Next Article in Journal
Consumers’ Perspective on Full-Scale Adoption of Smart Meters: A Case Study in Västerås, Sweden
Next Article in Special Issue
Resource Efficiency Assessment—Comparing a Plug-In Hybrid with a Conventional Combustion Engine
Previous Article in Journal
Typology of Options for Metal Recycling: Australia’s Perspective
Previous Article in Special Issue
Physical Assessment of the Mineral Capital of a Nation: The Case of an Importing and an Exporting Country
Article Menu

Export Article

Open AccessArticle
Resources 2016, 5(1), 2;

Surplus Cost Potential as a Life Cycle Impact Indicator for Metal Extraction

Radboud University Nijmegen, Faculty of Science, Department of Environmental Science, P.O. Box 9010, Nijmegen 6500 GL, The Netherlands
PRé Consultants b.v., Stationsplein 121, Amersfoort 3818 LE, The Netherlands
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Academic Editor: Mario Schmidt
Received: 28 October 2015 / Revised: 20 December 2015 / Accepted: 22 December 2015 / Published: 6 January 2016
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Consideration of Abiotic Natural Resources in Life Cycle Assessments)
Full-Text   |   PDF [2329 KB, uploaded 8 January 2016]   |  


In the evaluation of product life cycles, methods to assess the increase in scarcity of resources are still under development. Indicators that can express the importance of an increase in scarcity of metals extracted include surplus ore produced, surplus energy required, and surplus costs in the mining and the milling stage. Particularly the quantification of surplus costs per unit of metal extracted as an indicator is still in an early stage of development. Here, we developed a method that quantifies the surplus cost potential of mining and milling activities per unit of metal extracted, fully accounting for mine-specific differences in costs. The surplus cost potential indicator is calculated as the average cost increase resulting from all future metal extractions, as quantified via cumulative cost-tonnage relationships. We tested the calculation procedure with 12 metals and platinum-group metals as a separate group. We found that the surplus costs range six orders of magnitude between the metals included, i.e., between $0.01–$0.02 (iron) and $13,533–$17,098 (rhodium) USD (year 2013) per kilogram of metal extracted. The choice of the reserve estimate (reserves vs. ultimate recoverable resource) influenced the surplus costs only to a limited extent, i.e., between a factor of 0.7 and 3.2 for the metals included. Our results provide a good basis to regularly include surplus cost estimates as resource scarcity indicator in life cycle assessment. View Full-Text
Keywords: characterization factors; endpoint; life cycle assessment; metals; mining; resource scarcity characterization factors; endpoint; life cycle assessment; metals; mining; resource scarcity

Figure 1

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

Vieira, M.D.; Ponsioen, T.C.; Goedkoop, M.J.; Huijbregts, M.A. Surplus Cost Potential as a Life Cycle Impact Indicator for Metal Extraction. Resources 2016, 5, 2.

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