Nickel is an essential alloying element which is predominantly used in the iron and steel industries. According to the Nickel Institute, more than two-thirds of nickel produced globally is consumed in the production of stainless steel.
As an alloying element, the addition of nickel
has positive effects on important properties of steel, such as formability, weldability,
and ductility, while also increasing corrosion resistance in certain
applications. With the growing awareness of and activity in sustainable
processes, nickel manufactures are facing growing pressure to improve the
environmental profile of their products.
At the same time, as global environmental
awareness increases, the demand for nickel in the electric vehicle (EV) sector
is also rising. Global demand for nickel for use in batteries alone is expected
to rise 18% in 2021 from 2020, backed by strong sales of EVs. As more countries
legislate to phase out petrol and diesel cars in favour of EVs, even more attention
is turning to the environmental impact of mining and processing the materials needed
for EV batteries, including nickel.
Hidden Environmental Costs
Nickel deposits are commonly found in
low-grade ores (~1-3% nickel), which makes it highly energy intensive to
extract and refine the metal. Consequently, nickel production leads to high
carbon emissions as well as the use of large amounts of energy predominantly
sourced from fossil fuels. In a study conducted in 2014, nickel was ranked as
the metal with the 9th highest global warming potential, based on
production levels data from 2008. Global nickel production was 1.57 million
metric tonnes in 2008 and has since grown to an estimated 2.5 million metric
tonnes in 2020. This trend is expected to continue as global demand for nickel continues
to rise. AME is currently forecasting global finished nickel demand to rise to three
million metric tonnes in 2022, a significant increase from the 2020 and 2021
figures of 2.4 and 2.9 million metric tonnes, respectively.
Nickel is extracted from
two types of deposits, namely laterite and sulphide ores. In 2020, the United
States Geological Survey (USGS) reported that the world’s identified nickel
resources consist of 60% laterite ores and 40% sulphide ores. While the
majority of the identified nickel resources are contained in laterite ores, historical
nickel production has predominantly been derived from sulphide ores. This
unusual difference is mainly due to the challenges of the more complex processing
required for laterite ores compared to sulphide ores causing a historical
preference for sulphide ores. However, to meet the growing demand for nickel,
there is an increasing amount of nickel being sourced from laterite ores, which
leads to increasing energy costs and CO2 emissions from nickel
production.

Emissions Scope
When reporting carbon emissions, many
countries and companies have adopted greenhouse gases (GHG) emission standards
outlined by the Greenhouse Gas Protocol. This classifies emissions across three
scopes:
Scope 1: Direct emissions – emissions released
to the atmosphere as a direct result of an activity at company level.
Scope 2: Indirect emissions – emissions
released to the atmosphere from the indirect consumption of an energy commodity
generated by the company (typically electricity).
Scope 3: Additional indirect emissions –
emissions from consumers utilising company output, generated in the wider
economy.
Generally, the majority of carbon emissions
from nickel production can be attributed to scope 1 emissions.
The Breakdown
Skarn Associates reported its global mine
production data (excluding China) on carbon emissions along the supply chain at a granular
(asset) level covering 2018 and 2019 data. The analysis of the nickel supply
chain covers mine sites as well as freight and downstream processing to the
first saleable nickel product (class 1 nickel for concentrate producers, and
intermediate compounds for others). The result is that the assets covered account
for over 37Mt CO2 related to scope 1 and 2 emissions, plus an additional
67Mt CO2 emissions associated with freight to importing country port
as well as downstream processing.

In 2020, the Nickel Institute stated that the
production of 1t of nickel metal is linked to an average of 13t of CO2
emissions. Approximately 60% of the CO2 emissions are associated
with scope 1 emissions, another 15% with scope 2 emissions, and the remaining
25% are mainly associated with process chemicals used during the productions
process (scope 3 emissions).
Furthermore, the production of nickel pig iron
emits a staggering 69t of CO2 per 1t of nickel content. According to
Canadian Sudbury, nickel pig iron could be branded as "dirty nickel" since
the production process is not environmentally friendly, it is a highly
carbon-intensive process. Meanwhile, ferronickel production emits 45t of CO2
per 1t of nickel content. The primary extraction stage accounts for 87% of
total CO2 emissions related to ferronickel production. Roughly 72%
of the CO2 emissions are related to scope 1 emissions, another 17% are
related to scope 2 emissions, and the remaining 11% are related to scope 3
emissions.
Additionally, the
production of 1t of nickel sulphate emits 5.4t of CO2. The main
stages where CO2 emissions occur during the nickel sulphate production
process are primary extraction and refining, which account for 42% and 35% of
the total CO2 emissions related to the production process,
respectively. Overall, 67% of the CO2 emissions are related to scope
1 emissions, another 7% are related to scope 2 emissions, and the remaining 26%
are related to scope 3 emissions.

Despite
the significant carbon emissions resulting from nickel production, this essential
metal is not so easily replaced. Moreover, while nickel production by itself is
energy intensive, the metal finds its way into a wide range of applications
where it significantly reduces carbon emissions during use. For instance, in
its usage in EV batteries, it is reported that replacing a gasoline vehicle
with an EV reduces overall carbon emissions by 51% over the life of the car. Another
example is nickel-containing stainless steel, where nickel enhances corrosion
resistance, significantly increasing the product’s life, which limits the
demand for manufacturing.
The Future is Green
With
that said, there is no lack of demand for ‘green’ nickel production. Both
miners and EV companies are increasingly trying to secure green-compliant
battery materials and are increasingly hesitant to invest in projects powered
by coal. Tesla, for instance, has made their stand publicly by appealing to
nickel producers to immediately start producing as much “green, efficient, and
sustainable nickel as possible”. Alongside its goal to reduce pollution from
driving, Tesla is also striving to reduce its own carbon footprint. The major
EV company is reportedly in discussions with Canadian miner Giga Metals about
developing a low carbon nickel source for its batteries. Tesla’s recent
decision to source its nickel supply from BHP Australia was also no doubt
significantly influenced by environmental considerations.
On the
supply side, Chinese steel and nickel producer Tsingshan vows to be greener in
its production. The company has recently announced its plans to build 2,000MW
clean-energy facilities at both its Morowali Industrial Park (IMIP) and Weda
Bay Industrial Park (IWIP) hubs in Indonesia in the next 3-5 years, including
solar and wind power stations and supporting infrastructure. Additionally, Tsingshan
also has plans to build a 5,000MW hydropower project in Indonesia to further
ensure clean energy supplies, though the exact timeline of this project is
unclear.
Russian
mining giant Norilsk Nickel, also known as Nornickel, has also made moves to ‘go
green’. It claims to have reduced its use of coal-fired energy by 49% in 2016,
decommissioned its Norilsk nickel factory, and aims to reduce emissions on the
Kola peninsula by 85% by the end of 2021 as part of its global strategy of
transforming into an environmentally friendly company. The company also invests
in energy modernisation facilities, including the replacement of hydroelectric
units at the Ust-Khantaiskaya hydro power plant. The share of renewable sources
has thus increased in the company’s energy mix to 55% for the Norilsk
Industrial District and 46% for the group.