Next Article in Journal
Resilience Thinking as an Interdisciplinary Guiding Principle for Energy System Transitions
Previous Article in Journal
Improving Decision Making about Natural Disaster Mitigation Funding in Australia—A Framework
Article Menu

Export Article

Open AccessArticle
Resources 2016, 5(4), 29; doi:10.3390/resources5040029

Metal Criticality Determination for Australia, the US, and the Planet—Comparing 2008 and 2012 Results

Center for Industrial Ecology, Yale University, New Haven, CT 06511, USA
Interdepartmental Centre for Industrial Research “Energy & Environment”, Alma Mater Studiorum, University of Bologna, Bologna 40136, Italy
Environmental Engineering, Department of Civil Engineering, Monash University, Clayton, Melbourne 3800, VIC, Australia
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Academic Editor: Benjamin C McLellan
Received: 10 June 2016 / Revised: 15 August 2016 / Accepted: 20 September 2016 / Published: 25 September 2016
View Full-Text   |   Download PDF [1441 KB, uploaded 27 September 2016]   |  


Episodic supply shortages of metals and unsettling predictions of potential supply constraints in the future have led to a series of recent criticality evaluations. This study applies a consistent criticality methodology to the United States, Australia, and to the global level for both 2008 and 2012. It is the first time that criticality assessments are presented for Australia, a country that contrasts with the United States in terms of its mineral deposits and metal use characteristics. We use the Yale criticality methodology, which measures Supply Risk (SR), Environmental Implications (EI), and Vulnerability to Supply Restriction (VSR) to derive criticality assessments for five major metals (Al, Fe, Ni, Cu, Zn) and for indium (In). We find only modest changes in SR between 2008 and 2012 at both country and global levels; these changes are due to revisions in resource estimates. At the country level, Australia’s VSR for Ni, Cu, and Zn is 23%–33% lower than that for the United States, largely because of Australia’s abundant domestic resources. At the global level, SR is much higher for In, Ni, Cu, and Zn than for Al and Fe as a consequence of SR’s longer time horizon and anticipated supply/demand constraints. The results emphasize the dynamic nature of criticality and its variance between countries and among metals. View Full-Text
Keywords: aluminum; iron; nickel; copper; zinc; indium; metal demand; supply risk aluminum; iron; nickel; copper; zinc; indium; metal demand; supply risk

Figure 1a

This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. (CC BY 4.0).

Supplementary material

Share & Cite This Article

MDPI and ACS Style

Ciacci, L.; Nuss, P.; Reck, B.K.; Werner, T.T.; Graedel, T.E. Metal Criticality Determination for Australia, the US, and the Planet—Comparing 2008 and 2012 Results. Resources 2016, 5, 29.

Show more citation formats Show less citations formats

Note that from the first issue of 2016, MDPI journals use article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Related Articles

Article Metrics

Article Access Statistics



[Return to top]
Resources EISSN 2079-9276 Published by MDPI AG, Basel, Switzerland RSS E-Mail Table of Contents Alert
Back to Top