Gallium: Assessing the long term future extraction, supply, recycling and price of using WORLD7, in relation to future technology visions in the European Union

doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-5390312/v1

The gallium resources were assessed and used as input to long term simulations using the WORLD7 model. The content of gallium in different mother ores has been estimated to be about 14.7 million ton of gallium. Much of this is not accessible because of low extraction yields, about 610,000 ton gallium appear to be extractable (4%) with present practices. The gallium content in all source metal refining residuals is about 51,000 ton/yr, but only a production of 1,374 ton/yr appear as the maximum with present technology and conditions. The actual gallium production was about 450 ton/yr in 2023. The gallium price is very sensitive to increases in demand, and production is not very likely to be able to rapidly increase. The simulations show that soft gallium scarcity sets in after 2028 and physical scarcity will occur about 2060. Better gallium extraction and recycling yields may push the scarcity date forward to 2100. In the long term, only 60% of the gallium demand to photovoltaic technology can be satisfied. To really improve the situation and prevent scarcity, extractive access, gallium extraction yields and recycling yields must be significantly improved to better than 50%. At present the overall yields are 7-15%. Increasing both extraction yields and recycling yields can reduce the shortage. The long term sustainable extraction is under Business-as-Usual about 300 ton gallium per year, about 67% of the present production. Doubling present extraction and recycling yields may increase this to 460 ton per year. This poses a major challenge to future plans for an energy transition, where under Business-As-Usual (BAU), such a transition will remain a fair fantasy. The four EEA imaginaries, Ecotopia, The Great Decoupling, Unity in Adversity, and Technocracy for the Common Good, offer different policy pathways for managing future gallium scarcity through varying degrees of technological advancement, resource conservation, and avoidance strategy.

WORLD7

gallium

sustainability

scarcity

peak behaviour

technology metals

Gallium is an important element for different photovoltaic technologies, semiconductors used in electronics and LED lighting technologies. The envisioned European energy transition towards renewable energy sources implies a large amount of photovoltaic electricity production, as well as more energy-efficient technologies helping to reduce energy use. At the same time, new electronics and semiconductors depend on a larger scale on different types of gallium and on gallium in combinations with other technology metals. All of that depends on having a sufficient supply of metals like gallium for these technologies. Gallium is a secondary product of zinc, copper, lead and bauxite mining. Other sources are being explored.

In line with the long-term sustainability vision of the European Union, the European Green Deal stresses the importance of secure access to critical minerals that are essential for the functioning of the society in the future. To this end, the European Environment Agency (EEA) has developed four alternative imaginaries that depict different visions of a sustainable Europe by 2050 (SE2050), each with different policy approaches to resource use and management (EEA 2022, Sverdrup et al., 2024, Sverdrup). These are shaped as assumption scenarios that will need further substantiation and elaboration of details:

Ecotopia: This scenario prioritises nature and sustainability, with a marked reduction in consumption and technological reliance. It is assumed that the public sector retracts, civil society and local communities play a collaborative role in driving decision-making and welfare systems.
The Great Decoupling: In this scenario, it is assumed that technological innovations and social advancements have managed to decouple GDP growth from environmental degradation. Green growth is fuelled by competitive markets, with the bioeconomy at the forefront. Government interventions guide incentives, while EU cooperation remains pragmatic and focused.
Unity in Adversity: In this scenario, Europe has come together under a unified constitution to respond to environmental, climate, and geopolitical challenges. Strict economic measures prioritise environmental sustainability, with significant investments made to address climate and ecological concerns.
Technocracy for the Common Good: State control is central, with digitalisation used to monitor and manage social and ecological systems extensively. The EU functions as a cohesive alliance of strong governments, driving centralised economic activity, with a shift toward deglobalization and protectionist policies.

Each of these imaginaries envisions a different role for metals and minerals, including gallium, and varies in the methods of their production, usage, and recycling. Policymakers can use these visions to craft strategies that align with the sustainability objectives of each imaginary, particularly in how critical metals like gallium can be reused and recycled (Haraldsson and Bonin, 2021; EEA 2022; Sverdrup et al., 2024).

1.2 Overview on gallium and what it is used for (put this together with introduction?)

Gallium is used for many new technologies (computer semiconductors, LED lighting, photovoltaic solar energy collectors, screens, advanced sensors). The supply security of gallium depend on copper, zinc, lead and aluminium mining. Gallium are found in low concentrations in coal deposits, but a few deposits have significant amounts. Gallium is used in applications where there are no obvious good substitutes (Öhrlund 2011, Zuser and Rechberger 2011, Werner et al., 2017b, Panoussi et al., 2015). A eutectic alloy of gallium, tin and indium make an important non-toxic substitute for mercury in many of its applications. The global production in 2022 was small, only about 450 ton per year. The development of the production since 1945 to 2023 is shown in Figure 1a (USGS 2022 ds140). Figure 1b shows the development of the price during the same period (USGS 2022, ds140). Annual production in 2022 was somewhere between 560-650 ton per year, all depending on the source (USGS Minerals Commodities Summary 2022, Jaskula 2022, ds140-Gallium Mineral commodity Statistics USGS website, British Geological Survey: Idoine et al., 2022). Further increase in gallium demand in the near future is expected. The Covid epidemic and the Russian invasion of Ukraine caused global disturbances in the gallium market (Jaskula 2022). China was the largest gallium producer in 2019, it largely closed production 2020-2022, and restarted production in 2023. Time will show who else will enter the market to fill the growing demand. As demonstrated in the germanium and indium studies (Sverdrup et al., 2024a, 2024submitted), the future availability of critical minerals is closely connected to how the pathways towards these imaginaries are manifested in policy. In particular, the scarcity of metals such as germanium, indium, and gallium pose significant challenges to advanced technologies like photovoltaics and semiconductors. The management of these minerals, dependents on policy frameworks that prioritise innovation in recycling and extraction efficiencies to avoid shortages under the ‘business as usual’ scenario (BAU.

The goal was to develop an integrated dynamic model for the global market for gallium. The gallium supply system will be explored using dynamic modelling and to asses if the supply is sustainable according to the Brundtland definition (…provide the needs for present and future generations”). The global industrial circulation in a is included, simulations cover 1850-2200. The model is tested respect to historical data for extraction rate and market price. The model was used to assess the long term risk for soft or hard scarcity of the gallium in the future. The results have two features. (1) the assembly of key data on resources, reserves, production rates and gallium prices. These are needed to initiate and parameterize the model. (2) The use of the model to assess the supply and production in the future.

We have not found any serious sustainability assessment based on integrated assessment dynamic simulations for the gallium supply system and the development of the gallium supply system over time. No considerations of the cross-linking dependencies and feedbacks in the gallium system have been published earlier or included in any model. There is no earlier process-oriented systems dynamics model for gallium. No model have earlier integrated market supply and demand modelling in the gallium flow system. Some studies have touched upon the subject using simple mass balance approaches and burn-off estimates, but these are not really valid methods for a dependent secondary extracted metal like gallium. A preliminary study was presented by Sverdrup and Ragnarsdottir (2014) and Sverdrup et al., (2017). Lu et al., (2017) made a review of resources and extraction methods for gallium, stating that the gallium content in coal is about 10 million ton, that bauxite contain more than 1 million ton gallium, and that the gallium contents in zinc ores are significant. Lu et al., (2017) estimates that the gallium demand will increase from 325 ton/yr in 2017 to maybe as much as 5,000-5,500 ton/yr of gallium in 2030. Nobody really knows if that is possible or not, but absolutely needs to be found out. Frenzel et al., (2015) estimates the supply potential of gallium at 2,100 ton per year from bauxite refining, 85 ton per year from refining of sulfidic zinc ores, and potentially 590 ton per year from refining of coal combustion fly ash and slags (2,775 ton per year).

4.1. Overview

The main tool employed is system dynamics modelling. For designing the system dynamics model, we use systems analysis. We analyse the system using stock-and-flow charts and causal loop diagrams. The mass balance expressed differential equations resulting from the flow charts and the causal loop diagrams were numerically solved using the STELLA^® Architect modelling environment (Senge 1990, Sverdrup et al. 2022). We use causal loop diagrams for mapping out where the causalities are, to find intervention points in the system, and to propose policy interventions. The Integrated Assessment Model WORLD7 was used for this study (Sverdrup and Olafsdottir 2019). The workflow was as follows:

Estimate the available gallium resource that can be extracted using valid mining methods, considering the different yields and estimating the total geological deposit-to-supplied gallium approach.
Use the WORLD7 integrated modelling framework to generate gallium demand from the production of consumer goods and technological infrastructures.
Identify the available sources of technology elements and the estimate the available amounts that can be extracted from those deposits, considering extraction technologies and the cut-off caused by resource qualities and costs of extraction as related to the market price dynamics.
Run the WORLD7 model to assess the supply sustainability from the first use of the technology metals to about 2200.
Evaluate the model simulations with respect to result validity, and risk for future aspects of scarcity.
Evaluate how future policies that would result from the EU Imaginaries would grip into the gallium system.

The WORLD7 integrated assessment model was used for earlier assessments supply for silver (Sverdrup et al., 2014b), copper, zinc, lead (Sverdrup et al., 2015, 2019), aluminium (Sverdrup et al., (2015a), platinum group metals (Sverdrup and Ragnarsdottir 2016), wolfram (Sverdrup et al., 2017c), molybdenum and rhenium (Sverdrup et al., 2018b), tin (Olafsdottir and Sverdrup 2018), nickel (Olafsdottir and Sverdrup 2020), indium (Sverdrup et al., 2023). Further publications near completion after this are studies on tellurium, selenium, yttrium, antimony and bismuth, The source metal reserves and resources estimates for the relevant metals are based on geological estimates, the interpretation of geological data, and the allocation of extractable amounts according to ore quality, stratified with extraction costs, and as revised in our earlier studies for copper, zinc, lead, bauxite, nickel, molybdenum and wolfram (Phillips and Edwards 1976, Olafsdottir and Sverdrup 2018 (Sn), 2020 (Ni), Sverdrup and Olafsdottir 2019 (markets), Sverdrup et al., 2014a (Ag), 2015 (Al), 2017 (W), 2018 (Mo), 2019 (Ca,Zn,Pb), 2023 (In), 2024 (Ge).).

4.2. Resource estimations

4.2.1. Dependencies and cross-links

Figure 2 shows how the different technology metals are almost all of them dependent on primary extraction of a major resource such as hydrocarbons, metals or phosphate. All the 10 big metals and the minor metals indicated with yellow colour have their own primary mines, for all those in blue colour, extraction is dominated by secondary extraction. This complicated system is contained inside the WORLD7 model.

4.2.2. Basis for estimating how much can be extracted from ore deposits

Gallium is extracted mainly from Bayer Liquid from processing bauxite to alumina (about 60%) and zinc (about 40%) (Nassar et al., 2015). A few coal mines extract some gallium from coal and some production has been done from coal fly ash, and potentially, more is available. Gallium can be from secondary extraction during the refining process of primary metals like copper, zinc and lead. Recycled mother metals have very little content of gallium. Gallium is only available if the ore is hydrometallurgical processed and little technology metals come out with heap leaching methods. Only a few studies make detailed studies of the available resources of the technology metals. We have identified a few that were helpful for this study concerning: The size of the extractable gallium resource was discussed by Frenzel et al., (2016a,b, 2017), Lu et al., (2017), Paradis (2015), Panoussi et al., 2015, Wang et al., (2011) and Jaskula (2019). Statistics and data was supplied by USGS (2015, 2017, 2018, 2022). Aspects of the extraction methods and different degrees of recycling was discussed by Brown et al., (2014), Moskalyk (2003, 2004), Redlinger et al., (2015). No earlier studies on gallium involve any real feedbacks from market dynamics.

Estimating the demand is particularly uncertain and was discussed by Goe and Gaustad (2014), Gibson and Hayes (2011), Dehnavi (2013), Weeks (1973) and Licht et al., (2015). The basic approach is to assume a certain percentage growth per year and let it expand exponentially. This is a fairly short term and naive approach and is generally not based in any fundamental system dynamics knowledge of the gallium system. Another approach was to let it expand with GDP. The more sophisticated approaches trace the demand back to specific technology needs, and derive estimates from that.

4.2.3. Extractability and yields

One major source of difference between the available resource estimates in the literature are the differences (or lack of) assessment of actual industrial extractability. That a deposit has a certain amount of metal does not mean that it can all be extracted. The extraction pathway for a metal in general is shown in Figure 1. We have looked at many assessments to see if they seem to converge on a similar resource base for gallium (We reviewed Werner et al., 2017, Yellishetty et al., 2017, USGS 2022, Brown et al., 2015, Frenzel 2016, Mudd et al., 2014, 2017, Nassar et al., 2015, Sverdrup and Olafsdottir 2020, for gallium resource estimates). Yield is defined as being made of several components: Access yield: The part of the deposits that will be available for this kind of extraction.

Some deposits lack physical or legal access, some have a composition that prevents extraction or the extraction operation do not have the infrastructure to extract the technology metal when the operation is running Reuter et al., (2013a,b); (Y_A). The substrate yield is the fraction of the potential in the source material that will be used for extraction, in many mines, the refining residuals are simply thrown away; (Y_S). When the gallium is taken out, first there is an extraction where gallium is separated from the other metals present (Y_E) and then it its refined and into pure gallium (Y_R), see Figure 3. Some methods, such as heap leach do not readily give such a secondary substrate that contains gallium or other metals that can be extracted. The refining yield is the fraction of the gallium recovered from the refining substrate; (Y_R)_.Some bauxites have good gallium contents, but too much silica to be interesting for alumina production. Then gallium will not be extracted. Some coals goes straight to a use where the gallium will not be extracted from the ashes. The extraction cut-off is dependent on technology, extraction costs and the metal price at the time.

4.2.4. Resource and extractable amounts estimation.

The recoverable resources are estimated (Krautkrämer 1988, Sverdrup and Olafsdottir 2019, 2020):

Gallium resource = Mother metal resource * X_Ga * Y (1)

Gallium production = Mother metal production * X_Ga * Y (2)

X_Ga is the fraction gallium in the material, and where the yield Y is the yield (Krautkrämer 1988, Sverdrup and Olafsdottir 2020, Sverdrup et al., 2023). This is defined as:

Y= Y_A* Y_E* Y_R (3)

The refining yield Y_R will be a function of the extractive efficiency when treating the ore shipped to the refinery. The material contained below the cut-off grade is lost with the waste (Krautkrämer 1988, Sverdrup and Olafsdottir 2020). The extraction yield Y_E is:

Y is the overall yield, the amount metal extracted divided by the total metal content in the original ore. The extraction cut-off is determined by the technology used for extraction, combined with several cost aspects of extraction. Gallium can be extracted from the waste liquid when bauxite is processed to alumina (Bayer process) and if the extraction plant has the necessary infrastructure for it. Some Russian and Chinese coal deposits are known to contain significant amounts of gallium. The different estimates come from different sources, not using the same background material, and they are thus not always consistent. For gallium extraction before 1950 was very small. Yields from refining residuals are far higher than the access yields and enrichment yields, suggesting that investment in technical ability for gallium extraction appear to be missing. Possibly because on the individual process step level, each process is difficult to make profitable, even if gallium is very important on the whole-system strategic level.

4.2.5 Long term sustainable supply of gallium.

Sustainability is defined as “..sufficient for the needs of the present and future generations” according to the Brundtland definition. The future has many more generations than the present. If the time from invention of writing is counted, then that would be 5,000 years or about 150 generations. If we count from the invention of agriculture and the rise of cities, it is 10,000 years or 330 generations. If the industrial revolution started 1840, that is 180 years ago, then it is 6 generations. The total available resource must be estimated as follows:

Available amount = extractable + recycled (5)

This can be used to estimate the annual average supply for the time period assumed to be appropriate for length of the future.

This way of estimating the long term average supply sets a final date for the resource, and after this time it will potentially no longer be available at all. Take note that “sufficient need” is not necessarily the same as “want” or “demand”. The results are reported later.

The dynamic model is best described by the system flow chart as described in Figure 4 and the causal loop diagram (CLD) shown in Figure 5. Figure 4 shows the flow chart for the part of the WORLD7 model dealing with gallium. The major gallium losses have been marked with red. In the model, tin was ignored as a source of gallium, as the contribution to the total supply is small. Figure 5 shows the causal loop diagram for the gallium sub-model. In certain aspects the CLD has been simplified in order to keep it readable. Market with blue is the extractive sector, in green is the recycling sector, in yellow is the market, red is the industry using gallium in commodities and turquoise is the use in society.

The system feedbacks for system irreversible losses of gallium have not been shown. The system driving the preparation of gallium extraction substrate from coal ash, Bayer liquid and anode sludges from primary metal extraction have not been shown. R1, R2, R3 and R4 are reinforcing loops driving the gallium supply system. R1 is the extraction loop secondary to primary production of metals, and it is driven by profits. R2 is the extraction-investment loop, describing how increased extraction infrastructure increases extraction production and extraction profits. R3a and R3b are the loops for investing in recycling capacity. These links have been indicated in green. The investment decision is being taken based on profits and a supply capacity gap. These links have been indicated in blue. R4a-R4d are four different loop running over recycling to generate income and recycled gallium which is sold again to the market. R6 is the recycling-investment loop, describing how increased recycling infrastructure increases recycling production and recycling profits.

B are different balancing loops, slowing the system down. B1-B4 are different balancing loops, slowing the system down. B1 is the balancing effect of a large supply to the market, which may press the market price down. B2 is the balancing effect of operation costs and capital cost of invested capital in infrastructure for first extraction of gallium from different substrates. B3 is the balancing effect of operation costs and capital cost of invested capital in infrastructure connected to recycling of gallium. B4a-B4d are the balancing effect of supply and demand in the system to deliver commodities with gallium to society. B5 is the balancing effect of closing the supply capacity gap by investing in more capacity. The small unnumbered B’s are stock depletion balancing loop in the system. The system involves a supply chain from extraction substrates and recycling substrates through extraction processes to the metal market, on to users of gallium for inclusion in commodities. The commodities flow to society and after use to scrap, where a part becomes a recycling substrate, closing the cycle.

In the WORLD7 model, take from the market are driven by the modified demand, put gallium into society where it stays until scrapped or removed by wear and losses. Demand in the model is driven by population and metal use per person, but is adjusted up or down with price; this is the modified demand. The demand is estimated from average affluence, expressed as disposable income per person and global population, using outputs of the WORLD7 model (Sverdrup et al. 2019b, Sverdrup 2019). The basic driving mechanism of gallium extraction comes from profits of the extraction activity and availability of a extractable substrate used in the model. The price is determined by how much metal is available in the market in the same way as in our earlier metal models. This approach has been very successful in endogenously modelling the price (Sverdrup and Ragnarsdottir 2014, Sverdrup et al. 2017b, Sverdrup and Olafsdottir 2018, 2019). A high metal price will increase profits and promote larger supply to the market. High price leads to a reduction of demand in the model. More supply to the market will increase the amount available and lower the price.

Figure 6 shows an overview of the WORLD7 integrated assessment model. The WORLD model was developed from 2012 and still ongoing in 2023. The WORLD7 model addresses a large number of metals, and they are all in some way all linked in their extraction. All modules in WORLD7 are interconnected. Every red line represents one or several feedback links. Every box contains one of several sub-models. The WORLD7 energy module supplies energy from fossil fuels, renewables and nuclear power, with a market price generated by supply and demand in the model. Energy for metal extraction is taken from this module (Sverdrup et al., 2019b).

Table 1 shows average estimated for the use of technology metals, gram/unit; indium, gallium, antimony, selenium and silver for CIGS (CuInGaSe) photocell technology and other technologies. gram/unit. The copper, zinc, lead and silver production was derived in the WORLD7 model (Sverdrup et al., 2015a, 2019b, Sverdrup and Ragnarsdottir 2014b). The aluminium module in WORLD7 was used for the contribution from bauxite mining, integrated as a sub-module into the WORLD7 model (Sverdrup et al., 2015). Coal production and fly ash production rates were derived in the WORLD7 energy module. For gallium, the price has an effect on demand, but not any significant impact on the supply, as this is dependent on the source metal extraction rate. There is no feedback from gallium production and back to copper mining. The price has effect on demand in the model, but it does not have any significant impact on the supply, as this is dependent on the mother metal extraction rate. The mining cost depend on the energy price, other operating costs and financial costs.

Table 1. The use of technology metals, gram/unit; indium, gallium, antimony, selenium and silver for CIGS (CuInGaSe) photocell technology and other technologies. gram/unit.
Item	Indium	Gallium	Antimony	Selenium	Silver
Computers	0.040	0.002	0.770	0.050	0.250
LED TV	0.003	0.005	0.710	0.015	0.450
Mobile phones	0.0003	0.0005	0.071	0.002	0.045
CuInGaSe PhotoVoltaic	0.120	0.120	0	0.120	0.080
Cars	0.300	0.05	5	0.100	0.200
Handheld tools	0.002	-	0.140	0.005	0.010

The scrapping process for stock-in-use in society is driven by price (Dahmus and Gutowski 2007, Sverdrup and Olafsdottir 2019), after the metal has been scrapped, a high price will promote more recovery. Figure 7 shows the STELLA Architect code inside WORLD7 for the gallium module.

6.1. Resource and production estimates

Table 2 shows the recoverable resources of source metals in million ton of metal, this was used as input data to the WORLD7 model (Sverdrup and Ragnarsdottir 2014, Sverdrup et al., 2017a,b,c and Sverdrup and Olafsdottir 2018, 2019). The data has been stratified with respect to ore metal content and relative extraction cost (Phillips and Edwards 1976, Sverdrup and Olafsdottir 2019, 2020). For the content in coal two approaches to estimating the content was used, both resulting in about the same amount. The gallium content in coal is low, but it remains in the ashes and gets concentrated there 20-30 times. The given yields and the resource gallium content are very approximate estimates by the authors, derived from unpublished industrial sources and in some parts from the scientific literature. Note how the yields are very low. Of a geological presence of 15 million ton gallium, only 0.6 million ton is estimated to be obtainable for use (4%). This makes it clear that it is as important to improve yields as it is to find more gallium in deposits.

Table 2. Resource estimates for gallium. There are no primary mines for gallium. All extraction is secondary. Numbers in italics for coal grades (136,000 ton) are parallel estimates to the bulk estimate on coal combustion ashes content (139,000 ton or 136,000 ton). Take note that the yields are very low for most pathways.
Source	Resource mill ton	Rich	High	Low	Ultra	Ga content, ton	Y_A	Y_E	Y_R	Y	Extractable Ga, ton
Source	Resource mill ton	ppm				Ga content, ton	Yield, Fraction				Extractable Ga, ton

Zinc	2,676	60	30	20	10	107,000	0.5	0.2	0.9	0.090	9,633
Copper	4,020	40	20	10	5	80,400	0.5	0.2	0.9	0.090	7,236
Tin	120	30	15	7		1,800	0.4	0.2	0.7	0.140	252
Lead	3,015	50	30	20	5	60,300	0.5	0.2	0.9	0.090	5,427
Silver	2.4			50	30	120	0.6	0.2	0.95	0.110	14
Coal	420,000 500,000 530,000	8	6	4		3,360,000 3,000,000 2,120,000	0.1 0.1 0.1	0.2 0.2 0.2	0.8 0.8 0.8	0.016 0.016 0.016	54,000 48,000 34,000
Coal	1,450,000	8	6	4		8,480,000				0.016	136,000
Coal ash	58,000	200	150	100	-	8,700,000	0.1	0.2	0.8	0.016	139,000
Bauxite	112,000	80	50	25	5	6,000,000	0.5	0.2	0.8	0.080	448,000
Sum						14,949,000	0.04				609,592

Table 3. Extraction rate estimates for gallium, assuming presently (2023) applicable substrate access and supply chain yields. There are no primary mines for gallium, everything is secondary extraction.
Source	Mining mill ton/yr	Rich	High	Low	Ultra	Gallium content ton/yr	Y_A	Y_E	Y_R	Y	Extractable gallium ton/yr
Source	Mining mill ton/yr	ppm				Gallium content ton/yr	Fraction				Extractable gallium ton/yr
Zinc	17	60	30	20	10	340	0.5	0.4	0.9	0.090	62
Copper	22	40	20	10	5	220	0.5	0.2	0.9	0.090	20
Tin	0.4	30	15	7	-	6	0.4	0.2	0.7	0.140	0.8
Lead	3	50	30	20	5	60	0.5	0.2	0.9	0.090	5.4
Silver	0.027	-	-	50	30	2	0.6	0.2	0.95	0.110	0.2
Coal	4,200	8	6	4	-	25,200	0.1	0.2	0.8	0.016	403
Fly ash	118	200	150	100	-	17,700	0.1	0.2	0.8	0.016	283
Bauxite	350	80	50	25	5	17,500	0.5	0.2	0.8	0.080	600
Sum	-	-	-	-	-	61,028	0.026				1,374

Table 3 shows the extraction rate estimates for gallium, assuming presently applicable substrate access and extraction yields. Gallium occur on the average as 50 ppm in bauxite (aluminium ore), and can be extracted when the bauxite is processed to alumina, the raw material used for aluminium production (Figure 2 and see Foley and Jaskula 2013, USGS 2018). The refining yield is estimated to be at best 40% (Jaskula 2014). In reality, the real industrial yields end up far below that so far. The content in zinc ores vary from 8 ppm to 320 ppm (Butcher and Brown 2014). Our own estimate of the of bauxite resource is 112,500 million ton (Sverdrup and Ragnarsdottir 2016). At 50 ppm gallium content (50 g/ton), that corresponds to a geological resource of 6 million ton gallium (Table 1). But assuming that to be all present in geological deposits to be fully extractable is wrong. The different access and extraction yields must be considered, and at present, with best available technology, about 450,000 ton of gallium would be extractable. Most of the gallium supplied in 2023 comes from Bayer liquid from processing bauxite to alumina, see Tables 3 and 4 (Ronguo et al., 2016, Lokanc et al., 2015).

Table 4. Extraction rate estimates for gallium, but assuming better yields than at present (2022). Still, they are quite low. The technical extraction yield in 2022 was about 25%. Only 13% of the potential was extracted.
Source	Mining rate	Gallium content	Y_A	Y_E	Y_R	Y	Extractable gallium	Extraction 2023
Source	Mill ton/yr	ton/yr	Assumed future yields, as fraction of total content present				ton/yr
Zinc	17	340	0.6	0.65	0.9	0.35	119	60
Copper	22	220	0.6	0.65	0.9	0.35	77	30
Tin	0.4	6	0.6	0.65	0.9	0.35	2	-
Lead	3	60	0.6	0.65	0.9	0.35	21	3
Silver	0.027	2	0.6	0.5	0.9	0.27	1	-
Coal	4,200	25,200	0.15	0.5	0.9	0.07	1,764	20
Fly ash	118	17,700	0.15	0.5	0.9	0.07	819	50
Bauxite	150	7,500	0.5	0.5	0.9	0.23	1,679	287
Sum	-	51,028	0.09				4,482	450

Table 4 shows approximate extraction rate estimates for gallium, but assuming better yields than at present (2022). With gallium, the main issue is not the size of the resource, but (1) the access to the flow of substrate for extraction from mother metals, (2) dependence on the suitability of the bauxite for alumina production (It must have a low silica content), and (3) if the infrastructure for extracting gallium is present at the site where the secondary residual material is produced. Production at present is far below the potential available (Ronguo et al., 2016). The yield in the refining step is 75-80% (Hoang et al., 2015). The different yields given in the literature are not at all consistent. The yields indicated by the USGS (Foley et al., 2017) are in the range of 10% access, about 20-30% yield in the first steps of extraction and 80% yield in the final refining to pure gallium, resulting in a total yield of about 5-10%. The low yields are a major challenge in the extraction of gallium, but it seems that they may be slowly improving. It can be seen from the Table 3 that the potential is 51,000 ton/year of gallium, but that because of low yields under business-as-usual, the real extraction potential is 1,340 ton per year. There is a significant potential source of gallium in coal, and that could be extracted from the ash after combustion, the ash is about 5-20% of the coal, thus gallium is enriched 5-20 times in the ash as compared to the raw coal. Earlier estimates are in the same order of magnitude as we have indicated in Tables 2 and 3. The total extraction potential is about 4,500 ton per year of gallium according to Table 3. The average reserve content were adapted from unofficial information found in company websites, confidential information from consulting companies and using industrial information. These is are independent sources from USGS and similar literature (USGS 2011-2022, BGS 2022), but the estimates are of the same order of magnitude as in Table 4 (Sverdrup et al., 2017a).

Table 5 shows the present production and capacities for gallium production. The available estimates are not internally consistent and the numbers are approximate estimates made by the authors. The final column shows a very approximate estimate of the extraction potential, and this can be compared to the present production of gallium. The gallium potential without China is about 1,540 ton/year, or three times the present production. China supplies 84% of the global supply, followed by United States at 7%, and all the rest with only marginal contributions. The present global gallium technical production capacity (800 ton/yr) is far larger than the actual gallium production (450 ton/yr) in 2023, and far less than the gallium extraction potential (3,450 ton/yr).

Table 6 shows a comparison of gallium resources estimates for anode sludge residuals and potential gallium production, at different yields for recycling and extraction from anode sludges, mostly from sulphide ores. Anode sludge arise when the mother metal is refined using electrolysis.

Table 7 shows a comparison of gallium resources in coal ash and potential gallium production (ton/yr), at different yields. Present yield from anode slimes is in the range 10-15% (Table 1). Present yields for gallium extraction from coal and coal ashes is in the range 2-4% (Table 1), gallium recycling from urban scrap is at present very low, less than 10% (Data extracted from Dahmus and Gutowski 2007, Reuter et al., 2013a,b).

Table 5. Present production and capacities for gallium production in 2023. Amounts are in ton gallium per year. The final column shows an estimate of the potential. ? implies no data was found.
Country	Primary gallium production 2023, ton/yr	Estimated primary gallium production capacity, ton/yr	High purity gallium refining capacity, ton/yr	Alumina primary production, million ton/yr	Zinc primary production, million ton/yr	Gallium approximate potential assuming 50 ppm content and 50% yield, ton/yr
China	380	650	?	76	4.3	2,000
Australia	?	?	?	20	1.3	525
Brazil	?	?	?	11	0.2	302
India	?	?	?	7.4	0.8	410
Peru	?	?	?	0	1.6	40
USA	30	150	320	4.3	0.8	125
Bolivia	0	0	0	-	0.8	20
Mexico	0	0	0	-	0.7	18
Ukraine	4	5	-	?	0.1
Russia	5	5	5	0.6	0.3	22
Belgium	0	10	3	-	-
Japan	0	10	3	-	-
Slovakia	0	10	3	-	+
South Korea	0	5	2	-	-
Germany	0	5	5	?	+
Other	?	?	59	2.0	2.0	100
Sum	450	800	400	120.0	14.0	3,540

Table 6. Comparison of gallium resource (ton) estimates for anode sludge* residuals and potential gallium production (ton/yr), at different yields.*
Item	Extraction or recycling under different scenarios for yield (Y) as fraction
Item	Y=0.04	Y=0.1	Y=0.2	Y=0.3	Y=0.4
Probable resource, ton (Table 1)	94,000	470,000	940,000	1,410,000	1,880,000
Production, ton/yr (Table 5)	350	875	1,750	2,625	3,500

Table 7. Comparison of gallium resource (ton) in coal ash* and potential gallium production (ton/yr), at different yields. The yields marked in italics are probably out of reach.*
Item	Extraction or recycling yields (Y), expressed as fraction
Item	Y=0.02	Y=0.1	Y=0.2	Y=0.3	Y=0.4
Probable resource, ton (Table 5)	140,000	870,000	1,740,000	2,610,000	3,480,000
Production, ton/yr (Table 2)	500	2,500	5,000	7,500	10,000

Table 8. Summary of gallium production (ton) at different yields for extraction from all sources and including recycling with different yields.
Item	Extraction or recycling yields (Y), expressed as fraction
Item	Y=0.02	Y=0.04	Y=0.1	Y=0.2	Y=0.3	Y=0.4
Extraction from anode slime, ton/yr	160	350	875	1,750	2,625	3,500
Supply from coal ash, ton/yr	500	1,000	2,500	2,500	2,500	2,500
Supply from bauxite, ton/yr	150	300	750	1500	2.250	3,000
Sum	810	1,650	4,277	5,750	6,875	9,000
Recycling yields	R=0.02	R=0.04	R=0.1	R=0.2	R=0.3	R=0.4
Recycling, ton/yr	16	69	475	1,438	2,946	13,500
sum	826	1,719	4,752	7,188	9,821	22,500

Table 8 shows a summary of gallium resource (ton) and potential gallium production (ton/yr), at different yields for extraction and recycling. Tables 5-7 shows that increasing yields in both the extraction supply chain for gallium and for the recycling recovery chain has a large effect on the gallium supply, at constant substrate use (anode slimes and coal ashes). Table 8 shows that the gallium challenge is very difficult, but probably not impossible to solve. If extraction and recycling yields can be raised to 30% instead of the 4%, gallium supply could increase from the present maximum potential of 1,375 ton/yr to about 9,821 ton/yr. For extraction from anode slimes, this is probably feasible, but at a significant energy cost, but for extraction from coal and bauxite, a yield more than 10% appears to be very challenging.

6.2. WORLD7 simulations

The production rate for gallium is shown in Figure 8a shows the production and the contribution from bauxite refining to alumina, 75% of the gallium and from zinc production, 25% of the gallium as compared to the recorded mining history (USGS 2014, 2022). At present, gallium is mostly produced during bauxite processing in China, a preparation for aluminium production, but other sources like refining residuals from zinc and silver are becoming more important with time. Demand is driven by electronics and solar photovoltaic panels production, coming from the energy module in WORLD7. Figure 8a shows the simulated production rate of gallium, together with the demand, price modified demand, the supply, extraction and recycling. After 2125, hard scarcity becomes apparent. Before 2010, gallium demand was modest, but that increases sharply after 2010. Figure 8b shows the extraction rate from different metal ores. The gallium supply from zinc, copper and lead has a maximum capacity in 2055. Technological development has been assumed from 2025 to increase yields. Figure 8c shows the source of the gallium extracted. Figure 8d shows the stocks in use in photovoltaics, semiconductors, other use and as waste. Figure 8e shows the simulation of the price and the amount gallium in the market. After 2055, the market is nearly empty and the price shoots up. Gallium is then in hard scarcity. If extraction access and refining yields cannot be significantly improved, it will stay like that. If overall total yields are improved to better than 50%, then there will be probably no scarcity for gallium. Figure 8f shows the cumulative amounts for demand, supply, extracted and recycled gallium. It can be seen that demand given by Line 1, far exceeds the supply Line 2. It can be seen that demand given by Line 1 far exceeds the supply given by Line 2. The simulations suggest a long term running average shortfall of 33% of the demand for gallium, thus only a 67% satisfaction of demand. In the long term simulations, recycling reached only 13-15% when based on market mechanisms alone. For demand to be met in the long run, the long term recycling flow back into the system will have to be at least 55% of the gallium supply to the market. This would require something more that just market mechanisms (e.g. gallium price) to promote recycling.

Figure 9a shows the fraction of the supply as recycled gallium. The recycling has been modelled as a function of price (Dahmus and Gutowski 2007, Gutowski et al., 2016). Figure 9b shows the simulated yields for the production of gallium in the model. At present, gallium overall yields are at about 10-15%. In the simulation, dynamic recycling is used, depending on price. However, yields for recycling are also far too low, and must be improved for recycling to be important. Figure 9c shows the gallium supply and stocks-in-use is predicted to increase steadily until 2400 when it peaks. Figure 9d shows the cumulative amounts of gallium extracted from different sources over time. Extraction from zinc anode slimes is dominating at the moment, but we expect that bauxite may become the dominant source in the next decades.

6.3. Testing the model

The model has been tested against the recorded mining data derived from the USGS (2022, Foley et al., 2017) databases (Figure 10a-c). The results of the test can be seen throughout the results section and in the comparisons with the data. The general trend was reproduce, but some of the short term variations less well. But no systematic bias builds up over time, as can be seen from Figure 10b. The model does reproduce the observed mining rates satisfactory when the model is driven by market demand and price dynamics. The metal market price is well simulated for gallium as can be seen in Figure 10c. This suggests that the model reconstructs the historical pattern reasonably well and that it is safe to use the model for exploring future scenarios.

7.1. Uncertainties

The major uncertainties in the simulations come from the following aspects:

Uncertainties in future demand. Most of what is out there has been naive guesses by market economists based on growing future GDP. A few technical assessments of future gallium needs based on energy needs are available, but these are only partial.
Uncertainties in gallium content in mother ores and fly ash on a global scale
Uncertainties in extraction yields (substrate access, technical yields) at present and in the future

For the contents of gallium in different substrates, there is no earlier in-depth assessment. We have found numbers for gallium contents in different references, but these will give approximate estimates. The situation is similar for access and extraction yields, we have some reports of gallium yields, but no assessment for the whole industry. The values found show a wide range. Thus, the yield estimates are very approximate. The gallium reserve and resource estimates were made by the authors pieced together from corporate reports and ephemeral internet sites. Little information is available on reserves and resources on a global level. It is known that for gallium, the content potential in bauxite is not fully used. The present recycling rate for gallium is not really known, but most earlier studies agree that it is a low fraction of the total supply. The estimated gallium supply rates are much lower that the potential as a result of poor recycling rates used in the simulations. These recycling rates represents the observed level 2028-2023. Many demand estimates found in the internet or in some publications are naive estimates based on a belief in constant annual growth of GDP or purely guesses about monotonous economic growth. These are normally not so useful and have been ignored. All of this is rounded off in the test on field data. The model does appear to reconstruct the past reasonably well. This indicates that the uncertainties have been kept under control and that the sum of all of it remains small.

7.2. On scarcity

The gallium may fast run into physical scarcity because the price has no feedback on the extraction rate of the source metals, such as on copper and zinc. The extraction rate can only be expanded if less than the potential is extracted or by improving extraction yields. But these increases will in most cases be marginal, and there is no room for substantial increases. For the extraction from bauxite, the economic feedback on bauxite mining rates are absent in the system. The value of the gallium per ton bauxite is rather insignificant, and for the producer of alumina from bauxite, the extra value of the gallium obtained will be marginal, For the extraction from coal or coal ash, the drivers are strategic as much as it is an issue of profitability and operable access to an interesting substrate. At many places where coal is used, there are no conditions for extracting gallium. It is important to consider that when the commodity is still relatively cheap, it may for that reason be unnecessarily wasted, when it would in retrospect have been relatively easy to induce better use efficiency and recycling. To wait until there is severe scarcity would be too late for optimal mitigation as unnecessary resources would already have been wasted by then.

Supply per person and year reflects the amount available to compensate for continuous losses and any surplus available for growth in the stock-in-use as shown in Figure 9. Stock-in-use per person is an indicator of the utility gained from the resource, and a decline in stock-in-use suggests a decline in service provision from that resource. Stocks-in-use is the amount providing utility. The supply is to maintain the stock, replace losses and any surplus will cause growth, a deficit a decrease in utility.

The production of gallium is limited to some extent by the fact that only a fraction of the metal refineries are technically equipped for efficient recovery of gallium from Bayer liquid or from anode slimes from Cu-Zn-Pb-Ag electrolytic refining. Significant investments would be needed in order to increase gallium production. Light Emitting Diode (LED) lighting technology is rapidly spreading as mass products in consumer lighting devices uses gallium. Making variations with these allow gallium to be almost sufficient to physically scarce before 2060. The simulations show that significant improvements in yields, access and recycling will be very important for avoiding supply problems with gallium. The present status of these conditions at present are very unsatisfactory.

7.3. On the pathways of gallium through the world

Figure 11 shows a flow chart for the flow of gallium through the Chinese and Rest-of-the-World (RoW) systems. Chine is a large producer and exporter of gallium, but this occurs to a large degree from mother metal refining and mother metal refining residuals source from the Rest of the World, more than Chinese domestic resources. China has had a successful strategy for securing the raw materials for making gallium, and to prioritize to supply its own manufacturing industry, and then supply the global market with those products (Han et al., 2015, Hayes-Labruto et al., 2013, Su 2009). In the continuation, a lot of scrap is flowed back from the Rest of the World to China for recycling, just like as illustrated in Figure 11. If the authorities in China were to restrict the export of gallium metal, that would limit gallium availability in the rest of the world. It not really matter for global supply situation, if the gallium withheld gets incorporated into products anyway and those products would be recycled outside of China. Then there would only be a delay. But that is not the situation at the moment. It appears that a very substantial part of the value chain has been located to China. The reasons for this are many, as the policy to do so has in the past been promoted both by Chinese and European governments and policies. For China, this puts them in a very good business position with strategic strength, as well as a political will to use strong control. Figure 19b shows the cumulative amounts of demand, supply, extraction and recycling. It can be seen that the demand is far larger than the supply. Increasing recycling to 80% by 2030 would decrease the gap, but cannot close it. The amounts of gallium extracted 1850-2250, gives an indication of what eventually will be the total available amount. Figure 11 shows the flows through RoW and China and the market dominance.

7.4. From problems to industrial opportunity

An number of problems have been discussed with respect to gallium extraction and supply to industry (and to society). For the international mining and extraction industry, these problems lead to a number of challenges, which when taken on, will lead to good business opportunities. The Rest-of-the World has a second chance to capture gallium as it is recycled from the products, however with a delay. To do that, a strategy for capturing gallium-containing scrap and recycling it will be necessary. China does not have the world’s largest geological deposits of gallium, and thus, China only have an apparent near monopoly on gallium at the present time, because the rest of the world allows them to have it. If the gallium was produced where the deposits are and where the scrap is appearing, then the situation would be a very different one. There are some industrial capacity to do gallium extraction and recycling in Europe at present, but it would have to be significantly expanded in the near future. The EU has discussed that they should have such a strategy, many discussions are being held, but as of 2024 there is nothing real in place beside general visions and goals, and a worked out strategy is still missing. The creation of favourable conditions for recycling businesses in Europe is not yet implemented. This would have to include proper incentives as well as protection against unfair competition and the effects of state sponsored competition from outside countries.

Low yields in most industrial gallium transactions are a problem at present. With research into modern separation methods these can surely be improved, leading to improved extraction yields. Such improvements often translated straight down to the operating profit of a refinery. The poor recycling rates at present are partly linked to low yields when extracting from source substrates with low content. Another challenge is one of creating a circular value chains for gallium, where the system issues of collecting and refining the scrap contain gallium. The large producing countries of alumina from raw bauxite and the major producers of zinc have been listed in Table 4. Of these countries, only China and the United States have a substantial capacity for producing gallium. Every country with a large alumina production or substantial zinc production, but no primary gallium production, is potentially an business opportunity overlooked. China has at present a very dominating position in the gallium supply chain and market because of a long term strategy and having taken their opportunities seriously. Because of large scale outsourcing of industrial production to China from Europe and North America, it is also one of the major users of gallium for photovoltaic technologies and LED lighting products. In the past, Chinese strategies on Rare Earth Element supply is well known, and this should considered when the global dependence on China for gallium supply is strategically evaluated for the future.

7.5. On future resource policies

Figures 12 shows the gallium system with examples of generic policy interventions included towards the non-predetermined future imaginary path, as well as policy intervention in realising pathways towards the different imaginaries. A systemic approach is required and necessary when planning policies for complex systems. The gallium system is a very complicated system with significant delays inside where linear or short-term thinking does not work, especially when understanding different policy choices and their influence towards different imaginaries pathways. Planning toward sustainability without a predetermined future state (non-imaginary) results in a policy that is perceived as sustainable but without a future state. The purpose of the imaginary analysis, in this context, is to be able to frame the vision of the future and connect to the contemporary policy gap in relation to current “failed” policies. This is demonstrated in the study by the authors on indium, cadmium and germanium (Sverdrup et al 2023, 2024a, 2024).

There are ways to increase the gallium availability for society, and push the gallium supply peak further into the future by a significant amount. The following statements can be made for different policy options that may appear as possible:

What does not really work that well as problem solution
1. More mining: Increasing the rate of gallium extraction to satisfy demand, will be great in the short term relieving short term problems, but will not solve the root cause of the problem. More extraction from primary sources of gallium will make the gallium supply peak time appear earlier and aggravate scarcity later. Many geological surveys and mining companies are focused on this approach, mostly for short term profits and lack of long term impact assessment. For future generations, this is consuming the potential resources for future generations now before they are born. That is in conflict with the Brundtland and UN definition of sustainability.
2. Secure key resource potentials anywhere in order to secure national supply exclusively. This will foster increased risk for resource conflicts and promote the use of non-democratic methods and favour the rule of the strong to abuse the less powerful. May cause short term local benefits, but will create other problems a bit later. This solution appears to have some similarity with policies of colonial approaches.
3. Gallium substitution in key technologies may be a policy to consider, but with care. Substitution of gallium may appear as challenging, many of the proposed substitutes are other scarce technology metals, and do not improve the overall technology metal supply challenges at all. Only when gallium is substituted with a resource in a significantly larger supply than gallium, and when this metal is not stressed by a demand in significant overshoot of the supply, will substitution make sense.
What constitute parts of a solution:
1. Improve extraction supply chain yield: Increasing gallium secondary extraction yield is a component of a working policy. It allows for more gallium to be taken from the same amount of extraction substrate. This shifts gallium from potential loss to potential use.
2. Improve recycling recovery chain yield: Increasing recycling yield is a policy component. It allows more gallium to be taken from the same amount of scrap. Increasing gallium recycling yield may have demands for how technologies (Photovoltaic technologies) using gallium are designed and that they may have to be prepared for recovery (Sverdrup et al., 2023). This shifts gallium from potential loss to potential use.
3. Improve both extraction yield and recycling yield Increasing recycling yield is a policy component. It allows for far more gallium to be supplied from the same amount of secondary substrate and ores, while reducing systems losses. Significant investment in research would be needed. Increasing access yield, to extract more gallium from streams that have not extraction, will convent a loss flux to an available flux, without shifting the depletion date forward. This shifts gallium from potential loss to potential use.
4. Adaptive management of the global demand by reducing total demand and increasing use efficiency in society (less losses, longer use time, making less gallium do the same job as more would do earlier) would contribute to the results of policy and help push the supply peak to a later date. Could possible reduce use to sustainable levels. Would need strong incentives and an active policy with some global agreements

For an effective solution, a combinations of policies would be required, by combining policy 3: Improve both extraction yield, policy 4: increasing recycling yield, with policy 5: Adaptive management of the global demand.

To further plan for sustainable management within the bounds of sustainability, the use of integrated assessment modelling will be required and WORLD7 is such a model. Further research is needed to make policy impact assessment using biophysically consistent Integrated Assessment Models, to check if proposed policy packages actually deliver the goals intended and that adverse side-effects stay under control and withing socially acceptable boundaries. Proceeding with policy proposals without doing proper and valid impact assessments is unprofessional and potentially damaging governance. Integrated models that are mass and energy consistent would be needed. Present econometric economic model that are not thermodynamically compliant will not do. Statistical interpolations will not do for the same reasons. In present policies, no consideration of future generations are taken seriously, even if it gets long speeches and beautiful works in working documents.

Table 8. Estimation of critical extraction and global critical supply for gallium based a long term perspective of 165 or 330 generations. Present yields are in the range 10%. for recycling and extraction yield, whereas yield from coal ash is less than 5% As a comparison, the supply in 2023 was 430 ton/yr.
Item	Extraction or recycling yields (Y), expressed as fraction
Item	Y=0.04	Y=0.1	Y=0.2	Y=0.3	Y=0.4
Probable resource, anode slime, ton	94,000	470,000	940,000	1,410,000	1,880,000
Probable resource coal	280,000	870,000	870,000	870,000	870,000
Probable resource bauxite	120,000	240,000	480,000	720,000	960,000
Sum available resources	494,000	1,580,000	2,290,000	3,000,000	3,710,000
Critical extraction, 330 generations	100	316	458	600	742
Critical extraction, 165 generations	200	632	916	1,200	1,484

7.6. Long term sustainable supply of gallium.

Sustainability includes both the present and future generations. Table 8 shows the estimation of critical extraction for gallium based a long term perspective of 165 generations (5,000 years) and 330 generations (10,000 years). Under business as usual, the sustainable supply of gallium is about 100-200 ton/yr. Significantly improving access yields, mining yields, extraction yields and recycling yields may potentially increase sustainable gallium supply to approximately 600-900 ton/yr. In the assessment, we have assumed that the “sufficient need” is the same as the “demand”. As indicated in figure 13, under BAU, resource extraction and technological development follow the current trends without significant changes in policy intervention. This means moderate innovation in recycling and extraction yields, but a heavy reliance on continued extraction of primary metals as a part of a sustainable strategy. As the demand for critical metals like gallium increases, BAU is at risk for resource shortages due to insufficient rate in advances in recycling, efficiency and avoidance. Profit-driven incentives dominate and risk creating lagged and response-driven approach to long-term sustainability planning, which runs closer to resource depletion and price volatility, where market forces struggle to cope with scarcity.

The implications towards the different imaginaries where the imaginaries contrast sharply with BAU, where Ecotopia minimizes reliance on metals by reducing overall technological demand and avoidance/substitution approach. The Great Decoupling scenario embraces technological growth, promoting a bioeconomy-driven market approach and progress through improved recycling and extraction efficiency. In Unity in Adversity, environmental and geopolitical challenges are addressed by securing domestic supply chains and investing heavily in recycling and sustainable extraction of gallium. Emphasis is on coordinated environmental regulations and protectionist policies to safeguard gallium resources. Going step further, the Technocracy for the Common Good, Gallium and other critical metals are tightly controlled through monitoring of extraction, recycling, and use. Government managed resource allocation prioritizes efficiency, with centralized economic activity and protectionism securing strategic resources within the EU. Each of the imaginaries envisions a different role for critical minerals, and varies in the methods of their production, usage, and recycling. Policymakers can use these imaginaries to develop strategies that align with the sustainability objectives of each imaginary, particularly in how critical metals like gallium can be reused and recycled (Haraldsson and Bonin, 2021; EEA 2022; Sverdrup et al., 2024, 2024 submitted).

7.7. Needs for further research

Some of the tables shown in this study have a lot of question marks. This illustrates that there is a need for a better mapping of geological occurrence, extraction potentials, technical capabilities and recycling yields. Some scenarios not explored here are the outcomes of different global population scenarios. If the global population does not start to significantly decline after 2100, the World will be very soon in a very unsustainable situation with supply of about everything. To assess such scenarios are a major undertaking and would have to wait for a later time with good funding. A better understanding of what is real need that meets the minimum requirement versus “want” or “demand” is needed. The gallium use yield must also be analysed and assessed whether improvements are possible. A full scenario-analysis exploring the outcome from different policy proposal are needed. The Integrated Assessment Model WORLD7 could be used for developing a multi-goal, multi component policy that is optimized towards sustainability criteria derived from formal definitions and set goals.

The Imaginaries are policy proposals that have yet to be embodied with action plans and explored with systems analysis (Causal loop mapping, integrated flow charts, integrated energy charts). Such a process is required and necessary for the Imaginaries to have a foundation in reality.

The model was used and there was found a significant risk for technology metal scarcity under business as usual scenario. The WORLD7 model was used to simulate the extraction rates, ore grade decline and approximate metal price levels for gallium. We need to carefully distinguish between the primary production from mines and total supply to the market. The rate of recycling is far too low, and the supply situation may be significantly improved if the recycling rates can be increased substantially. The introduction of extraction methods like heap leaching and subsequent electrowinning for many of the source metals (copper, zinc, lead) yield less of the technology metals and is a real threat to the long term supply of these metals. These methods are preferred for low and ultralow ores grades and have become more frequent in mining. Market mechanisms have not been able to have sufficient effect, and it appears that governmental interventions are unavoidable. The conclusion show that there is not an immediate risk for scarcity but it builds up in the longer run (after 2030), scarcity manifested as rising metal prices should be expected and prepared for. Our analysis suggests that pressing for more mining to reduce the demand-supply gap, will make short term improvements at the cost of severe shortage later. A combination of improving extraction yields and improving recycling yields combined with demand reduction may improve the supply situation and push the supply peak beyond 2100. In relation to the EEA imaginaries, each EEA imaginary offers a distinct approach to mitigating gallium scarcity, ranging from conservation focused strategies to technologically driven solutions. These imaginaries highlight the necessity of tailored policy interventions to achieve the desired future state and avoid critical shortages. They emphasize the importance of understanding and addressing the unique challenges posed by gallium shortages.

9.1. Who did what?

Harald Ulrik Sverdrup developed the gallium module for the WORLD7 model. Harald Sverdrup and Anna Hulda Olafsdottir developed the WORLD7 model as it stands today. Harald Sverdrup wrote up the manuscript draft and did the simulation runs. Harald Sverdrup, Ole van Allen and Hördur Haraldsson cooperated on finalizing the manuscript, doing revisions and corrections. Hördur Haraldsson worked on the policy implications and future assessments.

9.2. Declaration of no conflict of interests

We declare that we have no conflict of interest with in the field of gallium, nor any vested interests.

9.3. Research ethics

This work is original research done by the authors. No artificial intelligence or large language models like ChatGPT were used in any of our work. All text herein come from the hands of the authors.

9.4. Funding

This study contributed to the SIMRESS project (Models, potential and long-term scenarios for resource efficiency), funded by the German Federal Ministry for Environment and the German Environmental Protection Agency (FKZ 3712 93 102), the SIMRESSS Aufstockungsauftrag (FKZ 3712 93 102) and the SIMRESS Climate Impact Analysis project (FKZ 3716 32 100 0). This study contributed to EU H2020 LOCOMOTION project, funded by EU Horizon 2020 program under grant agreement 821105/H2020-LC-CLA-2018-2.

9.5. Acknowledgement of earlier significant efforts.

Dr. Deniz Koca and Dr. Anna Hulda Olafsdottir, participated in developing WORLD4, WORLD5 and WORLD6 as originally derivatives of World3. Dr. Anna Hulda Olafsdottir and Harald Sverdrup developed WORLD7 from WORLD6. Anna Hulda Olafsdottir and Harald Sverdrup did several earlier and simpler approaches for gallium (Sverdrup and Olafsdottir 2020).

van Allen, O., Sverdrup, H. U., Olafsdottir, A.H., 2022. Global resource use and the future: Any room for the circular economy? H. Lehmann, C. Hinske, V. de Margerie, A. Slaveikova Nikolova (Eds). The Impossibilities of the Circular Economy Separating Aspirations from Reality. Pages 217-232. Routledge, Taylor and Francis, London and New York. DOI: 10.4324/9781003244196-24. ISBN 9781003244196
Almosni, S., Delamarre, A., Jehl, Z., Suchet, D., Cojocaru, L., Giteau, M., Behaghel, B., Julian, A., Ibrahim, C., Tatry, L., et al. 2018. Material challenges for solar cells in the twenty-first century: Directions in emerging technologies. Science and Technology of Advanced Materials, 19:336–369
Bleiwas D.I. 2010 By-product mineral commodities used for the production of photovoltaic cells. Circular 1365: US Geological Survey; 2010.
Brown, T.J., Wrighton, C.E., Raycraft, E.R., Shaw, R.A., Deady, E.A., Rippingale, J., Bide T., Idoine, N., 2015. World mineral production 2009–2013, 88pp. Keyworth, Nottingham British Geological Survey. ISBN 978-0-85272-848-2
Busch, J., Steinberger, J.K., Dawson, D.A., Purnell, P., Roelich, K., 2014 Managing Critical Materials with a Technology-Specific Stocks and Flows Model. Environmental Science and Technology, 48:1298-1305. ISSN 0013-936X
Candelise, C., Speirs, J.F., Gross, R.J.K., 2011. Materials availability for thin film (TF) PV technologies development: a real concern? Renewable Sustainable Energy Reviews 15:4972–4981. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2011.06.012.
Cesaro, A., Marra, A., Kuchta, K., Belgiorno, V., van Hullebusch, E.D. 2018. WEEE management in a circular economy perspective: an overview Global NEST Journal, 20:743-750
Cucchiella, F., d’Adamo, I., Lenny Koh, S.C., Rosa, P. 2015, Recycling of WEEEs: An economic assessment of present and future e-waste streams, Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 51:263–272.
Dahmus, J.B., and Gutowski, T.G., 2007. What gets recycled: An information theory based model for product recycling. Environmental Science and Technology 41:7543-7550.
Davidsson, S., and Höök, M., 2017. Material requirements and availability for multi-terawatt deployment of photovoltaics. Energy Policy 108:574–582. http://dx.doi.org/10. 1016/j.enpol.2017.06.028.
Dehnavi, P.Y., 2013. Global cycle of gallium production, use and potential recycling. TRITA-LWR Degree Project 13:23. ISSN 1651-064X. Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm, Sweden.
Elshkaki, A., and Graedel, T.E., 2015. Solar cell metals and their hosts: a tale of oversupply and undersupply. Applied Energy 158:167–177.
Foley, N.K., Jaskula, B.W., Kimball, B.E., and Schulte, R.F., 2017, Gallium, chap. H of Schulz, K.J., DeYoung, J.H., Jr., Seal, R.R., II, and Bradley, D.C., eds., Critical mineral resources of the United States—Economic and environmental geology and prospects for future supply: U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 1802, p. H1–H35, https://doi.org/10.3133/pp1802H.
Frenzel, M., 2016. The distribution of gallium, germanium and indium in conventional and non-conventional resources. Implications for global availability. PhD Thesis, Technical University of Freiburg, Bergakademie. 393 pages. ResearchGate. doi:10.13140/rg.2.2.20956.18564.
Frenzel, M., Hirsch, T., Gutzmer, J., 2016a. Gallium, germanium, indium, and other trace and minor elements in sphalerite as a function of deposit type – a meta-analysis. Ore Geology Reviews 76:52–78.
Frenzel, M.; Mikolajczak, C.; Seifert, T., Gutzmer, J., 2016b On the current and future availability of gallium, Resources Policy 47, 38–50
Frenzel, M.; Mikolajczak, C.; Reuter, M.A.; Gutzmer, J. 2017. Quantifying the relative availability of high-tech by-product metals – The cases of gallium, germanium and indium. Resources Policy 52:327–335.
Fthenakis, V.; Wang, W.; Kim, H.C. 2009 Life cycle inventory analysis of the production of metals used in photovoltaics. Renewable Sustainable Energy Reviews 13:493–517.
Gibson, C., Hayes, T. 2011. Sector research; Indium and gallium. Edison Investment Research. San Fransisco CA.
Goe, M., and Gaustad, G., 2014. Identifying critical materials for photovoltaics in the US: A multi-metric approach. Allied Energy 123:387-396.
Grandell, L, and Höök, M., 2015. Assessing Rare Metal Availability Challenges for Solar Energy Technologies. Sustainability 7:11818-11837
Gutowski, T.G., Sahni, S., Allwood, M., Ashby, M.F., Worrell, E., 2016. The energy required to produce materials: constraints on energy-intensity improvements, parameters of demand. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A 371: 20120003. http://dx.doi.org/10.1098/rsta.2012.0003
Halada, K., Shimada, M., Ijima, K., 2008. Forecasting of the consumption of metals up to 2050. Materials Transactions. 49:402-410.
Hammarstrom, J.M., Zientek, M.L., Parks, H.L., Dicken, C.L., and the U.S. Geological Survey Global Copper Mineral Resource Assessment Team, 2019, Assessment of undiscovered copper resources of the world, 2021: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2018–5160, 619 p. https://doi.org/10.3133/sir20185160.
Han, A., Ge, J., Lei, Y., 2015. An adjustment in regulation policies and its effects on market supply: game analysis for China’s rare earths. Resource Policy 46:30–42. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resourpol.2015.07.007.
Hayes-Labruto, L., Schillebeeckx, S.J.D., Workman, M., Shah, N., 2013. Contrasting perspectives on China’s rare earths policies: Reframing the debate through a stakeholder lens. Energy Policy 63:55–68. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. enpol.2013.07.121.
Helbig, C., Bradshaw, A.M., Kolotzek, C., Thorenz, A., Tuma, A. 2016 Supply risks associated with CdTe and CIGS thin-film photovoltaics. Applied Energy 178: 422–433
Hoang, A.S., Nguyen, H.N., Bui, N.Q., Vu, H.S., Vo, T.P., Nguyen, T.V., Phan, C.M., 2015. Extraction of gallium from Bayer liquor using extractant produced from cashew nutshell liquid. Minerals Engineering 79:88–93
Idoine, N.E., Raycraft, E.R., Shaw, R.A., Hobbs, S.F., Deady, E.A., Everett, P., Evans, E.J., and Mills, A.J. 2022. World Mineral Production 2016-2020. British Geological Survey, Keyworth, Nottingham.
Jaskula, B.W. 2019: Gallium – U. S. Geological Survey, Minerals Yearbook 2018, Reston.
Jaskula, B.W. 2023: Gallium – U. S. Geological Survey, Minerals Yearbook 2022, Reston.
Kelly, T.D,, Matos, G.R., Buckingham, D.A., DiFrancesco, C.A., Porter, K.E. 2014. Historical Statistics for Mineral and Material Commodities in the United States. https://www.usgs.gov/centers/nmic/historical-statistics-mineral-and-material-commodities-united-states
Kim, J., Guillaume, B., Chung, J., Hwang, Y., 2015. Critical and precious materials consumption and requirement in wind energy system in the EU 27. Applied Energy 139:327-334.
Kluczka, J. A 2024. Review on the recovery and separation of Gallium and Indium from waste. Resources 13, 35. https://doi.org/ 10.3390/resources13030035
Kopidakis, N., 2023. Conversion efficiencies of best solar photovoltaic cells worldwide from 1976 through 2022 for various photovoltaic technologies. Efficiencies determined by certified agencies/laboratories. This data is tracked by the U.S. Department of Energy's National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL). This image is updated as NREL releases new versions of this chart. Underlying data can be downloaded at https://www.nrel.gov/pv/cell-efficiency.html
Krautkraemer, J.A. 1988. The Cut-Off Grade and the Theory of Extraction. Canadian Journal of Economics. 21:146-160.
Luceno-Sancez, J.A., Diez-Pascual, A.M., Capila, R.P, 2019. Materials for Photovoltaics: State of Art and Recent Developments. International Journal of Molecular Science 20:976; 42 pages. doi:10.3390/ijms20040976 www.mdpi.com/journal/ijms
Leveque, A., and Helgorsky, J., 1977. The recovery of gallium from Bayer process aluminate solutions by liquid–liquid extraction. International Journal of Extraction
Licht, C., Peiró, L.T., Villalba, G., 2015. Global substance flow analysis of gallium, germanium, and indium: quantification of extraction, uses, and dissipative losses within their anthropogenic cycles. Journal of Industrial Ecolology 19:890–903.
Lu,, F, Xiao, T., Lin, J., Ning, Z., Long, Q., Xiao, L., Huang, F., Wang, W., Xiao, Lan, X., Chen, H. 2017. Resources and extraction of gallium: A review. Hydrometallurgy 174:105-115
Marwede, M., and Reller, A., 2014. Estimation of Life Cycle Material Costs of Cadmium Telluride – and Copper Indium Gallium Diselenide – Photovoltaic Absorber Materials based on Life Cycle Material Flows. Journal of Industrial Ecology 18:254–267.
Meadows, D. H., Meadows, D. L. Randers, J., Behrens, W. 1972 Limits to growth. Universe Books, New York.
Meadows, D.L., Behrens III, W.W., Meadows, D.H., Naill, R.F., Randers, J., Zahn, E.K.O. 1974 Dynamics of Growth in a Finite World. Massachusetts: Wright-Allen Press, Inc.
Moss, R. L., Tzimas, E., Kara, H., Willis, P., Kooroshy, J. 2011. Critical metals in strategic energy technologies: assessing rare metals as supply-chain bottlenecks in low-carbon energy technologies; Luxembourg, European Commission Joint Research Centre – Institute for Energy and Transport. https:// setis.ec.europa.eu/system/files/CriticalMetalsinStrategicEnergyTechnologies-def.pdf.
Moskalyk, R.R., 2004. Review of Gallium processing worldwide. Minerals Engineering 14:393-402
Moskalyk, R.R., 2003. Gallium: The backbone of the electronics industry. Minerals Engineering 16:921-929
Mudd, G.M., Yellishetty, M., Reck, B.K., Graedel, T.E., 2014. Quantifying the Recoverable Resources of Companion Metals: A Preliminary Study of Australian Mineral Resources. Resources, 3:657-671; doi:10.3390/resources3040657
Mudd, G.M, Jowitt, S.M., Werner, T.T., 2017. The World’s by-product and critical metal resources, part I: Uncertainties, current reporting practices, implications and grounds for optimism. Ore Geology Reviews 86:924-938
Månberger, A and Stenqvist, B., 2018. Global metal flows in the renewable energy transition: Exploring the effects of substitutes, technological mix and development. Energy Policy 119:226-241.
Nassar, N.T., Graedel, T.E., Harper, E.M., 2015. By-product metals are technologically essential but have problematic supply. Sci. Adv. 1: doi: 10.1126/sciadv.1400180
Olafsdottir, A.H., and Sverdrup, H., 2020, System dynamics modelling of mining, supply, recycling, stocks-in-use and market price for nickel. Mining, Metallurgy & Exploration. 38:819–840. 10.1007/s42461-020-00370-
Olofsdottir, A.H., and Sverdrup, H., 2018. Modelling global mining, secondary extraction, supply, stocks-in-society, recycling, market price and resources, using the WORLD6 model; Tin Biophysical Economics and Resource Quality 4: 1-32
Panousi, S., Harper, E.M., Nuss, P., Eckelmann, M.J., Hakimian, A., et al., 2015. Criticality of seven specialty metals. Journal of Industrial. Ecology 20, 837–853
Paradis, S., 2015. Indium, germanium and gallium in volcanic- and sediment-hosted base-metal sulphide deposits. In: Simandl, G.J. and Neetz, M., (Eds.), Symposium on Strategic and Critical Materials Proceedings, November 13-14, 2015, Victoria, British Columbia. British Columbia Ministry of Energy and Mines, British Columbia Geological Survey Paper 2015-3, 23-29.
Phillips, W.G.B., and Edwards, D.P. 1976. Metal prices as a function of ore grade. Resources Policy 2:167—179
Phipps, G., Mikolajczak, C., Guckes, T., 2008. Indium and gallium: long-term supply. Renewable Energy Focus 9:56–59.
Prior, T., Giurco, D., Mudd, G., Mason, L., Behrish, J., 2012. Resource depletion, peak minerals and the implication for sustainable resource management. Global Environmental Change. 22:577-587.
Raabe, D., 2023 The Materials Science behind Sustainable Metals and Alloys. Chemical Reviews 123:2436−2608
Rao, K.S., Chaudhury, G.R., Krishna, P.G., Das, S.C., Krishna, V.N., 2006. Recovery of gallium from Bayer liquor using ion exchange technique - a case study Mineral & Metallurgical Processing. 23, 22-33
Redlinger, M., Eggert, R., Woodhouse, M., 2015. Evaluating the availability of gallium, indium and tellurium from recycled photovoltaic modules. Solar Energy Materials and Solar Cells 138:58–71.
Reuter, M., Hudson, C., Schalk, A., Heiskanen, K., Meskers, C., Hagelüken, C. 2013a. The International Resource Panel. UNEP Metal recycling; Opportunities, Limits, Infrastructure. 317 pp. ISBN 978-92-807-3167-2. 2013
Reuter, M.A.; Hudson, C.; van Schaik, A., Heiskanen, K., Meskers, C., Hagelüken, C. 2013b Metal Recycling: Opportunities, Limits, Infrastructure, A Report of the Working Group on the Global Metal Flows to the International Resource Panel, UNEP. ISBN: 978-92-807-3267-2. 320pp
Ronguo, C., Juan, G., Liwen, Y., Huy, D, Liedtke, M., 2016. Supply and demand of lithium and gallium. Information Center of Ministry of Land and Resources, Beijing, China, and Federal Institute for Geosciences and Natural Resources, Hannover, Germany. 52 pages. ISBN 978-3-943566-33-8
Schulte, R.F., and Foley, N.K., 2014, Compilation of gallium resource data for bauxite deposits: U.S. GeologicalSurvey Open-File Report 2013–1272, separate tables,http://dx.doi.org/10.3133/ofr20131272
Senge, P. The Fifth Discipline. The Art and Practice of the Learning Organisation. Century Business, New York. 1990
Simandl, G.J., Paradis, S., Simandl, L., 2023 Future of photovoltaic materials with emphasis on resource availability, economic geology, criticality, and market size/ growth, CIM Journal, 14:3, 133-157, DOI: 10.1080/19236026.2023.2168419
Singer, D.A. 2007 Short course introduction to quantitative mineral resource assessments: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2007–1434 [http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2007/1434/].
Su, W. 2009 Economic Analysis and Policy Research of Rare Earth Industry in China; China Financial & Economic Publishing House: Beijing, China, ISBN 9787509513361.
Sverdrup, H.U., 2019. The global sustainability challenges in the future: The energy and materials supply, pollution, climate change and inequality nexus. In: Holden, E., Meadowcraft, J. Langhelle, O., Banister, D., Linnerud, K., (Eds), Our Common Future, What Next for Sustainable Development? 30 years after the Brundtland report. Chapter 4: 49-72, Springer Verlag, Frankfurt..
Sverdrup, H. (Ed.), Haraldsson, H., Olafsdottir, A.H., Belyazid, S., Svensson, M., Nordby, A., 2022. System Thinking, System Analysis and System Dynamics: Find out how the world works and then simulate what would happen. 316 pages. 7^th revised and rewritten edition. ISBN Oplandske Bokforlag, Hamar, Norway. ISBN 978-82-7518-280-5.
Sverdrup, H., Koca, D., Ragnarsdottir, K.V. 2014a Investigating the sustainability of the global silver supply, reserves, stocks in society and market price using different approaches. Resources, Conservation and Recycling. 83;121-140.
Sverdrup, H., Koca, D., Ragnarsdottir, K.V. 2015a Aluminium for the future: Modelling the global production, assessing long term supply to society and extraction of the global bauxite reserves. Resources, Conservation and Recycling. 103:139-154
Sverdrup, H., and Olafsdottir, A.H, 2018. A system dynamics model assessment of the supply of niobium and tantalum using the WORLD7 model. Biophysical Economics and Resource Quality 4:1-42
Sverdrup, H., and Olafsdottir, A.H., 2019. Conceptualization and parameterization of the market price mechanism in the WORLD6 model for metals, materials and fossil fuels. Mineral Economics33:285–310 Springer NatureDOI: 10.1007/s13563-019-00182-7.
Sverdrup, H.U. and Olafsdottir. A.H., 2020. Assessing the sustainability of extraction, supply, resources and price for Sb, Bi, Cd, Ge, Ga, In, Se and Te with WORLD7. 12 pages. Presented at the World Resources Forum, Geneva 22-24. October, 2019. World Resources Forum Conference Proceedings. Open access publication. https://www.wrforum.org/world-resources-forum-2019/poster-sessions/assessing-future-supply-of-technology-metals-of-bi-cd-ge-ga-in-sb-se-and-te-for-new-technologies-using-the-world6-model/
Sverdrup, H.U., Olafsdottir, A.H., Ragnarsdottir, K.V., 2017c. Modelling Global Wolfram Mining, Secondary Extraction, Supply, Stocks-in-Society, Recycling, Market Price and Resources, Using the WORLD7 System Dynamics Model.Biophysical Economics and Resource Quality 3:4-22.DOI 10.1007/s41247-017-0028-x
Sverdrup, H., Olafsdottir, A.H., Ragnarsdottir, K.V., Koca, D., 2018. A system dynamics assessment of the supply of molybdenum and rhenium used for superalloys and specialty steels, using the WORLD7 model. Biophysical Economics and Resource Quality 4:1-52 (DOI: 10.1007/s41247-018-0040-9)
Sverdrup, H, Olafsdottir, A.H., Ragnarsdottir, K.V., 2019., Assessing global copper, zinc and lead extraction rates, supply, price and resources using the WORLD6 integrated assessment model. Resources, Conservation and Recycling 1-26. X4 100007. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rcrx.2019.100007. Open access publication.
Sverdrup, H., Olafsdottir, A.H., Ragnarsdottir, K.V., 2021. Development of a biophysical economics module for the global integrated assessment WORLD7 model. In: Cavana, R., Pavlov, O., Dangerfield, B., Wheat, D., (Editors) Modelling Feedback Economics. Chapter 10, pages 247-283. Springer Verlag, Frankfurt. ISBN 978-3-030-67189-1. https://www.springer.com/gp/book/9783030671891
Sverdrup, H.U. and Ragnarsdottir, K.V., 2014. Natural Resources in a planetary perspective. Geochemical Perspectives Vol. 2, October issue 2:1-156. European Geochemical Society.
Sverdrup, H. and Ragnarsdottir, K.V., 2016 Modelling the global primary extraction, supply, price and depletion of the extractable geological resources using the COBALT model. Biophysical Economics and Resource Quality. DOI: 10.1007/s41247-017-0017-0
Sverdrup, H. and Ragnarsdottir, K.V., 2016. The future of platinum group metal supply; An integrated dynamic modelling for platinum group metal supply, reserves, stocks-in-use, market price and sustainability. Resources, Conservation and Recycling 114: 130-152.
Sverdrup, H., Ragnarsdottir, K.V., Koca, D., 2014b. On modelling the global copper mining rates, market supply, copper price and the end of copper reserves. Resources, Conservation and Recycling 87:158-174
Sverdrup, H.U., Ragnarsdottir, K.V., Koca, D. 2017b An assessment of global metal supply sustainability: Global recoverable reserves, mining rates, stocks-in-use, recycling rates, reserve sizes and time to production peak leading to subsequent metal scarcity. Journal of Cleaner Production, 140;359-372, doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.06.085
Sverdrup, H.U., and Sverdrup, A.E., 2023. An assessment of the global supply, recycling, stocks in use and market price for titanium using the WORLD7 Model. Sustainable Horizons, Elsevier. Accepted for publication in 2023. 17 pages. In press. Open access publication
USGS, 2019, 2021, 2022, 2023 Mineral Commodity Summaries Gallium. United States Geological Survey. ds140-Gallium. <http://minerals.usgs.gov/ minerals/pubs/commodity/.
US Bureau of Mines. Minerals Yearbook 1941, 1943, 1945, 1947, 1956, 1958. Minor metals. Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office
Wang, W., Qin, Y., Liu, X., Zhao, J., Wang, J., Wu, G., Liu, J. 2011: Distribution, occurrence and enrichment causes of gallium in coals from the Jungar Coalfield, Inner Mongolia. Science China Earth Sciences, 54, 1053 – 1068
Weeks, R.A., 1973, Gallium, germanium, and indium, in Brobst, D.A., and Pratt, W.P., eds., United States mineral resources: U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 820, pages 237-246.
Werner, T.T., Mudd, G.M., Jowitt, S.M., 2017. The World’s by-product and critical metal resources, part II: A method for quantifying the resources of rarely reported metals. Ore Geology Reviews 80:658-675
Woodhouse, M., Goodrich, A., Margolis, R., James, T.L., Lokanc, M., Eggert, R. 2013. Supply-chain dynamics of Te, In and Ga within the context of PV module manufacturing costs. IEEE Journal of Photovoltaics, 3:833-837.
Yellishetty, M., Huston, D., Graedel, T.E., Werner, T.T., Reck, B.K., Mudd, G.M., 2017. Quantifying the potential for recoverable resources of gallium, germanium and antimony as companion metals in Australia. Ore Geology Reviews 82:148-159.
Zhao, Z., Yang, Y., Xiao, Y., Fan, Y., 2012. Recovery of gallium from Bayer liquor: A review Hydrometallurgy, 125-126: 115-124.
Zimmermann, T. and Gößling-Reisemann, S., 2014. Recycling potentials of critical metals-analyzing secondary flows from selected applications, Resources, 3:291–318.
Zimmermann, T. 2013. Dynamic material flow analysis of critical metals embodied in thin-film photovoltaic cells. http://elib.suub.uni-bremen.de/edocs/00103573-1.pdf.
Zhucheng, H., Yuanbo, Z., Tao, J., Guanghui, L., Yongbin, Y., Yufeng, G., 2007. Investigation on comprehensive utilization of Silver, Gallium and other valuable elements in Zinc leaching residue. Metal Mine 2007-03, http://en.cnki.com.cn/Article_en/CJFDTOTAL-JSKS200703021.htm.
Zuser, A., and Rechberger, H., 2011. Considerations of resource availability in technology development strategies: The case study of photovoltaics. Resources, Conservation and Recycling 56:56–65, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j. resconrec.2011.09.004.
Öhrlund, I. 2011. Future metal demand from photovoltaic cells and wind turbines - investigating the potential risk of disabling a shift to renewable energy systems. Science and Technology Options Assessment (STOA), European Parliament.

No competing interests reported.

Gallium: Assessing the long term future extraction, supply, recycling and price of using WORLD7, in relation to future technology visions in the European Union

Status:

Journal Publication

Version 1

Abstract

Figures

1. Introduction

2. Objectives and scope

3. Earlier work

4. Methods and theory used

5. Dynamic simulation model description

6. Results

7. Discussion

8. Conclusion

9. Declarations

References

Additional Declarations

Status:

Journal Publication

Version 1