4.0 Review

A review of circular economy strategies for mine tailings

期刊

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.clet.2022.100499

关键词

Mining; Circular economy; Tailings; Waste; Valorisation; Institution; Digitalisation

资金

  1. Academy of Finland [306079, 337713]
  2. VTT Technical Research Centre
  3. Academy of Finland (AKA) [337713, 306079] Funding Source: Academy of Finland (AKA)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

There are various practices and potential for transforming mining waste into valuable products. The amount of generated waste poses a challenge to implementing a full circular economy. A combination of different circular economy approaches is needed to manage mining waste streams holistically. Technologies exist for metal recovery from tailings and utilization of mineral residues. The institutional framework and digitalization play important roles in the valorization of mine waste and identifying its potential for circularity and traceability.
There are various existing practices and future potential for turning mining waste into valuable products. The inventory of the tailings in the metal mines in Finland showed that considerable concentrations of many critical metals are contained in the waste. However, the amounts of generated waste are so significant that the full implementation of circular economy is challenging. A combination of several different circular economy approaches (reduce, reprocess, upcycle, downcycle and dispose for future) is needed to manage the waste streams in mining in a holistic way. Various technologies are already in use for the recovery of metals from the tailings and for the use of the mineral residues in high and low-value products. The institutional framework has an impact on the economics of the valorisation of mine waste. Digitalisation can support in identifying where the biggest potential for valorisation exists. The rising concepts of digital material and product passports would support the circularity and the traceability of waste-based materials.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.0
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据