| Literature DB >> 35885161 |
Xingxing Wang1,2, Anjian Wang1,2, Weiqiong Zhong1,2, Depeng Zhu3.
Abstract
In the double carbon background, riding the wind of new energy vehicles and the battery high nickelization, nickel resources rise along with the trend. In recent years, due to the influence of geopolitical conflicts and emergencies, as well as the speculation and control of international capital with its advantages and rules, the world may face price and security supply risks to a certain extent. Therefore, to obtain the most objective trade redistribution strategy, this paper first constructs the nickel material trade network, identifies the core trading countries and the main trade relations of nickel material trade, and finds that the flow of nickel material mainly occurred between a few countries. On this basis, a trade redistribution model is constructed based on the maximum entropy principle. Taking Indonesia, the largest exporter, and the largest trade relationship (Indonesia exports to China) as examples, the nickel material redistribution between countries when different supply risks occur are simulated. The results can provide an important reference for national resource recovery after the risk of the nickel trade.Entities:
Keywords: complex network; maximum entropy principle; nickel material; trade redistribution
Year: 2022 PMID: 35885161 PMCID: PMC9317751 DOI: 10.3390/e24070938
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Entropy (Basel) ISSN: 1099-4300 Impact factor: 2.738
Figure 1International trade network of nickel material in 2020.
Top 10 core trading countries.
| Rank | Weighted Outdegree | Weighted Indegree | Betweenness Centrality |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Indonesia 818,934 | China 1,941,923 | China 1946 |
| 2 | Philippines 621,484 | Japan 258,848 | Germany 753 |
| 3 | Russian Federation 342,539 | USA 249,057 | Rep. of Korea 277 |
| 4 | New Caledonia 300,914 | Netherlands 239,319 | USA 263 |
| 5 | China 255,811 | Germany 224,203 | Italy 219 |
| 6 | Canada 242,607 | Rep. of Korea 166,060 | South Africa 208 |
| 7 | Germany 192,295 | Norway 124,684 | Russian Federation 173 |
| 8 | Australia 157,638 | Italy 110,019 | India 172 |
| 9 | Japan 143,372 | France 104,613 | Turkey 148 |
| 10 | Finland 137,616 | South Africa 95,372 | United Arab Emirates 144 |
| Total | 76% | 70% |
Major trade relations in the nickel material trade network.
| Rank | Exporter | Importer | Volume (kg) | Proportion |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Indonesia | China | 672,605.72 | 14.47% |
| 2 | Philippines | China | 551,208.01 | 11.86% |
| 3 | New Caledonia | China | 130,378.71 | 2.81% |
| 4 | Papua New Guinea | China | 108,661.21 | 2.34% |
| 5 | Canada | Norway | 98,710.67 | 2.12% |
| 6 | New Caledonia | South Africa | 88,057.00 | 1.89% |
| 7 | Russian Federation | Netherlands | 86,643.86 | 1.86% |
| 8 | Russian Federation | Finland | 76,012.82 | 1.64% |
| 9 | Australia | China | 71,073.15 | 1.53% |
| 10 | Indonesia | Japan | 70,259.72 | 1.51% |
| 11 | Philippines | Japan | 69,711.55 | 1.50% |
| 12 | Canada | USA | 69,201.12 | 1.49% |
| 13 | Russian Federation | Switzerland | 64,111.94 | 1.38% |
| 14 | Russian Federation | China | 58,965.61 | 1.27% |
| 15 | Japan | China | 47,925.86 | 1.03% |
| 16 | New Caledonia | Rep. of Korea | 46,256.12 | 1.00% |
| Total | 2% | 2,309,783.08 | 49.70% | |
Figure 2Regression analysis diagram of the redistributed nickel material trade relationship and the actual trade relationship.
Figure 3Network comparison of before and after supply risk in Indonesia. Note: (a) is the trade network before Indonesia’s supply risk, (b) is the trade network after Indonesia’s supply risk. The nodes in the figure represent countries, the size of the nodes represents the volume of exports, and the edges represent the trade relations between countries. The direction of the arrows is consistent with the direction of trade flows, and the same color of the nodes indicates that countries are in the same community.
Top 10 countries of import reduction due to Indonesia’s supply risk.
| Country | V1 (kg) | V2 (kg) | R (kg) |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
| China | 1,941,922.99 | 1,873,483.90 | 68,439.09 | 0.035 |
| Japan | 258,847.71 | 249,725.15 | 9122.56 | 0.035 |
| USA | 249,057.42 | 240,279.90 | 8777.52 | 0.035 |
| Netherlands | 239,318.79 | 230,884.49 | 8434.30 | 0.035 |
| Germany | 224,202.82 | 216,301.25 | 7901.57 | 0.035 |
| Rep. of Korea | 166,060.20 | 160,207.75 | 5852.45 | 0.035 |
| Norway | 124,684.08 | 120,289.84 | 4394.23 | 0.035 |
| Italy | 110,018.68 | 106,141.30 | 3877.38 | 0.035 |
| France | 104,613.38 | 100,926.50 | 3686.88 | 0.035 |
| South Africa | 95,372.00 | 92,010.81 | 3361.19 | 0.035 |
Note: V1 stands for original import volume, V2 stands for redistributed import volume, R refers to the import decrement, and P refers to the ratio of the import decrement to the original import volume.
Changes in China’s imports.
| Exporter | Importer | V1 (kg) | V2 (kg) | I (kg) |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Russian Federation | China | 122,152.88 | 99,303.59 | 22849.29 | 23.01% |
| Canada | China | 73,832.88 | 61,339.77 | 12,493.11 | 20.37% |
| Australia | China | 33,908.21 | 29,526.37 | 4381.83 | 14.84% |
| Japan | China | 21,270.14 | 18,563.49 | 2706.65 | 14.58% |
| Germany | China | 17,988.23 | 16,046.44 | 1941.79 | 12.10% |
| Netherlands | China | 19,902.85 | 17,795.27 | 2107.59 | 11.84% |
| Finland | China | 18,782.39 | 16,801.55 | 1980.84 | 11.79% |
| Norway | China | 15,676.67 | 14,296.92 | 1379.75 | 9.65% |
| Rep. of Korea | China | 8927.88 | 8249.96 | 677.92 | 8.22% |
| New Caledonia | China | 187,617.02 | 174,122.90 | 13,494.12 | 7.75% |
Note: V1 stands for original import volume, V2 stands for redistributed import volume, I refers to the import increment, and P refers to the ratio of the import increment to the original import volume.
Figure 4Comparison of nickel material trade networks before and after supply risk (the nodes represent countries, and the different colors of the nodes indicate that each country belongs to different communities. Edges indicate trade relations, and the thickness of edges indicates the size of trade flows. The arrows are in the same direction as trade flows).
Figure 5Major export changes for Russia and Canada.