Mercedes-Benz AG exploring sale of Hambach smart EV plant as part of global realignment
UN: global e-waste surging; up 21% in 5 years

UN report highlights urgent need to tackle impact of EV battery production boom

Demand for raw materials used in the production of electric car batteries is set to soar, prompting the UN trade body, UNCTAD (United Nations Conference on Trade and Development), to call for the social and environmental impacts of the extraction of raw materials, which include human rights abuses, to be addressed urgently.

UNCTAD predicts that some 23 million electric vehicles will be sold over the coming decade: the market for rechargeable car batteries, currently estimated at $7 billion, is forecast to rise to $58 billion by 2024.

The shift to electric mobility is in line with ongoing efforts to reduce the world’s dependence on fossil fuels, and reduce harmful greenhouse gas emissions responsible for climate change. However, a new report from UNCTAD warns that the raw materials used in electric car batteries are highly concentrated in a small number of countries, raising a number of concerns.

For example, two-thirds of all cobalt production happens in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC). According the UN Children’s Fund (UNICEF), about 20% of cobalt supplied from the DRC comes from artisanal mines, where human rights abuses have been reported, and up to 40,000 children work in extremely dangerous conditions in the mines for meagre income.

In Chile, lithium mining uses nearly 65% of the water in the country’s Salar de Atamaca region—one of the driest desert areas in the world—to pump out brines from drilled wells. This has forced local quinoa farmers and llama herders to migrate and abandon ancestral settlements. It has also contributed to environment degradation, landscape damage and soil contamination, groundwater depletion and pollution.

Noting that “the rise in demand for the strategic raw materials used to manufacture electric car batteries will open more trade opportunities for the countries that supply these materials”, UNCTAD's director of international trade, Pamela Coke-Hamilton, emphasized the importance, for these countries, to “develop their capacity to move up the value chain”.

In the DRC, this would mean building processing plants and refineries that would add value and, potentially, jobs within the country. However, for various reasons (including limited infrastructure, financing and a lack of appropriate policies), refining takes place in other countries, mainly Belgium, China, Finland, Norway and Zambia, which reap the economic benefit.

The report recommends that countries such as DRC provide “conducive environment to attract investment to establish new mines or expand existing ones”.

UNCTAD also recommends that the industry find ways to reduce its dependence on critical raw materials. For example, scientists are researching the possibility of using widely-available silicon, instead of graphite (80% of natural graphite reserves are in China, Brazil and Turkey).


Brazilian mine. Agência Brasil/José Cruz. Source: UN

If the industry manages to become less reliant on materials concentrated in a small number of countries, says UNCTAD, there is more chance that prices of batteries will drop, leading to greater take-up of electric cars, and a shift away from fossil-fuel powered transport.

As for the environmental consequences of the batteries themselves, the report recommends the development of improved, more sustainable mining techniques, and the recycling of the raw materials used in spent lithium-ion batteries, a measure that would help deal with the expected increase in demand, and also create new business opportunities.



Not before time. Lithium is such a marginal resource it should never have been used beyond electronic devices etc. To wreak all that environmental destruction for a marginal resource that cannot meet more than a fraction of societal road vehicle requirements in the name of Green Cars is completely unacceptable.

As for Cobalt, it was never supposed to be used for EV batteries: when the EV revolution started in 2005 LiFePO4 batteries were supposed to be used for safety reasons and cycle life. As well as limited cobalt supplies. As well as the vile conditions in which cobalt is produced in the DRC - totally incompatible with so called "responsible" EVs. The problem was of course LiFePO4 had little better energy density than NiMH. When Tesla was a niche startup maybe it was acceptable for them to use nickel-cobalt cathodes - but it isn't acceptable for any EV manufacturer to be using that now. But you cannot get rid of the cobalt entirely. Which gives them a massive energy density headache. Which is why LiIon should never have been used for EVs in the first place.

Now I read history rewriting headlines on Cleantechnica saying LiFePO4 is the future as if nobody had ever thought of it before. Never heard of Valence Technology and A123 Systems who were the leading players in EV LiIon in 2005 and for the next few years?

The comments to this entry are closed.