2021 • Report
Securing technology-critical metals for Britain
Allan Walton, Paul A. Anderson, Gavin D. J. Harper, Vicky Mann, Sir John Beddington, Andrew P. Abbott, Andrew Bloodworth, Dave OudeNijeweme, Emma Schofield, Frances Wall, Neil Glover, Rob Chaddock, Robert Gross, Robert Lee, Sir Robin Grimes, Rupert Lewis, Sir Vernon Gibson, Paul McGuiness, Romana Ogrin
In the next 5-10 years the UK is going to see dramatic changes to many of its large industrial sectors, such as automotive, aerospace, and energy generation, as we move from a fossil-fuel-driven society to an electrically driven one. Many of these industries will be dependent on technology-critical metals (TCMs), for example, cobalt and lithium for the batteries in electric vehicles and rare-earths used in the magnets for electric motors and wind turbines. Many regions of the world, including the EU, have been developing strategies to access these technology-critical metals for their key industries, while the UK has lagged behind. The challenges already faced around access to key technology metals are potentially complicated for the UK by the nation’s exit from the EU, and the uncertainty that this has created with regard to trading relationships around the globe. It is in this challenging context that the UK must now fashion its own independent policy for access to technology critical metals.
Bibliographic Record
- Publisher: University of Birmingham
- DOI: 10.25500/epapers.bham.00003450
Cite This Work
10.25500/epapers.bham.00003450
10.25500/epapers.bham.00003450Securing technology-critical metals for BritainWalton, Allan, Paul A. Anderson, Gavin D. J. Harper, Vicky Mann, John Beddington, Andrew P. Abbott, Andrew Bloodworth, et al.Allan Walton|Paul A. Anderson|Gavin D. J. Harper|Vicky Mann|John Beddington|Andrew P. Abbott|Andrew Bloodworth|Dave OudeNijeweme|Emma Schofield|Frances Wall|Neil Glover|Rob Chaddock|Robert Gross|Robert Lee|Robin Grimes|Rupert Lewis|Vernon Gibson|Paul McGuiness|Romana OgrinWalton|Anderson|Harper|Mann|Beddington|Abbott|Bloodworth|OudeNijeweme|Schofield|Wall|Glover|Chaddock|Gross|Lee|Grimes|Lewis|Gibson|McGuiness|Ogrin2021reportUniversity of Birmingham
Crossref Verified
Synthesizing citation data...
Export to Reference Manager:
PlumX
PlumX Metrics are a comprehensive set of "altmetrics" (alternative metrics) that track how research, such as articles and data sets, is used, discussed, and shared online. They provide insights beyond traditional citation counts by tracking interactions across five categories: Usage, Captures, Mentions, Social Media, and Citations.
Scite.AI
Scite.ai provides a visual, real-time summary of how a scholarly paper has been cited, moving beyond simple citation counts. It classifies citations using AI to show if a paper is supported, mentioned, or contrasted, alongside retraction alerts, as well as showing the most common sections of a paper in which the paper was cited.
Dimensions
Dimensions shows the academic impact of a specific research output by highlighting both traditional citation counts and normalized, context-aware metrics.
Field Citation Ratio (FCR): Compares the citation count to other similarly aged publications in the same field. An FCR greater than 1.0 indicates above-average citations.
Relative Citation Ratio (RCR): A metric that compares an article’s citation performance to that of others in the same area.
Altmetrics
Altmetrics complement traditional metrics by highlighting broader, faster, and more varied types of engagement.
Altmetric "donuts," provide a summary of the online attention and engagement a research output has received. The colors indicate the types of sources.
The Altmetric Score is a weighted count of the attention a piece of research has received. It measures volume rather than quality, highlighting how much conversation is happening, not necessarily whether that conversation is positive or negative.
Altmetric "donuts," provide a summary of the online attention and engagement a research output has received. The colors indicate the types of sources.
The Altmetric Score is a weighted count of the attention a piece of research has received. It measures volume rather than quality, highlighting how much conversation is happening, not necessarily whether that conversation is positive or negative.












































































