If the global production of STS continues to grow at a CAGR ~ 5%, that implies a 2035 production rate ~ 100 Million Tonnes / year. If we continue with 4% Primary Nickel content, that requires ~ 4 Million Tonnes/ year of Primary Nickel.
I propose that we coordinate global action to apply best practice in selecting the STS grades and process routes using the least Primary Nickel, with the goal of 3% Primary Nickel in global STS by 2035 [and 2% by 2045?]. That would reduce Primary Nickel consumption by 1 Million Tonnes / year, close the supply gap, and enable cost effective LIB production.
Consider some crude arithmetic. Assume Primary Ni for clean energy applications is ~ 2 Million Tonnes / year in 2035, (see Fig. 3).
Scenario A. Business as usual in STS melting; Ni supply shortage; high price for Ni.
Primary Nickel @ 4% in STS = 4 Million Tonnes
Primary Nickel in LIB for EVs = 2 Million Tonnes
Market Price of Primary Nickel = $30,000/Tonne
Total Cost of Primary Nickel in STS + EVs = $180 Bn
Scenario B. Reduced Ni in STS; Ni supply covers demand; lower price for Ni.
Primary Nickel @ 3% in STS = 3 Million Tonnes (for 100 Million Tonnes STS)
Primary Nickel in LIB for EVs = 2 Million Tonnes
Market Price of Primary Nickel = $15,000/Tonne
Total Cost of Primary Nickel in STS + EVs = $75 Bn
Also, Carbon Chain [7] has calculated that the production of ferronickel emits about 45 tonnes of CO₂e per tonne of contained Nickel.
Difference Between Scenarios A and B: $105 Bn / year and 45 Million tonnes of CO₂e, plus CO₂e savings from recycled vs primary steelmaking.
It may well be that ‘the unseen hand of the market’ will move us part way from Scenario A to Scenario B, but there will be volatility; time lags; missed opportunities and undesirable side effects. How can we coordinate purposeful action in a market with dozens of producers and millions of consumers and supply chain intermediaries?
References
[7] ‘’Understand Your Nickel Emissions’’, Carbon Chain [https://www.carbonchain.com/blog/understand-your-nickel-emissions].
