System dynamics modeling of the global nickel supply system at a mine-level resolution

Toward prospective dynamic criticality and resilience data

Journal Article (2025)
Author(s)

J.E. Bradley (TU Delft - Policy Analysis)

Willem L. Auping (TU Delft - Policy Analysis)

René Kleijn (Universiteit Leiden)

J.H. Kwakkel (TU Delft - Policy Analysis)

Gavin M. Mudd (British Geological Survey)

B. Sprecher (TU Delft - Design for Sustainability)

Research Group
Policy Analysis
DOI related publication
https://doi.org/10.1111/jiec.70072
More Info
expand_more
Publication Year
2025
Language
English
Research Group
Policy Analysis
Issue number
5
Volume number
29
Pages (from-to)
1666-1683
Reuse Rights

Other than for strictly personal use, it is not permitted to download, forward or distribute the text or part of it, without the consent of the author(s) and/or copyright holder(s), unless the work is under an open content license such as Creative Commons.

Abstract

Securing the availability of enough metals to fulfill demand is a critical societal concern. Models of metal supply systems can help enhance our understanding of these systems and identify strategies to reduce material criticality and improve resilience. In this work, we introduce a novel approach to modeling metal supply systems, using nickel as a case study. Our approach combines system dynamics modeling, in which various feedback loops influence future outcomes, with the higher sectoral and geographical detail of industrial ecology (IE) methods and data on individual mines. We also include extensive uncertainty analyses through exploratory modeling and analysis. Using this combined modeling approach, we explore the development and resilience of the global nickel supply system between 2015 and 2060 under various uncertainties and policy levers. Our results show that incorporating feedback effects leads to more realistic demand behavior and resource depletion patterns compared to traditional dynamic material flow analysis. Market feedback enhances resilience, but cannot fully offset criticality risks. Sectoral disaggregation reveals increased criticality risks due to the energy transition, which can be mitigated by increasing opportunities for substitution, product lifetime extension, recycling, exploration, capacity expansion, and by-product recovery. Geographical disaggregation highlights the resilience benefits of diverse supply sources, as well as the effects of changing regional market shares on sustainability impacts, ore grade variability, and by-product dynamics. Our combined modeling approach is a step toward prospective, dynamic criticality assessment, in which system changes and future risks are accounted for when determining material criticality and policy recommendations.