METHODS, TOOLS, AND SOFTWARE

From Grave to Cradle

A Thermodynamic Approach for Accounting for Abiotic
Resource Depletion
Alicia Valero and Antonio Valero
Keywords:
exergy
industrial ecology
life cycle assessment (LCA)
minerals
mining
nickel
Supporting information is available
on the JIE Web site
Summary
Life cycle assessment (LCA) is a promising tool in the pursuit of sustainable mining. However,
the accounting methodologies used in LCA for abiotic resource depletion still have some
shortcomings and need to be improved. In this article a new thermodynamic approach is
presented for the evaluation of the depletion of nonfuel minerals. The method is based
on quantifying the exergy costs required to replace the extracted minerals with current
available technologies, from a completely degraded state in what we term Thanatia to
the conditions currently found in nature. Thanatia is an estimated reference model of a
commercial end of the planet, where all resources have been extracted and dispersed,
and all fossil fuels have been burned. Mineral deposits constitute an exergy bonus that
nature gives us for free by providing minerals in a concentrated state and not dispersed
in the crust. The exergy replacement costs provide a measure of the bonus lost through
extraction. This approach allows performing an LCA by including a new stage in the analysis:
namely the grave to cradle path. The methodology is explained through the case study of
nickel depletion.
Introduction
The mining industry is experiencing unprecedented demand
driven by the needs of emerging economies. Observed trends
of mineral resources production show an exponential growth
in most important commodities. This fact was highlighted in
the early 1970s in the well-known book The Limits to Growth
(Meadows et al. 1972) and other related works such as the
studies of Arndt and Roper (1977). Moreover, such growth
has not only continued to increase exponentially (Bardi 2005;
Valero and Valero 2010b, 2011b), but also has received lit-
tle attention from the international community until recently
(Steen and Borg 2002). Whether depletion of concentrated
mineral deposits will cause signicant social and economic dis-
tress is still under debate. Many argue that technological devel-
Address correspondence to: Alicia Valero, CIRCE, Mariano Esquillor 15, 50.018 Zaragoza, Spain. Email: aliciavd@unizar.es
c
2012 by Yale University
DOI: 10.1111/j.1530-9290.2012.00529.x
Volume 17, Number 1
opment, dematerialization, substitution among materials, and
more exploration efforts (which will increase proven reserves)
will overcome scarcity (Barnett and Morse 1963; Scott and
Pearse 1992; Smith and Robinson 1997; Solow 1974). How-
ever, today no one questions that mining industries need to
go further and deeper, and consume much more energy, water,
or chemicals, or that they will produce huge amounts of waste
rock. This is a consequence of the rapidly declining ore grades
as revealed by Mudd (2007a, 2007b, 2010a). The complexity of
the earths crust, whose detailed geology and geochemistry are
barely known, together with the lack of reliable data on min-
eral extraction, have mainly contributed to a general lack of
information about the problem. But governments have started
to pay attention because the availability of these materials is
fundamental to a wide range of industries.
www. wileyonlinelibrary. com/journal/jie Journal of Industri al Ecol ogy 43
METHODS, TOOLS, AND SOFTWARE
Life Cycle Assessment and Mineral
Depletion
The adequate management of resources requires appropriate
evaluation techniques, allowing quantication of the associated
impacts. In this context, life cycle assessment (LCA) is gain-
ing prominence for the evaluation of mining activities; see, for
instance, the study of Norgate and Haque (2010). LCAmethod-
ology assesses the environmental impacts associated with a
product, process, or service throughout its life by inventory-
ing material resources, energy inputs, and environmental issues
through a cradle-to-grave approach. Additionally the product
life cycle can be conveniently divided into the following stages
(EPA 2003; Norgate et al. 2007):
cradle to entry gate (mining and processing),
entry gate to exit gate (product manufacture), and
exit gate to grave (product use, recycling, and disposal).
In the nal report of the life cycle impact assessment (LCIA)
denition study by the United Nations Environment Pro-
gramme (UNEP) (Jolliet et al. 2003), the importance of in-
cluding damages to the abiotic environment was stressed. In
addition to ores (metallic and nonmetallic minerals), abiotic
resources include energy carriers, water, and soil. In this study
we will mainly focus on the rst category, that is, nonfuel min-
erals.
The energy, water, and materials required for mining and re-
ning minerals is well reected in the cradle to entry gate stage.
While the relative importance of this stage compared to the
other ones increases as the ore grade of the deposits decreases
because more effort is needed for extracting the same amount
of metal, this approach only partially takes into account the
problem of mineral scarcity. How can we assess the fact that ex-
tracting a highly concentrated resource today will force future
generations to extract a less concentrated resource, leading to
an increased impact on the environment and economy? This
question has been addressed by a number of authors (Finnve-
den and Ostland 1997; Guin ee and Heijungs 1995; Steen 2006;
Steen and Borg 2002; Stewart and Weidema 2005; Strauss
et al. 2006; Udo de Haes 2006).
Traditionally resource depletion is treated as an impact cat-
egory in LCIA, together with a wide range of other environ-
mental aspects, such as impacts on human health or impacts
on ecosystem quality. Although there is no denitive approach
for dealing with abiotic resource depletion, different method-
ologies have addressed this topic. These can be categorized into
four main groups (Finnveden and Ostland 1997): (1) aggrega-
tion of energy and materials on an energy and mass basis; (2)
aggregation based on estimates of reserve deposits and current
consumption; (3) aggregation of energy impacts based on fu-
ture scenarios (e.g., impacts associated with recovery
1
to initial
state); and (4) aggregation of exergy and/or entropy production.
There has been much debate about the suitability of said
methodologies. Each approach entails unresolved or controver-
sial aspects that limit its suitability for assessing abiotic resource
depletion. Examples of these deciencies are, for instance, the
lack of ability to adequately reect the loss in functionality re-
lated to the use of abiotic resources (for type 1 and 2) (Steen
2006; Stewart and Weidema 2005; Yellishetty et al. 2009), the
fact that proven reserves are not static (for type 2) (Stewart and
Weidema 2005), the arbitrariness in the future surplus energy
calculation (for type 3) (Strauss et al. 2006), or the difculty
in understanding the concept of entropy or exergy as indicators
and the debatability of the reference environment for obtaining
exergy values (for type 4) (Stewart and Weidema 2005).
Our approach described in the next section provides an inte-
grated view of the above methodologies, with a strong thermo-
dynamic basis. Our aim is to keep the strengths of the previous
approaches and try to solve some unresolved issues so far en-
countered for the assessment of abiotic resource depletion.
Theoretical Framework
Mineral Depletion and the Entropy Law
It has been argued that the methods for assessing resource
depletion in LCA must come from thermodynamics and must
take into account the second law of thermodynamics (entropy
law) (G ossling-Reisemann 2008). The scientic community
commonly acknowledges that the second law plays a central
role in ecological sciences and technologies (Daly 1992). Some
researchers talk about products of lowand high entropy, dissipa-
tion, irreversibility, or limits as a way to explain the accelerated
destruction of natural resources caused by todays society. Ther-
modynamics provides a powerful explanation of the phenom-
ena plus certainty of results. It is not challenged by opinions,
theories, or indeed by human laws or authorities. But when it
comes down to using numerical thermodynamic magnitudes,
thermodynamics is quickly abandoned in the search of easily
understandable indicators. Calculating entropy is not easy, and
it is even more difcult to interpret. Describing phenomena in
energy over temperature (Joules/Kelvin) units is very complex
and can lead to misinterpretations. In many cases the results are
striking, but can be disappointing, as they may be far from our
expectations.
This is because in everyday life we take for granted things
that are not the way they seem. For example, consider the
process of mixing two substances. We know that entropy is
generated and therefore trying to separate these substances will
require energy. Experience tells us that it is very easy to mix
substances, and usually no energy is released in the process.
The discourse usually ends here, but the analysis must follow
up. Thermodynamics tells us that at least the same quantity
and quality of energy released in the mixing process is needed to
separate what was mixed. However, we know how difcult it is
to separate, so how is this possible? The key is in understanding
the meaning of at least. The reality is that we do not know
howto separate or purify efciently. Thermodynamics indicates
the limits of the possible and allows us to measure howfar we are
from reversibility. However, it doesnt tell us how to achieve it.
Contamination of air, water, and land bodies are spontaneous
44 Journal of Industri al Ecol ogy
METHODS, TOOLS, AND SOFTWARE
and irreversible processes from a thermodynamic point of view.
Pollution is the mixing process of a minor component into a
main one. In contrast, extraction of mineral resources from
the crust is a thermodynamic process of separation. Our inef-
cient technology requires large amounts of energy to achieve
it, and as a consequence we pollute the air and rivers. In short,
both mining and pollution can be classied under the ther-
modynamic category of irreversible processes of separation and
mixing, and thus can be described in entropy terms. However,
it is probably not the best indicator, as entropy is not an eas-
ily understandable property and is usually used in a qualitative
manner.
Exergy as a Measure of Resource Availability
A surprising change occurs when exergy instead of entropy
is used. Exergy, formerly called available energy, is measured in
energy units, and any destruction of exergy is just a measure of
the irreversibility of the process. So each time we destroy ex-
ergy we directly increase entropy. In plain words, exergy is the
thermodynamic availability of resources with respect to some
reference environment (RE). It is not a mere indicator, but a
physical property of systems once the RE has been dened. So
the qualitative message of entropy is a quantitative one, since
exergy constantly decreases in a parallel way to the entropy
increase. In this way we can use tonnes of oil equivalent, for
instance, to describe how much exergy we are effectively de-
stroying. Besides, solely using the rst law of thermodynamics
adds confusion. Indeed, energy is never lost, but exergy always
decreases in any irreversible process (i.e., in any real process). In
fact, exergy measures thermodynamic distinction from a given
reference environment.
As is well known, exergy is a thermodynamic function that
depends on the intensive properties (i.e., those that do not de-
pend on the amount of material in the system) characterizing
the system and those of the reference environment. It is the
minimum thermodynamic work required for recovering the sys-
tem from the RE. Minimum implies reversibility or the absence
of friction, thermal, or chemical potential differences. In turn,
reversibility means the capacity of the system to reverse the
process by using the same amount of work that was delivered in
its constitution process. In other words, exergy can be dened
as the maximum work that can be delivered by a system when it
reaches equilibrium with its RE (with all of its intensive prop-
erties equal to those of the RE). Understanding the concept of
reversibility is the key. We observe that systems spontaneously
lose their pressure, temperature, chemical potential, velocity,
or height, producing in the best of cases a lower effect than the
maximum dictated by thermodynamics.
The applicability of exergy in LCA was discussed by Finnve-
den and Ostland (1997), asserting that exergy can be used as
a measure of the depletion and use of energy and material re-
sources in view of the fact that the useful energy (exergy) is the
ultimate limiting resource. Thus, following Finnveden and Ost-
land, let us attempt to use a single measure for the depletion of
mineral resources. Exergy involves assessment of the minimum
energy costs for producing a mineral resource with a specic
chemical composition and concentration from common mate-
rials in the environment. The exergy of a mineral resource is
evaluated from its chemical composition, concentration (or ore
grade), and, of course, quantity by multiplying the unit exergies
by the tonnes of the resource produced (or consumed). Since
exergy is additive across different minerals, such as iron ore,
gold, copper, or even oil, gas, or coal, it becomes an appropriate
indicator to assess mineral resource sustainability at the industry
scale as well as at the individual mine scale.
The Exergy Costs
Embodied energy is an easily understandable concept: it is
simply the energy needed to generate a product from its con-
stituents. Calculating it is apparently simple: dene the bound-
aries of the analysis and add all energies needed to manufacture
the product. Actually, embodied energy is the energy cost mea-
sured in energy units. However, in thermodynamics the energy
content of a system needs to be clearly dened. The system
must be xed, known, and in stable equilibrium with a set of
measurable properties such as pressure, temperature, or compo-
sition. Under these specications we are able to dene its en-
thalpy, internal energy, or Gibbs free energy. Energy becomes
an intrinsic property precisely measured with SI units
2
(i.e.,
kilograms, meters, and seconds). As opposed to energy, cost
is an emergent property. It does not depend on the intrinsic
properties of the system, but on its history, boundary limits of
analysis, productive purpose, by-products, and so forth. A xed
and known system with a specied pressure, temperature, or
composition may have different costs. Incorporating the con-
cept of embodied energy into the thermodynamic realm is not
an easy task. First, the amount of energy does not denote qual-
ity. We perhaps prefer a Joule of water at 40

C than at 15

C
for showering. This readdresses our view to the exergy concept.
Second, we need to characterize precisely the way we dene the
system (i.e., its boundary limits, its structure, and the efciency
of each and every component linking the structure). Under
these specications, the exergy cost of a product is dened as
the amount of exergy required to produce it. The concept of
exergy cost was rst dened by Valero and colleagues (Valero
et al.1986; Lozano and Valero 1993) in their general theory
of exergy saving. Almost simultaneously and independently
Szargut and Morris (1987) published internationally the cumu-
lative exergy consumption function, which is a closely related
concept. It should be stated that the latter concept has already
been proposed as an indicator of resource quality demand in
LCA (B osch et al. 2007; Cornelissen and Hirs 2002; Dewulf
et al. 2007).
Exergy costs are expressed in exergy units. They overcome
the problem of cost allocation in a rigorous way. Indeed, the
main difculty of allocating costs has been to nd a function
that adequately characterizes every one of the internal ows in
a system and distributes costs proportionally. Neither mass nor
energy are satisfactory indicators to allocate costs. In turn, ex-
ergy is a universal and additive property that allows allocating
Valero and Valero, From Grave to Cradle 45
METHODS, TOOLS, AND SOFTWARE
costs among simultaneously manufactured products in propor-
tion to their exergy content.
The greater the exergy cost, the higher the inefciencies in
the production chain. Commonly the exergy costs of products
are sometimes tens or even thousands of times greater than
their exergy. The values for embodied energy coincide in many
cases with those of the exergy cost. Sometimes they are so close
to the amount of fuel input needed to produce a system that
in practical terms exergy costs often can be substituted by fuel
consumption accounting.
The difference in intensive properties of a system with re-
spect to the REis the driving force that exergy quanties. Taking
advantage of it is a matter of our ingenuity. Unfortunately our
ingenuity (technology) is very far from being reversible. We see
that forests burn spontaneously; river water mixes with seawa-
ter, losing its exergy; or sound as a form of pressure in the air
rapidly disperses, leaving silence. These are manifestations of
nature in which exergy is destroyed with minor useful effects.
Machines that obtain work from burning wood (with a thermal
engine), or from osmotic pressure in the mixing of waters, or
energy from noise, still need important development.
Any exergy downgrading process entails a fraction of ex-
ergy losses. The opposite, an upgrading process, is even more
exergy demanding. Accordingly, replacement (i.e., the process
sequence for recovering a system from its equilibrium with the
RE) is, in practically all cases, insurmountably more costly than
the theoretical minimum: exergy. Furthermore, there are ob-
jects that we highly appreciate that have almost no exergy: a
gold ring and a stone sculpture are two cases. These are things
that cost a lot of effort to produce and have little or no thermo-
dynamic value. So it is worth asking ourselves whether exergy is
or is not a valuable indicator for appreciating natural resources.
Hence we need to complement it with an additional property
the exergy replacement cost. The latter is the sum of all exergy
resources that would be required if we were to build a product
from its constituents in the RE with the best available tech-
nology. Note that the best available technology is only known
when benchmarking actual mining processes.
The Reference Environment
Exergy depends on the conditions of the environment sur-
rounding the system. This means that for calculating exergy,
we also need to dene a reference environment to which our
numbers refer.
Zero exergy means no resource availability froma thermody-
namic point of view, and conventional reference environments
such as the one proposed by Szargut (1989) seek to quantify the
relative chemical reactivity of a given system. In fact, Szarguts
RE includes one substance per chemical element and only pro-
vides information about the chemical composition of that sub-
stance. In general, the REs proposed so far constitute a basis for
calculating chemical exergies. Reactivity is only one aspect of
distinction; the other is scarcity. Take, for example, the nickel
ore pentlandite (Fe
2+
4.5
Ni
4.5
S
8
). For nickel, Szarguts reference
substance is the ion Ni
2+
. Hence the chemical exergy of pent-
landite indicates its reactivity with respect to the nickel ion.
But this information will never be of interest from a practical
point of view for considering pentlandite as a nickel ore. We
are interested rather in its ore grade with respect to the crustal
concentration. Hence we need to go a step further in the exergy
analysis of minerals depletion. We need to make an inventory
of minerals that naturally exist in the earths outer layers and
propose a realistic baseline as a reference, where the ther-
modynamic message and practical scarcity will converge. If the
concentration factor is very important for assessing abiotic re-
sources, both the composition and the concentration of bare
rock minerals in the reference environment is required. This
hypothetical earth should represent a degraded planet where all
resources have been extracted and dispersed, and all fossil fuels
have been burned. The nonsuitability of conventional refer-
ence environments used for the assessment of abiotic resource
depletion has been one of the main weak points of exergy-based
methodologies.
Thanatia: The Degraded Planet
Aware of this problem, the authors of this article recently
developed a model of an exhausted earth that we named Tha-
natia
3
(from the Greek thanatosdeath) (Valero et al. 2011;
Valero and Valero 2011a). Thanatia is composed of a degraded
atmosphere, hydrosphere, and continental crust.
Assuming that all fossil fuels are burned, we estimated a
state of the atmosphere and hydrosphere using updated fossil
fuels stocks and emissions projections in a simple model of the
carbon cycle. Accordingly, we proposed a degraded atmosphere
having a carbon dioxide (CO
2
) content of 683 parts per million
(ppm) and a mean surface temperature of 17

C. Considering
that oceans account for 97.5% of the whole hydrosphere, the
degraded hydrosphere was assumed to have the current chemical
composition of seawater at an average surface temperature of
17

C.
For the upper continental crust, we proposed a model that
includes the composition and concentration of the 294 most
abundant minerals currently found on earth. In fact, it can be
assumed as a rst model for the average mineralogical compo-
sition of the earths crust. This was obtained through a least
square procedure ensuring coherence between the known ele-
mental chemical composition of the crust (Rudnick and Gao
2004) and the information provided by the Russian geochemist
N. A. Grigorev (2007) about the crustal mineralogical compo-
sition. Additionally the model was given geological consistency
by introducing a series of assumptions based on geological ob-
servations (Valero and Valero 2011a).
From this proposed reference we may say that any substance
in the earth different fromThanatias composition and concen-
tration is an exergy resource that can be useful from a thermo-
dynamic point of view. This way, a mineral deposit of the nickel
ore pentlandite, for instance, is an exergy resource because its
grade is greater than that in the degraded earth; with this model
of a degraded planet, a very disturbing open question consid-
ering resources is solved: if resources are nite, how can they
46 Journal of Industri al Ecol ogy
METHODS, TOOLS, AND SOFTWARE
be countless? Thus resources, which were usually considered -
nite but countless, are turned into nite and countable. Hence
a mine, the soil, a cloud, a glacier, or the current atmosphere
are exergy resources with respect to the degraded earth. And
their value is a measure of their thermodynamic distance until
depletion (until reaching Thanatia).
Note that Thanatia does not substitute for conventional ref-
erence environments. The latter are still used for calculating
chemical exergies. The fundamental difference lies in the dis-
tinction between the concepts of exergy and exergy resource.
Any substance on earth has exergy with respect to the RE. In
fact, Thanatia has chemical exergy with respect to the RE, as
depicted in gure 1. But substances will only be considered as
exergy resources if they differ in composition and concentration
from Thanatia.
Exergoecology
Could humanity assess someday the mineral capital onearth?
Is it possible to measure the velocity at which we are depleting
it? The answer would be that we lack data and methodology.
In this article we develop the fundamentals for a methodol-
ogy based on the second law of thermodynamics. As already
stated, mining is an irreversible extraction process. We convert
concentrated minerals into manufactured goods and then into
dispersed materials. In each and every process we consume ex-
ergy and increase entropy. As abiotic resources are nite, this
process is in no way a never-ending one. Assessing the mineral
capital requires having a zero resource baseline to refer to and
a single and universal measure to equally count fossil fuels and
minerals, no matter what kind. Assessing the exergy of miner-
als using Thanatia as a reference environment looks like the
ideal candidate. The exergy of a mine may be evaluated from its
mineralogic composition, ore grade, and tonnage. But exergy
accounts for the absolute minimum energy costs for producing
the resource fromcommon materials in the environment. Since
our technology is so far from reversibility, pure exergy account-
ing provides numbers signicantly lower than common sense
would expect. A better indicator would be exergy replacement
cost accounting. But do not forget that exergy analysis pro-
vides objective values, while exergy cost analysis depends on
the always improving best available technology. So we prefer
to use both indicators rather than substituting one for another.
Unfortunately mining technology, such as drilling, bulk move-
ment, crushing and grinding processes, and so forth, have not
changed considerably in energy consumption during the last
decades (Mudd 2010a) so as to invalidate the exergy cost re-
sults initially obtained. Furthermore, this drawback is in fact
an interesting advantage: any technological upgrading will be
counted as a success story in the progress of humanity toward
giving knowledge to future generations.
Supposedly the mineral capital on earth could be assessed
in terms of the money that all the minerals in the world would
provide. As many countries want to sell their patrimony to
make cash, their price depends on market abundance rather
than on physically objective scarcity. If the market depends
on many biased factors, mankind would hardly reach a global
accounting consensus. Alternatively, we could use the exergy
cost of extracting the abiotic resources froma cradle-to-gate per-
spective. In that case, our most valuable resources in physical
terms (i.e., those that have an elevated ore grade) become the
cheapest ones, since the energy to extract a resource increases
exponentially as the ore grade decreases, a consequence of ther-
modynamics. And here the absolute scarcity of the mineral in
the crust does not play any role. Therefore we need an indica-
tor that is far from the vagaries of the market, and whose value
increases with its scarcity. This is obtained with the exergy and
the exergy replacement cost indicators.
Now we have the theoretical instruments ready to answer
what the mineral capital on earth is. Exergy cost accounting
provides a wide and clear vision of the use and degradation
of energy and, in consequence, of natural resources. With this
perspective, a methodology called exergoecology was devel-
oped for the exergy assessment of natural resources from the
dened degraded earth (Valero 1998). Its corollary, what we
label physical geonomics, allows us to value mineral resources
according to the physical cost (avoided cost) we save when we
extract resources from a natural deposit instead of extracting
them from the materials contained in a hypothetical earth that
has reached the maximumlevel of degradation (this is, say, from
the common bedrock) (Valero and Valero 2010b; Valero et al.
2009a). In other words, we value minerals through the physical
cost of replacing themwith the best available technology, froma
degraded state in Thanatia to the conditions in which they are
currently present in nature. Its aim is to determine the mineral
exergy bonus that nature gives us for free by providing minerals
concentrated in mines and not dispersed in the earths crust.
Furthermore, we can assess in an objective way the impact of
future scarcity, since the extraction of high-grade deposits will
have an associated greater replacement cost.
It should be stated that this approach is only valid for non-
fuel minerals. Fossil fuels, once burned, are lost forever and it
is practically impossible (at least on a human time scale) to
recover them. For fuels, the exergoecology method uses other
approaches like biomass primary productivity or through what
we have labeled clean tonnes of oil equivalent. Its principle is
to subtract from their internal caloric value the exergy costs
associated with cleaning the fuels of particles, CO
2
, and other
pollutants (Valero and Botero 2005). In the same way, a simi-
lar corollary that we have labeled physical hydronomics has
been developed for the assessment of water bodies (Valero et al.
2009b). However, it is outside the scope of this article to show
in detail the methodologies used for the assessment of water
and fossil fuel depletion, and we will focus only on metallic and
nonmetallic minerals.
The Grave-to-Cradle Approach
Embodied energy analyses and LCA are techniques that do
not need rigorous denitions of energy, and still they are quite
useful and far reaching. But xing in the thermodynamic realm
a concept well established in energy and life cycle analyses is
Valero and Valero, From Grave to Cradle 47
METHODS, TOOLS, AND SOFTWARE
Figure 1 Life cycle assessment from grave to grave. Manuf. = manufacturing; conc. = concentration.
a matter of precision. For many unrened analyses we may use
both the energy and embodied energy concepts as substitutes for
exergy and exergy cost concepts, respectively, but in fact, in no
way are they synonymous. Both exergy and exergy cost require
precise denitions. As is well known, LCA results are relative
to the chosen systems boundary. Nowadays, no absolute LCA
values exist for a given good or service. Notwithstanding that,
suppose we start our analysis froma hypothetical cradle inwhich
all the commercial minerals and fossil fuels have been depleted
(i.e., Thanatia). This degraded planet serves us both as a bound-
ary limit and as an absolute reference system good enough for
calculating the exergy and exergy costs of any commodity at
the industry gate. Theoretically speaking, this is the only way
to get absolute LCA values, by converging LCA with second
law analysis through Thanatia as a reference environment.
In the future Thanatia may become the starting point for the
assessment of abiotic resource depletion. The exergy measured
from Thanatia gives a measure of the quality of the resource
and constitutes a universal, objective, and useful tool for clas-
sifying resources according to their depletion states. Presented
over time, exergy can give an indication of the speed at which
degradation is occurring. However, we must state that even
considering a consequent baseline, exergy is still insufcient
for realistically quantifying resource depletion and we should
additionally resort to exergy costs.
Hence, from the exergoecological point of view, we propose
to introduce a new stage in the LCAs cradle-to-grave method-
ology, namely the grave-to-cradle approach, as depicted in
gure 1. In our view, there is a lack of theory rather than a
lack of indicators. Partial or total cradle-to-grave assessments
are only half of the cycle. We call them over the rainbow
accounting methodologies. They lack the other side: the grave-
to-cradle assessment. In the same way that imaginary numbers
can hardly be explained in real space, some phenomena like
depletion may be better explained in the down the rainbow
approach. It is important to close the whole materials cycle,
as stated by McDonough and Braungart (2002) in their book
Cradle to Cradle. Once extracted, concentrated, and rened (in
the cradle-to-gate stage), minerals are converted into useful
products (entry gate to exit gate). Some of these materials are
recycled when their useful life ends and go directly into the
entry gatetoexit gate stage. However, most of them end up as
wasteeither as pollution or disposed of in landllsand be-
come degraded and dispersed, arriving at a nal depleted state
(to the grave)that is, to Thanatia. In this way, at least four
main costs in the life cycle of a product come into play (see
gure 1). The rst one belongs to the down the rainbow part.
It is in fact an avoided and imaginary cost, and represents the
debt we acquire with future generations as the effort that na-
ture spent in producing minerals in a concentrated state. The
remaining costs belong to the over the rainbow part and are
associated with real consumption. The second one is the cost
associated with mining, mineral processing, smelting, and re-
ning. Next, the manufacturing costs result when the already
processed rawmaterials are converted into useful products. And
nally, recycling costs will eventually appear if scrap and wastes
are recycled.
The distances from the horizontal axis of each one of the
reservoirs in gure 1 are variable for each material under analy-
sis. The same thing happens with the relative distance between
48 Journal of Industri al Ecol ogy
METHODS, TOOLS, AND SOFTWARE
reservoirs. This means that for some substances, recycling costs
may be greater than mining and rening costs, and the latter
less than manufacturing costs or avoided costs, for instance. The
unit of measure can be either exergy or exergy costs. As stated
before, measuring in exergy terms is equivalent to providing the
lower limit of the energy use of the processes. But the exergy
costs provide a more realistic measure of the efforts put into
play in the life cycle of a product.
Gradually the earth is being transformed into Thanatia, and
this is a consequence of the second law of thermodynamics.
Fortunately the sun and good housekeeping will allow delaying
this end to come. In a hopefully very distant future, there will
be no concentrated mineral deposits from which to extract raw
materials. We will either need to obtain themfromthe bedrock,
which is extremely costly, or we will have to recycle every single
material used. If we want to avoid this situation, we have to in-
clude in the accounting an additional stage: the grave-to-cradle
approach. The latter should account for the gradual decrease
of natures exergy bonus of the concentrated mineral deposits,
which will be unavailable for future generations. It should be
stressed that the grave-to-cradle path does not refer to recycling.
It is not a physical process in the same way that manufacturing
is, for instance, but rather a thermodynamic accounting.
Similarities with Other Methodologies
The idea of assessing resource depletion as the energy re-
quired to bring the resources back to the original state has been
discussed in previous papers, such as those by Lindeijer and col-
leagues (2002) and Steen and Borg (2002). In particular, Steen
and Borg (2002) calculated the production cost with current
technology for a number of metals when mined frombedrock. In
our analysis we incorporate to the latter a rm thermodynamic
basis, the concept of Thanatia, and an ordered methodology for
obtaining those production costs.
The grave-to-cradle approach presented lls in a key ele-
ment of the framework methodologies based on the concept
of resource functionality proposed by Stewart and Weidema
(2005). The main aim of their framework is to dene the nec-
essary and sufcient set of information required to quantify the
effects of resources depletion for all the resource categories con-
sidered. According to these authors, in order to implement this
framework it is necessary to dene two key variables: the ulti-
mate quality limit, which is related to the functionality of the
material, and the backup technology.
The ultimate quality limit should be determined theoret-
ically based on thermodynamic arguments. The authors state
that it is necessary to dene a specic limit for each metal. This
limit should take into considerationboththe concentrationand
mineralogy of mined minerals. Thanatia gives a clear solution
to the ultimate limit that Stewart and Weidema are seeking.
The degraded earth model includes a list of minerals with their
respective average concentrations in the crust. These concen-
trations constitute the lower limit of ore grades. Furthermore,
the exergy of the minerals calculated from Thanatia accounts
for the minimum energy (reversible energy) required to restore
the minerals from a degraded state into the conditions found in
nature.
The backup technology is the alternative technology applied
when reaching the ultimate quality limit. The energy use of the
backup technology will increase smoothly over time from the
present until the ore grade is equal to that of the waste from
the studied product system (Weidema 2000). This is the mine
cutoff grade, or the ore belowwhich mining is not economically
feasible. Hence the energy used by the backup technology is
the upper limit for restoring the deposits. This is equivalent
to the exergy costs explained before, which account for the
real energy that needs to be invested with the best available
(backup) technology to hypothetically restore the mines.
Finally, we agree with Weidema and colleagues (2005), that
the energy needed to account for abiotic resource depletion
should be part of the life cycle inventory (LCI) analysis rather
than the life cycle impact assessment (LCIA). The environ-
mental consequences that would come from the use of the
additional energy are then included in the LCIA. Moreover,
this perspective allows for the appropriate comparison of the
difference between obtaining raw materials from the mines and
fromrecycled products. Inmany cases it is economically cheaper
to mine rather than recycle, but this will never be true if we
include in the inventory the exergy replacement costs of the
mines where raw materials are extracted.
The methodology is described step by step through the case
study of world nickel production in the supporting information
available on the Journals Web site. Additional information on
the methodology can be found in Valero and Valero (2010a),
where the cases of aluminum and limestone are analyzed.
Discussion and Conclusions
It is important to return to the discussion about the draw-
backs of the different methodologies used so far for abiotic re-
source depletion. We will check nowpoint by point whether our
proposal can solve the unresolved issues presented previously.
1. Type 1 and 2 methodologies lack the ability to adequately re-
ect the loss in functionality related to their use, as well as their
emphasis on resource extraction as opposed to an emphasis on
product use and disposal as the human activity responsible for
resource depletion (Stewart and Weidema 2005): In the
grave-to-cradle approach, such as in the methodologies
proposed by Finnveden and Ostland (1997), Steen and
Borg (2002), and Stewart and Weidema (2005), it is not
the extraction of materials that is of concern, but rather
the dissipative use and disposal of materials.
2. Type 1 methodology suggests that all abiotic resources are
exchangeable and equally important with respect to their
mass or energy content (Steen 2006): In the proposed
methodology, a resource is not valued according to its
mass or energy content. It is assessed according to its
differentiation with the environment. The greater the
ore grade of the mineral with respect to the dispersed
state of Thanatia, the greater its thermodynamic value.
Valero and Valero, From Grave to Cradle 49
METHODS, TOOLS, AND SOFTWARE
3. The available reserve deposits in type 2 methodologies are de-
ned in the context of economic availability; this incorporates
considerations of the available technologies, their accessibil-
ity, etc. (Stewart and Weidema 2005): The advantage
of our approach is that we refer all calculations to an
ultimate limit, where no more concentrated resources
are available. The calculations are based on the mineral
concentration values in Thanatia and current ore grades
of the analyzed mineral deposits. The total quantity of
reserves is not an input in the grave-to-cradle approach
and hence the temporal, political, or social factor does
not play any role.
4. Future surplus energy calculation (for type 3) is very arbi-
trary (Strauss et al. 2006): As in type 3 methodologies,
we assume that the replacement of the mineral deposits
exhausted today will be accomplished through the best
current available techniques. It is expected that future
technologies will be much more efcient than todays.
However, we think that the assessments should be made
according to the current state of the art. We cannot shift
the problem to future generations with mere speculation
about panacea technologies that might eventually over-
come scarcity.
5. Exergy consumption or entropy production in type 4 method-
ologies are very abstract indicators and the entropy baseline
on which to base a quantication is debatable (Stewart and
Weidema 2005): If LCA should be thermodynamically
consistent, then the use of thermodynamic indicators is
unavoidable. As stated before, entropy is indeed a com-
plex and abstract indicator. The use of exergy instead of
entropy helps to rationalize the idea of dispersion, with
more understandable units (energy units). The problem
with exergy is that it is not well understood when com-
mon reference environments (baselines) are used. In our
proposal, this reference (Thanatia) is much closer to re-
ality and hence the exergy concept is better understood:
that is, the minimum energy required to restore a sub-
stance from a degraded state to the present conditions
found in nature. However, exergy only constitutes a min-
imum; therefore we need to resort to the exergy costs to
account for actual energy values.
6. The main problem involved in valuing resources depletion is
that the effect or damage occurs in the future and therefore our
assessment depends on our assumptions on what this future
looks like (Weidema 2000): As stated before, our method-
ology is based ona future withanabsence of concentrated
mineral deposits (i.e., only the bedrock is available for
eventual mineral extraction). Thanatia is our best guess
model to represent this end. Surely its composition will
be improved when better geological and geochemical in-
formation becomes available. Furthermore, we will most
likely never reach this end, but it constitutes an objective
ultimate limit.
7. Many LCIA approaches mix scarcity as such with the dif-
culty of extraction, which can be viewed as double counting,
as the effects thereof, such as high energy demand, are ac-
counted for in other categories (Brent and Hietkamp 2006):
Our approach clearly differentiates the grave-to-cradle
path from the cradle-to-gate path. As opposed to other
methodologies (as with the Eco-indicator 99 [Strauss et
al. 2006]), the mining of highly concentrated minerals is
penalized since they have associated greater replacement
costs. However, high-grade mines do not need so much
energy in the mining and concentration steps. The op-
posite occurs with low-grade mines, whose replacement
costs are lower (as they are closer to the reference envi-
ronment), but the extraction costs are very high. Hence
both concepts complement each other and no double
counting occurs.
8. Including a thermodynamic measure for resource consump-
tion in LCAwill signicantly increase the data that needs to be
handled (G ossling-Reisemann 2008): Obviously, includ-
ing a new stage in LCA (the grave-to-cradle approach)
involves the handling of additional data. However, the
use of speedy and reliable computer programs facilitates
the calculations. The user does not need to understand
how exergy is assessed. Furthermore, the methodology
proposed includes already developed models and is suf-
ciently structured, allowing more efcacy in the data-
searching process. Moreover, we are already developing
data sets of k values for the main extracted minerals in
the world, which will allow rapid and direct calculation
of their exergy replacement costs.
9. Allocation of coproducts is still an open issue (Yellishetty
et al. 2009): An objective and elegant way to solve
the allocation problem is through the property of ex-
ergy. Thanks to this property we can characterize all
internal ows in a system and distribute costs propor-
tionally. Therefore this problem does not exist with our
methodology, since the calculations are based on exergy.
A well-established branch of thermodynamics, namely
thermoeconomics (Lozano and Valero 1993), provides
solid bases for costs allocation for products, by-products,
and residues.
10. A methodological allocation problem arises in the life cycle im-
pact when the product life cycle investigated includes inows
or outows of recycled material. What share of the environ-
mental burdens of the primary production, recycling, and nal
waste management of the material should be allocated to the
product investigated? (Yellishetty et al. 2009): As stated
before, we claim that abiotic resource depletion should
be included in the LCI phase and not in the impacts.
Hence the grave-to-cradle approach will only take into
account the newly extracted material. The environmen-
tal burdens associated with the replacement costs of the
raw material will be then computed as impacts, together
with those produced in the manufacturing stages.
To summarize, we have seen that the grave-to-cradle ap-
proach can adequately address a good number of open is-
sues in LCA. It can help in pointing out strategies to im-
prove the use of abiotic resources, in minimizing environmental
50 Journal of Industri al Ecol ogy
METHODS, TOOLS, AND SOFTWARE
impacts, and in supporting decision making for both industry
and government. Also, it opens a way of assessing the min-
eral capital on earth, and it would be extremely valuable to
rationally assess the yearly global depletion of these resources.
However, we do not deny other methodologies that help to
enrich the overall analysis. It should be stated that our method-
ology only takes into account the surplus energy required when
no concentrated deposits are available. Other important vec-
tors, such as the increase in water consumption, production of
waste rock, or use of more chemicals are not considered cur-
rently, but the LCIA databases will allow us to include these
impacts in the loss of the mineral capital assessments. The so-
cioeconomic effects of abiotic depletion, such as the health of
ecosystems, can be also very important and can lead to negative
impacts on the quality of life for parts of society, as stated by
Brent and Hietcamp (2006). All these issues are outside the
scope of this approach and need to be developed in a parallel
way.
Acknowledgments
This study has been carried out under the framework of
the ENE2010-19834 project nanced by the Spanish Ministry
of Education and Science. Many thanks go to Rosa Adriana
Dominguez for her help in nding useful references.
Notes
1. Recovery can refer in some contexts to collection for recycling and
in others to extraction or separation of valued substances from a
substrate. The term is used in the latter sense here.
2. The International Systemof Units or Syst` eme international dunit es
abbreviated from the French as SI.
3. In other publications, we have also used the term crepuscular earth.
References
Arndt, R. A. and L. D. Roper. 1977. The metals and mineral fuels crisis.
Facts and predictions. Blacksburg, VA, USA: Virginia Polytechnic
Institute and State University.
Bardi, U. 2005. The mineral economy: A model for the shape of oil
production curves. Energy Policy 33(1): 5361.
Barnett, H. and C. Morse. 1963. Scarcity and growth. Baltimore, MD,
USA: Johns Hopkins University Press.
B osch, M., S. Hellweg, M. Huijbregts and R. Frischknecht. 2007. Ap-
plying cumulative exergy demand (CExD) indicators to the ecoin-
vent database. International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment 12(3):
181190.
Brent, A. C. and S. Hietkamp. 2006. The impact of mineral resource
depletion. International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment 5: 361
362.
Cornelissen, R. L. and G. G. Hirs. 2002. The value of the exergetic
life cycle assessment besides the LCA. Energy Conversion and
Management 43: 14171424.
Daly, H. E. 1992. Is the entropy lawrelevant to the economics of natural
resource scarcity? Yes, of course it is! Journal of Environmental
Economics and Management 23: 9195.
Dewulf, J., M. B osch, B. D. Meester, G. V. van der Vorst, H. van
Langenhove, S. Hellweg, and M. Huijbregts. 2007. Cumulative
exergy extraction from the natural environment (CEENE): A
comprehensive life cycle impact assessment method for resource
accounting. Environmental Science & Technology 41: 84778483.
EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2003. Tool for the re-
duction and assessment of chemical and other environmental impacts
(TRACI): Users guide and system documentation. Technical re-
port. Cincinnati, OH: National Risk Management Research Lab-
oratory, U.S. EPA.
Finnveden, G. and P. Ostland. 1997. Exergies of natural resources in
lifecycle assessment and other applications. Energy 22(9): 923
931.
G ossling-Reisemann, S. 2008. Combining LCAwith thermodynamics.
Information Technologies in Environmental Engineering 1: 1922.
Grigorev, N. A. 2007. Average composition of the upper continental
crust and dimensions of the maximum concentration of chemi-
cal elements. Geology of the Ural and neighbouring territories.
Summary materials 20022006. Uralian Geological Journal [in
Russian].
Guin ee, J. and R. Heijungs. 1995. A proposal for the denition of
resource equivalency factors for use in product life-cycle assess-
ments. Environmental Toxicology & Chemistry 14(5): 917925.
Jolliet, O., A. Brent, M. Goedkoop, N. Itsubo, R. Mueller-Wenk, C.
Pe na, R. Schenk, M. Stewart, and B. Weidema. 2003. Final report
of the LCIA denition study. Technical report. Lausanne, Switzer-
land: Life Cycle Impact Assessment Programme of the Life Cycle
Initiative.
Lindeijer, E., R. Miller-Wenk and B. Steen. 2002. Life cycle impact
assessment: Striving towards best practice. In Impact assessment of
resources and land use, edited by H. Udo de Haes et al. Pensacola,
FL: SETAC Press.
Lozano, M. and A. Valero. 1993. Theory of the exergetic cost. Energy
18(9): 939960.
McDonough, W. and M. Braungart. 2002. Cradle to cradle. Remaking
the way we make things. New York: North Point Press.
Meadows, D. H., D. L. Meadows and J. Randers, W. W. 1972. The limits
to growth. New York: Universe Books.
Mudd, G. M. 2007a. An analysis of historic production trends in Aus-
tralian base metal mining. Ore Geology Reviews 32(12): 227
261.
Mudd, G. M. 2007b. Gold mining in Australia: Linking historical
trends and environmental and resource sustainability. Environ-
mental Science and Policy 10(78): 629644.
Mudd, G. M. 2010a. The environmental sustainability of mining in
Australia: Key megatrends and looming constraints. Resources
Policy 35(2): 98115.
Mudd, G. M. 2010b. Global trends and environmental issues in nickel
mining: Suldes versus laterites. Ore Geology Reviews 38(12):
926.
Norgate, T. and N. Haque. 2010. Energy and greenhouse gas impacts
of mining and mineral processing operations. Journal of Cleaner
Production 18: 266274.
Norgate, T., S. Jahanshahi, and W. J. Rankin. 2007. Assessing the
environmental impact of metal production processes. Journal of
Cleaner Production 15: 838848.
Rudnick, R. L. and S. Gao. 2004. Composition of the continental crust.
In The Crust: Treatise on Geochemistry, edited by R. L. Rudnick.
Oxford: Elsevier Pergamon, pp. 164.
Scott, A. and P. Pearse. 1992. Natural resources in a high-tech econ-
omy. Resources Policy 18(3): 154166.
Valero and Valero, From Grave to Cradle 51
METHODS, TOOLS, AND SOFTWARE
Smith, N. and G. Robinson. 1997. Technology pushes reserves
crunch date back in time. Oil and Gas Journal April 7: 4350.
Solow, R. 1974. The economics of resources or the resources of eco-
nomics. American Economic Review 66: 1114.
Steen, B. and G. Borg. 2002. An estimation of the cost of sustainable
production of metal concentrates from the earths crust. Ecological
Economics 42: 401413.
Steen, B. A. 2006. Abiotic resource depletion. Different perceptions
of the problem with mineral deposits. International Journal of Life
Cycle Assessment 11(Special issue 1): 4954.
Stewart, M. and B. Weidema. 2005. A consistent framework for assess-
ing the impacts fromresource use. Afocus on resource functional-
ity. International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment 10(4): 240247.
Strauss, K., A. C. Brent, and S. Hietkamp. 2006. Characterisation
and normalisation factors for life cycle impact assessment mined
abiotic resources categories in South Africa. The manufacturing
of catalytic converter exhaust systems as a case study. International
Journal of Life Cycle Assessment 11(3): 162171.
Szargut, J. and D. Morris. 1987. Cumulative exergy consumption and
cumulative degree of perfection of chemical processes. Interna-
tional Journal of Energy Research 11: 245261.
Szargut, J. 1989. Chemical exergies of the elements. Applied Energy 32:
269286.
Udo de Haes, H. 2006. Sustainable management of natural resources
in a life cycle perspective. International Journal of Life Cycle
Assessment 11(1): 2.
Valero, A. 1998. Thermoeconomics as a conceptual basis for energy
ecological analysis. In Advances in energy studies. Energy ows in
ecology and economy, edited by S. Ulgiati. Rome: Musis, pp. 415
444.
Valero, A., A. Agudelo, and A. Valero. 2011a. The crepuscular planet.
A model for the exhausted atmosphere and hydrosphere. Energy
36: 37453753.
Valero, A. and E. Botero. 2005. An assessment of the earths clean
fossil exergy capital based on exergy abatement costs. In: Energy
system analysis, and optimization, Encyclopedia of Life Support Sys-
tems (EOLSS), developed under the Auspices of the UNESCO.
www.eolss.net. Accessed February 2005.
Valero, A., M. Lozano, and M. Mu noz. 1986. Ageneral theory of exergy
saving. I. On the exergetic cost. In Computer aided engineering and
energy systems, Vol. 3: Second LawAnalysis and Modelling, edited
by R. Gaggioli. ASME Book No. H0341C, pp. 18. New York:
American Society of Mechanical Engineers.
Valero, A., J. Uche, A. Valero, and A. Martinez. 2009b. Physical
hydronomics: Application of the exergy analysis to the assessment
of environmental costs of water bodies. The case of the inland
basins of Catalonia. Energy 34(12): 21012107.
Valero, A. and A. Valero. 2010a. Exergoecology: A thermodynamic
approach for accounting the earths mineral capital. The case
of bauxite-aluminium and limestone-lime chains. Energy 35(1):
229238.
Valero, A. and A Valero. 2010b. Physical geonomics: Combining the
exergy and Hubbert peak analysis for predicting mineral resources
depletion. Resources, Conservation and Recycling 54(12): 1074
1083.
Valero, A. and A. Valero. 2011a. The crepuscular planet. A model for
the exhausted continental crust. Energy 36(1): 694707.
Valero, A. and A. Valero. 2011b. A prediction of the exergy loss of
the worlds mineral reserves in the 21st century. Energy 36(4):
18481854.
Valero, A., A. Valero, and G. M. Mudd. 2009a. Exergy: A useful
indicator for the sustainability of mineral resources and mining.
In Proceedings SDIMI 2009 Sustainable Development Indicators in
the Minerals Industry, pp. 329338. Melbourne: The Australasian
Institute of Mining and Metallurgy.
Weidema, B. P. 2000. Can resource depletion be omitted fromenviron-
mental impact assessments? Poster presented to the 3rd SETAC
World Congress, 2125 May, Brighton.
Weidema, B., G. Finnveden, and M. Stewart. 2005. Impacts from re-
source use. A common position paper. International Journal of Life
Cycle Assessment 10(6): 382.
Yellishetty, M., P. Ranjith, A. Tharumarajah, and S. Bhosale. 2009.
Life cycle assessment in the minerals and metals sector: A critical
review of selected issues and challenges. International Journal of
Life Cycle Assessment 14: 257267.
About the Authors
Alicia Valero is a lecturer in the Department of Mechanical
Engineering at the University of Zaragoza and project manager
in the Centre of Research for Energy Resources and Consump-
tion (CIRCE) in Zaragoza, Spain. Antonio Valero is a professor
in the Department of Mechanical Engineering at the University
of Zaragoza and director of CIRCE.
Supporting Information
Additional supporting information may be found in the online version of this article.
Supporting Information S1: This supporting information contains a step-by-step description of the nickel case study
methodology, addressing both the concentration exergy and exergy costs of nickel deposits.
52 Journal of Industri al Ecol ogy