for pilot plant suggestions. Therefore, the project will develop a set of criteria, indicators and methodologies to allow further assessment of proposals. These criteria include methods to estimate the impact of pilot actions on access, acceptance, sustainability and safety.

Mapping of innovative pilot plants suggested by stakeholders

An overview of relevant innovative pilot activities in the EU-27 was obtained by engaging an extended range of European stakeholders (associations, ETPs, ERA-NET, National Contact Points) through a web-based questionnaire. Some 400 individuals registered through this system. Of these, 130 participants ranging from academic, governmental, industrial and NGO background participated through the so-called challenges questionnaire, in which the main challenges and concerns for the EU-27 Raw Materials domain could be expressed.

Further to these contributors, 108 stakeholders produced in total 113 pilot plant descriptions. These pilots originated from 14 out of 27 EU Countries. The minerals sector in all its varieties is heavily represented in the full set of pilots (80% of pilots). Within the minerals group, the metals are dominant (53% overall). The wood/natural fibers sector participated with 8% of pilots.


10

Processing and recycling were the most dominant areas of the material value chain represented by the suggested pilots, with respectively 38% and 39% of entries. Exploitation and exploration together represented 14% of suggested pilots, the remainder being substitution related ideas (9%).

The technology readiness of the suggested pilots covered the whole range from basic research to market readiness. Most participants indicated that by executing the pilot, a significant improvement of the technology readiness could be reached. Capital expenditure (CAPEX) figures were given for almost 80 pilots. CAPEX ranged from 300,000 EUR to more than 500 million Euros. Operating costs (OPEX) figures are available for nearly 50 pilots. Though detailed data about the environmental performance of the pilots were mostly lacking at this stage, a preliminary conclusion is that the general direction of the proposed pilots is towards an improvement in the environmental performance compared to the state of the art.

Although a broad community of stakeholders engaged in the questionnaire, a number of gaps was identified in the overview of pilot plants. These gaps were related to some aspects of the raw materials value chain (lacking proposals on comminution and from the equipment suppliers, a very low input related to substitution), recycling of non-metallic materials such as construction materials, and innovation in the field of renewable materials (with the exception of recycling of forest-based materials). Furthermore, it was noted that some of the larger stakeholders in the raw materials industry did not suggest proposals. These areas will require more specific attention in subsequent activities.

From the overview of innovative pilots, a selection was made of 10 pilot areas, that covered a substantial amount of suggested pilots and that holds promise for future innovation. These pilot areas were:

- Deep sea Exploration / Exploitation - Deep underground Exploration / Exploitation - Processing of aggregates and dimensional stone with improved processing efficiency - Processing of industrial minerals with improved processing efficiency - Treatment of mining and processing waste and of low grade and complex ores - Recycling of Industrial manufacturing wastes and End-of-life waste - Metallurgy processes - Resource Efficient Paper Recycling Processes - Application-led substitution - Material-led substitution

Based on expertise of the project consortium, an analysis of barriers and drivers for innovation and a subsequent analysis of strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats was performed, leading to a short-list of suggested actions. Overall, the level of expertise and the growing network formation provides drivers for innovation, whereas challenging market prospects, (uncertainty about) regulations, social support, and the need for additional technical infrastructure can be seen as barriers besides the opportunities provided by a increasing demand for raw materials. Development of criteria

In order to assess future pilot proposals in the framework of the EIP-RM a set of criteria was developed. The resulting set of criteria is the result of intensive and iterative discussions with


11

stakeholders and experts, during direct interviews (as a follow-up of the web-based questionnaire) and two workshops organized by the project consortium1. These criteria are to a large extent applicable to the Raw Materials value chain that consists of Exploitation, Processing and Recycling. The area of Exploration and to a higher extent Substitution require a special set of sub-criteria. The criteria and sub-criteria proposed are the following:

- Economy, dealing with the overall affordability of the solution, considering short-, medium- and long-term investments as well as other macro- and micro-economic parameters such as impact on job creation and skills; sub-criteria for the economy criterion are:

• Impact on cost price of a product (a raw, processed or recycled material, a product in which substitution took place): a successful execution of a pilot plant may lead to a reduction of the cost price of a given industrial activity, or at least an industrial activity for which a competitive price at world market level can be reached;

• In the case of exploration related pilots this sub-criterion is adapted to Impact on exploration technology investment intensity, because of the different nature of the ‘product’ of exploration;

• Absolute economic benefit, takes into account the potential of a pilot to enable more materials to become available (the so-called unlocked volumetric potential) and/or the change in cost price of the material or product affected by the pilot.

• Jobs created in the EU: though not an independent criterion (for it depends on the economic aspects of the results of the pilot), both the quality and quantity of added jobs are a relevant sub-criterion; the creation of jobs with either a permanent or a temporary nature may be reported separately, since activities in a sector like exploration involves highly qualified, but often outsourced, and therefore temporary jobs related to the project;

• Impact on skills and knowledge, a sub-criterion related to the future of Europe’s raw materials infrastructure, but also to the value of IPR in securing Europe’s competitive position

- Raw Materials Availability, dealing with both the nature and the quantity of additional raw materials that may become available upon successful implementation of pilot activities.

- Environment, Health and Safety, under which two sub-criteria are proposed: • Environmental performance, taking into account all consumables and emissions

related to industrial activities, enabling a quantitative assessment of the environmental profile through established methodologies;

• Health and Safety aspects, considered by most stakeholders (especially those related to the mining and process industry) to be key to any innovative plant.

- The Stage of Innovation, aimed at identifying the balance between the desired maturity of the pilots and the reasons for public funding, and at identifying (often non-technical) barriers towards implementation of innovation; the following sub-criteria are proposed:

• Impact on relevant challenges (as identified by studying existing roadmaps) • Technology readiness

1 The 1st workshop was held in Brussels on the 22nd of October, 2012, and hosted more than 100 stakeholders from the raw material value chain; the 2nd workshop was held in Brussels on the 30th of November, 2012 in Brussels and consulted 6 expert evaluators on the relevance, applicability and practicality of the criteria on the basis of 7 test pilots. Conclusions of these workshops are included in the final set of (sub-)criteria.


12

• An analysis of Barriers and drivers for innovation, among which for instance the system reliability, the effect of (a too small) market size, market entry and legislative barriers;

• An explanation of market failure, indicating in more depth the reason for public support of a pilot.

Contact with stakeholders led to the conclusion that for the area of substitution a different set of sub-criteria would apply. The area was seen as distinctly different from the upstream sectors of the raw materials value chain, resulting in a different set of actions for future development. These main differences are:

- The impact on the cost price compares the cost of the substitute with the ‘function’ it replaces;

- The absolute environmental performance is required for substitution activities , since no comparison with state-of-the-art is applicable here; compliance with REACH regulations may play a role here;

- The capability of exploiting the result of the substitution within the EU needs to be explained to assess the potential for generating jobs and prosperity in Europe;

- The relative technical performance (under the innovation criterion) compared to an existing technology needs to be demonstrated;

- The criterion ‘Raw Material Availability’ related to substitution activities has a different meaning compared to the other areas, since substitution activities are primarily aimed at materials that are considered ‘critical’; therefore, additional sub-criteria apply such as: the impact on relative criticality, the recyclability of the substitute, and the importance of the material substituted.


13

1 Project goals and scope

1.1 Background On February 29th , 2012, the European Commission issued the communication (COM/2012/082/final) titled “Making Raw Materials available for Europe's future well-being - proposal for a European Innovation Partnership (EIP) on Raw materials” (hereafter referred to as EIP-RM). The partnership is aimed at creating cooperation and coordination of activities that will lead to a more robust and sustainable supply of Raw Materials (metals, minerals, aggregates, and specific renewable materials of primary and secondary origin as wood and rubber) to Europe, thereby stimulating the European economy.

On October 11th, 2012, The Competitiveness Council of the European Union called on the Commission to launch the Raw Materials EIP and to develop and finalise the Strategic Implementation Plan by the end of July 2013, as a key contribution to the successful implementation of the Innovation Union, the Integrated Industrial Policy for the Globalisation Era, and the Resource-Efficient Flagship initiatives.

The current study “Raw Materials: Study on Innovative Technologies and Possible Pilot Plants” (acronym: Ramintech) is considered one of the short term building blocks for the development of this EIP and for the above mentioned medium term ambitions.

Among the medium-term (2014-2020) ambitions of the EIP-RM, the roadmap presented in this communication covers:

- to identify up to ten innovative pilot plants for raw materials extraction, processing, product design and recycling;

- to identify activities that lead to industrially viable alternatives for at least three substitutes to critical raw materials (or groups thereof).

1.2 Project goals The project goals were formulated as follows:

- To provide an overview of innovative technologies and pilot plant suggestions which have the potential for significantly improving sustainability and supply of raw materials - in particular critical raw materials - along the entire value chain. This overview is collected through an intensive (web-based) search among stakeholders from the relevant areas,

- To enable the European Commission to discriminate and ultimately select technological areas for pilot plant suggestions, the project will develop a set of criteria to allow a quantitative analysis of pilot plant suggestions, that ensures a fair and transparent selection procedure. These criteria include methods to estimate the impact of pilot actions on access, acceptance, sustainability and safety. This set of criteria is presented in chapter 4 of this report.


14

Based on the mapping of the collected set of pilot plant suggestions and the criteria developed, the project provides an in-depth case study of 10 selected pilot areas covering the fields of exploration, exploitation, processing, recycling and substitution. These analyses cover the barriers that are to be overcome to commercialize the outcome of a selected pilot plant and the benefits to society. These steps may be of a technological, financial, educational and legislative nature.

1.3 Scope and definitions

1.3.1 Definition for innovative technologies and pilot plants The study calls for an inventory of innovative technologies and pilot plants related to the increased availability of raw materials. Definitions as given in the tender specifications are:

- ”innovation consists of the successful production, assimilation and exploitation of new ideas in the economic and social spheres” (explicitly, innovation in Europe may include the adoption of Best Available Technologies (BAT), that are successfully implemented elsewhere)

- “pilot plants are seen as demonstration installations where technical processes can be demonstrated on a large scale. Experimental / laboratory installations need to be convincingly scaled up before they are brought to market. Those demonstration installations are seen as being at the forefront of market implementation and large scale industrial installations. Hence, this concept includes equipment, facilities and machinery for technical processes.”

These definitions clearly exclude (as non-exclusive examples) setting-up of competence centers and developing methodologies without large-scale concrete spin-off. Although the outcome of the project is ‘hardware’-related, the role of know-how and intellectual property is of course fully recognized. The consequences of these definitions are that the ideas concerning the innovations and pilots within scope have reached a minimum level of maturity, and consequently in-depth information can be assumed present. The criteria introduced in chapter 4 of this report can therefore (partly) depend on quantitative details about expected pilots performance, that may not be known when projects are less mature.

1.3.2 Scope of materials The EIP-RM focuses on non-energy, non-agricultural raw materials, as defined in the Raw Materials Initiative (COM(2008)699-final). Materials included in this study comprise non-renewable materials like metal minerals, industrial minerals and aggregates (primary and secondary sources, both on land and off-shore) as well as renewable raw materials such as wood and natural rubber. For establishing the list of 10 pilots for in-depth analysis, due consideration is given to the various conditions in Member States while taking into account the principal of subsidiarity, method developments and technological realisation of extraction, separation, refinement, purification, recovering and high-grade recycling of raw materials, including drilling technologies, by-products recovery, related chemical and biochemical engineering and energy and water savings. Although this study and even the current EU-policy may be inspired by the concept of ‘critical raw materials’, this study includes materials and metals that are not considered as critical (using the


15

definition suggested by the Raw Materials Initiative RMI).2 Substitution related technologies are taken into account only in case they have an impact on Critical Raw Materials.3

1.3.3 Definition of the value chain for this study This study focuses on the raw material value chain, and defines the following sectors in that value chain:

- ‘Mining’ sector: exploration and exploitation of raw materials on land and at sea, including pilots on enabling technologies like environmental technology, microbiology, engineering, remote-controlled underground mining technology; activities under exploitation are e.g. mucking, beneficiation and backfilling;

- ‘Processing’ sector: downstream technologies including mineral processing and refinements technologies, such as comminution and efficient metallurgy; processing of renewable materials is also included under this sector;

- ‘Recycling’ sector: innovations for collecting, sorting, accumulating, enrichment efficient dismantling and re-use and recycling technologies; again, this sector includes both non-renewables and renewables;

- ‘Substitution’ sector: innovations that cover a wide area of technological solutions for a list of critical materials and industrial segments that are considered of high importance and highly vulnerable.

The Raw Materials value chain is schematically represented in the following diagram.

Figure 1 Schematic representation of the raw materials value chain covered by the activities of this study; the red boxes represent the main segments that will be considered.

2 Ad-hoc working group on defining critical raw materials - 2010 - Critical raw materials for the EU - European Commission , DG Enterprise (Brussels, Belgium) - as available for download from http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/policies/raw-materials/files/docs/report-b_en.pdf - Annex V: http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/policies/raw-materials/files/docs/annex-v-b_en.pdf 3 Critical is defined here by the materials identified most critical by the ad-hoc working group on defining critical raw materials.


16

A glossary of terms describing the Raw Materials Value Chain (specifically aimed at the minerals value chain) and a more detailed picture of the (minerals) raw materials value chain is given in Annex 1.

1.4 Experts and stakeholders Experts and stakeholders play a crucial role in this study. Experts were consulted in various roles during the collection and selection phases of this project. The following groups of experts and stakeholders have provided input:

i) Experts from the European Technology Platforms ETPs, relevant industrial associations and industrial stakeholders, and National Contact Points (NCPs) covering the whole range of fields of interest within the scope of this study and EU27 countries. They were given the opportunity to propose innovative technologies and pilot plants during the Collection phase through a dedicated web-based questionnaire;

ii) Experts and stakeholders covering non-technical aspects (economical, societal, environmental groups, EU Member States, NGOs), in particular ecological and social aspects. These stakeholders were given the opportunity to identify threats and challenges for the European raw materials arena in a so-called ‘challenges questionnaire’ and participated in the workshop discussing the criteria;

iii) External “high-level experts”: in order for the evaluation of criteria developed in this project, an un-biased, neutral and high-level expert advice was considered fundamental. The high-level experts were selected from the technological, economic, financial, environmental, scientific arena. They were involved in a second workshop aiming at assessing criteria for the overall economic and social impact of the proposed pilot areas.

2 A mapping of innovative technologies and pilot plant suggestions One of the ambitions of the European Innovation Partnership on Raw Materials (EIP-RM) is to take initiatives to set up (approximately) 10 pilot plants, that will make a sizeable impact on European supply of Raw Materials in the timeframe until 2020.

In order to obtain a list of possible pilots, one may undertake patent and literature searches. However, since the aim was to focus on pilot activities (i.e. activities that are already in a rather mature state of their development) it can be conceived that such literature based searches provide a rather incomplete and non-actual overview of the status of European pilot initiatives. Therefore, this study chose to consult a broad range of European stakeholders (consisting of industrial, academic and government organisations and associations related to the life cycle chain of raw materials, the description of which can be found in Annex 2) through a public and web-based questionnaire.

2.1 Web Based Questionnaire The web-based questionnaire (distributed online on May, 15th, 2012) aimed at (1) obtaining a comprehensive overview of (technical) pilot suggestions from the stakeholders through a technical questionnaire, (2) obtain stakeholder’s vision on challenges and priorities related to raw materials in


17

Europe and the role for innovative technologies in that vision, through the the challenges questionnaire.

2.1.1 The ‘Technical questionnaire The technical questionnaire aimed at retrieving a general description of the innovative pilot plant, and additional data on both economic and environmental aspects related to the proposed innovation. The participants to the questionnaire were asked to provide information on the challenges and (technological) barriers addressed, the material(s) addressed by the pilot, the status of the protection of intellectual property, the required partnerships and the lead times required for (technological) up-scaling of the results of the pilot phase. Participants were also asked to provide data on the required capital investment and the potential consequences for the cost price of the materials considered thus enabling a preliminary economic appreciation of the proposed pilot. Furthermore, participants could indicate whether the suggested action would in principle lead to an increased availability of raw materials aw well as on the potential consequences in the environmental footprint (energy, water consumption, effect on emissions and land use) of the suggested action.

2.1.2 The ‘Challenges’ Questionnaire: an instrument for policy makers

The challenges questionnaire aimed at receiving comments from public bodies, NGOs, associations and institutions, about the non-technological challenges that need to be addressed in order to deal with the broad issue of the supply and demand issues of raw materials.

More specifically, the challenges questionnaire asked:

- What challenges would your organisation like to see addressed by the activities of the EIP-RM?

- What environmental aspects related to the value-chain of raw materials (Exploration, Extraction, Processing, Recycling, Substitution) should receive attention?

- What social and labor aspects could be affected due to the implementation of technologies associated to raw materials in the different phases of the RM value-chain (Exploration, Extraction, Processing, Recycling, Substitution)?

- Additional information regarding ideas, vision, perspectives and priorities in the framework of the Raw Materials value chain.

2.2 General characteristics of the collected pilot plant suggestions The web-based questionnaire resulted in a substantial set of suggestions for innovative technologies, pilot plants and actions. Overall, more than 300 stakeholders actively participated.

This section presents an overview of the suggested pilots and an analysis of the input.


18

2.2.1 Countries, organisations, activity 128 Pilot descriptions were submitted (originating from 108 stakeholders). Of these suggestions, 113 pilots were considered to be in scope for further analysis.

Figure 2 shows the distribution across countries from which proposals originate, types of stakeholders (industry, RTO, universities, government) and types of raw material that were the topic of these pilots.

17 out of the 27 EU Countries have delivered contributions to the pilot questionnaire. 5 Non-EU Countries have submitted suggestions and 5 suggestions were put forward by European industry sector organisations. When asked about the specific location of the suggested pilot action, 60 stakeholders indicated that the pilot action could be installed anywhere within the EU-27, whereas 27 appointed a specific location (for 28 pilots this information was not available).

Though the study is aimed at raw materials in general, the minerals sector in all its varieties is heavily represented in the full set of pilots (80% of pilots). Within the minerals group, the metals are dominant (53% overall): this is mainly caused by the recycling, and most of the processing activities. The group ‘Minerals General’ contains most of the exploration and many of the exploitation related activities: the pilots are by nature not aimed at a particular type of material, but rather at generic enabling technologies. Several organisations covering relevant renewable materials were also invited to participate. Several suggestions were put forward from the wood and paper industry; no suggestions were received from the rubber industry at this stage.

The group ‘New Materials’ covers most of the pilots aimed at substitution and a variety of new materials that replace applications and/or materials currently known as ‘critical’4.

4 Critical is defined here by the materials identified most critical by the ad-hoc working group on defining critical raw materials


19

Figure 2 Overview of pilot background: top: country of origin of participating stakeholder; middle: type of participating, organisation types; bottom: type of materials addressed


20

Figure 3 Distribution of pilots over raw materials sectors

In Figure 3 the distribution of the pilots over the sectors mining (exploration and exploitation), processing, recycling and substitution is shown. Processing and recycling are dominant in the activity range of the submitted pilots.

2.2.2 Level of response to questions Most entries in the web-based questionnaire did not provide a complete set of answers to the questions. Table 2 gives an overview of the most and the least answered questions.

Quantitative information related to the economic and environmental performance is provided to a limited extent. It is unknown at this stage whether this is related to the fact that these data are unknown, too complicated to calculate or too confidential.


21

Table 2 Overview of most and least answered questions

Most answered questions Least answered questions

question % answers Question % answers

Describe Pilot Idea 81 Final cost per unit of RM processed

35

Challenge addressed 87 Unlocked volumetric potential 40

Technological barriers Pilot solve

77 Energy consumption 35

Comparison with the state of the art

76 Fresh water consumption 37

Phase of Raw Material treatment addressed

75 Process water consumption 30

Industrial Sector directly benefit from Pilot

77 Salt water consumption 31

Technical obstacles for the Pilot implementation

74 Emission to soil (max %) 23

Expected lead time 75 Emission to water (max %) 19

Current TRL of the Pilot 77 Emission to air (max %) 22

Geographical pilot implementation

75

2.2.3 Materials addressed by the pilots The respondents were given the possibility to select the materials targeted by their pilot activity from a comprehensive list of 92 materials (inspired by the table of contents of the USGS Mineral Commodities reporting). A maximum of 5 materials could be selected for each pilot.

89 Pilots identified one or more materials as subject of their pilot suggestion. The other pilots were of a more generic nature. From the complete list of materials, 53 materials were mentioned at least once as the targeted materials (both as a first choice or a second or higher choice). An overview of these materials is given in Figure 4.

With the exception of Beryllium (Be), stakeholders referred to all the materials identified by the ad-hoc working group on defining critical raw materials in their June 2010 report “Critical Raw Materials for the EU”.


22

In Table 3 an overview is given of the materials mentioned at least 5 times and the parts of the value chain in which they were mentioned.

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20

AggregatesAluminumAntimony

BauxiteBentonite

CementChromium

ClaysCobalt

CopperDimensional stone

FluorsparGallium

GermaniumGold

GraphiteIndium

Iron and SteelIron Ore

Iron Oxide PigmentsLead

LithiumMagnesite / Dolomite

MagnesiumManganese

NickelNiobium

Ornamental stonePeat

PerlitePGMs

Phosphate RockPlatinum

Rare EarthsRhenium

SaltSand and Gravel

SeleniumSiliconSilverSulfur

TantalumTelluriumThorium

TinTitaniumTungsten

WollastoniteYttrium

ZincZirconium

Figure 4 Materials targeted by submitted pilot suggestions

Contributions from processing and recycling are higher than from the other sectors. Proposed activities on materials like rare earth elements, zinc, indium, PGMs, tin, silver, cobalt and graphite are almost exclusively in the areas of recycling and/or processing. Materials like copper, aggregates, iron ore and tungsten have a higher contribution in the proposals in mining related activities (exploration and exploitation).

69 Respondents indicate that according to their estimate the pilot plant supports the increase of the availability of the targeted raw material. Only 14 Pilots stated they would not lead to an increase of raw materials availability.

Besides these a-biotic materials, 10 pilots dealt with paper, plastics and bio-based materials.


23

Table 3 Activities related to materials most often mentioned

Exploration Exploitation Processing & Refinement

recycling Substitution Total

Copper 4 3 6 6 19Rare Earths 8 8 2 18Zinc 1 7 3 11Aggregates 3 3 2 1 9Indium 1 4 3 1 9PGMs 1 4 2 1 8Tin 1 4 3 8Gold 2 3 2 7Cobalt 1 1 4 6Iron Ore 2 2 1 1 6Silver 3 3 6Iron and Steel 4 2 6Graphite 2 1 2 5Tungsten 2 1 2 5

2.2.4 Economic aspects of pilots: CAPEX , OPEX, cost price The costs and benefits of any industrial activity are related to the capital expenditure (CAPEX) and operational expenditure (OPEX). Although not always readily available, a decent estimate was conceived to be an indication of the maturity of the idea.

76 Participants gave an estimate of the CAPEX of the proposed pilot. The spread of estimated investments over the pilots is shown in Figure 5.

Figure 5 CAPEX estimates for 64 pilots


24

38 Participants provided OPEX data, expressed in EUR/ton processed material. An additional 7 participants expressed the OPEX in absolute figure (EUR per year). In only 33 cases, both CAPEX and OPEX information was available, enabling a cautious estimate of the resulting cost-price of material.

2.2.5 Environmental dimension: how to deal with insufficient information? Little (quantitative) information was provided about the environmental footprint of the suggested pilots. Information on factual parameters is presented in less than 25% for energy and water and in about 10% of the pilots for emissions. An overview of the level of useful answers is given in Figure 6.

Figure 6 Share of useful replies on each environmental parameter

Although reduction of environmental footprint has not been the main priority of the pilots in this phase 13 pilots suggest that decreasing the environmental footprint was the primary incentive for the pilot.

A full and quantitative environmental profile could not be reached in this phase because of data lacking. Still, enough information was available on 70 pilots to make a qualitative analysis of the environmental aspects. A comparison with state of the art technologies is the basis for this crude assessment. To do this, analysis of the questionnaires provided an indicator of the difference between the pilot plant and state-of-the-art for each of the environmental parameters. A qualitative measure was given according to the following logic: Worse than state of the art Better than state of the art Difference w.r.t. state of the art

<100% 80% 60% 40% 20% No difference Or unknown

20% 40% 60% 80% >100%

Indicator ----- ---- --- -- - 0 + ++ +++ ++++ +++++ Pilots were either compared to the environmental profile of already existing methods in case the pilots were designed to improve either extraction efficiency, to improve the processing techniques or to alter any other part of the process between exploration and product. In case plants proposed a new approach, such as processing a waste stream from state of the art mining operations or creating a useful product out of previous unprocessed waste, they were compared to the state of


25

the art of production of the recovered raw material. Benchmarking data were either retrieved from literature5 or from expert judgment. The results of the analysis are shown in Table 4. Table 4 Environmental aspects of pilot plants

energy use

water use

Emissions to air

emission to water

emission to soil

Hazardous waste streams

Ecological footprint

----- 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ---- 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 --- 5 0 1 0 0 1 0 -- 14 6 1 3 0 0 0 - 9 6 2 3 2 4 1 0 16 33 19 26 29 46 17 + 10 12 15 7 10 8 14 ++ 8 10 17 11 10 2 12 +++ 6 3 9 10 8 3 13 ++++ 1 0 7 11 11 6 9 +++++ 1 0 0 0 1 1 3 The results are preliminary, represent an educated guess and may be biased by the proposers (‘no harmful substances will be released into the environment’), or by the absence of emissions data (the majority of the respondents failed to report or mention green house gas emissions). The results show a fairly consistent distribution, with the following characteristics:

- The high number of ‘0’ values, is based on the absence of information rather than on the assumption of “no change occurs”;

- Most of the ‘+’ values relate to soil and water emissions when pilots focus on extracting raw materials from waste or waste products, thereby preventing emissions to soil and water and in sometimes to air. For the same reason, some pilot plants show a positive score on the overall ecological footprint (i.e. an ecological footprint reduction) and hazardous waste streams.

Overall, a preliminary conclusion is that the general direction of the proposed pilots is towards an improvement in the environmental performance compared to state of the art.

2.2.6 The impact on relevant challenges The questionnaire prompted the participants to indicate the main challenges addressed by the suggested pilot action. The results are shown in Figure 7. The most frequently addressed challenges relate to “increased efficiency in raw materials processing” and “increased recycling of critical and essential raw materials”. The large number of pilots addressing increased efficiency in raw materials processing makes it worthwhile to look in more detail at the more specific benefits addressed by the pilots (Figure 8).

5 National Resources Canada (2005), Benchmarking the Energy Consumption of Canadian Open-Pit Mines


26

Figure 7 Main challenges addressed by the pilots

Figure 8 Specific challenges w.r.t. Processing

Figure 8 demonstrates that ecological aspects of the pilots such as reduced use of water, chemicals and/or energy and a reduction in emissions, are considered highly relevant. Despite this fact, the level of detail on environmentally relevant data is low in the pilot descriptions themselves.

2.2.7 Technological maturity and intellectual property The scope of the current study is to aim at innovative technologies and pilot actions that may deliver their results by 2020, after which commercial scale-up may take place. Therefore, the questionnaire asked the participants to give an indication of the technological maturity of the proposed pilot, in


27

the form of an indication of the so-called Technology Readiness Level (TRL)6. An extensive description of the meaning of the various TRL’s is given in Annex 4 Technology Readiness Level (TRL) definitions and descriptions.

85 participants provided a Technology Readiness Level for the pilot suggestions at the start of the pilot phase. The distribution is given in Figure 9.

0

5

10

15

20

25

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

(num

ber)

TRL at current pilot status

Figure 9 TRL at current pilot status

The following table shows the distribution of the initial TRL values among the various sectors .

Table 5 TRL current pilot status per sector

Initial TRL Exploitation Exploration Processing Recycling Substitution

1 1 1 2 1 1 1 4 1 3 2 2 10 6 1 4 2 1 4 2 5 2 7 2 1 6 1 1 2 5 7 1 5 4 1 8 1 2 3 9 2 2

The highest TRL can be observed for processing and recycling activities. Figure 10 shows the TRL level at the time of completion of the pilot.

6 Technology Readiness Levels were originally developed by NASA in the 1980s


28

Figure 10 TRL at completion of the pilot

Resulting in an expected increase in TRL as given in Figure 11.

02468

1012141618

0 1 2 3 4 5 6increase in TRL by pilot

Figure 11 Supposed increase of TRL by pilot

11 Participants estimate the proposed pilot does not contribute to mature their process (increase is ‘0’).

Plotting the TRL at the start of the project against the expected increase in TRL that results in the following graph.


29

01

23

45

6

0

5

10

12

34

56

78

9increase TRL expected

TRL at the start

Figure 12 Relation between initial TRL and supposed TRL increase

A number of pilots at TRL3, do not foresee any increase in maturity as a result of the pilot process (increase is ‘0’). On the contrary, some processes with starting TRL 2, 3 and 4 demonstrate more ambitious and optimistic expectations with TRL-increases of up to 5 and 6.

According to the participants to the questionnaire, the majority of the pilots will have a lead time of about 2 to 3 years, which is in line with the time frame of 2015 to 2020 for the planned pilot activity (Figure 13).

If the start of the pilots is scheduled for 2015 one would expect that protection of intellectual property has been initiated by the submitting parties. Therefore the questionnaire asked for state of protection of intellectual property associated with the pilot. Out of 86 participants answering this question, 33 indicated IPR (Intellectual Property Right) to be in place, 16 indicated that actions were on-going, while 37 participants have no protection installed or even planned. In conclusion, less than half of the considered pilot activities are protected by patents which may be related to an early stage (TRL<4) development.


30

0

5

10

15

20

25

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10lead time for pilot (yrs)

Figure 13 Proposed lead time for pilot start

2.3 Identifying pilot areas This study provided a mapping of pilots through a bottom-up procedure using the web-based questionnaire. Undoubtedly this procedure leaves gaps in the landscape of potential pilots (a gap analysis of the existing set of pilots will be given in section 2.5). Furthermore, the preliminary nature of the pilot collection leads to information on pilot suggestions that is in many cases limited or coarse. Therefore, a discussion on the merits of individual pilot suggestions is neither possible nor relevant at this stage. A selection or prioritization on the level of individual pilots is therefore not given at this stage.

The pilot suggestions however represent the focal areas of the stakeholders involved in the field of raw materials in Europe. It was therefore decided to cluster individual pilots into pilot areas. Although the underlying pilots are considered important and relevant by the participating stakeholders, these pilot areas do not necessarily constitute the most economically beneficial, environmentally benign or the most innovative.

These ‘pilot areas’ are introduced in the following sections and will be described in more detail in chapter 3 and in Annex 9.


31

2.3.1 Exploration and exploitation 17 Pilots were submitted related to exploration and exploitation.

These pilots cover a relatively wide area of the value chain of exploration and exploitation as is schematically represented by the following scheme.

LOGISTICSDATA COLLECTION DATA ANALYSIS FRAGMENTATION LOADING/HAULING SUPPORT PROCESSES HSE, Other

ABCDEFGHIJK

PilotMININGPROSPECTION / EXPLORATION

Figure 14Mining value chain and relation to pilots

2 pilot areas have been identified:

- Deep sea exploration and exploitation , aimed at development of new technologies for the exploration of the sea bed deposits and their exploitation

- Deep Underground exploration and exploitation, aimed at development of new technologies for the exploitation of deep underground deposits

2 pilots primarily aimed at sustainability, efficiency improvement, safety and health aspects are seen as enabling pilots and are considered integral part of the pilot area deep underground exploration and exploitation.

The economic aspects of these pilot suggestions are currently difficult to assess. Participants clearly stated that either the pilot was in an early stage of development (a relatively low TRL), or that the financial estimates or additional production volume asked by the questionnaire were not applicable at this stage of exploration or exploitation.

2.3.2 Recycling and Processing 90 Pilot suggestions were submitted related to processing and recycling. Since recycling technology in many cases is strongly related to (complex) metallurgy and processing technology, pilot suggestions from both sectors are discussed in this section.

Some clusters of pilots can be distinguished on the basis of both quantitative arguments (a relatively high amount of pilots) and qualitative arguments (a strong overlap in targets of the proposed activities). The following pilot areas were identified:

- Treatment of Mining and Processing Waste and Low Grade and Complex Ores • Pilots address processing technologies for the extraction and recovery of minerals

from mine tailings and low grade ores


32

• 21 pilots fall under this category; the technology readiness of 12 pilots is at or below 5 at the start of the pilot phase, whereas 7 pilots have a maturity between TRL 6 and 8. 4 pilots require less than 2 million euro, 4 pilots between 2 and 10 million, and 5 pilots require a CAPEX of between 10 and 25 million euro.

- Recycling of Industrial manufacturing wastes and End-of-life waste • 14 Pilots relate to activities along the whole value chain and aim to achieve

improved recovery of materials from complex matrices, especially from end-of-life products

• Of these pilots 7 indicate a starting TRL between 6 and 7; 6 pilots have a TRL at start at or below 5. Of these pilots only 6 pilots give an indication of the required CAPEX: 4 pilots indicate an investment of between 5 and 20 million euro, 2 pilots require more than 50 million euro.

- Metallurgy processes • Pilots aimed at technologies oriented to sustain the highly qualified European central

role in metallurgy, focussing on both pyro-metallurgy and hydrometallurgy • 22 pilots fall in this area: they range from an initial TRL-value of 3 to 7 and most

pilots expect to reach TRL 9 at the end of the pilot; the indicated CAPEX for the pilot have a broad range: 5 pilots would require less than2 million euro, 6 pilots require between 2 and 20 million euro, and 2 claim more than 50 million euro.

- Processing of industrial minerals with improved processing efficiency • Pilots aimed at improving the environmental impact of technologies for mining and

processing of minerals • Pilots for which flexibility and multi-functionality are an important asset; these

plants are able to treat variable input streams and produce materials with a wide variety of particle sizes and by-products

• The pilot area comprises 5 pilot plant proposals, of which 3 have a TRL at start below 5; the required CAPEX for all pilots lies between 10 and 25 million euro.

- Processing of Aggregates / Dimensional stone with improved efficiency • Pilots aimed at improving processing efficiency for the mining and processing of

dimensional stones and aggregates • Pilots focussing on improved flexibility to cope with different materials • The pilot area comprises 5 pilots, of which 4 have a TRL up to 5; CAPEX values are

only given for 3 pilots and range from below 1 million euro to more than 40 million euro.

Some of these pilot areas are interrelated. For instance, the recovery of Rare Earth Elements is proposed from both End-of-life products (magnets, e-waste, fluorescent lamps) as from mining and processing waste and ores. Similarly, for elements from the platinum group metals (PGMs) recovery is advocated from mining and metallurgical wastes as well as from automotive catalysts. Recovery of zinc, lead and copper is the target of pilots aimed at differing sources like low-grade polymetallic sulphide ores, e-wastes, industrial and chemical processing wastes and ash from waste to energy plants and dust from scrap melting. Furthermore, it is clear that a pilot area grouping all initiatives related to metallurgy processes is strongly related to some of the other areas, though it deserves separate attention.


33

2.3.3 Substitution In the area of substitution, 6 pilots were submitted separating into two types/clusters:

- Application-led substitution • replacing the use of a specific material in a specific market application; for these

pilots, there is a need for a significant market(s) to justify a pilot • Four submitted pilots fell under this cluster; two in the technology area of

permanent magnets and two addressing electrodes. Three of the proposed pilots had a TRL in the range 1-3, with one proposal at a higher TRL level of 7. CAPEX required for the proposed pilots ranged from €1.5-5 M.

- Material-led substitution • Developing novel materials with properties that enable replacement of various

materials in various applications; these pilots need to make new material available at sufficient scale and the right cost.

• Only two submissions suggested a pilot for an innovative material. TRLs of the proposed pilots were 2 and 5 and the CAPEX required was in the range €3-12M.

Substitution is an extremely wide area. The modest number of pilot suggestion entered through the procedure followed in this study is not representative of the vast potential of this area. Upon speaking to participants, it became obvious that an assessment of the value of the pilots related to substitution required an approach distinctly different from assessment of pilots related to the other identified sectors. These differences are related to the niche character of each pilot, the impact on a complex value chain and the difficulty of pinpointing the definition of ‘pilot’ related to the development of a new material or application. The distinctly different nature of the area of substitution will be dealt with in detail when the definition of criteria is discussed (see section 4.9). A thorough exercise aimed at establishing innovative and creative networks around the topic of substitution will be carried out under the flag of the Coordination and Support Action (CSA) CRM_InnoNet, which runs under the 7th Framework program. This program runs from November 2012 until 2015 under the coordination of CIKTN. However, the observations made in the framework of this study may provide guidance for studies more directly aimed at substitution innovations.

2.3.4 Pilots on the renewable materials paper and wood Though the vast majority of the suggested pilots is related to the minerals value chain, 6 pilots were directly related to wood, paper and its fibres. Without exception these pilots were dealing with activities on recycling of renewable materials. More specifically the pilots focused on energy and materials efficient upgrading of waste to feedstock, creating added value with currently unused waste material and retrieving valuable non-renewable material from waste streams. Because of this focus, the pilot area selected for further analysis is Resource Efficient Paper Recycling Processes. 3 pilots start at a TRL below 5, 3 have a TRL of 8. The required investment for a pilot plant ranges from 15 to 30 million euro.


34

2.4 Results from the Challenges questionnaire 130 Stakeholders have submitted their ideas on challenges and (environmental and societal) threats through the challenges questionnaire. The following questions were asked:

- What challenges would your organisation like to see addressed by the activities of the EIP-RM?

- What environmental aspects related to the value-chain of raw materials (Exploration, Extraction, Processing, Recycling, Substitution) should receive attention?;

- What social and labor aspects could be affected due to the implementation of technologies associated to raw materials in the different phases of the RM value-chain (Exploration, Extraction, Processing, Recycling, Substitution)?;

- Followed by an open question for additional remarks.

Figure 16 Distribution of participants for the challenges questionnaire

The challenges questionnaire obviously appealed to different group of stakeholders, with more government related (19% vs. 4% in the pilots questionnaire), academic (41% vs. 18%) and associations (20% vs. 7%) responding to the challenges questionnaire than to the technical questionnaire.

The country coverage of respondents is presented in Figure 17. There is a higher proportion of European associations and institutes (17%) in the challenges questionnaire than in the technical questionnaire (4%).


35

Figure 17 Distribution of countries participating in the challenges questionnaire

There is a remarkable similarity between the two questionnaires when one compares the challenges that the participants would like to see addressed (see Table 6 ).

Table 6 Comparison identified challenges in both questionnaires

Answers in Challenges questionnaire (%)

Answers in technical questionnaire (%)

Increased efficiency in RM processing 32 38 Increased recycling of critical and essential RM 20 28 Increased knowledge of the EU resource base 18 7 Reduce criticality through substitution 8 5 Deep mining 15 8 Other 7 14

Besides the proposed challenges, several additional challenges were brought forward to be addressed by raw materials related pilots. These were:

- Overcome hurdles for mining, but taking into account consequences for local communities, - Increase sustainability of mining, - Reduce criticality through resource use limitation, - Avoid oligopoly in the minerals industry, export limitations or unfair trade conditions.

These additional challenges provide information about the worries of the stakeholder community. When asked what environmental aspects should receive attention, the top-5 priorities of the respondents were water availability and quality (22 responses; more than half of these are concerned with pollution and lack of treatment), lack of waste processing and recycling (14


36

respondents, 75% concerned with treatment of mine wastes), emissions (12 respondents; half of the responses relate to emissions to air, i.e. dust) and lack of access to land (7 respondents).

A total of 152 responses were received on the question what social and labor aspects could be affected due to the implementation of RM-related technologies. About half of the responses are related to socio-economic aspects and about 40% of the responses were related to reducing impacts on labor and on the environment. Most of the worries and threats originated from the area of the extractive industries. This is remarkable since this part of the value chain is not very well represented among the pilot plant suggestions.

Figure 18 shows the distribution of answers related to the socio-economic aspects and Figure 19 for the answers related to reducing impacts.

Figure 18 Distribution of responses related to socio-economic aspects


37

Figure 19 Distribution of responses related to improving conditions

2.5 Gap analysis The analyses of the pilots and pilot areas leads to identification of a number of gaps that exist within the current set of collected pilot plant suggestions:

I. Missing parts of the value chain: Comminution: Only one pilot is directly connected to comminution process, which is surprising since comminution is an energy-intensive process and consumes around 50% of the total energy used in mining and requires high capital cost. Moreover, there is currently a tendency for the raw materials extracted from primary sources to be more finely structured and more complex, and to an increasing extent the value minerals are only present in low to very low concentrations. As a result, fine to very fine grain sizes are increasingly becoming the norm during the mineral processing stage. The need to handle finer particle systems will further increase energy demand, which will affect both the cost and the carbon footprint of the various processes involved. Thus, energy-efficient process designs will have to be developed and introduced to counteract this trend. Key issues concerning comminution may include development of equipment and resistant materials, monitoring and process control, processes to prevent ultrafine waste

II. Missing parts of the value chain: Equipment suppliers: Not all potential stakeholders are currently represented in the pilots. More specifically, hardly any suppliers of equipment and consumables are represented among the participants who entered pilots, although they represent a strong industrial sector for Europe. This absence counts for the whole value chain from mining, to processing (e.g. in the field of equipment for gravity and magnetic separation in order to separate more complex ores) and recycling industry. A consequence of this gap is the low number of suggestions aimed at automation and human-machine interfaces.


38

III. Apparent lack of substitution pilots: Gap analyses were not performed for the substitution clusters due to the lower number of pilot proposals received. Substitution itself can therefore be considered a gap in its own right. The lack of submissions represents an issue that the European Commission has already identified, in that the substitution research area is fragmented and there are no industry organisations or professional bodies dedicated to representing substitution, leading to poor levels of engagements with projects such as this. To address this known issue, the European Commission has funded the Coordination and Support Action Critical Raw Materials Innovation Network (CRM_InnoNet). CRM_InnoNet will provide detailed mapping of substitution-related technologies, create a coherent community focussed on substitution and a roadmap and policy recommendations for substitution. The intervention of CRM_InnoNet is expected to reveal the potential for technological innovation and improvements in materials availability possible through substitution at a much higher level of detail than was possible in this study.

IV. Raw Materials addressed: With respect to the raw materials addressed, almost all critical materials that were identified by the Raw Materials Initiative (with the exception of beryllium) are covered by at least one pilot activity.

V. Another analysis can be made by comparing European mineral raw materials positions with the available pilots. One would expect that pilots would have been suggested for fields of significant importance to the European raw materials industry. From the raw materials fact sheets, prepared in the framework of this project, an overview can be made of the sizeable EU-27 stance on mining, primary raw materials processing and refinery on all materials considered in this study. This overview is given in Table 7. In this table these stances are compared with the numbers of suggested pilots related to these materials.


39

Table 7 European stance on selected raw materials in comparison with numbers of suggested pilots

Raw Material EU27 Activity

EU27 Share (%)

# Proposed Pilots

In Europe of Europe compared to world

Expl

orat

oin

Expl

oita

tion

Proc

essin

g

Recy

clin

g

Aluminum Primary Proc. 5,8 1 3 Bauxite Mine 1,1 2 Bentonite Mine 16,3 1 1 Chromium Mine 1,6 1

Mine 0,1 Cobalt

Refinery 16,2

1 5

Mine 4,9 Primary Proc. 13,8 Copper Refinery 14,3

7 6 6

Diatomite Mine 22,3 5 Feldspar Mine 43,1 5 Fluorspar Mine 3,8 1 Gallium Primary Proc. 5,7 1 1 2 Gold Mine 0,9 2 3 2 Graphite Mine 0,9 3 2 Gypsum Mine 15,6 Indium Refinery 9,6 1 4 4 Iron Ores Mine 1 2 2 6 2

Mine 4,5 Lead

Refinery 16,5

3 1

Kaolin Mine 31,9 5 Lithium Mine 9,2 3 Magnesite Mine 12,4 1 2

Mine 2,2 Nickel Primary Proc. /

Refinery 7,3

3 1

Perlite Mine 29,2 1 Rhenium Mine 11,1 1 Silver Mine 7,2 3 3 Tungsten Mine 3,1 2 1 2 Wollastonite Mine 3,7 1

Mine 6,2 Zinc

Primary Proc. 15,7 1

7 3

Most materials that are either mined or processed in Europe in a significant proportion, are represented by a number of pilots. Some noticeable exceptions are lithium, magnesite, aluminium (processing): Europe has a rather important world market share, though these materials are hardly specifically targeted by suggested pilots.


40

The absence of pilots on aluminium processing may be related to regulatory pressure and the integral price level of energy consumption, which have made it unattractive to put any new production into Europe.

Magnesite is mined in Europe and whilst it was under severe pressures in the past from dumping, it is doing reasonably well at the moment. The market for magnesite products is highly competitive. The companies all do research in-house and therefore do not want to work in a publicly funded project.

VI. Recycling of construction materials: no pilot was proposed in the field of recycling of construction and demolition wastes. This result is surprising knowing that by 2020, 70% by weight of EU non-hazardous construction and demolition waste will have to be reused or recycled (Waste Framework Directive (2008/98/EC). It is also important to note that 380 million tons of construction and demolition waste are produced in the EU, representing more than 30% of total EU waste. At the EU level, examples of R&D can be found such as the FP7-project IRCOW (http://www.ircow.eu/) . The project is aimed at Best Available technologies (BATs) and practices in management of construction and demolition waste, that in principle may lead to pilots. The technical challenges that needs to be addressed in this field can be listed as follows:

a. Improvement of sorting technologies on site (to avoid treating mixed wastes flows downstream)

b. Improvement of comminution technologies for concrete recycling (for both energy saving and better quality recycling – up-cycling)

c. Management of pollution.

VII. The questionnaire delivered a limited response related to wood and paper (fibres in general) with only 8% of the total response. This low response will not be representative of a lack of innovative potential in these areas, but could be the result of the interpretation with possible stakeholders of the term raw materials. The wood industry was more deeply involved in putting forward ideas and suggestions in the challenges questionnaire. These inputs stressed the need for research and development in the field of sustainability and waste management and more intensified recycling. The inputs also indicated the pivotal role of the wood-based industry in a transition towards a bio-based economy, supportive of phasing out fossil-fuel-based products. Resource issues seem to be influenced by the (subsidized) use of wood in the renewable energy sector.

VIII. No pilot suggestions were obtained from the rubber industry. Again, this does not imply the absence of innovative pilot ideas, but seems to indicate that the search was interpreted as a search for minerals related pilot suggestions. From the participation of representatives of the rubber industry, it can be concluded that the industry is indeed involved.

IX. Missing major players: Furthermore, it was noticed that some major EU players in the business did not participate in submitting pilot proposals (though they were invited to through professional associations), but were indeed active during the workshop event. Communication with some of the participants provided the following reasons for this absence:


41

a. the current economic crisis and the lack of capacity to deal with this exercise;

b. lack of time and capacity to submit a proposal in the time given;

c. concerns about confidentiality of even the area in which they would wish to conduct the pilot exercise

d. preferred choice to seek funding at national level due to the cumbersome procedures at EU level.

2.6 Conclusions The web-based questionnaire has led to a very valuable overview of the innovation directions as suggested by relevant stakeholders from the European raw materials field.

Pilot descriptions were often rather detailed. Therefore, it can be expected that a thorough analysis of the economic aspects is possible for most pilots, although concrete, quantitative data were lacking at this point. The exception is the field of exploration and (to a minor extent) exploitation, where much of the input required for assessment on costs and benefits cannot be retrieved on the basis of the input obtained.

Data on the environmental data is rather limited with the current set of pilots. However, there is no fundamental barrier why participants would not be capable of providing information on the environmental footprint once a stakeholder decides to enter into an investment phase of a proposed pilot action.

Many relatively mature pilot suggestions were put forward, showing that the general scope seemed to be well understood and accepted. The areas of exploration and exploitation and substitution showed more pilots in their early stages of development.

Many overlapping pilots were observed in the field of processing and recycling.

The area of substitution was represented by a few pilots that required a different treatment than pilots from the other areas.

The responses to the challenges questionnaires indicate that socio-economic aspects (social, health and safety) are considered an important aspect of pilot activities in the field of raw materials.


42

3 Pilot areas: a closer look

Chapter 2 extensively discussed the general overview of the pilots that were collected through the web-based questionnaire. Though a more detailed description or prioritization of individual pilots is neither feasible nor appropriate at this stage, a number of pilot areas was identified (see section 2.3) that were at the focus of many stakeholders that suggested pilots.

These pilot areas are briefly summarized in the table below.

Table 8 Pilot areas

The role of these pilot areas in addressing societal trends and needs is described in section 3.1 and 3.2. Subsequent sections describe in more detail some characteristics of these pilot areas and identifies barriers and drivers for innovation in these areas.

Pilot Areas Pilot Areas Description Deep sea Exploration / Exploitation Development of new technologies for the exploration

of the sea bed deposits and their exploitation Deep underground Exploration / Exploitation

Development of new technologies for the exploration of deep underground deposits and their exploitation

Processing of aggregates and dimensional stone with improved processing efficiency

Technologies for the mining and processing of dimensional stones and aggregates

Processing of industrial minerals with improved processing efficiency

Technologies for mining and processing of minerals with reduced environmental impact

Treatment of mining and processing waste and of low grade and complex ores

Processing technologies for the extraction and recovery of minerals from tailings – low grade ores

Recycling of Industrial manufacturing wastes and End-of-life waste

Technologies along the whole value chain aimed at achieving improved recovery of materials from complex matrices

Metallurgy processes Technologies oriented to sustain the European central role in metallurgy, as pyrometallurgy or hydrometallurgy

Resource Efficient Paper Recycling Processes

Technologies for improved efficiency in processing and recycling of cellulose materials, and adding value to production waste

Application-led substitution The activity is focussed on the on replacing the use of a material in a specific market application, with a new material, technology or service

Material-led substitution A novel material is developed with properties that enable replacement of material(s) in various end applications


43

3.1 Trends related to raw materials A shortlist of societal and technological trends that are expected to have an impact on the future demand and supply situation for raw materials was created based on the analysis of various literature sources dealing with foresighting and strategic research agendas of a number of relevant European Technology platforms (see Annex 5).

For the five core areas of this project (exploration, exploitation, processing, recycling and substitution) the relevant trends that influence the research direction in these areas are presented in Table 9.

Table 9 Trends for each of the core areas

Expl

orat

ion

Expl

oita

tion

Proc

essi

ng

Recy

clin

g

Subs

titut

ion

Growth of mineral demand x x x x x

New (energy) technology requires more, new materials x x x x x

Waste-energy-water management (shortage of water/using less water and less impact on water)

x x x x

Soil Erosion and Desertification x

Human machine interface/Automation x x x x

CO2 emissions reduction x x x

Improved Manufacturing Processes x x x x

Recycling waste x x

Substituting harmful ingredients x

Many of the studied research agendas (for example those of Photovoltaics, ENIAC, ESTP, ERTRAC, ARTEMIS, Photonics) describe the need for the development of new technologies, with the implicit need for new materials, but do not explicitly describe issues related to the need for additional or alternative raw materials. A few other research roadmaps address more explicitly issues related to raw materials supply, notably from organisations like ETP-SMR, ESTEP, Water-ETP, Waterborne (2011), ERTRAC, ETP-SusChem, Photovoltaics and Photonics (both in relation to recycling), ESTTP-Solar and ECTP.

3.2 Trajectories A brief analysis of trajectories provides a means to assess whether the trends and challenges are met by the solutions offered by the selected pilot areas. A group of trajectories in the same area provides


44

a rough and basic framework for sector-specific roadmaps; the following information is provided in a trajectory:

- the trends that were identified by studying foresighting documents and in a set of Strategic Research Agendas of relevant ETP’s, while focussing on their relation with raw materials;

- the most relevant challenges identified by analysing the answers from the web-based questionnaire;

- the pilot areas that address these raw materials issues.

The groups of trajectories for five core areas in the field of raw materials (exploration, mining, processing, recycling, substitution) are shown in the graphics below. In these graphics, the different trends in research and development (grey boxes), the challenges to be overcome by identified pilot areas (blue boxes) and the pilot areas capable of addressing these challenges (white boxes) are shown.


45


46


47

The graphical representations of the trajectories reveal that most of the trends and research ambitions derived from the various underlying documents are well covered by the pilot suggestions put forward by stakeholders, and thus by the selected pilot areas.

3.3 Analyzing the pilot areas The pilot areas, selected in section 2.3, were selected on the basis of ‘numerical’ considerations: the areas represent focal areas among the pilot plant proposals put forward during the web-based questionnaire. A more thorough description of the pilot areas can be found in Annex 9.

Besides representing a large group of proposals, they also represent a relevant group of suggestions, since they address almost all of the future trends that were identified and described in the previous section (section 3.2).

Together with the technological and economic merits of a pilot area, the success of a pilot (area) also depends on a variety of additional influences. In order to analyse these in a structured manner both an innovation system analysis (ISA) and a related SWOT (strength, weakness, opportunities, threats) analysis was carried out by the project consortium. A short explanation of the ISA-methodology followed for the identification and quantification of these drivers and barriers is given in Annex 10. Whilst linked methodologies, the innovation system analysis follows a top-down procedure, addressing a similar set of arguments for all pilot areas, whereas the SWOT-analysis follows a bottom-up procedure, prioritizing the top arguments in each of its four categories. The overall results of the innovation system analysis are shown in this section; annex 9 also provides the detailed underlying data that lead to the analysis of the main barriers and drivers for innovation.


48

The drivers and barriers are given for a number of categories: Capacities and capabilities(the internal capacities of the area), Technology implementation (additional technological factors that influence implementation such as additional required R&D, or infrastructure), Network characteristics, Market prospects (related to the structure of the market and competition and its predictability), Regulation and politics (related to the impact of regulations and policies) and social support (support by end-users or advocacy coalitions). A ‘score’ above zero indicates that the category represents a driver for the innovation in the pilot area, a score below zero indicates potential barriers to the implementation of the innovation.

3.3.1 Deep underground exploration and exploitation

The barriers and drivers for innovation are represented by the plot below.

Most of the categories show an average score around zero, indicating that none of these categories represents a strong barrier nor a driver for this area. The network quality is considered to be rather strong, thereby stimulating the direction of research and innovation. The capacities and capabilities of the area are considered a small driver (+0,5) and can be improved when the worries about the lack of (future) skilled labour is addressed. The social support is considered a (small) barrier, caused by the consideration that mining operations may always cause resistance caused by environmental worries; this worry is related to the uncertainty about potential regulation, that has a negative effect on the category ‘regulation and politics’.


49

An overview of strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats (SWOT) for this pilot area is presented below.

Strength

• S1: Presence of high-tech industries within the EU (transfer of knowledge from other industries e.g. the oil/gas industry to the mining industry

• S2: Technological R&D capacities of EU • S3: Track record for underground mining 7

(involved big mining houses are headquartered in the EU)

• S4: World-class geological competences in several EU geological surveys

Weakness

• W1: OPEX and CAPEX are significantly higher than for surface or shallow underground mining

• W2: Lack of appropriate skilled workforce (Engineers but also workers)

• W3: Safety issues • W4: Weak geological database in many EU

areas due to insufficient public investment in data acquisition (geophysics, deep drill-hole, geochemistry partly too old did not look at rare metals)

Opportunities

• O1: Need and attention for development of domestic raw materials sources

• O2: Transfer of knowledge from other companies and countries who are leaders in that area like the advanced mining countries, South Africa, Canada etc.

Threats

• T1: Social acceptance (regarding environmental impacts and safety risks related to the harsh working environment)

• T2: Access to capital and land • T3: Competition with (cheaper)

conventional mining operations • T4: A lot of know-how is developed in other

parts of the world (often not accessible to EU companies)

Both the presence of Big Mining Houses in the EU (S3) and the competent geological surveys (S4) should cooperate to counter the observed weakness in the knowledge of the geological database (W4). These strengths could also drive the knowledge transfer (O2) and additional R&D needed for this cluster. That will help to bring the EU to the state of the art level quickly and to move on beyond that.

The Highly Innovative Technological Industry and Technological R&D capacities (S1 and S2) can –by further development of e.g. remote controlled equipment, robots- have a significant effect on risk mitigation and consequently on the risks for working with these environments, which will increase social acceptance of these activities (T1). This may help to improve one of the main barriers coming from the ISA.

Strong parties are present in Europe (S1, S2, S3) and are capable of working with the knowledge of parties from outside mining companies (O2), although this is also seen as a threat (T4). The EU may

7 Europe has already several operating deep underground mines, such as Pyhäsalmi (Finland, - 1,440 m.),Kiruna (-1,365 m, in development), Renström (Sweden, - 1,330 m.), Kristineberg (-1,250 m.), Zinkgruvan (Sweden, 1,130 m.) , the Polish Kupfershiefer district mined by KGHM (-1100 to -1200 m depth, possibly the world largest deep chambers and pillars base metals operation). In Portugal a shaft may be sunk in the coming years down to -1200 m at the Neves Corvo mine


50

play an active role here in establishing a solid base for cooperation between the EU-27 and partner countries.

3.3.2 Deep sea exploration / exploitation The barriers and drivers for innovation are represented by the plot below:

Most of the categories display a score below zero, indicating that the pilot area ‘deep sea exploration and exploitation’ faces significant barrier for its successful deployment. It is acknowledged however that the capabilities of the area are well positioned, partly based on Europe’s excellent track record in (other forms of ) off-shore industry, partly because of excellent scientific activities in the deep sea. Much additional research work needs to be done, the market for deep sea minerals needs to compete on a world market with resources from conventional origin, regulation for exploitation is not in place, and the potential impact (and the lack of knowledge on that topic in particular) on the deep sea environment hampers broader acceptance. A stable market and stable policy measures would be required besides support for both technological and environmental research.


Strength

• S1: High technological sector, driver for others; World class technology and equipment provider

• S2: Access to new resources under EU control (European EEZ is about 22M km2 and is the first in the world)

• S3: Large volumes (nodules) 0f High grades mineralization (sulfides)

• S4: High level EU scientific knowledge in the deep sea.

Weakness

• W1: No real economic case for deep-sea metallic resources mining yet.

• W2: High cost of R&D and implementation in real market

• W3: Environmental long-term impacts not known sufficiently yet (great variations depending on the type of mineralization)

• W4: Lack of EU exploration strategy at the world ocean scale (especially for inactive seafloor massive sulfides deposits)


51

Opportunities

• O1: Technology transfer opportunities • O2: Need for RM : more attention, more

investments opportunities • O3: Diversify EU metals supply chain • O4: Increasing RM prices • O5: Five EU exploration licences already

exist in international waters (nodules and seafloor massive sulfides)

• O6: Increasing scientific knowledge

Threats

• T1:Limited numbers of permissions • T2: Environmental issues (tailing disposal,

disruption of partly known ecosystem) may be a major obstacle to deep-sea mining: no ISBA regulation for exploitation yet

• T3: Investments are low (crisis) vs raw material market

• T4: Geopolitical issues / Active position of China, Japan, South Korea, India, Brazil

• T5: Potential global economic impact of known objects is low (Solwara, Atlantis)

Obviously, similar observations are made here. Besides the excellent knowledge level, an additional strength of the area is the access to resource rich (deep) sea areas in the exclusive economic zone, for which international regulation under the International Seabed Authority does not apply. The strengths predominantly lie in the perceived need for raw materials and the strategic value of diversifying Europe’s supply chain. Generally it can be said that the strengths of the European industry and research arena can overcome the weaknesses and threats only by establishing environmentally benign processes, and focus on the cost aspects of the complete required infrastructure to withstand competition with conventional sources.

3.3.3 Processing industrial minerals with improved processing efficiency The barriers and drivers for innovation are represented by the plot below.

The drivers for innovation in this area lie in the social support ( provided that eco-friendly innovations are implemented) and the strong capacities and capabilities. European companies in this field have a very strong position and may use their strength to innovate and be competitive towards non-EU suppliers, provided that the network formation and the convergence of the activities takes place. The category Technology Implementation is relatively weak because of the need for additional (applied) research and a perceived weakness with respect to the IPR (Intellectual Property


52

Rights) . The market prospects do not constitute a driver, and may still be biased by the notion that the fierce competition in this field (and the strong position of EU-companies) leads to the need for innovation. Policies and regulations are not a driver at the moment, but may become so when regulation enforce environmentally benign innovations provided a level playing field is present.


Strength

• S1: EU has world-class companies and key role in the sector / boost of actions

• S2: EU-27 has relevant domestic resources.

• S3: Increased process industry efficiency leads to environmental benefits

Weakness

• W1: No breakthrough innovation • W2: IPR weaknesses • W3: The industrial minerals industry has a

different mindset than metallic minerals, due to differences in mining codes and different products

Opportunities

• O1: Need to develop eco-efficient use of resources

• O2: EU Leadership in technologies and products

• O3: Large market

Threats

• T1: Markets can easily be disrupted by China’s policies

• T2: Competition from already assessed technologies/products, having lower costs and higher margins

• T3: Investment required too large for this niche market

• T4: For some minerals energy price policies have serious impacts

• T5: Access to land

The development of more efficient processes for the treatment of industrial minerals (S3) should also result in new products with advanced properties that can withstand the competition from already assessed technologies/products (T2). The fact that the both the supply (S2) and the demand situation (O3) are favourable, covering a wide range of sectors (e.g. construction, chemical industry, metallurgy, agriculture) place Europe in a favourable position to withstand China’s potential influence on the market (T1). Progress in the field of increased efficiency (S3) should also enable the industry to compensate for potential rises in energy prices (T4) and its related impact on the competitive position (T1).

3.3.4 Processing aggregates and dimensional stones with improved efficiency The barriers and drivers for innovation are represented by the plot below


53

The shape of this diagram makes it clear that several barriers are identified for innovations in this pilot area. Provided that innovations lead to a more positive view of and eco-friendly image for end-users and local authorities (e.g. by underground instead of open mining, as suggested by one of the underlying pilots) , social support may become a driver for this area. It was concluded that the current regulations form a barrier for activities in this field, that the network is still characterized as rather scattered thereby also diluting the capacities and capabilities. Furthermore, the market prospects form a barrier caused by limited investment funds and fierce competition (in the field of dimensional stones) from outside the EU-27.


Strength

• S1: EU key player in dimensional stone production

• S2: Innovation aimed at reducing energy consumption in this (in tonnage) most important materials flow in the EU

• S3: proximity to and knowledge of other parts of the local value chains

Weakness

• W1: Low added value sector • W2: Product value of aggregates does not

allow long distance transports • W3: Small scale operations. • W4: Scattered players, mainly SMEs, with

relatively low innovation level

Opportunities

• O1: Wide range of applications across EU • O2: Cost structure of aggregates sector

promotes domestic sourcing • O3: Standardization of products provides

an opportunity

Threats

• T1: Dimension stone: Under severe threat from non-EU sources

• T2: Aggregates: threatened by cuts in public spending in the construction sector

• T3: Market aspects / structure of the value chain penalizing innovation

• T4: Social acceptance of operations, not products ; Access to land

• T5: Increasing cost of energy


54

The (still) current strength of the area (S1) and the knowledge of local markets and regulations (S3) should be employed to build strong networks along the value chain to provide affordable products that benefit from current standardization (O3). The aim of the pilot area to reduce energy consumption (S3) reduces the threat of rising energy prices (T5) and may be beneficial for competitive threats (T1 and T2). The weakness of the sector is a risk for these opportunities. A strong network forming process in Europe should be encouraged by industry, knowledge institutes and government.

3.3.5 Treatment of mining and processing waste and low grade, complex ores The barriers and drivers for innovation are represented by the plot below:

The strong capabilities and strength of the professional networks provide drivers for this pilot area. However, market prospects provide a strong barrier. The diluted materials from waste or from complex sources will form expensive sources that will not be able to compete with materials from ‘easier’ sources, and larger mining companies are not motivated to invest in these routes. These aspects are not easily remediated. A driver for these waste resources will lie in regulatory pressure or a change in the pricing of externalities. Social acceptance is not seen as driver nor barrier: remediation can be seen as positive, although environmental bodies might need to be convinced.


55


Strength

• S1: Innovation can be exploited in many applications

• S2: EU capacity in research and equipment: EU has some world class research institutes and technology/equipment providers, also through interaction with recycling technology

• S3: Reduction of environmental impact and improved land use

Weakness

• W1: Ownership and liability issues for abandoned facilities (unclear status)

• W2: Larger companies not active • W3: Process standardization difficult

with variation in quality/composition of input waste.

• W4: Costly processes and therefore costly products: externalities need to be included

Opportunities

• O1: Need for minimization of wastes • O2: Development of domestic sources,

with increasing prices • O3: Knowledge transfer to other sectors,

e.g. recycling. Common issue for extractive industries, that will solve a wide range of issue

• O4: Potential for highly qualified SMEs

Threats

• T1 : International competition of higher grades

• T2: Restrictive legislation about definition of waste and use of by-products

• T3: Change in the status of wastes into products

• T4: Social acceptance of remediating mining waste

• T5: No movement to include externalities

The highly qualified EU capacity in research and equipment (S1) will be required to reduce costs (W4) and offer the potential to SMEs and junior companies to start viable operations in this field (O4). The potential reduction of environmental impact (S3) will have to be used to convince societal stakeholders about the benefits of remediating mining waste (T4), despite the competition with higher grade ores (T1). In short , this pilot area is not primarily aimed at increasing significantly the level of primary sources.

3.3.6 Recycling of industrial manufacturing and end-of-life waste

The barriers and drivers for innovation are represented by the plot below


56

This area is characterized by a large number of drivers: the capacities and capabilities are well organized, the network is strongly organized, regulation and policy seem to favor this area strongly and it receives wide societal support. Barriers for further innovation are related to technological infrastructure and market prospects. In order to improve the technological implementation attention has to be paid to the complete infrastructure (collection, disassembly, pre-processing) relevant for complete recycling. The market prospects are vulnerable, especially for pilot proposals that aim at minor elements.


Strength

• S1: Reduction of environmental impacts • S2: Large amount of waste available,

high metal grade (vs. primary resources) type of resources

• S3: EU has world-class technologies and leading companies in this field

• S4: Ambition to create flexible process technology, able to cope with varying sources

Weakness

• W1 Recycling infrastructure (collection system/treatment) and regulations (ownership of the added value) for EoL products not generally present

• W2: Business case for recycling of diluted materials

• W3: Resource (=waste) ownership and guaranteed availability and quality

• W4: equipment development not well integrated

Opportunities

• O1: Public and political pressure to keep own minerals and metals (in urban mine)

• O2: Increasing public awareness and concern about EoL issues

• O3: Recycling strongly supported by EC waste management policy

Threats

• T1: Rapid technology evolution, leading to very complex products, dilute materials and fast changing waste composition

• T2: Price volatility of recycled material • T3: Policy actions and logistic chains

develop too slow • T4: IPR in (amongst others) Japan • T5: Competition between innovative

treatment chain and already established ones : entry barriers


57

Europe is well placed by its technology (S3) and large amount of waste available in Europe’s ‘urban mine’(S2) to profit from the opportunities offered by public support for recycling (O2,3). The strong knowledge base (S3) should promote an European intellectual property position (against T4). The collection efficiency (W1) with proper support from well integrated equipment manufacturers (W4) should be managed quite fast to live up to public and political expectations (O1,2). The strength to aim for and develop flexible solutions (S4) should lead to success since it should form the answer to the rapidly changing technology and waste composition and the dilute material content (T1).

3.3.7 Metallurgy Processes The barriers and drivers for innovation are represented by the plot below:

-2

-1

0

1

2

Capacities andcapabilities

Technologyimplementation

Networkcharacteristics

Market prospects

Regulation andpolitics

Social support

Metallurgical process are at the heart of ambitions in the field of recycling of waste and processing lower grade ores. The drivers of the field are the strength of the capabilities and the networks that are formed in Europe. Political and public support are no drivers of the field; the technological implementation can be strengthened by increasing Europe’s technology portfolio, and investing in central research facilities.


Strength

• S1:World-class R&D and service/technology providers available in EU

• S2: Substantial world class deposits in the EU

• S3: Some strong EU-based industries with in-depth knowledge and available infrastructure

Weakness

• W1: High Initial cost for equipment investments

• W2: Fragmentation at EU level. So far only limited EU-scale precompetitive research

• W3: IPR issues (confidentiality)


58

Opportunities

• O1: strong need for advancement of developments in pyro- and hydrometallurgy

• O2: Wide application potential; potential to create synergy with mining and recycling industry

Threats

• T1: IPR largely outside EU (CN, JP, KR, ...) and weak within European infrastructure

• T2: Lack of investment funds

Cooperation between the strong R&D and industrial infrastructure (S1,3, W2) is required to create domestic IPR (T1) and join forces in order to invest in common pilot facilities (T2, W1). These benefits will cover more than one area; notably the area of recycling of end-of-life products and mining and manufacturing waste will benefit from a stronger cooperation.

3.3.8 Application-led and material-led substitution The barriers and drivers for innovation for both areas related to substitution are represented by the plot below:

The plot above indicates that substitution faces many barriers. There is no doubt that substitution is seen as a challenging goal, requiring R&D programmes with long timescales (hence a low score on Technology Implementation). This is however not unique to substitution. What presnts a stronger barrier compared to other areas is the lack of a strong network, a community representing substitution. Researchers do not describe themselves as ‘substitutionists’ and there are not professional bodies or industry associations that represent substitution. Instead replacement or substitution is carried out across many different sectors and relies on the competencies of researchers from many different disciplines, for example physics, materials science and chemistry. The European Commission has already identified substitution as an important challenge, but one that requires support in community building and has addressed this by funding the Coordination and Support Action Critical Raw Materials Innovation Network (CRM_InnoNet). CRM_InnoNet will create an Innovation Network for Substitution of Critical Raw Materials, a proactive and dynamic network of key stakeholders from industry, academia and other organisations interested in the substitution of critical raw materials. The network will provide an identity and focus for researchers and businesses with an interest in substitution, drawing together a community which contains representatives from different disciplines and sectors together with a focus on substitution for the


59

first time. Social support is also seen as low, since the wider audience and other organisations do not target specifically for substitution but just request good products and services.

An overview of strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats (SWOT) for the pilot area of application-led substitution is presented below.

Strength • S1: World class research institutes,

researchers and equipment in materials science, chemistry and physics.

• S2: Broad range of innovative technology providers in relevant sectors such as electronics and clean energy.

• S3: Substitution has multiple drivers and is also employed as a strategy to reduce toxicity or environmental impact.

Weakness • W1: In-depth understanding of the physical

and chemical properties of a material required

• W2: substitution is a lengthy, challenging and therefore expensive and risky process.

• W3: New applications have no track record of long-lasting functionality

Opportunities • O1: Returning/securing the value chain in

the EU by the development and use of new and improved products and services, thereby increasing EU competitiveness.

• O2: Reduced environmental impact and/or hazards to health through new technological solutions.

• O3: Increasing industry awareness of the materials in their products.

• O4: Global market opportunities for innovative solution providers.

Threats • T1: Large-scale use of an alternative

material may inadvertently create a new criticality.

• T2: Substitution-specific IPR base and research expertise, particularly for rare earths, predominantly in Japan/USA.

• T3: Public funding landscape in EU for substitution R&D is fragmented.

• T4: Extensive standardisation and testing of component or product containing a substitute is often required before acceptance by industry

How can we counteract weaknesses W1 and W2 to benefit from opportunity O4, using strength S1? Horizon2020 provides a golden opportunity to present EU researchers with a more coherent suite of funding options, which would enable the strong interdisciplinary research base to effectively tackle the challenge of furthering the understanding of the physical and chemical properties of materials to enable substitution and ultimately access global market opportunities.

How can we use strength S1 to benefit from opportunity O1? The world class knowledge base in materials science, chemistry and physics in the EU has access to leading facilities and equipment and the structures in place to enable working in an interdisciplinary manor. EU researchers are therefore in a strong position to carry out fundamental research into the properties of materials, necessary to enable substitution and ultimately develop new and improved products and services.

How do we use strength S2 to benefit from Opportunity O4? The EU is home to a broad range of technology providers which rely on critical raw materials. These technology providers have strong innovation capability which will enable them to develop solutions to problems caused by scarcity and thereby access global market opportunities.


60

An overview of strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats (SWOT) for the pilot area of material-led substitution is presented below

Strength • S1: World class research institutes,

researchers and equipment in materials science, chemistry and physics.

• S2: Innovative industry acting as solution providers (EU projected to hold 28% of the global market for new materials by 2020).

• S3: A novel material can potentially be exploited in many applications.

•

Weakness • W1: In-depth understanding of the

physical and chemical properties of a material is required, which often necessitates further fundamental research.

• W2: Technical barriers to exploiting a novel material in a new application exist; this is a challenging and therefore expensive process with no guarantee of success. The performance of substitute must equal or exceed that of the original material, for a similar cost to be economically viable.

• W3: Historic weakness in EU in taking publically funded research breakthroughs to market.

Opportunities • O1: Returning/securing the value chain in

the EU by the development and use of new and improved products and services, thereby increasing EU competitiveness.


• O3: Global market opportunities for innovative solution providers

Threats • T1: There are stringent regulations

against which introduction of novel material must be assessed (EHS, REACH)

• T2: Substitution-specific IPR base and research expertise predominantly in Japan/USA.

• T3: Lack of current focus by the materials research community on substitution of critical raw materials and on fundamental issues surrounding scaling-up production of new materials


How can we counteract weakness W3 to benefit from opportunityO3? Horizon2020 brings together fundamental research and development funding under the same umbrella as innovation funding, presenting a revised approach to funding the innovation pipeline. This new approach should facilitate taking publically-funded research breakthroughs to market and to exploit emerging global opportunities.

How do we use strengths S1 and S2 to benefit from Opportunity O3? The innovative solution providers (including technology driven SMEs and large research and development organizations) in the EU cover a wide range of sectors and are therefore perfectly placed to capitalize on the opportunities presented by the development of a novel material which can be exploited in a range of applications.

How do we use strength S1 to counteract threats T2 and T3?


61

Initiatives are being put in place, for example work package 2 of the European Innovation Partnership on Raw Materials and CRM_InnoNet (a FP7-funded coordination and support action on substitution) which will allow networking of the community in order to mobilize the world class research base in the EU with a focus on substitution-related topics.

3.3.9 Resource Efficient Paper Recycling Processes The barriers and drivers for innovation for both areas related to the area of resource efficient paper recycling processes are represented by the plot below:

This area is well organized, has a strong knowledge base, and engages in innovation that have a defined infrastructure and that is based on mature technologies. No additional measures are taken to prevent diverting the fibre waste streams to areas in which processing can be performed towards different standards. The need for paper and wood fibres and the need for energy conservation makes the market and the prospects for the pilot area less unpredictable than minerals related markets; markets prospects are therefore a driver.

A basic SWOT-analysis is given below:

Strength • S1: basic research done • S2: mature and developed

technology available • S3: initiative not restricted to one

location • S4: well aligned network of large

players

Weakness • W1: IPR not secured: this hampers

network formation or cross-selling technology

• W2: lack of available cash for investments


62

Opportunities • O1: Market opportunities for

(products made with) waste materials

• O2: acceptance of resource efficient activities with NGO’s and the public

• O3: enough scope for additional volume: 10 Mton (out of 80 Mton) still wasted

Threats • T1: Cheap alternatives are available

(such as landfilling or exporting waste paper)

• T2: No legislation preventing diverting waste streams

It is clear that the well-aligned sector (S4) can seize quite readily (in view of the relative maturity of the pilot ideas (S1,2)) the market opportunities. It remains to be seen whether the efficiency gains make the technology strong enough against price competition (T1, T2). In order to create stronger networks, the IPR needs to be secured (W1) so that protected exchange of information becomes possible.

3.4 Concluding remarks The analyses discussed above for the ten pilot areas under consideration provide a good starting point for steps to be taken to improve the potential of all pilot areas and to come to genuine innovation in the market place. The analyses of barriers and drivers have by and large demonstrated that most pilot areas face significant barrier on the way to successful innovation. These barriers are often related to unfavourable market conditions, additional steps related to the technology (such as fundamental research to be carried out first, or the need for additional infrastructure), the broad support from public, policy makers and other organisations. Furthermore, a general picture is that the knowledge and industrial base in Europe is of a good quality and that the networks required to join forces are well in place or improving in quality. It will be this innovative network formation that will be required to overcome the barriers and face competition on a global scale. Excellence of well secured innovative solutions will be at the heart of significant support for securing supply of raw materials to Europe.

The analyses have shown that not only the technical, economic and environmental benefits of pilots count, but that the complete ‘infrastructure’ needs to be critically addressed.


63

4 Criteria for assessing and prioritising pilots

4.1 Introduction One of the specific goals of the European Innovation Partnership on Raw Materials is to propose initiatives for setting up 10 concrete innovative pilot activities that will support both the European economy as well as the security of supply of raw materials. In order to ultimately come to a selection of such a set of innovative pilot actions, a transparent and generally accepted selection procedure at a European level is a prerequisite.

Therefore, a set of criteria, indicators and methodologies is needed that allows for an objective comparison of the suggestions that will be put forward by European stakeholders.

The main focus of this chapter is the development of a set of criteria that would enable such a transparent prioritization.

First, a short description will be given of the process and especially of the way in which stakeholders were engaged in assessing and commenting upon the criteria proposed. Then the general direction of the criteria will be discussed, followed by a description of the set of criteria, highlighting the background and the methodologies assumed to be required for providing the data for the suggested criteria.

4.2 The process of developing and validating criteria

Figure 20 Schematic representation of validation of criteria

The process to develop a set of criteria was as follows:


64

- An initial set of criteria and sub-criteria were developed based on the envisaged general direction of the EIP-RM, and preliminary visions and insights used in this study;

- This initial set of (sub-)criteria was tested against a number (>10) of pilot suggestions that were submitted through the web-based questionnaire; these pilots originated from the different sectors that form the scope of this study;

- The revised set of (sub-)criteria was presented to a broad group of (>100) stakeholders during the 1st workshop held in Brussels on the 22nd of October, 2012. A detailed description of the process and the outcomes of this workshop is presented in Annex 8. Comments about all (sub-)criteria were used to improve the proposed set of criteria.

- A final workshop was held with 6 expert evaluators from different industrial, financial and academic backgrounds; their comments and remarks upon evaluating a limited set of pilots provided valuable input in the validation process of the proposed criteria. The assessors’ task was to assess the relevance and applicability of the criteria to 7 pilots. The exercise was not intended at assessing or prioritizing the pilots themselves, but to comment on the quality, relevance and applicability of the criteria.

- The (sub-)criteria discussed in this report are based on the comments, remarks and improvements that were suggested during this suite of consultation and validation steps.

4.3 Main criteria for evaluation of pilot areas One of the ambitions of the EIP-RM is to stimulate the development of a number (10) innovative pilot actions that would improve Europe’s raw materials supply situation and add to the competitiveness of the EU-27. Generally, one can say that pilot plants that will be supported in the framework of the EIP-RM will need to enable economically feasible solutions to raw material supply security issues that are innovative and environmentally and socially sound. Therefore, specific sub-criteria need to be developed for the following main criteria:

- Economy (overall affordability of the solution while considering short-, medium- and long-term investments as well as other macro- and micro-economic parameters as well as impact on job creation and skills);

- Raw Materials Availability (contribution of a pilot plant to the –enhanced- availability of a given raw material within the EU-27);

- Environment, health and safety; - The stage of Innovation: innovation related criteria are dealing with factors that determine

whether innovation reaches the market place. Evidently, the overall quality and consistency of the proposed pilots self-evidently will play an important role. Such criteria will not be specifically developed in the context of this study. Many of the criteria discussed in subsequent sections seem to require very detailed information on the potential contribution to these criteria and are therefore difficult to quantify. Indeed, there are many ways of assessing the merits of technology development proposals, none of them being perfect because of this inability to quantify. Nevertheless, reasonable estimates of such criteria can


65

often be made (through comparison to state-of-the-art or sector specific data). Establishing a consistent framework around a suite of indicators represents a significant value. These main criteria received broad support from stakeholders: the set of (sub-)criteria is considered comprehensive and relevant, though attention is asked for the dependencies between various (sub-) criteria. Too much dependency between criteria might bias the outcome of any selection process. In this study 5 ‘sectors’ are studied separately: exploration, exploitation, processing, recycling and substitution. Although the main criteria will be similar for each of these sectors, different sub-criteria should be applied to various sectors due to the nature and stage of the potential innovations. In the subsequent paragraphs, a more detailed insight in the various sub-criteria is given as well as the background for the sector-dependency. A separate section 4.9 is devoted to the specific aspects of the sector ‘substitution’.

4.4 Economy Ultimately, pilots that will lead to full scale-up and implementation will need to show economic benefits. Therefore, the economic potential and the economic competitiveness enabled by the pilot should play an important role in prioritizing pilots. Consulted stakeholders acknowledge the economic dimension most important dimension. It is considered a key driver for the creation of jobs, for global competitiveness, for successful implementation in the market place and as a prerequisite to attract investors.

In order to quantify the economic aspects, various sub-criteria are proposed in the following sections.

4.4.1 Impact on cost price of a product A successful execution of a pilot plant may lead to a process that results in a reduction of the cost price of the resulting product (which can be a raw material, a processed material or a finished product). The cost price obviously includes the cost contributions of all steps in the process of producing the end product, not just the step in which the pilot is involved. Knowledge about or estimates of the potential cost price of an end-product is already relevant at the early phases of any research and development undertaking, and therefore a relevant sub-criterion. If fundamental barriers exist that would inevitably lead to a cost price that is not competitive on a global market, implementation of the results is doomed to fail. Of course, cost estimates in the earlier phases of development will be rather uncertain. However, in many cases, it will be possible to make realistic estimates under the assumption of positive outcomes of the pilot phase. Upon studying the pilots collected in the course of this study, it became apparent that many (54 from the sectors on exploration, exploitation, processing and recycling) pilot suggestions were known and described in such detail that –in principle- a cost price calculation can be made for the described pilot process, even if detailed data on investment and running costs were still lacking.

In the early phases of a pilot, the estimate of the cost price may be based on the pilot plant capital expenditure (CAPEX) and operational expenditure (OPEX) and its planned capacity, disregarding the


66

potential positive effect that the learning curve has on the eventual cost price. Of course predictions can be made of the progress that will be made upon increasing installed capacity8. If unit cost is not directly available, or if the learning curve does not yield any reliable information, cost price analogues can be used; the validity of such analogues must be clearly referenced. An approach may be to use benchmark figures concerning production, related manpower (quality and quantity), added value, consumables and emissions from existing and related industrial activities. Assessment of the input data relies heavily on expert evaluation. The use of the sub-criterion to the sectors exploitation, processing and recycling seems rather straightforward. For pilot suggestions in the area of exploration the impact on the price of an end product is impossible to quantify. However, an exploration pilot will have to show its impact on the Exploration Investment Intensity. This criterion may be described as the impact that introduction of new technologies will have on the final cost effectiveness of the highly capital intensive exploration phase. Cost price calculation is also less straightforward for substitution related innovations. This will be dealt with in a separate section. Pilots dealing with enabling technologies (e.g. equipment or sensor developments) would also not result in a clear impact on cost price; they would possibly form an integral part of pilots more directly related to end products, through which their contribution to cost price would become clear. Among the criteria contributing to the economic dimension, the impact on cost price was considered the least important criterion by consulted stakeholders. Representatives from the mining stakeholders considered this criterion either as impossible to judge or superfluous, since the cost price is an important parameter judging the absolute economic benefit, which is a separate criterion. Stakeholders related to the recycling sector put more weight on this criterion, since recycled material needs to compete on a global market with primary raw materials. The criterion therefore forms a first and solid assessment of the potential of a pilot activity.

4.4.2 Absolute economic benefit Even if the impact of a pilot on the cost price may be marginal (or even slightly negative), the absolute economic impact of a pilot may still be beneficial since full implementation may result in the increased production of raw. On the other hand, a significant impact on a cost price may show little economic benefit in case the absolute level of raw materials uncovered or processed is small. The Absolute Economic Benefit can be defined as the total potential contribution to the European economy enabled by the successful implementation and scaling up of the results of a pilot plant. An assessment of the Absolute Economic Benefit is considered the most important (sub-)criterion by stakeholders, since the economic benefit is seen as the driver for competitiveness, jobs and an overall reinforcement of the European economy.

The absolute economic benefit may be determined in a way appropriate to the sector or pilot area of any proposal. In case the economic benefit is determined by changes in cost price and/or raw

8 See as an example, the use of learning curves in the development of the photo-voltaic cell industry.


67

materials availability, (related to mining also known as the ‘unlocked volumetric potential’), the following formula may apply:

EBfinal = EBpp – Ebcurrent ={ (MPpp-CPpp) x PQpp} - {(MPcurrent-CPcurrent) x PQcurrent} ,

in which: EB = Economic Benefit, MP = Market Price, CP = Cost Price, PQ = Production quantity (for situations in which full scale-up on the basis of pilot results has taken place, this is the current production quantity, in some cases augmented by the unlocked volumetric potential (UVP) made available by the full exploitation of the pilot results). The subscript ‘pp’ stands for the situation with an implemented pilot-activity, the subscript ‘current’ for the present situation without implemented activity.

It should be kept in mind that additional production quantities (unlocked volumetric potential) may result from meeting current or future environmental and/or legal constraints that prevent such volumes from being developed. In principle there may be raw material resource volumes that cannot be developed into reserves because of environmental constraints (“contingent resources”). If such constraints can be overcome using new technology, then these contingent resources may be matured into “reserves” 9, 10. The absolute economic benefit can also be increased by benefits beyond the pilot proposal itself. These benefits include economic potential of the upstream and downstream elements of the value chain and even potential spin-off potential. If these elements apply, any call for proposals should specifically invite submitters to quantify these aspects. An additional comment applies to the sector ‘recycling’: upon assessing the economic benefit of a successful pilot, a realistic vision of the availability of the feedstock (for instance from collected end-of-life consumer products) is required. This availability may be limited by a lack of collection infrastructure (or even culture), a lack of enabling technology (for instance for dismantling and disassembly) elsewhere in the value chain, or ‘competition’ with recycling activities aiming at more profitable elements from the same feedstock. In recycling pilots, an analysis of this aspect is therefore recommended. The criterion Absolute Economic Benefit is also useful in comparing the suggested size of and investment in the pilot activity to the expected (absolute) benefit. A high pilot investment should be reflected in a documented higher economic benefit.

Although the analysis looks complex, the available pilot suggestions already indicate that the full set of economic details are in principle available for about 30 pilots (these pilots provide information on CAPEX, OPEX, and the potential effect on increased material volume). Pilots dealing with exploration, enabling technologies or with pilots in a very early phase did not provide data on this 9 The UNFC defines the following: contingent resources are discovered mineral / raw material resources that under the current economic (cost price, market price, technical and market risk) and/or legal conditions (licensing, legal, environmental etc.) cannot be developed commercially; reserves are discovered mineral / raw material resources that under the current economic (cost price, market price, technical and market risk) and legal conditions (licensing, legal, environmental etc.) can be developed commercially. 10 The EU seems to be rich in contingent mineral resources that are not developed for environmental / licensing reasons. Overcoming such hurdles should be an important consideration when proposing a pilot project


68

issue. Pilots aimed at recycling however, should be able to assess the total expected benefit. Trade statistics and considerations from materials flow analyses can result in rough estimates of the available ‘urban mine’ and thus of the embedded raw material available for processing. Assessing in a qualitative way the economic benefits enabled by these pilots does not take into account the potential benefits beyond the pilots, i.e. effects on the total value chain or even potential spin-off potential.

4.4.3 Jobs created in the EU The impact on job creation is not a fully independent sub-criterion, since it is related to the absolute economic benefit enabled by full-scale implementation of the pilot results. Still, it will be relevant to obtain insight in the envisioned impact on jobs by parties who suggest pilots. Of course these data will not necessarily require a bottom-up analysis, but they may be based on sectorial analysis and subsequent sectorial comparison and by using trade statistics. Depending on the type of proposed activity a distinction can be made between the impact on skilled and unskilled labor.

A further distinction can be made between the permanent jobs created and the temporary ones. These may be prominent as in the case of exploration activities: to a large extent activities are outsourced to sub-contractors, who would count as temporary jobs.

4.4.4 Impact on skills and knowledge Stakeholders from the relevant sectors have indicated that education is one of the key challenges: on the one hand to be able to develop the pilot plants and on the other hand to unlock the related value in the raw materials industry in general. By some it is even considered to be of a higher urgency than the pilots as such for the impact it may have on the longer term. Therefore, it will form an asset for any pilot activity if it will have a lasting impact on the skills to the European Union.

Furthermore, pilots may have an impact on the intellectual property of European partners, thereby leading to longer lasting leading technological position in the global playing field of the raw materials industry.

4.4.5 Conclusion The economic criteria presented in the preceding sections are broadly accepted as essential, although the exact form is judged differently by different sectors. It is important to keep assessment of economic benefits as a key ingredient of any pilot assessment with an open eye for the potential impossibilities of detailed assessment in cases where costs of products produced or total volumes to be explored cannot be estimated in a justifiable way.

4.5 Raw Materials Availability Worries about the security of supply of raw materials to the EU-27 and the impact that would have on European economy and competitiveness are the most important driver for raw materials related policies. Much of the debate on this topic has been focused on the so-called critical materials. Various assessments and risk matrices exist that assess the impact of shortage of supply on a given field. At the EU-level, criticality is judged by assessing both the supply risk and the economic


69

relevance to the EU11. In this study 14 (groups of) materials were qualified critical based on their high economic relevance for economic sectors in the EU-27 and on their vulnerable supply situation12 .

Although criticality may have been at the basis of European activities, criticality of raw materials as such is not considered a key aspect by a large proportion of stakeholders. It is emphasized that criticality is a dynamic phenomenon, that can change according to the assessment procedure or to technological developments on the supply and demand side. In that context, it was suggested to stay aware of geopolitical developments.

Furthermore, it is recognized that the increase of the availability of raw materials (in the broad sense) is at the heart of the EIP-RM and therefore constitutes a relevant criterion.

The criterion related to Raw Materials Availability therefore is: Does the pilot increase/ affect the availability of RM within the EU-27? In case pilot activities lead to an increased availability of raw materials outside the EU-27, but contributes to the availability of these materials for stakeholders within the EU-27, an additional explanation may of course be provided.

A pilot suggestion would have to indicate whether the raw materials availability due to the pilot plant activity may increase, detailing the materials and potential quantities involved. This criterion is therefore strongly linked to the assessment of the absolute economic benefit.

4.6 Environment, health and safety

4.6.1 Environmental performance The environmental performance of pilot actions can be compared to the environmental performance of the state-of-the-art practice or technology within a sector. An extensive description of the methodology and the databases that can be used for the assessment of the environmental impacts of pilot plant suggestions is given in Annex 6.

The environmental profile of a pilot plant will be evaluated in terms of (impact on) energy use, water use, greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, toxic emissions and land use, and its comparison vis-à-vis a benchmark profile. Profiles can be assessed for each environmental impact category proposed. Although the retrieval of these data may be complex, it can be expected that –given the maturity of the proposal- the impact of the pilot on these impact categories can be estimated. Especially since similar data and similar detailed insight in the process technology is also required to analyse the impacts on cost price and economic benefits.

Benchmark data may also be hard to retrieve: annex 6 identifies some data sources that may be used for these benchmarking purposes.

In order to weigh the different categories and evaluate the total environmental impact, a set of (shadow) prices should be used for each environmental impact category. This approach is also used 11 Critical raw materials for the EU, a report of the Ad-hoc Working Group on defining critical raw materials, published in June 2010; this report defined a group of 14 raw material groups to be of critical importance for Europe. 12 The supply risk was considered high in case of absence of recycling infrastructure, difficulty substituting the material and a highly concentrated production in countries with an unfavourable score on the Worldwide Governance Indicator.


70

in cost-benefit analysis and concerns both market prices (energy, water and waste) and external costs (greenhouse gas and toxic emissions).

In order to assess the impact on the environmental footprint of a pilot action, data are required on the following issues:

i) ∆ (= delta = Modification caused by the innovative technology) of Energy use, MWh/(unit product);

ii) ∆ of water use, million m3/(unit product); iii) ∆ of GHG (Green House Gas) emissions, Mt CO2-equivalent; iv) ∆ of emissions (these emissions may be gases other than captured under GHG, or toxic

emissions; a description of nature and quantity is required); v) ∆ of waste generated (may include the useful use of waste); vi) ∆ of land-use

The ‘delta’- data asked under this dimension are based on the assumption that an innovative pilot plant may lead to activities that are to be compared to existing installed base, or to best practices in the relevant domain.

4.6.2 Health and safety aspects A qualitative criterion that finds broad support among stakeholders is the assessment of the impact on health and safety, both for workers and for immediate surroundings. Although of explicit importance for any industrial activity, these aspects play a dominant role in the mining sector. Quoting stakeholders from this sector:”Safety is a must and always comes first”, “The future mining boundaries (below sea level or below 2000 meters) can only be crossed when companies are able to manage the related risks/safety issues”, “ A pilot plant in mining without focus on safety makes no sense!”

Every pilot will be asked to:

- Explicitly mention how the safety and health of personnel is guaranteed and potentially (and if relevant) improved vis-à-vis the state of the art

- Similarly, the pilot description should describe how safety and health for the surrounding areas are managed and if possible and relevant, improved vis-à-vis the state of the art.

4.7 The Stage of Innovation Separate attention is given to sub-criteria related to the stage of innovation of any given pilot. For the following reasons this is an important criterion.

On the one hand, a rather mature stage of innovation is requested by the goals of this project, providing an outlook to the pilot phase of a product or process with a realistic outlook towards full scale implementation. On the other hand, the activities that fall under the responsibility of the EIP-RM request public funding for future development of the intended activities. Both these aspects require attention in the criteria and in the description of pilots.


71

The second reason is related to innovation barriers. Even if the technological, economic and environmental aspects of a pilot seem positive, this does not guarantee the successful implementation and scaling up. These other factors that may form barriers for innovation are discussed here as well.

4.7.1 Impact on relevant challenges The pilot plants should ultimately enable changes in the raw materials value chain in Europe that are significant and relevant. Every pilot plant suggestion will therefore need to indicate which challenge it will address. Furthermore, it can be considered self-evident that any pilot proposal should also indicate its progress with respect to the state of the art of technologies currently addressing these identified challenges. As a guide, a number of relevant challenges in the various segments covered by this study have been identified. Though not pretending a comprehensive set of challenges, this set was not contested by participants to the web-based questionnaire, nor were additional challenges suggested. An overview of challenges identified by the study consortium is given in the next table; a more extensive description of these challenges is given in Annex 7.

Overall, the impact on relevant challenges is considered by consulted stakeholders to be the most important criterion in the innovation dimension. This will have to be taken on board as a qualitative parameter for any future pilot plant proposal, in which a clear and qualitatively outstanding explanation for the contribution to a set of pre-defined challenges would be an important asset. A clearly defined and broadly supported set of such challenges is of course a pre-requisite for this criterion.

Table 10 Raw materials challenges suggested by the consortium

Segment/field Challenge Deep penetrating geophysical exploration Advanced sensors, low-cost drilling

Increased knowledge of the EU resource base

Deep 3D tomography Drilling at the bottom of the sea Scavenging of mineral from the sea bottom Transportation from the sea bottom to the surface Seafloor Geophysics

(Deep) Sea mining

Waste and tailings management Long term stability Deeper open-pit mining

(>>600 m) Increased overall efficiency and environmental management over life-cycle

Deep underground mining (>2000 m)

Increased overall efficiency and environmental management over life-cycle Reduction in water consumption in RM processing and transformation Reduction in energy consumption in RM processing and transformation Reduced use of chemicals in RM processing and transformation, increased use of catalysts.

Increase efficiency in RM processing and effective recovery

Increased global yield and process selectivity


72

Reduction in environmental emissions Process of lower grade and/or complex (primary and secondary) materials Innovation along the entire reuse and recycling chain (logistics, pre-processing, material recovery) for wide range of secondary sources Development of smart tracking and value-chain tracing technologies

Increase recycling of critical and essential raw materials

Development of advanced and highly selective, clean and affordable technologies for wastes processing

Reduce criticality through Substitution

Based on functionality of materials, replacing a given effect in a key application(s).

4.7.2 Technology Readiness If Europe considers it relevant that pilots need to be active by 2020, the expected time to deliver plays an important role. Therefore, it is important to obtain a clear picture of the status of the innovation that is proposed and the progress that the pilot is expected to make as a result of the proposed activity.

Research and development goes through phases of development ranging from basic research (discovery oriented work with a focus on first principles), through applied research and laboratory testing , to fully verified and commercially viable prototypes and processes. There are several methodologies available for applying quantification to these steps. One of these methods is the Technology Readiness Level (TRL) systematics, that was employed in the web-based questionnaire. Several results presented in chapter 2 employ this methodology. A full description of the various levels (ranging from 1 to 9) of the TRL methodology is presented in Annex 4. In any proposal a description of the level of maturity should be accompanied by an estimate of the timeline until commercial development is achieved; evidence for such timeline (including a summary of the main factors determining this timeline) can be provided from analogues. This description also includes a further risk assessment of technical success. The more developed a project is, the more reliable risk assessments are; the level of risk will also be decisive for support from public funds.

The importance of a criterion related to technology maturity (such as TRL) is judged differently in the different sectors. More specifically, the recycling sector acknowledges the importance of TRL within the definition of ‘pilot plants’, stating that a high TRL reduces risks. It is also stated that the basics for many pilots already exist and that demonstration and scaling up are bottlenecks. The view from stakeholders related to substitution is clearly different: ” The EIP should encourage early stages, instead of supporting activities that would exist nevertheless”.

Furthermore, stakeholders indicate that the assessment of economic and environmental criteria depends on the desired technology readiness: more details and less uncertainty in the outcome may be required from pilot proposals that aim for a more mature status.

Key for further progress beyond this study will be the clear communication about the specific goals in time and results for the pilot plants to be stimulated by the EIP-RM: it is specifically the desired level of maturity (expressed by TRL) which is considered in a particularly different way by players from different sectors of the raw materials chain.


73

4.7.3 Dealing with (potential) barriers for innovation Even if a pilot proposal shows promising economic and environmental potential this does not guarantee successful implementation and scaling-up. There will be a number of risks and barriers that may prevent the pilot from becoming a success. For a proper assessment of the viability of pilots, proposers should identify whether these issues are relevant and should propose measures to mitigate the risk associated with any identified potential issues. The Oslo manual has provided a helpful background for creating a set of relevant issues that have an impact on the success of innovative solutions13.

The following aspects should (at least) be considered in the proposal phase:

- Capacities and capabilities: besides the technological maturity of any given pilot, the ultimate success of a pilot activity also depends on the way in which inconclusive or negative pilot results will undermine the enthusiasm of (internal and external) sponsors and investors to further mature the technology; aspects to consider are:

• Existence of a product champion. Many researchers have concluded that the existence of a project champion (often a senior official with the mandate to steer research of a company; in the context of this study, a product champion may also be a company for which execution of a pilot plant is of vital strategic importance, guaranteeing support after the pilot phase) is a critical factor in deciding whether to approve a project for funding. An R&D project will be competing for funds with other projects. It will be important to know to what extent the project staff involved continues to show belief in and defend the pilot action’s subsequent technology development, even in the event of project setbacks. Are staff able to respond to the ‘innovation valley of death’14;

• Competence of the required disciplines. Information is required about why the staff proposed to execute the pilot action can be expected to run the project effectively and efficiently, and about the vulnerability to specific staff. There might even be a risk of staff being engaged in competing projects.

- Additional technological barriers (external to the pilot)

• Need for standardization: In a case where a product or process innovation would require compliance with existing standards, or modification of existing standards, this may form a severe barrier for the implementation of the innovation. For instance, this would apply to the development of substitute materials to be applied in application with safety regulations. A pilot proposal would have to indicate whether this plays a role.

13 Oslo Manual: Guidelines for Collecting and Interpreting Innovation Data 14 The (innovation) valley of death refers to the period of time from when a new initiative (a startup firm or an innovative investment) receives an initial capital contribution to when it begins generating revenues. During the death valley curve, additional financing is usually scarce, leaving theinitiative vulnerable to cash flow requirements.


74

• Need for additional infrastructure or value chain integration: Innovations may not constitute stand-alone developments, but more often than not an innovation would have an impact on the complete value chain or would require additional infrastructure to become a success. A pilot proposal would have to address these chain aspects and consider its risks and potential solutions. Examples could be:

A recycling technology would be very dependent on relevant waste stream as feedstock: a barrier may be the lack of a guaranteed quality and quantity of ‘feedstock’, and/or the infrastructure required to efficiently collect feedstock.

Technologies for deep sea mining would require additional marine and on-land infrastructure in order to successfully deploy its results.

• Impact of IPR: Intellectual property rights may both stimulate and hamper innovation. Strong IPR positions with competitors may self-evidently hamper successful deployment of technologies; a field with a marginal level of IP protected may find difficulties in creating partnerships in open innovation environments. A proposal would need to describe how the IPR position is secured, and how barriers resulting from IPR positions can be overcome.

- Network Characteristics

• Pilot proposals should describe whether any difficulties are anticipated in finding co-operation partners for product or process development or marketing; these barriers can be caused by the insufficient quality and quantity of potential partners or by barriers related to IPR or cultural differences.

- Market prospects:

• Failure caused by small market size: Research on innovation shows that a common cause of commercial failure of an innovation is an overestimate of the number of potential users. In a proposal an estimate may be asked of the potential EU market for products related to the proposed pilot plant and the market share that might result.

• Entry barriers caused by market structure: Is there an entry barrier caused by the degree and nature of anticipated competition (e.g. dominant and established enterprises) for the product resulting from the project?

• Predictability of the market: What is the certainty or uncertainty (e.g. caused by price volatility) in the demand for the innovative goods or services? Is there a risk of a competing solution being developed with higher effectiveness, superior funding and market potential, faster roll-out, higher reliability or stronger IPR?

- Regulatory or legislative barriers:


75

• The successful implementation may be influenced strongly by regulations with respect to product safety to users, workers industries, environment, or the use of specific consumables (e.g. chemicals in relation to REACH regulations), regulations regarding disposability or recyclability or legislative aspects (and acceptance from communities) related to the development of mining operations

- Social acceptance:

• The full scale implementation of the results of a pilot project may be severely influenced by the societal acceptance of the innovation by end-users and the support it may or may not receive from additional societal stakeholders and advocacy coalitions (such as NGOs, environmental organizations and special interest groups).

The issues raised here (amongst which the aspects captured by the Oslo manual) are generally seen by consulted stakeholders as a good guide for scrutinizing innovations.

4.7.4 Clarification for government support In addition to successfully addressing all questions and points demanded by the criteria, any proposal should also make clear why the pilot action requires government support, and why at this particular moment? This should be clearly related to the stage of the innovation of the particular pilot. If there is a commercial opportunity to mature this technology, why do commercial actors fail to invest in this pilot action? A reason for government involvement may be that the initial cost price (before learning curve effect) is too high, so that innovation does not pass ‘the innovation valley of death’. Note however, that government support is typically only warranted when:

i. the pilot action will demonstrably accelerate the path along the technology learning curve (cost price vs. worldwide installed capacity) towards commercial application; and

ii. if thereby sufficient potential mineral volume is being unlocked (i.e. is being matured from the contingent resource category to the reserves category); and

iii. if this volume is being unlocked in a timely fashion, given projected demand; iv. The commercial risk for developing the technology stand-alone (i.e. without

government support) is too high, relative to the potential of unlocked volumes that may be ultimately exploited by the industrial proposers versus the potential volumes unlocked that will benefit the governments.

4.8 Overall quality and consistency Though not a separate criterion, it is clear that any proposal will be strengthened and supported by the inclusion of underlying calculations and references. However, the overall judgment of the pilot action proposal should also be based on the consistency of the overall story provided: is the information presented complete, unambiguous, reasonable and consistent?

Upon consultation, outside external evaluators made it clear that the use of any criteria depends on the quality of the data available. Upon evaluating, it is the intrinsic quality (or worse, the omission of


76

specific data) that has highest impact on the final perception of the pilots. Since the pilots generally involve sizeable investments, one may expect any submitting party to provide a full and detailed response to all criteria, though it is acknowledged that complex data are required.

4.9 Applicability of criteria to pilots aimed at substitution

During this study, it became clear that topics related to substitution of (critical) raw materials have some very distinct properties which make a separate discussion valuable.

Substitution activities will be form a spectrum between two extremes:

1) Application-led substitution where the activity is focused on replacing the use of a specific material in a specific market application; and

2) Material-led substitution where a novel material has properties that enable replacement of various materials in various end-applications.

An example of type 1) is hexachrome in aerospace and at the other extreme type 2) are technologies such as graphene with multiple potential applications. Some cases will lie in the middle. Clearly the former of these is easier to quantify in terms on benefits and impact (since it focuses on a known and given application) but may also be more limited in scale of these. The latter is necessarily more difficult to quantify since the material of this pilot (graphene) potentially serves many applications, and is more likely to be early stage technology levels but may enable a far greater impact across all categories of interest: economic, environmental, innovation and raw materials availability. It is therefore a challenge to develop a ‘one size fits all’ set of criteria.

Substitution related technologies will be taken into account only in the case where they have an impact on reducing the dependence on critical raw materials. Partly based on that consideration, the criteria should address:

• Scale of use of the material being substituted and future forecast use (e.g. fuel cell catalysts will be more important in the future) and scale of availability of the substitute.

• Relative criticality of the material being replaced and the intended substitute (e.g. replacing indium with graphene produced from graphite swaps one critical material for another) – this includes a measure for high EU reliance on the material in its industries.

• Recyclability (a corollary to substitutability for other materials) of the material being replaced i.e. those not currently viable for recycling are of greater importance (e.g. fluorspar, gallium, graphite, beryllium).

• Cost of validation for the accepted use of a new material. • Technical performance – must be equivalent or better to succeed as an innovation. • Market Dynamics may be useful to add for substitution– is the intended application(s) a

growing or shrinking market. Is the application a critical future technology on current trends (e.g. fuel cells)?

Furthermore, it was concluded that the environmental performance cannot be used in the same way as was suggested with the other sectors, because of lack of relevant comparative material. It is more relevant to assess the impact of the substitute on an absolute scale for instance by assessing the


77

compliance with REACH regulations, and setting as a criterion that no adverse environmental, health or safety effects may be introduced by the substitution related technology.

It was also concluded that a substitution route proposed required an EU capability to exploit the substitute. This is indeed a challenge since much of our fundamental research work leads to industrial activities and infrastructure outside the EU-27.

Lastly the potential economic benefit of the innovative technology itself must be balanced against the extent to which the innovative technology may influence the current market situation; new technologies may have a positive impact on EU competitiveness or a detrimental impact on the existing market.

The following table looks at the proposed criteria and assesses the suitability for substitution technologies.


78

Table 11 Summary of criteria for Substitution

Criterion Sub Criteria Impact on Cost Price A comparison needs to be made between the costs of the substitute and the

costs of the ‘function’ it substitutes. Economic Benefit Economic benefit generated on the basis of range and scale of applications of

the substitute when reaching the forecast market(s), including forecast for future uptake

Jobs created in the EU Employment generated in EU enabled by the pilot, as expected deriving from industrial implementation of the substitute material

Economy

Impact on Skills and Knowledge

Impact on the returns from IPR and the improved knowledge base enabling to establish Europe as leader in Substitution technologies

Impact on relative criticality What matters is the relative criticality of the material being substituted and its replacement. A highly critical material being displaced by a low/none critical material rates highest

Recyclability of the substituted material

Ensuring the substituted material / product / service does not give rise to problems of recyclability worse than the original material

Raw Material Availability

Replaced materials vital to current EU27 industries

Strategic position of the material / product / service for the European economy

Absolute Environmental Performance

impact of the substitute on an absolute scale for instance by assessing the compliance with REACH regulations; comparisons less or not applicable Environment,

health and safety Health and Safety aspects Overall risks and H&S aspects associated to the implementation of substitute, including Industrial risks; no adverse effects allowable.

Impact on relevant challenges

Impact on the different challenges, relevant for the Substitution aspects

Technology readiness Level of technological advancement for the process under development Exploitation capability EU capability to exploit the technology in terms of science and industrial

infrastructure Relative Technical Performances

Technical performances of the substitute in comparison to existing technology

Barriers for innovation Explanation about how relevant barriers are addressed and overcome

Stage of Innovation

Clarification for government support

Explaining the role for government

4.10 Summary and conclusions: criteria for pilot selection The preceding sectors in this chapter introduce a set of criteria and sub-criteria that may lead to a balanced assessment procedure for calls for proposals that may emerge in the framework of the EIP-RM. The (sub-)criteria have been presented to a wide range of stakeholders and experts and received broad support. Assessment of a number of pilots in the framework of this study (not reported here) showed that –even in the absence of detailed data- the criteria proposed could indeed be made operational and therefore relevant for pilot assessment.

In this study, it was a deliberate choice not to suggest weighting factors among the various criteria and sub-criteria. If the basis of assessment is accepted, the relative weights of the criteria is a matter of debate among the stakeholders assembled within the EIP-RM. The opinions of stakeholders from the sectors under study here (given in detail in Annex 8) seem to suggest that the weight of the various (sub-)criteria may change with the sector. When such a decision has been taken , further operationalization of weighting factors is a rather simple mathematical operation.

The study does also not present a proposal for gradation of the answers to the various criteria. Regarding the qualitative aspects among the criteria (for instance related to innovation barriers, health & safety aspects, or the general quality and consistency) procedures similar to what is


79

currently used upon proposal assessment will be the most convenient procedure. For the quantitative criteria (for instance about economic benefit, or raw materials availability) the answers may be used in an absolute scale, which may lead to prioritization using cumulative distribution plots, that clearly show the improvements in a quantitative way.

Finally, various stakeholders and experts recommended the use of eligibility criteria besides the criteria that lead to a graded qualitative or quantitative assessment. Some criteria indeed qualify to act as such an eligibility criterion such as the raw materials availability (‘a pilot should add to the raw materials availability of the EU-27’) and the performance with respect to environment, safety & health (‘pilots need to show at least parity on environment, health and safety aspects with state of the art or best available technologies’).

A summary of the criteria and sub-criteria that were introduced in the preceding sections is given in the tables below. Because it was felt that the sector of exploration has some distinctively different characteristics, the criteria relating to this sector are presented in a separate table. The summarizing table for the field of substitution was already presented in the previous section.

Table 12 Summary of criteria for Exploration

Criterion Sub Criteria Description of sub-criteria

Exploration Investment Intensity

Impact of new exploration processes or technologies on the cost profile of exploration activities

Absolute Economic Benefit

Benefits associated to the increased reserves, resources and reserve base and the expectations of the exploration companies (balance between investments and expected returns for exploration stakeholders)

Permanent and temporary Jobs created in the EU

Employment generated (in EU) associated to the pilot. The temporary jobs may be the prominent ones, due to the exploration activity: indirect activities, extent of subcontractors and outsourcing of several activities

Economic Impact

Impact on skills and knowledge

Impact on the returns achievable from the IPR generated and on the increased knowledge base enabling to establish Europe as the new leader in Exploration

Environment, health and

safety

Environmental Performance

Exploration with less impacts: new technologies that permit to effect the exploration with minor impact in the different aspects of concern in a LCA approach (energy, water use, gaseous emissions, toxic emissions, wastes generated, impact on biodiversity, land use ...)


Does the pilot increase/ affect the availability of RM within the EU-27

Identification of the volumes interested by the pilot; which materials and to what extent are interested


Impact on the different challenges, relevant for the Exploration stage

Technology readiness Definition of the status of the innovation (ranging from basic research up to the commercial deployment)

Dealing with barriers for innovation

Explanation about how relevant barriers are addressed and overcome Stage of

Innovation




80

Table 13 Summary of criteria for Exploitation, Processing and Recycling

Criterion Sub Criteria Description of sub-criteria Impact on Cost Price Overall impact on the final cost price for the final product, by implementing pilot

results Absolute Economic Benefit

Benefits associated to the increased / improved production and recycling capabilities. Balance between investments and expected returns

Jobs created in the EU Employment generated in EU enabled by the pilot, as expected upon full scale-up Economy

Impact on skills and knowledge

Impact on the returns achievable from the IPR generated and the EU increased knowledge base enabling to establish Europe as the new leader in these areas


Does the pilot increase/ affect the availability of RM within the EU-27

Identification of the volumes interested by the pilot; which materials and to what extent are concerned

Environmental Performance

Impact of exploitation, processing and Recycling innovations compared with state of the art or best available technologies on energy, water use, gaseous emissions, toxic emissions, wastes generated, impact on biodiversity, land use; Impact the pilot plant has on the visual – landscape aspects may be included here.

Environment, health and

safety Health and Safety aspects

Overall risks and H&S aspects associated to the pilots implementation and expected results, including Industrial risks


Impact on the different challenges, relevant for the Exploitation / Processing and Recycling aspects

Technology readiness Definition of the status of the innovation (ranging from basic research up to the commercial deployment)

Dealing with barriers for innovation

Explanation about how relevant barriers are addressed and overcome Stage of

innovation



For completeness the following table summarizes the criteria proposed for the 3 different areas discussed above. This overview emphasizes that most criteria apply to all areas and that the area of substitution requires a different approach.


81

Table 14 Overview of criteria for all areas

Criterion Sub Criteria

Expl

orat

ion

Expl

oita

tion,

Re

cycl

ing,

Pr

oces

sing

Subs

titut

ion

Exploration Investment Intensity X (Impact on) cost price x x

Absolute Economic Benefit X x x

Jobs created in the EU X x x Economic Impact

Impact on skills and knowledge Does the pilot increase/ affect the availability of RM within the EU-27

X x

Impact on relative criticality X

Recyclability of the substituted material X


Replaced materials vital to current EU27 industries X

(comparative) Environmental Performance X x Absolute environmental performance X Environment, health and safety Health and safety aspects x X

Impact on relevant challenges X x x Technology readiness X X X Dealing with barriers for innovation X x x Clarification for government support X x X Exploitation capability x

Stage of Innovation

Relative Technical Performances x


82

5 Cooperating with non-EU-27 Countries

The focus of the study is on innovations that will support the security of supply of raw materials for the EU-27 while at the same time being compatible with sustainable development goals. However, partnering with countries outside the EU is expected to speed up innovation since considerable expertise lies outside the EU-27, particularly in countries with thriving mineral resources industries.

Preferred partnering countries would preferably have:

- a leading role in the raw materials value chain

- a good track record in innovation and technology development activity in one or more of the key sectors of the raw material value chain

- published a public policy supporting research related to the mineral resources value chain

- an economy similar in nature to that of the EU, are strongly reliant on sustainable management of raw materials an good

For innovative technologies in the field of exploration, exploitation and processing, it is worthwile analysing the stance of a country in relation to the EU-27. A long-list of countries can be produced based on an overview of mineral producing countries, that was presented as an Annex to the report of the Ad-hoc Working Group on Critical Raw Materials15. From this document one can derive the stance that countries have with respect to raw materials. As a threshold for the current purpose , countries are selected in case they hold strong raw materials positions 16 for at least two raw materials (the only exception being Mongolia, which is included because of recent developments in the mining sector). On these grounds the long-list is:

Table 15 Long list of countries related to mining and processing

Europe Asia Africa North-America South-America Australia

Norway Russia Ukraine

China India Japan Kazakhstan Mongolia Turkey South Korea

DR Congo Republic of South Africa

Canada USA

Argentina Bolivia Brazil Chili Peru

Australia

15 Ad-hoc working group on defining critical raw materials - 2010 - Critical raw materials for the EU - European Commission, DG Enterprise (Brussels, Belgium) - http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/policies/raw-materials/files/docs/report-b_en.pdf - Annex V: 16 A strong position is held by a country in case it produces more than 5% of world production, or holds a share of imports to Europe of more than 5%.


83

Considering the ‘criteria’ presented above and the information gathered on potential partners, fruitful partnerships could be explored on a case by case basis with research organisations in Australia, Canada, Japan, USA, Norway and South Africa.

These countries have moderate to very strong positions on mineral fields along the value chain (from geophysics to exploration drilling, to mining technologies and advanced metallurgical research and experience), have open economies similar to the EU-27, mostly rank among the most innovative nations and have a good or increasing interest in improving the environmental performance.

Table 16 Performance indicators for potential partnering nations

Leading role in the RM value chain for >5 RM

Global innovation index 2012 ranking (INSEAD)

Importance given to sustainable processes?

Environmental Performance Indicator 2012

United States

Yes 10 Limited, varies in individual States

49

Australia Yes 23 Good 48

Canada Yes 12 Limited, varies in individual Provinces

37

South Africa

Yes 54 Increasing 128

Japan Yes 25 Yes 23

Norway No 14 Yes 3

It is impossible to define the “ideal” possible partner as long as no specific project with a clear scope, expected deliverables and applicable rules (including budgetary rules) are defined. At this stage the information on the selected countries should serve as a guidance for later contacts in case specific pilot actions will have been determined. There are good chances to develop partnerships on precompetitive research.

For innovative technologies in the field of recycling, the situation is different and simpler. Effective recycling depends on the presence of significant ‘urban mines’ (materials present in society, either embedded in actively working products and infrastructure, or in products at their end-of-life), highly organized collection infrastructure, high need for raw materials and available technology infrastructure for the recycling process. The EU-27 and Japan are both at the forefront of innovation in recycling technology. In a recent study performed in the Netherlands, the Japanese situation with respect to recycling (among others) was investigated and described in detail17. The study indicates the main activities, progress and main players in this field. Cooperating with Japan in the field of recycling is highly recommendable.

17 http://www.hcss.nl/reports/samenwerken-aan-zeldzame-aarden-nl/90/; (English: Cooperate on rare earths), a report by HCSS and TNO, tasked b y the Dutch Ministry of Economic Affairs, Agriculture and Innovation, March 2012


84

For substitution technologies, the list of countries is also shorter and simpler. Highly technological societies that depend strongly on the availability of raw materials for commercially or strategically vital functions have well documented substitution programs on-going: the most dominant countries in this respect are the USA and Japan. In the USA, both the Department of Defence and the Department of Energy18 have a strong interest in assessing the current situation regarding strategic raw materials and have on-going activities with respect to substitution of the use of critical raw materials. Japan has well described targets when it comes to substitution of critical raw materials and a long-list of relevant programs and research projects is available.19

Cooperation in these two latter fields with the USA and Japan is fully in line with the already ongoing trilateral cooperation between the European Commission, the U.S. Department of Energy, Japan’s Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry, and the New Energy and Industrial Technology Development Organization that have led to already two EU-US-Japan Trilateral Conferences in recent years.

18 See for instance: U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY - CRITICAL MATERIALS STRATEGY - DECEMBER 2011, with special attention for chapter 6 “Program Directions” 19 See again: ‘Samenwerken aan zeldzame aarden’, a report by HCSS and TNO, March 2012, and the references therein


85

Annex 1 Glossary of terms describing the Minerals Value Chain Mining Sector Mineral Exploration: Exploration aims at locating the presence of economic deposits and establishing their nature, shape, and grade, and the investigation may be divided into (1) preliminary and (2) final. It includes the search for mineral or ore by (1) geological surveys; (2) geophysical prospecting (may be ground, aerial, or both); (3) boreholes and trial pits; or (4) surface or underground headings, drifts, or tunnels. Mine Development: Work of driving openings to and in a proved ore body to prepare it for mining and transporting the ore. The term employed to designate the operations involved in preparing a mine for ore extraction. It includes all activities carried out on a producing mine or mining project committed to production to outline, block out and gain access to the ore and prepare it for production. It also includes drilling, rock work and support to extend known mineral deposits in production or committed to production. Exploitation: The process of winning or producing from the Earth oil, gas, minerals, or rocks that have been found as the result of exploration. The extraction and utilization of ore.

Processing Sector Mineral Processing: Mineral processing is the art of treating crude ores and mineral products in order to separate the valuable minerals from the waste rock, or gangue. It is the first process that most ores undergo after mining in order to provide a more concentrated material for the procedures of extractive metallurgy. The primary operations are comminution and concentration, but there are other important operations in a modern mineral processing plant, including sampling and analysis and dewatering. Sampling: Sampling is the removal from a given lot of material a portion that is representative of the whole yet of convenient size for analysis. Analysis: After one or more samples are taken from an amount of ore passing through a material stream such as a conveyor belt, the samples are reduced to quantities suitable for further analysis. Analytical methods include chemical, mineralogical, and particle size. Comminution: In order to separate the valuable components of an ore from the waste rock, the minerals must be liberated from their interlocked state physically by comminution. As a rule, comminution begins by crushing the ore to below a certain size and finishes by grinding it into powder, the ultimate fineness of which depends on the fineness of dissemination of the desired mineral. Concentration: Concentration involves the separation of valuable minerals from the other raw materials received from the grinding mill. In large-scale operations this is accomplished by taking


86

advantage of the different properties of the minerals to be separated. These properties can be colour (optical sorting), density (gravity separation), magnetic or electric (magnetic and electrostatic separation), and physicochemical (flotation separation). Dewatering: Concentrates and tailings produced by the methods outlined above must be dewatered in order to convert the pulps to a transportable state. In addition, the water can be recycled into the existing water circuits of the processing plant, greatly reducing the demand for expensive fresh water. Extractive Metallurgy: The end product of Mineral Processing is an ore concentrate which is then put through Metallurgical Processing activities. Hydrometallurgy, pyrometallurgy or a combination of the two and in some cases electrolysis, are used to “refine” the concentrate by detaching the atoms of the target elements from the crystal lattice at the atomic level and finally obtain the RM. Hydrometallurgical or chemical processing includes leaching, separation of impurities from leach solution, solid/liquid separation, solution purification, solvent extraction, ion exchange, electrowinning of metals from aqueous solutions, while pyrometallurgical processing (smelting of mineral concentrates) mainly includes roasting, smelting and refining. Purification-Refining: Refining is the final procedure for removing (and often recovering as by-products) the last small amounts of impurities left after the major extraction steps have been completed. It leaves the major metallic element in a practically pure state for commercial application. The three basic refining methods are pyro-metallurgical, electrolytic, and chemical. All these methods are based on distinctive properties of the individual elements, such as melting temperature, density, and electronegativity. Pure metals are frequently obtained by employing several refining methods in succession.

Recycling Sector Recycling: Recycling is the recovery and reprocessing of waste materials for use in new products. The basic phases in recycling are the collection of waste materials, their processing or manufacture into new products, and the purchase of those products, which may then themselves be recycled. The materials reused in recycling serve as substitutes for raw materials.

In the following graph a very detailed picture is given of the various (detailed) steps of the mineral raw materials value chain.


87


88

Substitution Sector Substitution aims at replacing a rare or/and expensive material with another, more abundant and/or cheaper one having similar physicochemical properties with the initial one. Substitution can also aim beyond the material level. Instead of substituting one substance by another it may be more beneficial to analyze the product system itself and investigate whether a key product function could be achieved by a smarter product approach. It should also be noted that for each application of a particular raw material a different substitute materials may be required.


89

Annex 2 Stakeholder overview

The identification of innovative technologies and pilot plants requires stakeholders that are able and willing to support the project in suggesting these technologies and plants. Both a broad coverage of the segments of the raw materials value chain and of the EU-27 countries is important for both a good and a broadly accepted outcome of this study. This annex describes the roles of these stakeholders in the study and the process of selecting and engaging them.

Stakeholders from relevant raw materials segments

The stakeholders need to cover the full range of the raw materials value chain. Furthermore, for acceptance of the outcome of the study, it is required that all 27 EU-countries are engaged in similar and un-biased ways.

The consortium therefore has selected stakeholder organisations, such as European Technology Platforms (ETPs), the Raw Materials Supply Group20 and a variety of industrial and academic associations that are related to the raw materials value chain. Besides stakeholders involved in the production, consumption and use of abiotic materials, stakeholders from the area of several biotic materials were selected as well.

For broad and un-biased coverage of the EU-27-countries, the so-called National Contact Points (NCPs) were engaged in the web-based questionnaire, with the explicit request to distribute the questionnaire to the relevant stakeholders in the countries they represent.21

These stakeholder organisations were asked to participate in the web-based questionnaire and the 1st Workshop (22 October, 2012). It was emphasized by the consortium (and checked) that the information and the web-based questionnaire is passed on to the members of and participants in these stakeholder organisations.

20 The Raw Materials Supply Group is a stakeholder group comprising industry, environmental NGOs, trade unions, Member States, candidate countries and the Commission 21 The National Contact Points can be found on the Cordis website: http://cordis.europa.eu/fp7/ncp_en.html


90

Table 17 European Technology Platforms as stakeholders

ETP ETP website ECTP European Construction Technology

Platform http://www.ectp.org/

ESTEP European Steel Technology Platform http://cordis.europa.eu/estep/home_en.html

Manufuture Future Manufacturing Technologies http://www.manufuture.org/manufacturing/

WSSTP Water Supply and Sanitation Technology Platform

http://www.wsstp.eu/site/online/home

SusChem Sustainable Chemistry http://www.suschem.org/ EuMaT Advanced Engineering Materials and

Technologies http://www.eumat.eu/

ARTEMIS Embedded Computing Systems http://www.artemis.eu/ Photovoltaics Photovoltaics http://www.eupvplatform.org/ TPWind European Technology Platform for Wind

Energy http://www.windplatform.eu/

Net!Works Converged fixed and Wireless Communication Networks

http://www.networks-etp.eu/home.html

NESSI Networked European Software and Services Initiative

http://www.nessi-europe.eu/default.aspx?page=home

EUROP Robotics http://www.robotics-platform.eu/cms/index.php

EpoSS European Technology Platform on Smart Systems Integration

http://www.smart-systems-integration.org/public

ETP SMR European Technology Platform on Sustainable Mineral Resources

http://www.etpsmr.org/

Industrial Safety

Industrial Safety ETP http://www.industrialsafety-tp.org/

http://www.ectp.org/

http://cordis/

http://cordis.europa.eu/technology-platforms/manufuture_en.html

http://www.manufuture.org/

http://www.manufuture.org/manufacturing/

http://www.manufuture.org/manufacturing/

http://cordis.europa.eu/technology-platforms/wsstp_en.html





http://cordis.europa.eu/technology-platforms/suschem_en.html

http://www.suschem.org/

http://www.suschem.org/

http://cordis.europa.eu/technology-platforms/eumat_en.html

http://www.eumat.eu/



http://cordis.europa.eu/technology-platforms/artemis_en.html

http://www.artemis.eu/

http://www/

http://cordis.europa.eu/technology-platforms/photovoltaics_en.html

http://www/

http://cordis.europa.eu/technology-platforms/tpwind_en.html

http://www.windplatform.eu/



http://cordis.europa.eu/technology-platforms/networks_en.html





http://cordis.europa.eu/technology-platforms/nessi_en.html

http://www.nessi-europe.eu/

http://www.nessi-europe.eu/



http://cordis.europa.eu/technology-platforms/europ_en.html

http://www.robotics-platform.eu/

http://www.robotics-platform.eu/cms/index.php

http://www.robotics-platform.eu/cms/index.php

http://cordis.europa.eu/technology-platforms/eposs_en.html





http://cordis.europa.eu/technology-platforms/smr_en.html




http://cordis.europa.eu/technology-platforms/industrialsafety_en.html

http://cordis.europa.eu/technology-platforms/industrialsafety_en.html

http://www.industrialsafety-tp.org/

http://www.industrialsafety-tp.org/


91

Table 18 Associations as stakeholders

Name WebsiteAt European level Eurofer http://www.eurofer.org/ EuroGeoSurveys, the Association of the European Geological Surveys http://www.eurogeosurveyUEPG, the European Union Association of Aggregate Producers http://www.uepg.org/ Euromines http://www.euromines.org/Eurometaux http://www.eurometaux.euEuropean Aluminium Association http://www.alueurope.eu/Euroalliages http://www.alueurope.eu/European Precious Metals Federation http://www.epmf.be/ Dechema (Society for Chemical Engineering and Biotechnology) http://www.dechema.de/enE-MRS (European Materials Research Society) http://www.emrs-strasbourKMM-VIN (European Virtual Institute on knowledge-based multifunctional materials) http://www.kmm-vin.eu/ AITEMIN (Association for Research and Industrial Development of Natural Resources) http://www.aitemin.es/indeIMA- Europe (Industrial Minerals) http://www.ima-europe.euEurogypsum http://www.eurogypsum.orCerame- Unie http://www.cerameunie.euCembureau http://www.cembureau.be/Euroroc http://www.euroroc.net/naEuropean Electronics Recyclers Association http://www.eera-recyclers.EARTO, the network of European RTOs http://www.earto.eu/ Confederation of European Woodworking Industries (CEI-Bois) http://www.cei-bois.org ETRMA-European Tyre & Rubber Manufacturers’ Association http://www.etrma.org CEPI (Confederation of European Paper Industries). http://www.cepi.org At International level The International Antimony Association http://www.antimony.be/International Zinc Association http://www.zinc.org/ International Lead Association http://www.ila-lead.org/ European Copper Institute http://www.eurocopper.orgNickel Institute http://www.nickelinstitute.The Barytes Association http://www.barytes.org/ BIR (Bureau of International Recycling) http://www.bir.org

Consulting with the ERA-MIN network

Since the end of 2011, the ERA-MIN network has come on stream. The prime purpose of ERA-MIN is to coordinate research programs in the field of industrial production and supply of raw materials, in

http://www/

http://www.eurogeosurveys.org/

http://www/

http://www.uepg.org/

http://www/

http://www/

http://www/

http://www/

http://www/

http://www/

http://www.dechema.de/en/start_en.html

http://www.emrs-strasbourg.com/

http://www.kmm-vin.eu/

http://www.aitemin.es/index2_e.html

http://www/

http://www/

http://www/

http://www/

http://www/

http://www/


92

line with the “EU Raw Materials Initiative”. These goals are reached by mapping of the ENERC (European non-energy mineral raw materials research community) and by “identifying common actions that meet a broad consensus among the national research and funding agencies, national decision makers, and industry”. Part of the activities include the “Identification of the challenges to be addressed by future research in both its fundamental and applied aspects”.

During its first sessions ERA-MIN decided to install working groups that will work (amongst others) on developing new innovative technologies and solutions for sustainable primary and secondary sources for the substitution of critical materials. Although still in its start-up phase it is clear that the ERA-MIN network should be contacted for this study.

Table 19 ERA-MIN participants

Contact person Affiliation

Olivier Vidal CNRS (F)

Tamas Hámor MBFH (HU)

Keskinen Kari TEKES (FI)

Derk Bol M2I (NL)

Katarina Nilsson SGU (SW)

Katharina Schumacher

Jülich (D)

Frank Wolf BMBF (D)

Margareta Groth VINNOVA (SW)

Maria Bojanowska NCBIR (PL)

Lucia Iñigo CDTI (ES)

Dina Carrilho FCT (P)


93

Annex 3 Complete list of materials This list was presented to participants to the web-based questionnaire; a selection up to 5 materials could be made.

Abrasives Cesium Graphite Mercury Rhenium Thorium Aggregates Chromium Gypsum Mica Rubidium Tin Aluminum Clays Hafnium Molybdenum Salt Titanium

Antimony Kaolin Helium Nickel Sand and Gravel Tungsten

Arsenic Cobalt Indium Niobium Scandium Vanadium Asbestos Copper Iodine Nitrogen Selenium Vermiculite

Barite Diamond Iron and Steel Ornamental stone Silicon Wollastonite

Barytes Dimensional stone Iron Ore Peat Silver Yttrium

Bauxite Dyatomite Iron Oxide Pigments Perlite Soda Ash Zeolites

Bentonite Feldspar Kyanite PGMs Sodium Sulfate Zinc

Beryllium Fluorspar Lead Phosphate Rock Strontium Zirconium

Bismuth Gallium Lime Platinum Sulfur

Boron Garnet Lithium Potash Talc

Bromine Gemstones Magnesite / Dolomite Pumice Tantalum

Cadmium Germanium Magnesium Quartz Crystal Tellurium

Cement Gold Manganese Rare Earths Thallium


94

Annex 4 Technology Readiness Level (TRL) definitions and descriptions

TRL 1 Definition TRL 1 Description

Basic Research. Initial scientific research begins. Examples include studies on basic material properties. Principles are qualitatively postulated and observed.

Basic principles are observed. Focus is on fundamental understanding of a material or process. Examples might include paper studies of a material’s basic properties or experimental work that consists mainly of observations of the physical world. Supporting information includes published research or other references that identify the principles that underlie the material pr process. A specific example in PV might be the observation of increased light absorption in silicon nanotubes or observation of multiple exciton generation.


Applied Research. Initial practical applications are identified. Potential of material or process to satisfy a technology need is confirmed.

Once basic principles are observed, practical applications can be identified. Applications are speculative, and there may be no proof or detailed analysis to support the assumptions. Examples are still limited to analytic studies. Supporting information includes publications or other references that outline the application being considered and that provide analysis to support the concept. The step up from TRL 1 to TRL 2 moves the ideas from basic to applied research. Most of the work is analytical or paper studies with the emphasis on understanding the science better. Experimental work is designed to corroborate the basic scientific observations made during TRL 1 work. An example in PV might be analytical models of a new thin film with very low absorption coefficient that could serve as an enhanced anti-reflective coating, or in a multi-layer anti-reflective coating.


Critical Function, i.e., Proof of Concept Established. Applied research continues and early stage development begins. Includes studies and initial laboratory measurements to validate analytical predictions of separate elements of the technology. Examples include research on materials, components, or processes that are not yet integrated.

Analytical studies and laboratory-scale studies are designed to physically validate the predictions of separate elements of the technology. Examples include components that are not yet integrated. Supporting information includes results of laboratory tests performed to measure parameters of interest and comparison to analytical predictions for critical components. At TRL 3 experimental work is intended to verify that the concept works as expected. Components of the technology are validated, but there is no strong attempt to integrate the components into a complete system. Modeling and simulation may be used to complement physical experiments. Examples in PV would include deposition of thin films on bare substrates or films for optical measurement of devices and not necessarily actual PV devices.


Laboratory Testing/Validation of Alpha Prototype Component/Process. Design, development and lab testing of technological components are performed. Results provide evidence that applicable component/process

The basic technological components are integrated to establish that the pieces will work together. This is relatively “low fidelity” compared with the eventual system. Examples include integration of ad hoc hardware in a laboratory and testing. Supporting information includes the results of the integrated experiments and estimates of how the experimental components and experimental


95

performance targets may be attainable based on projected or modeled systems.

test results differ from the expected system performance goals. TRL 4-6 represent the bridge from scientific research to engineering, from development to demonstration. TRL 4 is the first step in determining whether the individual components will work together as a system. The laboratory system will probably be a mix of on-hand equipment and a few special purpose components that may require special handling, calibration, or alignment to get them to function. An example in PV might include the first attempts to fabricate a new PV device design in the laboratory. The concept is there but the details of the unit process steps are not yet worked out. The goal of TRL 4 should be the narrowing of possible options in the complete system.


Laboratory Testing of Integrated/Semi-Integrated System. Component and/or process validation in relevant environment- (Beta prototype component level).

The basic technological components are integrated so that the system configuration is similar to (matches) the final application in almost all respects. Supporting information includes results from the laboratory scale testing, analysis of the differences between the laboratory and eventual operating system/environment, and analysis of what the experimental results mean for the eventual operating system/environment. The major difference between TRL 4 and 5 is the increase in the fidelity of the system and environment to the actual application. The system tested is almost prototypical. An example in PV might be the fabrication of devices that closely match or exceed the expected efficiency targets but is fabricated in the lab manually with minimal automation. Scientific risk should be retired at the end of TRL 5. Results presented should be statistically relevant.


Prototype System Verified. System/process prototype demonstration in an operational environment- (Beta prototype system level).

Engineering-scale models or prototypes are tested in a relevant environment. This represents a major step up in a technology’s demonstrated readiness. Examples include fabrication of the device on an engineering pilot line. Supporting information includes results from the engineering scale testing and analysis of the differences between the engineering scale, prototypical system/environment, and analysis of what the experimental results mean for the eventual operating system/environment. TRL 6 begins true engineering development of the technology as an operational system. The major difference between TRL 5 and 6 is the step up from laboratory scale to engineering scale and the determination of scaling factors that will enable design of the final system. For PV cell or module manufacturing, the system that is referred to is the manufacturing system and not the cell or module. The engineering pilot scale demonstration should be capable of performing all the functions that will be required of a full manufacturing system. The operating environment for the testing should closely represent the actual operating environment. Refinement of the cost model is expected at this stage based on new learning from the pilot line. The goal while in TRL 6 is to reduce engineering risk. Results presented should be statistically relevant.


Integrated Pilot System Demonstrated. System/process prototype demonstration in an

This represents a major step up from TRL 6, requiring demonstration of an actual system prototype in a relevant environment. In the case of a new PV module, this will include a full scale pilot line


96

operational environment-(integrated pilot system level).

capable of producing such modules. Examples include manufacturing the PV devices on a manufacturing pilot line with operations under primary control of manufacturing. Significant amount of automation is expected at the completion of this phase if the cost model for full scale ramp requires it. 24 hour production (at least for a relevant duration) is expected to discover any unexpected issues that might occur during scale up and ramp. Supporting information includes results from the full-scale testing and analysis of the differences between the test environment, and analysis of what the experimental results mean for the eventual operating system/environment. Final design is virtually complete. The goal of this stage is to retire engineering and manufacturing risk. To credibly achieve this goal and exit TRL 7, scale is required as many significant engineering and manufacturing issues can surface during the transition between TRL 6 and 7.


System Incorporated in Commercial Design. Actual system/process completed and qualified through test and demonstration- (Pre-commercial demonstration).

The technology has been proven to work in its final form and under expected conditions. In almost all cases, this TRL represents the end of true system development. Examples include full scale volume manufacturing of commercial end product. True manufacturing costs will be determined and deltas to models will need to be highlighted and plans developed to address them. Product performance delta to plan needs to be highlighted and plans to close the gap will need to be developed.


System Proven and Ready for Full Commercial Deployment. Actual system proven through successful operations in operating environment, and ready for full commercial deployment.

The technology is in its final form and operated under the full range of operating conditions. Examples include steady state 24/7 manufacturing meeting cost, yield, and output targets. Emphasis shifts toward statistical process control.


97

Annex 5 Trends analysis and effect on roadmaps of European technology platforms

From the documents listed underneath, a list of trends was identified that –according to the consortium- bears a relation with raw materials issues.

Table 20 Sources used for identification of trends

Source Web reference Main focus intuit 2020 http://www.intuit.com/ techno-socio-economic focus broadstuff http://www.broadstuff.com economic and political focus future agenda http://www.futureagenda.org techno-socio-economic focus farhorizon http://farhorizon.portals.mbs.ac.uk/ specific themes iknow http://www.iknowfutures.eu/ techno-socio-economic focus Frost and Sullivan Consulting

http://www.slideshare.net/FrostandSullivan urban-techno focus

Foresight JRC http://foresight.jrc.ec.europa.eu technology focus worldforesightforum http://www.worldforesightforum.org techno-socio-economic focus global change http://www.globalchange.com economic and political focus future factors http://www.futuremanagementgroup.com techno-socio-economic focus

In the roadmaps and strategic research agenda of the following organisations, R&D topics were identified that call for the availability of more materials (often from more demanding locations) required by new technology and for improved water, energy and waste (emphasizing the need for intensified recycling) management of the raw materials value chains:

ETP SMR /2011 ARTEMIS / 2011 SUSCHEM / 2005 Photovoltaics / 2011 ERTRAC / 2009 ESTP / 2006

Photonics / 2010 ESTEP / 2005 WATERBORNE / 2011

ENIAC / 2010 Water ETP / 2010 ESTTP – Solar Thermal / 2008

RHC / 2011 EUMAT / 2006 ECTP – SMR / 2005

ERTRAC / 2009 Wind Energy / 2008


98

Annex 6 Environmental performance profiling This section describes how environmental performance profiles are compiled and which data sources are used.

Environmental performance profiles are based on the expected input parameters energy and water consumption and land use and on the output parameters greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, other emissions (such as to water) and waste, that evolve as a result of the successful execution of the pilot. The data are commonly expressed per unit weight of product that is iaffected by the pilot implementation.

The comparison to the state-of-the-art is of course an extremely relevant aspect: though data may be hard to gather, any proposal should demonstrate with referenced data which comparative data regarding the environmental footprint are used. Comparative data may be retrieved or composed of data from the following sources:

- Ecoinvent, a life cycle energy, material and emission inventory database. These data are rather detailed, but are often not dedicated to the EU. Land-use data and data on generated waste may also be retrieved from the EcoInvent database;

- The data on consumables derived from the reported aggregation level called NACE activities. NACE (Nomenclature générale des Activités économiques dans les Communautés Européennes) is an aggregation of economic activities that is commonly used in reporting formats, especially by statistical agencies, throughout Europe . As an example the NACE codes and descriptions regarding the mining sector are displayed in the table below:

Table 21 NACE activities within the mining sector

NACE Code NACE Name 07.10 Mining of iron ores 07.21 Mining of uranium and thorium ores 07.29 Mining of other non-ferrous metal ores 08.11 Quarrying of ornamental and building stone, limestone, gypsum, chalk and slate 08.12 Operation of gravel and sand pits; mining of clays and kaolin 08.91 Mining of chemical and fertiliser minerals 08.92 Extraction of peat 08.93 Extraction of salt 08.99 Other mining and quarrying n.e.c.

The use of these NACE data may be complicated by the fact that (except for the extraction of salt and the mining of iron ores), the activities comprise a range of products. Additional data may be required to retrieve production figures (for mining these sources may be Eurostat or the files from the British Geological Survey (http://www.bgs.ac.uk/mineralsuk/statistics/worldArchive.html).

- Eurostat : for instance, Eurostat collects data on the input of water (public and private water supply) and energy (per type of fossil and renewable energy source) in mining and quarrying.


99

- the European Pollutant Register and Transfer Protocol (E-PRTR; http://prtr.ec.europa.eu/) provides the most complete and freely available record of emission data in the EU. The E-PRTR contains comprehensive collected datasets on the emission to air and water on either facility level or economic activity level.

Using these data, it can be expected that a comparison in a quantitative way is feasible between the footprint of the suggested pilot action vis-à-vis a referenced benchmark, on all separate input and output parameters of which the environmental footprint is composed.

The calculated environmental profiles only show the ‘hard’ emissions and inputs regarding the mining industry. The numbers do not show the importance, nor the relativity of the outcomes – for example, 1 kg of CO2 emission per ton of iron produced might be putting less pressure on the environment than 1 m2 of arable land destroyed as result of mining activities. Therefore, once the environmental profiles are calculated, the results need to be weighed or valued. In the economy, prices reflect the value of goods or services. Hence, we take the average EU market prices of CO2 (EU Emission Trading System), energy , water, land and disposed waste to value these environmental impacts. However, for a number of impacts, in particular other emissions to air and water, a market and market price are lacking. For these categories, prices based upon the damage of emissions are used, as assessed by CE 2012 22. These prices have to be applied at pollutant level and not at product level. In-depth knowledge of the pilot action and its expected impact upon scaling up is therefore required upon answering a call for proposals.

Table 22 Sources to estimate prices for weighing of environmental impacts

Environmental impact parameters

Price source Unit

Energy consumption Average EU market price €/kWh Water consumption Average EU market price €/m3 Land-use Average EU market price €/m2 Emissions of greenhouse gases Average EU ETS market price €/kg CO2-equivalent Other emissions to air Average EU damage costs at pollutant level €/kg emission Emissions to water Average EU damage costs at pollutant level €/kg emission Waste Average EU disposal price €/kg waste

22 CE, Guidebook Shadow prices – weighting and valuation of emissions and environmental impacts (in Dutch: Handboek schaduwprijzen – waardering en weging van emissies en milieueffecten). CE, Delft, the Netherlands, 2010, CE № 10.7788.25a.


100

Annex 7 Challenges identified by the consortium related to Raw Materials

Identified challenges

In this document examples have been given of challenges associated to the value chain of raw materials. The challenges addressed in this annex represent a wider focus, and therefore provide a broader vision on technological, societal, economical or market related aspects.

Challenges identified within the SRAs of various ETPs

The definition of challenges, identified at European level as the main target for medium to long term research, can be extracted from a comprehensive analysis of the Strategic Research Agendas (SRAs). Focussing on the field of raw materials the SRA of the ETP-SMR has been analysed to extract the relevant challenges. Additional relevant challenges and research priorities within other European Technology Platforms have been identified as well. The results of these ‘other’ ETPs are given in the table below. The table gives an overview of the European vision of the expected – forecasted – developments related to the availability of Raw Materials.

Exploration and inventory of primary resources

Europe needs to acquire a comprehensive overview about its own available mineral resources, especially at great depths (more than 2000 m). To achieve this, advanced deep penetrating geophysical exploration technologies for land and sea-based exploration are required. A strong base in geostatistics, geophysics and geomodelling is required for successful technological innovation. More specifically, the pilots may address various deep penetrating technologies, advanced sensors and low-cost drilling technology.

Mineral extraction from land and sea bed deposits

Today some of the world’s smartest, and most energy and resource efficient mines and quarries are operating in Europe. The challenge is to develop further technological leadership aiming at economically viable and environmentally sound mineral extraction operations, including from greater depth of land and sea deposits (either from open-pit mining and from deep mines, depth higher than 2000 m). Environmentally sound includes an increase in efficiency with respect to water and energy consumption, resources reclamation combined with increased selectivity.

For sea exploitation, technological innovation is required in deep sea drilling, scavenging, transfer technology and tailing management. A further challenge is to gain knowledge on the long term effect of seabed exploitation on the local biosphere.

For deep open pit mining a technological challenge is to ensure long-term stability. Mineral processing

An important challenge in mineral processing is to develop ore and concentrates processing technologies that will allow step changes in energy, water and emissions intensity and will allow treating more complex (primary and secondary) mineral resources.


101

Metallurgy/metals and minerals recovery

Europe should significantly enhance the production efficiency and metal recovery when processing metal ores (Metal Factory of the Future). Efficiency in this respect is characterized by reduction in water, energy and chemicals consumption, increased yield and selectivity, and reduction in environmental emission. Furthermore, technology should be developed in order to be able to process even lower grade and/or complex (primary and secondary) materials in the most sustainable way.

Recycling

Europe has already become the leading continent with regard to recycling of base metals and a number of other raw materials. The same needs to be achieved for the recycling of critical and essential raw materials, where significant risk of supply is highlighted.

For the purpose of recycling, innovation along the entire reuse and recycling chain (logistics, pre-processing, material recovery) is required over all possible sources (production waste streams, end-of-life products, industrial side streams like slags, dusts, effluents, etc., tailings and landfills).

Innovation is also required in the field of monitoring and flows of end-of-life materials by development of smart tracking and tracing technology, right from the moment of collection throughout the entire EoL chain (e.g. tagging with RFIDs).


102

Annex 8 Feedback on criteria: results from the 1st workshop

Introduction to the workshop One of the main goals of this study is to provide relevant, realistic, practical and defendable criteria that lead to further prioritization and selection of innovative technology pilot plants. A discussion with more than 100 stakeholders from a range of raw materials related sectors was held during a workshop on October, 22nd , 2012 in Brussels.

All stakeholders identified in Annex 2 and the individual parties who submitted pilot plant suggestions during the period of the web-based questionnaire were invited to attend this workshop. The distribution of participants over countries and types of organisations is summarized below.

Coun

trie

s

Asso

ciat

ion

cons

ulta

ncy

gove

rnm

ent

indu

stry

RTO

Geol

ogic

al S

urve

y

Uni

vers

ity

Gran

d To

tal

Austria 1 1 Belgium 1 7 1 1 10 Switzerland 1 1 Czech Republic 1 1

Estonia 1 1 EU-27 12 2 1 15 Finland 1 1 2 France 2 6 3 2 4 17 Germany 2 6 5 3 16 Greece 1 3 4 Italy 1 1 1 2 3 8 Netherlands 1 4 3 2 10 Norway 1 1 4 1 7 Poland 1 1 2 Portugal 1 1 Spain 2 2 4 Sweden 5 1 1 7 UK 3 2 1 6 Grand Total 20 6 9 34 19 6 19 113

During interactive break-out sessions, 97 participants were actively involved, of which 20 related to mining, 28 to processing, 38 to recycling and 11 to substitution.


103

Feedback on criteria: the break-out sessions A schematic overview of the collected answers is given in the next figure. This figure shows which main criteria were either perceived as the most important (positive values) or the least important criteria (negative values) for selecting pilot proposals by participants from a particular area. The answers are shown for each of the stakeholder groups: mining, processing, recycling and substitution. Overall, the economic benefit of a pilot proposal was seen as most relevant.

Figure 21 Preference of workshop participants for criteria

Upon closer examination of the sub-criteria related to the economic benefit, the sub-criterion related to impact on cost price was perceived as least relevant by most participants, except those related to recycling (see next figure). The total economic benefit was overall judged as the most important sub-criterion.

Figure 22 Preference of workshop participants for economic sub-criteria

Among the sub-criteria related to the stage of innovation, the description of the impact on relevant challenges was seen overall as the most important sub-criterion.


104

Annex 9 Description of pilot areas

For each of the (ten) pilot areas selected in chapter 2, a more thorough description is provided in this annex. For each pilot area, the following is presented:

- a description of the area, its relevance and potential long-term achievements, a short overview of enabling technologies residing under the area, and its impact on economy, jobs and the environment.

- An innovation analysis providing insight in some of the non-technological drivers and/or barriers for implementation of the innovation. A more extensive explanation of this methodology is given in Annex 10. This analysis touches upon:

o the capacities and capabilities of the area (having sufficient qualified staff and support from management is a driver for innovation)

o additional technological aspects, such the need for additional fundamental research or infrastructure, which can both be seen as barriers towards innovation

o network characteristics (a strong network, with a converging opinion on the direction of R&D may be seen as a driver for innovation)

o market prospects (entry barriers, market unpredictability, and powerful competition can be considered as barriers for innovation)

o regulation and politics (regulatory pressure can be seen as a barrier or as a driver –in case innovation is forced by regulation)

o social support.

- An overview of the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats (SWOT) related to a pilot area, which leads to preferred actions to stimulate the activities presented in a pilot area.


105

Deep Underground Exploration and exploitation Description The pilot area covers a) the prospection of the earth crust (anywhere from near

surface to 3-4 km depth) with suitable, reliable and affordable technology in order to find areas which are worth to further explore, leading to transfer into minable reserves and b) technologies needed for a safe, sustainable and profitable exploitation of those reserves.

Relevance of Cluster Area

- Deep underground mining with minimal impacts on the surface, will likely receive the social license to operate in the EU’s more densely populated areas.

- Europe has a number of world-class technology suppliers and research institutes. Due to capital intensity of deep underground mines, large mining houses should be involved as soon as possible.

What can be the Long Terms Achievement in this Cluster Area

- Increase domestic supply - Reduction of environmental impact of mining operations; - Development of automated equipment (robots) in harsh and dangerous

environment., thereby strengthening the equipment industry; - Competitive position with regard to activities outside the EU-27 - Improving understanding of raw material potential below 1.000 m.

Enabling Technologies

Technologies for the mining equipment industry, designed for working under extreme conditions, sensor and drilling technology (for prospection/exploration), production drilling, blasting, loading and transport of raw materials below 1.000 meters, underground safety, underground ventilation, rapid drive/shaft development.

Economy, Jobs Both existing and new mining operations have a high investment and (therefore) job potential. In addition, an important job potential lies in all the, mainly EU, equipment and service providers that are needed to make such technologically complex operations possible. Many of these suppliers have worldwide leading positions.

Environmental Impact

Though research (e.g. on rock stability) is required, the environmental impact is one of the drivers for this cluster.


106

The Innovation Systems Analysis plot and the underlying considerations are given below:

Technological capacity within the field -0,2

Skilled human resources available -1,0 Ageing population, low follow-up Innovation champion/internal competition and commitment?

1,5 large companies involved

Capa

citie

s and

ca

pabi

litie

s

Entrepreneurial culture 1,5 innovative companies and qualified universities Need for additional research -0,2 e.g. long term stability Technological standards needed to use the innovation 0,0

Tech

nol

ogic

al

Need for additional Infrastructure -0,5 e.g. for cooling of deeper mining operations

Organizational capacity for cooperation in development 0,8

Convergence of activities and opinions 0,7

Net

wor

k ch

arac

teris

tic

s Network quality 1,0

Access to financial resources -1,0 stop&go in FP7

Market structure (e.g. entry barriers) -0,3 global companies will balance deeper mining vs. investment elsewhere

Predictability of the Market (e.g. volatility) 0,3 growing market push towards deeper mining; volatility is high but trend is towards more demand

Mar

ket p

rosp

ects

Competition in market 0,7

Regulation influencing development or use of the innovation -0,7 Uncertainty about direction of regulation may be barrier; regulation about open pits may be driver

Policy measures supporting the innovation 0,7

Regu

latio

n an

d po

litic

s

Political attention to the innovation area 0,2 less visible than e.g. recycling

Societal acceptance of the innovation by end-users 0,0 Innovation is not likely to attract attention from end-users!

Impact of industrial associations and professional bodies 0,0

Soci

al su

ppor

t

Impact of advocacy coalitions (NGOs, environmental org., special interest org.)

-1,0 because it may partly replace open pit mining, but you have to convince environmental aspects


107

Deep sea exploration / exploitation Description The pilot area covers:

- Improved exploration and evaluation tools - Technologies for deep see mining

In principle, all types of deep-sea mineralization are considered, such as sulphides, nodules, polymetallic crusts.


- These deposits are an important potential source for base, precious and rare metals.

- European EEZ is about 22 million km2 , representing the largest EEZ in the world, thereby providing access to new resources under EU control Five EU exploration licences already exist in international waters (nodules and seafloor massive sulfides)

- The area offers a high potential for technological innovation in the EU - High level EU scientific knowledge in the deep sea


• Contribution to the EU metal supply chain, • Diversification of EU metal supply, providing geopolitical advantages • Development of new technology and services (exportable), thereby

increasing EU competitiveness. Global market opportunities for innovative solution providers.

• Increasing scientific knowledge, thereby also enabling the EU to monitor deep-sea mining operations by other countries


- Exploration tools (e.g. Autonomous Underwater Vehicle, Remote Operated Vehicle,…)

- Evaluation tools (e.g. Underwater drilling tools, near bottom magnetism,…)

- Specifically developed exploitation and pilot capabilities - Mineral processing - Environmental and monitoring technology

Economy, jobs - As oceanic oil 40 years ago, deep-sea mining industry is possibly a new branch of industry starting to develop, though little has been done to evaluate the economic potential and the consequence for job growth

- There is a strong potential for new technological development units that could generate jobs, also in providing technology to others

- Many deposits are rich, this will minimize environmental impacts and exploitation costs, and increase exploitation opportunities


- Size of deposits varies considerably depending on the type of deposits. Localized high grades deposits will minimize the environmental impacts.

- Works still to be done to study biodiversity and functioning of ecosystems


108


Technological capacity within the field 2 Technological capacity for exploration, evaluation and pilot testing is a strong driver

Skilled human resources available 0,5 he European off shore and dredging activities play an important role here

Innovation champion/internal competition and commitment?

1,5 leading companies have a strategic goal with deep sea mining

Capa

citie

s and

ca

pabi

litie

s

Entrepreneurial culture 1,5

Need for additional research -1 Strong research needed for efficient technology both for exploration and evaluation

Technological standards needed to use the innovation 0 Several EU companies aim to adapt their technologies and diversify their skills in the deep sea

Tech

nolo

gica

l

Need for additional Infrastructure -1,5 Key: without having the pilots and related infrastructure a project like that can never be realized

Organizational capacity for cooperation in development 0 Need of networks between scientific groups and industry

Convergence of activities and opinions 0

Net

wor

k ch

arac

teris

tics

Network quality -1 Internal competition: Europe is not converged, though national networks are strong

Access to financial resources -1,5 Specific industrial investment only at country levels

Market structure (e.g. entry barriers) 0 Specific fiscal support exist only at country level

Predictability of the Market (e.g. volatility) -1 Mined raw materials need to have a minimum price which cover the higher costs with this mining method

Mar

ket p

rosp

ects

Competition in market -0,5 Competition with surface mining for raw materials will be fierce

Regulation influencing development or use of the innovation -2 No regulation yet for deep sea mining; only for deep sea exploration in international waters. Within the EEZ, the mining codes of individual countries apply

Policy measures supporting the innovation -1,5 Policy issues exist in international waters for nodules and sulfides

Regu

latio

n an

d po

litic

s

Political attention to the innovation area 1 Recent and strong political attention at EU and national level

Societal acceptance of the innovation by end-users -2 in case the method seems detrimental acceptance will be low


Soci

al su

ppor

t


-2 Importance to explain the scientific knowledge to NGOs, environmental org.


109

Processing industrial minerals with improved processing efficiency Description The pilot area covers the development of new sustainable technologies for processing

industrial minerals that lead to reduced energy and waste footprint. Central theme in the innovation area is the introduction of plant flexibility enabling the processing of various industrial (e.g. silicate) minerals in one location with minimal waste disposal.

Relevance of Pilot Area

- The current concept of "one plant for each mineral" leads to production inflexibility, waste, and continuous cost increase: the pilot area provides an improvement on (partially environmentally driven) costs thereby improving the competitive position

- In order for the EU companies to keep the leadership in this field and continue to supply the EU industry with high quality raw materials at competitive prices, it is essential to develop technologies that will improve process efficiency and will enable the exploitation of low grade and multiple deposits


- Reduction of energy, waste and thus environmental footprint for the production of chemically enriched products

- Innovative production facilities in which different types of raw materials can be treated by the same plant and more complex materials will be handled by reprocessing through multiple substreams

- Commercialisation of several low grade deposits in Central & Northern Europe Enabling Technologies

Innovative flexible batch processing equipment for Silicate products, automated rerouting transport systems and storage, computer model guided processes

Economy, Jobs The development of multi functional processing plants able to treat not one but various industrial minerals will have significant impact on the whole value chain of this sector as it will result in considerably less capital investment for the set up of the corresponding processing plants, will increase the flexibility of the producer in terms of the variety of raw materials to be processed and thus increasing the variety of end products that can be produced. Such development will drastically affect the whole industrial minerals production chain with the radical changes and new concepts introduced.

Introducing these technologies will lead to competitive advantages compared to conventional processing. The flexible and environmentally friendly technologies can be adapted and applied in many industrial mineral and metallic ores processing plants creating new jobs.

Additionally, the innovation will allow the Commercialisation of several low grade deposits in Central & Northern Europe and secondary materials.


This cluster area focuses on the development of technologies of improved efficiency, as far as the energy consumption and waste reduction is concerned, and will have significant environmental benefits mainly arising from the reduction of both CO2 emissions and the use of huge amounts of solid materials currently disposed in the environment.


110


Technological capacity within the field 2 EU has world-class companies / plays key role in the sector

Skilled human resources available 1 Innovation champion/internal competition and commitment?

0 Large players, but strong competition and low transparency

Capa

citie

s and

ca

pabi

litie

s

Entrepreneurial culture 2 innovative companies and highly qualified universities Need for additional research -0,7 Technological standards needed to use the innovation -0,2 new standards needed or produced for certification of

products Need for additional Infrastructure 0

Tech

nolo

gy

impl

emen

tatio

n

Existing IPR -0,7 IPR weaknesses, high competition from existing products/technologies

Organizational capacity for cooperation in development -0,3 Strong competition

Convergence of activities and opinions -1

Net

wor

k ch

arac

teris

tic

s Network quality 0

Access to financial resources 0,3 Some sectoral companies are world market leaders, but smaller companies may face constraints

Market structure (e.g. entry barriers) -0,3 competition from already assessed technologies or products

Predictability of the Market (e.g. volatility) -0,7

Mar

ket p

rosp

ects

Competition in market 1,3 Level competition leads to need for innovation

Regulation influencing development or use of the innovation 0,7 EU regulations on products may stimulate innovation

Policy measures supporting the innovation -1,3 New standards needed for certification of products

Regu

latio

n an

d po

litic

s

Political attention to the innovation area 0,3 growing due to the advantages of industrial minerals

Societal acceptance of the innovation by end-users 1

Impact of industrial associations and professional bodies 2

Soci

al su

ppor

t


1


111

Processing aggregates and dimensional stones with improved efficiency Description The pilot area covers activities related to the sustainable supply and recycling of

aggregates and construction minerals. More specifically the area relates to: - Underground exploitation of construction minerals, leading to increased social

acceptance of the activity; - Waste management, leading to the recuperation of waste with high carbonate

content, and transforming it in valuable materials ranging from secondary raw materials to building materials.

- Flexible and multifunctional plants, based on smart optimization that will enable the treatment of various types of materials in the same plant and the processing of ranges of aggregates for multiple use.


Approximately 13.500 companies and 28.000 sites with a total production of 3 billion tons per year signify the domestic situation on aggregates industry. Europe provides over 23% of the world-wide production of sand, gravel and crushed rock. More than 350.000 people are directly employed (1.3 million indirectly) by the European aggregates industry. Since, many countries are facing a local shortage of aggregate resources and an increasing focus is set on aggregates production from secondary sources it is apparent that this cluster area is of high importance for the EU economy.

What can be the Long Terms Achievement in this Pilot Area

- Reduction of environmental impact (reduced energy, reduction of soil and underground water contamination, transportation on clean energy basis, handling and deposition of radioactive wastes will be avoided)

- Conversion of wastes not used at the moment into valuable products, with potential of wastes elimination.

- Increased resource security for the EU - In the most ideal case specific waste materials (such as vitrified slag) can be used

as a direct substitute for cement. Enabling Technologies

Cost-effective optimization of excavation processes and the rock support, complex separation of excavated waste streams with new and improved production methods such as compressive and VSI crushing, dry/wet classification, optimized process control, visual separation and milling, crushing or shredding, a series of drum screens separating materials based on size, wet separation for fines with fraction lower than 10 mm using the density separation principle, dry separation steps for fines with fraction in excess of 10 mm including air, magnetic and eddy current separation

Economy, Jobs More than 350.000 people are directly employed (1.3 million indirectly) by the European aggregates industry. According to a study for industrial economy 13 jobs are created for every million produced ton of aggregates. Therefore, development of smart and flexible processing plants and full exploitation of the relevant waste streams will result in significant reduction of processing costs as well as to the development of marketable products from materials that are currently useless. Both of them will increase the competitiveness of EU aggregates industry and thus to jobs. The ever expanding urban zones and the growing number of Natura 2000 protected areas are increasingly limiting access to key local deposits. The proposed technologies ensure access to local aggregate reserves through underground exploitation without being subjected to land restrictions, thereby supporting the economy of the industry.


The reduction of energy consumption, the reduction of soil and underground water contamination, the relocation of mine sites underground and the use of waste materials leads to an ecological footprint is orders of magnitude better than the current benchmark.


112


Technological capacity within the field 0 Present especially at R&D level

Skilled human resources available -0,5 Not sufficiently available at industrial level Innovation champion/internal competition and commitment?

-1 Scattered players, relatively low added value

Capa

citie

s and

ca

pabi

litie

s

Entrepreneurial culture -0,5 Need for additional research 0 Unclear what the scope of additional research could be

due to relatively low technologies used for aggregates production (scrubbing, sizing, eventually washing).

Technological standards needed to use the innovation 0 Need for additional Infrastructure 0

Tech

nolo

gy

impl

emen

tatio

n

Existing intellectual property rights in the innovation area 0

Organizational capacity for cooperation in development -1 scattered players

Convergence of activities and opinions -0,5 growing due to environmental issues

Net

wor

k ch

arac

teris

tic

s Network quality -1 scattered players; no external driver (e.g. shortage)

Access to financial resources -1 limited investment capacities of SMES

Market structure (e.g. entry barriers) -1 strong competition from low cost products (in the case of dimensional stones) from outside EU

Predictability of the Market (e.g. volatility) 1 The market appears quite predictable as it is coupled to infrastructure and building industry prospects.

Mar

ket p

rosp

ects

Competition in market 0

Regulation influencing development or use of the innovation -1 Current EU policy and regulations for aggregates are a barrier to this field

Policy measures supporting the innovation -1

Regu

latio

n an

d po

litic

s

Political attention to the innovation area 0



Soci

al su

ppor

t


0 Environmental benefits may become driver


113

Treatment of mining and processing waste and low grade, complex ores Description The pilot area covers innovative, eco-friendly and economically viable processing

technologies that may lead to unlocking a substantial volume of various raw materials. The area covers the following sub-categories:

- Treatment of dust from specific industries (from the aluminum, steel, zinc and copper industry) or more generic, based on pyrometallurgical and hydrometallurgical technologies;

- Treatment (fly and bottom) ashes, specifically from waste incineration plants extracting various raw materials, using hydrometallurgy and bioleaching technologies;

- Tailings treatment, dealing with improved flotation, hydrometallurgical, pyrometallurgical and bioleaching technologies;

- Slags treatment, aimed at tin, silver, PGMs and iron, using hydrometallurgical techniques;

- Sustainable treatment of low grade and complex ores, with a focus on sulphide mineral ores, using bioleaching and innovative hydrometallurgical processes.


The steadily increasing demand for minerals, upward (though volatile) price pressure, the worldwide reserves of high grade ores steadily decreasing and the import dependency of EU on many RM, and the EU reserves of complex and low grade ores all add to the relevance of this area. Current technologies are of low efficiency, have severe environmental impact, with tailings causing soil pollution and with exponentially growing energy requirements. Furthermore, the area addresses a big environmental issue, due to the large quantities of wastes, from existing and closed mining and processing activities, currently disposed in EU.

What can be the Long Terms Achievement in this pilot area

- Turning wastes into valuable products, with potential of wastes elimination; - Reduction of environmental impact of complex ore treatment - Multifunctionality and flexibility in plants adaptable to a wide range of primary

and secondary raw materials, because the combination of these techniques in one plant makes it easy to process and re-process in such a way, that the highest yields are being regained of the scarce raw minerals.


Various hydrometallurgical, pyrometallurgical and bio(leaching)technologies: improved AC Electric Arc Furnace technology capable of processing dusty materials with increased smelting energy efficiency and without any need for pretreatment, recycling of waste materials through a reactive thermal process, advanced hydrometallurgical technologies adapted to particular characteristics of sulphide minerals ores under solvent extraction and electrolysis, combination of pyrometallurgical and hydrometallurgical technology to recycle complex waste streams, novel beneficiation technology for low-Zn-dusts from steel processing, bioleaching technology for processing flotation tailings, innovative flotation systems to process flotation tailings, water leaching of fly ashes by ion-exchange procedures provide a hint of the incorporated technologies.

Economy, Jobs The area would lead to activities within the industrial sector of mining and metallurgy processing, academia, Institutes, R&D departments, building a strong knowledge base and a large job creation potential. The lack of detailed knowledge of the minerals ‘reserve’ in this area creates a risk. Many organizations, active in the field of hydrometallurgyhave experienced difficulties in finding suitable plants in Europe, leading to pilots carried out elsewhere, loss of knowledge and of IPR.


Conversion of wastes into valuable products is an environmentally desirable route, provided that indeed sustainable process routes are employed.


114


Technological capacity within the field 1

Skilled human resources available -1 Ageing experts, worries about ‘pipeline’ Innovation champion/internal competition and commitment?

2 Strong European players who pursue this

Capa

citie

s and

ca

pabi

litie

s

Entrepreneurial culture 1,25 Few, but innovative industries and universities Need for additional research -2 Large steps required, e.g. in metallurgy Technological standards needed to use the innovation 0,75 No standardization for end products Need for additional Infrastructure 1 Fits in current infrastructure

Tech

nolo

gy

impl

emen

tatio

n

Existing Intellectual property rights -1 EU weak in filing IP ; companies keep information private, because it is about processing

Organizational capacity for cooperation in development 1 Stakeholders work together in ETPs and projects


Net

wor

k ch

arac

teri

stic

s

Network quality 1

Access to financial resources -1 Too expensive for market parties

Market structure (e.g. entry barriers) -1 Main companies not motivated for processing mining waste.

Predictability of the Market (e.g. volatility) -1,75 impact of new mining operations, and new demands, new emerging tech.

Mar

ket p

rosp

ects

Competition in market -0,75 competition with 'easy sources'

Regulation influencing development or use of the innovation

-1,3 See remark below

Policy measures supporting the innovation (see remark below)*

0,3 See remark below

Regu

latio

n an

d po

litic

s

Political attention to the innovation area* 0,7 See remark below

Societal acceptance of the innovation by end-users 0,25 Remediation can be seen as positive or negative


Soci

al su

ppor

t


0 NGO’s need to be convinced

‘* : Depending on the starting point, opposing opinions can be found here: current liability regimes in most member states makes it totally unattractive for investors and mining companies to touch waste, and legislative ideas would stipulate dry disposal which is too costly and will not be implemented by existing mines. On the other hand, strong directives towards processing waste may stimulate innovation as it leads to less costly, and even raw materials producing operations


115

Recycling of industrial manufacturing and end-of-life waste

Description This cluster area covers the treatment of two types of waste: - Waste from the industry generated during the manufacturing processes.

This type of wastes is strongly process dependant. - Waste from End-of-life products that are collected after use, and more

specifically (electric or hybrid) vehicles, waste of electric and electronic equipment (WEEE), batteries, PV cells, wind turbines

The pilot area (and the proposed pilots) focusses on rare earth elements, silver, cobalt, and copper including as well various minor elements (such as PGM, Mb, W, In). The suggested pilots primarily deal with the processing technology and efficiency and less on the collection and pre-processing phase; the pilot area explicitly covers these steps as well.

Relevance of pilot area

- These wastes are an important potential source of metals. - Recycling this type of waste is a way of protecting the environment as

they can be very harmful when disposed, - Environmental impacts associated to the production of metals from EoL

are often favourable compared to production from primary resources. - Recycling industry has a strong potential of job creation at local level.


• Contribution to the EU metal supply chain, • Development of new technology and services (exportable), thereby

increasing EU competitiveness. Global market opportunities for innovative solution providers.

• Reduction of environmental impact and/or hazards to health through new technological solutions and reduction of waste disposal.


- Tracing and tracking technologies - Comminution and (automated) disassembly technologies - Combinations of physical and sensor based sorting, dismantling, optical

automated detection methods, water cutting, cryogen cracking, catalytic bed techniques, eddy current, washing, heating, magnets, centrifugal techniques

- Extractive metallurgy (Hydro- and pyro-metallurgy, e.g. oxidation and hydrogen reduction cycle, solvent extraction) and refining

- biological or combined bio-chemical leaching integrated - combination of 100 stages mixer-settlers, columns of filtration systems of

both fixed and rotating bed, concentration and precipitation Economy, jobs - Innovative recycling solutions have the potential for jobs creation locally

as the collection of wastes is dispersed all over the EU Territory. - the main economic risk here is that –though process efficiencies may be

more than adequate- the total volume of the source material (specific waste streams) is too small for a sustainable business model. Waste statistics are relatively poorly developed and would need improvement for constructing solid business cases.

- Besides the advanced recycling technology, the EU-27 still has a large potential for introducing BATs on recycling in the whole EU-27, creating job opportunities and solving environmental and supply issues.


- Recycling technology development has the potential to decrease environmental impact but life cycle analysis is required to avoid unintended consequences.


116


Technological capacity within the field 0,5 Leading companies in a field related to strong metallurgical knowledge

Skilled human resources available 0,5 Ageing population; no dedicated training Innovation champion/internal competition and commitment?

0,3 Strong commitment from leading players

Capa

citie

s and

ca

pabi

litie

s

Entrepreneurial culture 2 Advanced and working on solid business cases Need for additional research -0,3 Success depends on collection efficiency and (ultimately)

product design Technological standards needed to use the innovation 0,5 Need for additional Infrastructure -1 Success depends on (among others) collection

infrastructure

Tech

nolo

gy

impl

emen

tatio

n

Existing Intellectual Property rights -1,5 Strong competition in Japan, important for pre-processing

Organizational capacity for cooperation in development 1 Strong network with industry participation

Convergence of activities and opinions 0.9 Strong agreement, e.g. witnessed by UNEP papers

Net

wor

k ch

arac

teris

tic

s Network quality 0,8 Strong in processing, improvement in prior steps

Access to financial resources 0,5 Only few powerful players

Market structure (e.g. entry barriers) -0,3 New entries are difficult because of high initial investments and knowledge disadvantage

Predictability of the Market (e.g. volatility) -1,3 Volatile prices and technology development

Mar

ket p

rosp

ects

Competition in market -0,8 Competition between industries and with other metal sources

Regulation influencing development or use of the innovation 1,8 Strong but may be improved by facilitating transports

Policy measures supporting the innovation 1 -as above-

Regu

latio

n an

d po

litic

s

Political attention to the innovation area 1,8 In political focus

Societal acceptance of the innovation by end-users 1,3 Provides a good feeling

Impact of industrial associations and professional bodies 1 Well organized and outspoken

Soci

al su

ppor

t


0,8 Public support


117

Metallurgy Processes Description The pilot area covers cross-cutting technologies related to the primary and secondary

metals and minerals industry and therefore partly overlaps with previously introduced pilot areas. It consists of the following subcategories: Hydrometallurgical Technologies, consisting of many unit operations, with each their own challenge. Pilots should lead to decreased environmental impact. Current proposals include the establishment of an EU Institute on hydrometallurgical technologies, extraction of RM from low grade and complex ores, recovery of metals and REE from EoL products. Pyrometallurgical Technologies, cost effective, though costly technologies especially for large-scale operation. Through effective integration with complementary hydrometallurgical technologies processes will become more effective and sustainable. Current proposals include extraction and recovery of PGMs, REE and various metals derived from wastes, low grade ores or EoL products. Bio-Technologies, potentially leading to decreased production costs through lower energy requirements, lower reagent usage, lower labor requirements, lower capital costs to treat lower-grade ores and improved environmental conditions. Current proposals aim at recovery of RM from mineral and e-waste and from low grade ores.


EU metallurgical industry makes a significant contribution to the domestic economy both directly and indirectly, as it employs numerous of people and plays a key role in the RM value chain in global scale. Since the current worldwide competitive situation brings the EU metallurgy industry in jeopardy, the only sustainable solution is the development and application of new, cost effective technologies with minimum environmental impact. In short , the EU metallurgy is facing a challenge to regain a leading role as technology developer.


• Reduction of environmental footprint of metallurgical processes • Conversion of wastes not used at the moment into valuable products • Increased domestic supply of raw materials increasing (global) resource security • Multifunctional, innovative, cost competitive and flexible technologies which

can treat efficiently a variable feedstock., such as development of non-toxic, selective and efficient lixiviants for metal extraction, including ionic liquids


The pilot area deals with the development of technologies on the basis of hydro-, pyro-, and bio-metallurgy or combinations of these.

Economy, jobs Implementation of the proposed technologies in conjunction with an EU strategy around this pilot area may result in the consolidation and even increase of a significant number of jobs. The industrial sector of metallurgy and processing, academia, Institutes, R&D departments, could build the foundation for the concentration of knowledge in the EU. Building this triple helix of stakeholders is expected to lead to a sustained know-how position and consequently the creation of high-added value jobs. The metallurgy area also has a profound link with downstream industries (representing some 30 million EU jobs), indicating that strengthening this area may be of strategic economic importance to the EU-27.


At present, several metallurgical processes have a significant environmental impact. The proposed technologies offer an eco-friendly production. In addition, conversion of wastes not used at the moment into valuable products, with the potential elimination of wastes also adds to the environmental profile.


118


-2

-1

0

1

2

Capacities andcapabilities

Technologyimplementation

Networkcharacteristics

Market prospects

Regulation andpolitics

Social support

Technological capacity within the field 1 strong EU players with appropriate infrastructure, but rapidly growing competition from Asia

Skilled human resources available 1 strong world class R&D and technology providers in EU Innovation champion/internal competition and commitment?

-0,3 Fragmented research arena

Capa

citie

s and

ca

pabi

litie

s

Entrepreneurial culture 1,7 world class companies and universities Need for additional research -1,7 Fundamental and/or applied research needed with a

common technology platform in hydrometallurgy (to save costs)

Technological standards needed to use the innovation 0 Need for additional Infrastructure -1 Centralized research facilities

Tech

nolo

gica

l

Existing (EU) intellectual property rights -1 IPR largely outside EU

Organizational capacity for cooperation in development 1

Convergence of activities and opinions 0,5 .. and growing

Net

wor

k ch

arac

teris

tic

s Network quality 1

Access to financial resources -1,3 Public investments required

Market structure (e.g. entry barriers) -0,7 Easy entry into EU market for metals from poor environmental and social performance

Predictability of the Market (e.g. volatility) 0 Growing demand for minerals and metals over the long-term but short-term volatility

Mar

ket p

rosp

ects

Competition in market 1,7 strengthen EU leadership on technologies

Regulation influencing development or use of the innovation 0,7

Policy measures supporting the innovation 0,3

Regu

latio

n an

d po

litic

s

Political attention to the innovation area 0,7 Not high, but should be continuous



Soci

al su

ppor

t


0,2


119

Application-led substitution Description Application-led substitution refers to the replacement of a specific material in a

particular application by a new material, technology or service. ‘Pilots’ may be in an earlier phase of development (low TRL) and may benefit from the organisation of a ‘pilot’ in different locations throughout Europe (combining strengths in various scientific fields required for breakthrough). Direct substitution of a critical material for a more available material is the most obvious option for application-led substitution. However, consideration of the problem at the application level can lead to entirely new business models, such as replacement of the material by a new technology or a service. The technology areas identified within this cluster exhibit both high potential for advancement through innovation and large potential economic benefits. However, the available submissions are not considered to be representative of the wide range of challenges that could be addressed through an application-led substitution approach.


Replacement of a specific material in a specific application can be a useful approach when there is an economic, regulatory or environmental driver for substitution, especially in case other options such as reducing the amount of material required or recycling of the material in question are not possible. However, innovative breakthroughs in this area can provide a huge competitive advantage to the technology holder.


• Returning/securing the value chain in the EU by the development and use of new and improved products and services, thereby increasing EU competitiveness.

• Increasing industry awareness of the materials in their products. • Decreased reliance on critical raw materials which are vital for key European

industries such as electronics, aerospace and clean energy. Enabling Technologies

Micro- and nanoelectronics including semiconductors, advanced materials and photonics, combinations with economic and behavioural sciences

Economy, jobs Much of the value chain in these sectors lies outside of Europe. Innovative substitution solutions which return the value chain to the EU (either by introducing a new business model or a new technology) can provide an opportunity for sectoral growth. However, when considering the substitution approach, it is important to consider potential drawbacks such as impact on existing EU industry or introduction of a new criticality. Substitution projects are usually at low TRL levels (in general and demonstrated by the pilots submitted in this cluster), therefore there will be a long timescale before such economic benefits are realised.


Substitution efforts have the potential to decrease environmental impact but life cycle analysis is required to avoid unintended consequences.


120

The Innovation Systems Analysis plot and the underlying considerations for both application-led and material-led substitution are given below:

Technological capacity within the field 1 Strong R&D base in EU, however behind US and Japan

Skilled human resources available 1 -as above- Innovation champion/internal competition and commitment?

-1 No current champion

Capa

citie

s and

ca

pabi

litie

s

Entrepreneurial culture 1 Need for additional research -2 Fundamental research on the properties of existing materials required to

enable rational design of substitution. Fundamental research required on novel materials to determine suitable applications

Technological standards needed to use the innovation

-0,5 Consumer product components must adhere to standards, reduces ability to be creative.

Need for additional Infrastructure -1,5 Existing academic infrastructure good. Some infrastructure for applied research to move ideas to market lacking.

Tech

nolo

gy im

plem

enta

tion

Existing (EU) intellectual property rights -2 IPR concerns represent a barrier for large companies to participate in collaborations and to participation in European-funded programmes. EU not major holder of IPR in this area (Japan is).

Organizational capacity for cooperation in development

-1 Large companies, barriers such as IPR, small companies, barriers such as time/funding available.

Convergence of activities and opinions 1 Wide, but new initiatives bring together relevant players

Net

wor

k ch

arac

teris

tics

Network quality -1 Starting, but no results yet

Access to financial resources -2 Main barrier investment, both for basic research and development phase

Market structure (e.g. entry barriers) -0,5 Niche products versus vested interests

Predictability of the Market (e.g. volatility) 1 Price of RM can act as a driver for substitution

Mar

ket

pros

pect

s

Competition in market 0,5 driver to develop novel materials with novel/improved functions.

Regulation influencing development or use of the innovation

0 novel materials will require thorough assessment and may take very long time to be ready to market

Policy measures supporting the innovation 0 Currently policy is not acting as a driver for substitution initiatives.

Regu

latio

n an

d po

litic

s

Political attention to the innovation area 0 Drivers for substitution are generally economic, not political.

Societal acceptance of the innovation by end-users -1 For market success, products containing a substitution must have equal or superior performance

Impact of industrial associations and professional bodies

-1 Not represented by an organisation representing a single community; no evidence of organisations forming cross-disciplinary groups

Soci

al su

ppor

t


0 o focus from these groups on substitution issues


121


Strength • S1: World class research institutes, researchers

and equipment in materials science, chemistry and physics.

• S2: Broad range of innovative technology providers in relevant sectors such as electronics and clean energy.

• S3: Substitution has multiple drivers and is also employed as a strategy to reduce toxicity or environmental impact.

Weakness • W1: Substitution requires an in-depth

understanding of the physical and chemical properties of a material, which often requires further fundamental research.

• W2: Technical barriers can make identifying a substitute a lengthy, challenging and therefore expensive process, with no guarantee of success. The performance of substitute must equal or exceed that of the original material, for a similar cost to be economically viable. Some intensive substitution efforts have not yielded results, e.g. no alternative found for platinum/palladium in catalytic convertors.

• W3: New applications have no track record of long-lasting functionality

Opportunities • O1: Returning/securing the value chain in the

EU by the development and use of new and improved products and services, thereby increasing EU competitiveness.


• O3: Increasing industry awareness of the materials in their products.

• O4: Global market opportunities for innovative solution providers.

Threats • T1: Large-scale use of an alternative material

may inadvertently create a new criticality. • T2: Substitution-specific IPR base and

research expertise, particularly for rare earths, predominantly in Japan/USA.

• T3: Public funding landscape in EU for substitution R&D is fragmented.


How can we counteract weaknesses W1 and W2 to benefit from opportunity O4, using strength S1? Horizon2020 provides a golden opportunity to present EU researchers with a more coherent suite of funding options, which would enable the strong interdisciplinary research base to effectively tackle the challenge of furthering the understanding of the physical and chemical properties of materials to enable substitution and ultimately access global market opportunities.

How can we use strength S1 to benefit from opportunity O1? The world class knowledge base in materials science, chemistry and physics in the EU has access to leading facilities and equipment and the structures in place to enable working in an interdisciplinary manor. EU researchers are therefore in a strong position to carry out fundamental research into the properties of materials, necessary to enable substitution and ultimately develop new and improved products and services.

How do we use strength S2 to benefit from Opportunity O4? The EU is home to a broad range of technology providers which rely on critical raw materials. These technology providers have strong innovation capability which will enable them to develop solutions to problems caused by scarcity and thereby access global market opportunities.


122

Material-led substitution Description Material-led substitution refers to the development and up-scaling of a novel

material with properties that enable the replacement of a range of materials in a range of applications. Graphene -often described as a ‘wonder material’ for its remarkable physical and electronic properties- is a good example of such a novel material that has great potential to be deployed in a range of existing and novel applications. Such novel materials not only have the potential to reduce the need for a variety of critical raw materials but also to create innovation opportunities for the development of novel technologies and products.


Novel materials which can be produced cheaply in the required amounts can address issues of criticality by replacing less readily available materials in a range of applications to deliver the same functions. However, novel materials also drive the advancement of current technologies as well as enabling the development of entirely new technologies (e.g. potential for flexible electronics). It is the scaling up of these materials (and thus the development of the underlying manufacturing and processing technology) which is often the weak spot in such developments. Investing in this cluster may bridge that gap.


• Rational design of novel materials and rational integration into existing systems

• Unique and protected manufacturing capabilities of the innovative material and its related products

• Global market opportunities for innovative solution providers, particularly when entirely new technologies emerge.

• Returning/securing the value chain in the EU by the development and use of new and improved products and services, thereby increasing EU competitiveness.

• Reduced environmental impact and/or hazards to health through new technological solutions.


Nanotechnology, polymers, micro- and nanoelectronics including semiconductors, advanced materials and photonics, combined with process technology and design

Economy, jobs A strong potential for economic benefits can be predicted for this cluster. ‘Wonder materials’ such as graphene and solutions from emerging fields such as nanotechnology will make available improved or entirely new properties in comparison to traditional materials. Capitalisation of these novel properties to develop new products and technologies (and securing of the associated IPR) represents a valuable economic opportunity for the EU. There is strong competition in this area from China, Japan and the USA.


Novel materials are inherently lacking in historical data regarding environmental and toxicological impact. It is therefore vital to invest in studies to validate the safety of the new material and to avoid unintended consequences.


123

Resource Efficient Paper Recycling Processes Description The pilot area encompasses waste paper collection, sorting technology, process

efficiency and value added creation from recycling residues. Several pilot plant proposals have been submitted

Relevance of Cluster Area Valuable raw material (fibres, but also non-fibrous materials such as metals) is getting lost in the processes of collection, sorting , recycling and in the waste stream of the recycling process. This pilot area aims at a 100% re-use of these materials while improving process efficiencies.

Main Raw Materials Addressed

Long and short fibres for papermaking, ferrous and non-ferrous metals,


• Maximising fibre use thereby increasing raw material availability • Development of new technology • Reduction of environmental impact • Reduction of waste disposal.

Enabling Technologies - Physical and sensor based sorting - paper manufacturing technology - heat recovery - conversion of sludges

Economic Benefits - Strong potential for economic benefits: waste, for the disposal of which has to be paid for is turned into materials, for which a market exists and therefore a positive price can be reached

- Creation of Jobs - The different stages require workforce with relatively higher education,

especially at the processing stage, where productivity gains are expected. - more local job creation due to local clusters of collection, sorting and

processing

Geographical coverage - It can be anywhere in Europe, proximity to mid-sized and bigger cities with sufficient waste paper arisings is ideal

Environmental Impact - next to raw material benefits, the new processes will reduce

environmental impact on site, but also upstream and downstream. The pilot area covers a part of the supply chain from collection, sorting, processing=recycling. Value added creation at all stages is expected with benefits for the downstream users.

Overall impact on the whole value-chain

Competitiveness Impact Waste paper is globally sought after. The region, which uses it most efficiently will

have competitive advantages, provided a level-playing field on its use is secured.


124

Technological capacity within the field 2

Skilled human resources available 0 Innovation champion/internal competition and commitment?

1

Capa

citie

s and

ca

pabi

litie

s

Entrepreneurial culture 0 Need for additional research 2 Innovation largely based on existing knowledge Technological standards needed to use the innovation 1,5 Need for additional Infrastructure 2

Tech

nolo

gy

impl

emen

tatio

n

Existing (EU) intellectual property rights -1 IPR not secured, caused by worries about loosing process knowledge

Organizational capacity for cooperation in development 1


Net

wor

k ch

arac

teris

tic

s Network quality 2

Access to financial resources -0,5

Market structure (e.g. entry barriers) 1

Predictability of the Market (e.g. volatility) 2 Fibre market less unpredictable than e.g. metals

Mar

ket p

rosp

ects

Competition in market 0

Regulation influencing development or use of the innovation -1,5

Policy measures supporting the innovation -1

Regu

latio

n an

d po

litic

s

Political attention to the innovation area 1

Societal acceptance of the innovation by end-users 1,5 Paper recycling seen as good activity


Soci

al su

ppor

t


1,5


125

Annex 10 Innovation Systems Analysis: a tool for analysis and accelerating innovation systems

Success of an innovation is not only dependent on technical feasibility or economic viability of the demonstration of a pilot action alone. Many other effectors and stakeholders need to be aligned for an innovation to succeed.

An Innovation System Analysis (ISA) provides insight in and overview of the conditions that make innovation possible. An ISA may pinpoint elements of the innovation chain that have to be strengthened in order to increase chances of success.

Particular attention is provided to a set of key activities - or system functions - that are necessary for an innovation system to successfully bring a new technology from the laboratory to the market / society. For each system function the ISA will point out important trends, thereby providing valuable input for a subsequent analysis strengths and weaknesses, opportunities and threats a SWOT-analysis).

System functions

The ISA can be designed to provide insights on the level of a broad technological field, for example material efficiency, but it can also be focused on particular technological trajectories (recycling, iron mining). In this project, the ISA was performed on ten selected pilot areas. Input was primarily based on the expert judgment of consortium members. For each of the system functions, a number of elements was identified that have a relevant impact on the system functions.


126

System Function Elements Technological capacity within the field Skilled human resources available (e.g. industrial and academic) Innovation champion/internal competition and commitment?

Capacities and capabilities

Entrepreneurial culture (quality, mindset, risk taking) Need for additional fundamental / applied research Technological standards needed to use the innovation

Technology implementation

Need for additional Infrastructure Organizational capacity for cooperation in development (network) Convergence of activities / communities (is there a common opinion forming?)

Network characteristics

Network quality (e.g. PPPs, ETPs, communities of entrepreneurs) Access to financial resources (public funds or own industrial investment resources) Market structure (e.g. fiscal support / entry barriers) Predictability of the Market (e.g. volatility)

Market prospects

Competition in market Regulation influencing development or use of the innovation Existing (EU) intellectual property rights in the innovation area

Policy measures supporting the innovation

Regulation and politics

Political attention to the innovation area Societal acceptance of the innovation by end-users Impact of industrial associations and professional bodies

Social support


Each of the elements listed above receives a score between -2 (the elements constitutes a big barrier for implementation of the innovation of the pilot area) and +2 (the element constitutes a big driver for implementation of innovation in the field), after which an average of these elements is plotted in an overview graph, in which figures below zero represent (on average) barriers, and figures above zero represent drivers for innovation. The overall picture provides a guideline for actions to promote the implementation of the innovation, and provides input to an actionable SWOT-analysis.

Raw Materials: Study on Innovative Technologies … · Raw Materials: study on Innovative...

Documents

Transcript of Raw Materials: Study on Innovative Technologies … · Raw Materials: study on Innovative...