Stories of #TeamScience

Scientific research is rarely the fruit of individual labour and usually requires the work of a dedicated team. Some topics and challenges are even so complex and comprehensive that they affect all faculties and call for multidisciplinary research and solutions. At TU Delft, a team of researchers and support staff have joined forces to explore and tell the hopeful story of critical metals. 

For this long-read, we spoke to David Peck, Associate Professor of Critical Materials and Circular Design and Benjamin Sprecher, Assistant Professor of Critical Raw Materials and Sustainable Design. Along with a glut of researchers from all other faculties, they form the core team conducting research into and with critical metals.  

Benjamin Sprecher

“People think that the main problem is that critical metals are running out, but that’s not the issue here. The big problems are altogether different: there is a risk that the resources we need won’t be available when we need them, and we’re incredibly dependent on China, despite our pursuit of strategic autonomy.” He explains the first problem: “Suppose all cars you produce must be EVs by 2030. Six years from now, we would need millions of tonnes of a particular metal that’s still in the ground right now. Building a new mine, as the EU intends to do, will take 10 to 20 years. Even if we were to start building European mines at breakneck speed, we’d be far too late to achieve the environmental goals we’ve set ourselves."  

To illustrate the problem, Sprecher points at the electrical grid. Everyone’s building solar parks, leading to widespread grid congestion. We need countless more cables, which take years to manufacture. Sprecher: “Systems change at the rate of the weakest, or slowest link. Mining is a typically slow link and people have turned out to be awful at thinking ahead.”  

Cooperation

If mining is such a slow solution, are there no alternatives to extracting new critical metals from the ground? That’s the million-euro question. Researchers at TU Delft are developing all kinds of alternative solutions following the six RE principles: Reduce, Reuse, Repair, Remanufacture, Recycle, and Recover. 

The EU is now pushing for more mining and more processing. This is important, and various studies are already underway at TU Delft including, for example, responsible mining, the efficient use of minewaste, or treating mine wastewater. However, we also need an entirely different breed of solutions, such as making more efficient use of what we already have. Sprecher: “There are better, more responsible ways to use the metals that Europe has in abundant supply, provided we come up with innovations to tackle the problem rather than indiscriminately making ‘even more shit’. What good is an extra mine if the resources are used to make cheap bicycle lights that last only six months? Or if every family member buys a new iPhone every two years and chucks their old one into a drawer for the rest of eternity?”  

The challenge

The challenge is that while solutions exist, the solutions, the problems, and what scientists believe should be done, don't quite fit together. There are solutions for every step in the supply chain, from more mining in Europe to designing electronic products much more efficiently. However, market forces currently tend to optimise on costs, resulting in the loss or suboptimal allocation of a fair amount of critical metals. Another solution could be stockpiling,  but an important solution for me, personally, is more thoughtful design, which my research focuses on. You can design products that are intrinsically independent from supply routes, like batteries that contain no lithium whatsoever.  

Telling a different, better story

"TU Delft basically runs the gamut: we’ve got people like David Peck and myself who look at the bigger picture, as well as scientists like Marnix Wagemaker, who can develop sodium batteries. It’s what you call semi-open innovation: collaborative innovation that meets certain preconditions. This approach makes much more sense than going toe-to-toe with China by opening as many European mines as possible. We need to tell a different, better story, and develop smarter solutions, like batteries that don’t even need lithium.” 

"Apart from this, laws and regulations also have an important role to play. And while lone researchers cannot change the law, universities have considerably more clout. This is also a job for Dutch policy-makers: if you decide that a transition is needed, you have to put your money where your mouth is. It is paramount that our research gets translated into practical solutions. You can’t make batteries or EVs from papers in Nature.” 

Complex dance

“The critical metals problem is a complex dance with myriad different facets. We need to give each other some leeway and latitude, yet not so much that we end up with an incoherent collection of initiatives that do nothing to reinforce each other. The only way to solve this problem is by working together. We need to create a single nexus of stories, research and solutions.” 

The role of design

“Design is a crucial and interesting part of the chain. We have wonderful ideas about recycling and new materials; but there is a reason why consumers buy a new iPhone every two years. It’s not because people have an intrinsic aversion to design, but because we have a faulty system in which products are not designed as they should be. The crux, whether something will work or not, comes down to the design. The sodium battery won’t have any impact or solve any problems until it actually becomes a product..." 

Decision support tools

"Part of my research is about creating decision support tools for designers. In addition to the sustainability perspective, as quantified by carbon emissions, for example, I also want to map out a materials perspective, so that designers can make trade-offs about longevity and repairability, as well as global impact and the availability of critical metals.”  

Designers have to make difficult decisions. He gives an example: you can choose to make smartphones sturdy and durable, like the latest iPhones, which are water-proof and impact-resistant because every single part is glued down. That robustness comes at a cost: when your phone does break, it can’t be repaired. Phones that are easy to repair need to have “loose” parts, so to speak. The first generations of fairphones, however, took this so literally that they’d break after even the slightest bump. “Having a highly repairable product is pretty useless if the underlying product hardly works. These compromises that designers make are called trade-offs," Sprecher adds.  

"Another example: designing a fridge to last 50 years is a bad idea, because innovation will make your fridge effectively obsolete long before then. Or what about solar panels, which are something like 90% recyclable. The problem is that the 90% is all glass and aluminium. The critical metals, like silver or silicon, may make up only 1% of a solar panel by weight and are usually not recycled. A recycling rate of 90% is excellent for the climate, but with a view to the mounting critical metals problem, I’d prefer recycling a bit less glass to get my hands on that 1% of silicon. These are the dilemmas facing designers. I try to create tools to provide insight into design choices and ramifications."  

David Peck

“I came to TU Delft in 2008 and have been working on critical raw materials ever since. Historically, we’ve seen that resource scarcity drives people to wage war. We have exactly zero examples of ostensibly civilised societies like ours in which two groups want the same material, have a good conversation and start sharing. My biggest driver was probably to help prevent wars. Let's do better. Unfortunately, exactly what I feared is happening again: more conflict. Geopolitical tensions are close to reaching a breaking point, as countries are going to war for resources and critical metals.” 

The earth has limits

“My other mission, aside from preventing war, has always been to help solve the climate problem. As it happens, the issue of critical metals is closely intertwined with the planetary boundaries we’re close to violating. The time that we could discover a new continent blessed with bountiful resources and oil is past us, and while European mining is a solution, it is also a very time-consuming one, as Benjamin Sprecher pointed out. We simply have to hedge our bets and look for other solutions, too. Funnily enough, Peck notes, you can convince people on both the left and right of the political spectrum that critical raw materials are an important issue. While one side latches onto the environmental aspect, the other side prioritises security."  

"Initially, my PhD was about 'policy and circular business models to drive sustainable design' but it turned out to be a tricky story to tell. Simply proposing more sustainable design practices is too wishy washy: it doesn’t create urgency. Change the narrative to “we desperately need these materials and we’re in danger of running out or losing access altogether” and you really encourage people to think of new solutions. You cannot deny or ignore the unavailability of certain materials."  

Not making things

“Ultimately, I think that businesses will be forced to change their revenue models. Making as much stuff as possible and selling whatever you can is simply unsustainable: it’s a model that only works if you have unlimited access to materials. It’s not a matter of politics or ideology, it’s a mathematical fact. And there you have it, the largest challenge facing humankind: degrowth or post-growth. What will we do when growth is no longer imperative or feasible? How will we go about not making things? What will fuel our economy if we can no longer pursue limitless growth? It may sound controversial, but it’s the only option we have. Critical raw material limitations will necessarily put limitations on energy use, and the time to start thinking about this scenario is now. We also need to talk about the added value of technology - what will the tech landscape look like in a post-growth world?”  

“At a recent conference, a South-American man from an indigenous community told an interesting story shared by indigenous people across the world. He said: ‘we’re at the forefront of climate change. We didn’t cause it, and yet we suffer most. And all the while, you’re planning to build even more mines on our land to solve the massive problem that you created,’ and continued, ‘While I understand what’s at stake, it’s a shame that we’re not involved in the plans.’ For me, that’s another crucial perspective to discuss.” 

Challenges

"Critical raw materials are in everything. Not a single technological innovation here at TU Delft is devoid of them. Take the digital transition or the energy transition, for example. In some fields, we do not even realise how dependent we are on critical raw materials, such as skyscrapers and their façades. New buildings are packed to the brim with critical resources, which are used for heating and cooling. When one of our students went about calculating how many critical metals were used in a new Rotterdam building, she arrived at 183 tonnes. There are also people who argue we “should simply expand the electrical grid”, as if it’s as easy as 1, 2, 3. It’s not: it requires a lot of careful thought as to where to source all the metals you need for electrical cables. 

"As a university, we play an important role in the future. The topic of strategic autonomy is fascinating, and by contributing to strategic autonomy for the Netherlands and for Europe, we could potentially ease tensions across the world. We’ll continue to trade and conduct research with the rest of the world, of course, but we need to ensure that we’re not entirely dependent. To achieve world peace, we have to be able to fend for ourselves.”