Sustainable Material Management and Consumer Technology

A collaboration among:Golisano Institute for Sustainability at Rochester Institute of Technology

Consumer Technology AssociationStaples Sustainable Innovation Lab

U.S. EPA

RIT research students: Shahana Althaf and Hema Madaka

Callie W. Babbitt, Ph.D.

Golisano Institute for SustainabilityFocus on Sustainable Systems at RIT

Knowledge to enable the future sustainability workforce

Graduate degrees Corporate training Focus on sustainable technology and

infrastructure

Research & development University-industry partnerships “Triple-bottom-line”: people, prosperity, and the

planet

Solutions to global challenges Resource and energy security Food supply chains Sustainable mobility Eco-efficient manufacturing Waste minimization and management

Manufacturing

Transport

Distribution

Use

Waste Management

Recycling

Resource Extraction

Sustainability and electronics

Climate changeWater consumptionMaterial scarcityLabor and equityHuman healthEconomic costPollutionWaste generationEtc….

Research goal 2: Assess sustainability at the intersection of technology and consumption

Is the ‘net’ impact same, increased, or

decreased?

‘per product’ life cycle impact

reduced

Research phases

1. Analyze the “material footprint” of historic + current consumer electronics adoption Data-driven baseline

2. Forecast issues and opportunities expected for emerging consumer electronics adoption Future-oriented predictive model

3. Assess sustainability challenges of materials needed to enable future adoption trends Sustainable materials management (SMM)

•Broad material categories

•Aggregate U.S. flows

•Deep dive into specific materials

• Implications of material choice

Phase 1 and 2: Assess historic + predict future material footprint

Approach:1) Quantify products purchased, stored, and discarded annually

Product ownership rates

Data Results

‘Average’ U.S. Household

Change in unit stock (stored)

Estimated unit discards*

*Discards may be products for reuse, recycling, or waste

Product consumption -unit sales and shipments

Scope: “Average” U.S. Household, 21 most common products, 1990-2018

Approach:2) Determine average product mass and material composition

x ~100 productsPhoto: Kelly Hofer

• Product disassembly and material characterization• Data from literature and technical or policy documentation (NCER)• Ongoing efforts to expand, analyze uncertainty, and catalog for public use

Approach:3) Determine trends in the electronics material footprint

Product ownership rates

Data Results

‘Average’ U.S. Household

Change in unit stock (stored)

Estimated unit discards*

Average product mass, bill of materials

Material footprint

Product consumption -unit sales and shipments

Approach:4) Use past product adoption trends to predict future patterns

Products follow consistent pattern: “S-curve” growth, plateau, and decline on introduction of a competing technology

Levitt 1965

Key findings

Citations: Babbitt, C.W. Althaf, S., Chen, R. 2017. “Sustainable Materials Management for the Evolving Consumer Technology Ecosystem – Phase 1: Modeling Framework and Baseline Results.” A report to the Staples Sustainable Innovation Lab and the Consumer Technology Association.

Babbitt, C.W. Althaf, S., Chen, R. 2018. “Sustainable Materials Management for the Evolving Consumer Technology Ecosystem – Phase 2: Predictive Modeling of Emerging Technology Products.” A report to the Staples Sustainable Innovation Lab and the Consumer Technology Association.

Althaf, S., Babbitt, C. W., & Chen, R. 2019. “Forecasting electronic waste flows for effective circular economy planning”. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 151, 104362.

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

Annu

al P

rodu

ct In

flow

to U

S H

ouse

hold

s(m

illion

uni

ts)

Phones &Tablets

Other mobileproducts

Audio VisualProducts

Printers

Desktops

Laptops

Flat PanelDisplays

Cathode RayTube Displays

Unit product consumption has grown and evolvedGrowth in mobile device consumption, with recent shifts toward device convergence

Babbitt et al. 2017

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

1.4

1.6

1.8

Annu

al P

rodu

ct In

flow

to U

S H

ouse

hold

s(m

illion

met

ric to

ns)

Phones &Tablets

Other mobileproducts

Audio VisualProducts

Printers

Desktops

Laptops

Flat PanelDisplays

Cathode RayTube Displays

Material intensity of consumption has declined

Transition from CRT to flat panel display

Babbitt et al. 2017

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

1.4

1.6

1.8

2

Annu

al P

rodu

ct D

isca

rds

from

US

Hou

seho

lds

(milli

on m

etric

tons

)

Phones &Tablets

Other mobileproducts

Audio VisualProducts

Printers

Desktops

Laptops

Flat PanelDisplays

Cathode RayTube Displays

Mass of consumer e-waste has begun a comparable decline

Babbitt et al. 2017

Regulated* e-waste forecasted to continue a decline

Althaf et al. 2019

0

500,000

1,000,000

1,500,000

2,000,000

2,500,000

2010 2015 2020 2025

Fore

cast

E-w

aste

Gen

erat

ion

in U

S (m

etric

tons

)

Tablets

Laptops

Desktops

Printers

CRT Monitors

FP Monitors

CRT TVs

FP TVs

CRT: Cathode Ray Tube FP: Flat Panel

New product adoption follows consistent trends, but over shrinking innovation cycles

Babbitt et al. 2018

Emerging products quickly peak, minimal waste contribution anticipated for mobile devices

Althaf et al. 2019

Other materials management challenges are expected

Rubber, Components glued Indium, Cobalt, Lithium, Gold

photo credit: Alex TongBabbitt et al. 2018

Goal 3: Evaluate sustainable materials management

How can we proactively assess material risks and

opportunities?

How can we communicate findings to support decision making?

Focus on common materials in electronics

Analyze metrics data to identify key material hotspots

Identify key metrics to capture sustainability risks across material life cycle

• Precious metals• Base Metals• Strategic / critical

metals• REEs (Rare Earth

Elements)• Hazardous materials• Plastics

• Economic• Environmental • Social

Data Collection

Explore the potential sustainability solutions

• Scientific articles• Reports• Government

websites

Based on • Risk level in

metrics• Use in

electronics• Relevance to

U.S. economy

• Recycling• Material

substitution• Supply chain

diversification

Approach:Create and apply SMM metrics to key materials*

Metrics to proactively identify risks and opportunities

Metrics to proactively identify risks and opportunities

Metrics to proactively identify risks and opportunities

Key findings

Citation: Althaf, S., Babbitt, C.W. Madaka, H., Gaustad, G., Flynn, C. 2019. “Sustainable Materials Management Metrics to Assess Consumer Technology – Phase 3: Development and application of sustainability metrics to identify environmental, economic, and social issues and opportunities for materials used in technology products.” A report to the Staples Sustainable Innovation Lab and the Consumer Technology Association.

Electronics materials have concentrated supply chains

Althaf et al. 2019

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

AlCuMgFeNiZnTi

AuAgPdPtSbBaCoGrInLi

MnTaTeSnV

REEsPbHgCrCd

Contribution to global primary production1st top producer 2nd top producer 3rd top producer 4th top producer

Supply chains are vulnerable to geopolitical and market disruptions

Althaf et al. 2019

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0Sn

NiAu

Ag

Cu

Mn

Cd

Ba

Zn

Ta

Ga

TiFe

PbIn

CrAl

Li

Co

V

Gr

Te

PGM

Sb

Hg

REEsMg

Production ratio as byproduct Production concentration (HHI)

Future availability faces competition from other sectors

Althaf et al. 2019

Material HotspotsAnnual U.S

Consumption (metric tons)

Main Use Sector in US Consumption in electronics sector

Precious metals

Au 145 Jewelry 6%Ag 5,500 Electrical and electronics 25%

Pd 42 Auto catalysts 45%

Pt 45 Auto catalysts 68%

Critical/strategic metals

Co 7,200Superalloys in aircraft

engines 22%

Ga 23,000 Integrated Chips 67%

In 170ITO layer in flat panel

displays 84%

Li 2,000 Batteries 46%

Ta 1,170 Tantalum capacitors 48%

Sn 46,000 Tinplate, solder 48%Rare Earth Elements ( REEs) 12,200 Catalysts 75% ++

Example: battery materials

Althaf et al. 2019; Wang et al. 2014

0

40,000

80,000

120,000

160,000

0

8

16

24

32

2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018

Co

and

Li a

nnua

l pro

duct

ion

(met

ric to

ns)

Co

and

Li p

rice

($ p

er p

ound

)

Cobalt price Lithium priceCobalt production Lithium production

Aluminum5% Cobalt

18%

Lithium2%

Copper12%

Steel22%

Graphite16%

Carbon black3%

LiPF65%

EC/other8%

Binders3%

Plastics6%

Li-ion battery content, by mass (above) and by value (below)

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Cobalt

Lithium

Graphite

Nickel

Aluminum

Manganese

Import reliance & Major use sector in the U.S.

Major import source U.S. Import Reliance (% of apparent consumption)

Norway

Canada

China

Construction

Argentina

Canada

Gabon

Superalloys in aircraft engines

Batteries

Brake linings, lubricants

Stainless steel & alloy steel products

Transportation applications

Data Source: USGS Mineral Commodity Summaries Althaf et al. 2019

Example: battery materials

Supply chains face social vulnerability

Althaf et al. 2019

Political stability and absence of violence in major producing regions

Social vulnerabilities vary with supply chain geopraphy

Althaf et al. 2019

Material extraction and processing create variable environmental impacts

Althaf et al. 2019

Results are shown on “per kg” basis

Environmental impacts vary with supply chain geography

Water scarcity footprint: considers amount of water used and scarcity in region of use

Althaf et al. 2019

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

E-w

aste

Mat

eria

l Com

posi

tion

(100

%)

Others

Batteries

Printed CircuitBoardPlastics

Copper

Aluminum

Steel

Flat PanelGlassCRT Glass

End-of-life management faces an evolving material mix

Babbitt et al. 2017

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

0

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

50,000

60,000

70,000

80,000

Mer

cury

was

te fl

ow fr

om L

CD

dis

play

s (m

etric

tons

)

Lead

was

te fl

ow fr

om P

CBs

and

CR

T di

spla

ys (m

etric

tons

)

Lead Waste Flow Mercury Waste Flow

Traditional material hazards have begun to decline

Babbitt et al. 2017

Material recovery opportunities are changing

Babbitt et al. 2017, Althaf et al. 2019

0.000%

0.001%

0.002%

0.003%

0.004%

0.005%

0.00%

0.10%

0.20%

0.30%

2000 2004 2008 2012 2016

Gol

d &

Indi

um c

onte

nt in

e-

was

te (%

)

Cob

alt c

onte

nt in

e-w

aste

(%) Cobalt Gold Indium

0.000001

0.00001

0.0001

0.001

0.01

0.1

10.0000010.000010.00010.0010.010.11

E-w

aste

con

cent

ratio

n

Ore Concentration

Sn Co

Li

Ag

In

Ga

Pd

AuREE

Ta

Elemental concentration in e-waste is relatively low, but recovery alleviates supply chain risks

Althaf et al. 2019

“Closed loop” is theoretically feasible, but limited by form, technology, and markets

Althaf et al. 2019

0250500750

1,0001,2501,5001,7502,0002,2502,5002,7503,000

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2021

2022

2023

2024

2025

2026

2027

2028

2029

2030

2031

2032

2033

2034

2035

2036

2037

2038

2039

2040

EV B

atte

ry P

acks

in w

aste

str

eam

(th

ousa

nds)

LIB Packs (High) LIB Packs (Baseline) LIB Packs (Low)

38,000 MT

142,000 MT

340,000 MT

Li-ion batteries in consumer electronics (2018)

Recovery also influenced by competing sectors: battery example

Richa et al. 2014

Next Steps and Needed Input

Stakeholder-driven material exploration• Battery materials – alternate technologies,

recycling innovations• Plastics – bio-based, recycled content,

recycling, water impacts**New research project funded on Circular Economy and plastics – looking for industry input

Research on e-plastic degradation, flame retardants

Callie Babbitthttp://www.rit.edu/gis/cwbgis@rit.edu@CallieBabbitt

Reports available at: http://www.rit.edu/gis/ssil/reports.php

Funding provided by the National Science Foundation (CBET-1236447 and CBET-1254688), the Consumer Technology Association, and the Staples Sustainable Innovation Lab at RIT.

Research assistance from Barbara Kasulaitis, Matt Koskinen, Mona Komeijani, Erinn Ryen, Mosun Odulate, Gabrielle Gaustad, Roger Chen, Carli Flynn

Contact and Acknowledgements