Cited by 8Environmental Impact and SustainabilityMining and Resource ManagementGeology and Environmental Impact Studies

Reevaluating the land use impact of a Li-ion battery related mining project, a case study of Greenbushes mine

Open access
Khakmardan, Shayan, Werner, Tim T., Crawford, Robert, Li, Wen·2024·Procedia CIRP

Abstract

The mining industry plays a pivotal role in the global transition towards clean energy, driven by the escalating demand for critical elements like lithium. However, this growth raises profound environmental concerns, particularly regarding land use, global warming potential, water consumption, acidification, eutrophication, and toxicity. Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) has historically relied on approximations and theoretical methods, resulting in systematic underestimations of these impacts. This study begins to address part of this discrepancy by leveraging remote sensing technologies to gather empirical evidence. Focusing on the Greenbushes mining site in Australia, a comprehensive investigation was conducted to quantitatively evaluate the direct land use impact from satellite imagery over the life of the project. Comparative analyses were performed against various mid-point Life Cycle Impact Assessment (LCIA) methods. The findings unequivocally reveal a substantial under-reporting of the land use impact, highlighting the critical need for more accurate assessments in the context of mining activities. This research underscores the importance of empirical data in refining our understanding of the environmental footprint associated with mining operations, particularly in the critical context of clean energy transition. The study emphasises the imperative to reevaluate and adjust existing approaches to accurately account for the full scope of environmental impacts associated with mining operations.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.procir.2024.01.139

Cites

10 of 10 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The largest producer of spodumene in Australia is the Greenbushes Li operation.

    “In Australia, the largest producer of spodumene is the Greenbushes Li operation (Khakmardan et al 2024).”

    From Environmental impacts of lithium supply chains from Australia to China (2024) · cites this paper as Khakmardan et al 2024

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Khakmardan, S., Werner, T. T., Crawford, R., & Li, W.
Affiliations
The University of Melbourne (AU)
Corresponding author
Li, Wen
Venue
Procedia CIRP
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2024
Volume
122
Pages
1030-1035
ISSN
2212-8271 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4396711416
Cited by
8
References
10
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 1
FWCI
0.94
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Procedia CIRP (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • Minerva Access (University of Melbourne) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Environmental Engineering › Environmental Impact and Sustainability
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Building and Construction › Mining and Resource Management
  • Social Sciences › Law › Geology and Environmental Impact Studies
Keywords
lithium mining, land use effects, life cycle impact assessment, clean energy transition, critical minerals, global warming potential, acidification, eutrophication, water consumption

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review