MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Supply risk evolution of raw materials for batteries and fossil fuels for selected OECD countries (2000–2018)

2021· article· en· W3217007057 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueResources Policy · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicExtraction and Separation Processes
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUniversité de BordeauxKyoto UniversityHORIZON EUROPE European Institute of Innovation and TechnologyEuropean Institute of Innovation and TechnologyEuropean Commission
KeywordsFossil fuelRaw materialNatural resource economicsEnergy supplyRenewable energyProduction (economics)Supply and demandBusinessEnvironmental scienceWaste managementEconomicsEnergy (signal processing)EngineeringEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Fossil fuels are the dominant form of storable energy, but their share in the global energy supply is slowly diminishing due to climate mitigation policies. Alternative energy production from variable renewable energy sources for both stationary and mobile use requires some form of energy storage. Batteries are the current frontrunner for this application, particularly with Li-ion batteries that are reliable and highly efficient. However, batteries themselves have evolved to meet current requirements and expectations. These changes in battery chemistry have shifted the dependency on raw materials used to produce them. Raw materials critical for battery production are subject to supply risk due to their availability or trade policies prompting a need for supply risk assessment. Such resource supply risks depend on the perspective of the importing country or region. By analysing the supply risk of raw materials used in the production of batteries in comparison to fossil fuels, it is possible to understand the shift in risk to storable energy that is underway. In this study, we analyse the supply risk of selected raw materials used in batteries and compare it with the supply risk of fossil fuels for the period 2000 to 2018 from the perspective of the European Union, USA, South Korea, Japan, Canada and Australia using the GeoPolRisk method. Our analysis demonstrates a higher risk of supply for raw materials compared to that of fossil fuels for all the selected territories. Rare earth elements, graphite and magnesium, are amongst the raw materials with the highest supply risk due to their concentrated production in one or only a few countries. Countries have recognised the need for raw material security and made specific policies to ensure secure supply. Raw material security is an emerging concern for all the countries, especially in the case of batteries for major manufacturing nations that are heavily import-dependent. Raw materials producing countries like Canada and Australia focused on stockpiling minerals and minerals exploration while importing countries such as Japan and South Korea are looking for alternate sources for their supply. The results from our analysis suggest that the necessary policy reforms taken for energy security have benefited all the countries with a reduced risk of fossil fuel supply, while similar policies to secure raw materials are discussed but not yet fully implemented.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.353
Threshold uncertainty score0.476

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.007
GPT teacher head0.244
Teacher spread0.237 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it