I read Jit’s recent article, On the Materials Intensity of Wind Power shortly before learning about yet another WEET conference, to take place on 8th June 2023, with the title “Next steps for critical minerals in the UK”. From this I learned (and I suppose we should be relieved to learn it, given the whole net zero agenda) that there is a Policy Lead, Critical Minerals, at BEIS; there is a UK Critical Minerals Association; and a UK Critical Minerals Strategy. I am less reassured by the fact that net zero and opposition to fossil fuels continue, and the government continues to push much that is counter-factual:
A new cohort of critical minerals are becoming even more important as we seek to bolster our energy security and domestic industrial resilience – in light of Russia’s illegal invasion of Ukraine – and as we move away from volatile, expensive fossil fuels.
Hubris
Running through this we find the same hubris that leads so many people in the UK to demand that “we” (the UK) “tackle” climate change (as if we could). It appears that the UK is going to “tackle” international critical minerals markets:
Through this strategy, the UK will:
accelerate growth of the UK’s domestic capabilities
collaborate with international partners
enhance international markets to make them more responsive, transparent and responsible
It must be a pretty amazing strategy if we in the UK can achieve that third point on our own, but then again, we apparently think we can unilaterally tackle “the climate crisis”.
Dependence on China
There is more detail of the strategy in a pdf document, which runs to 48 pages, including glossy end-pieces, index, etc. This does recognise some awkward truths:
The world in 2040 is expected to need four times as many critical minerals for clean energy technologies as it does today.
However, critical mineral supply chains are complex and opaque, the market is volatile and distorted, and China is the dominant player. This creates a situation where UK jobs and industries rely on minerals vulnerable to market shocks, geopolitical events and logistical disruptions, at a time when global demand for these minerals is rising faster than ever.
It is vital that we make our supply chains more resilient and more diverse to support British industries of the future, deliver on our energy transition and protect our national security.
It is rather depressing to see that although there is a recognition that China is the dominant player in this crucial area, there is no recognition that the transition to renewable energy, and the obsession with net zero, therefore causes us problems. Although we need critical minerals for lots of other things, it really isn’t very clever to make us more dependent on them than necessary, especially in the light of China’s dominance in this area.
And that, it seems, is the plan:
Countries’ climate change ambitions are changing the way we produce, distribute and store energy. Clean energy technologies – such as electric cars, wind turbines, photovoltaics, hydrogen production and nuclear reactors – will need to be deployed quickly. The UK currently relies on complex and delicate global supply chains for its rapidly growing demand for critical minerals to fuel its net zero future . Seven of the government’s Ten Point Plan targets for a green industrial revolution assume a stable supply of critical minerals. Global demand for electric vehicle battery minerals (lithium, graphite, cobalt, nickel) is projected to increase by between 6 and 13 times by 2040 under stated policies, which exceeds the rate at which new primary and secondary sources are currently being developed. The UK’s automotive and electric vehicle battery ecosystem, as an example, could grow by 100,000 jobs by 2040 but depends on the development of a UK battery manufacturing capability. Our intention to build a new generation of gigafactories will only happen in the UK if there is a resilient supply of battery minerals.
Despite this, the document is clearly written, and there is a plan, including the creation of “an enabling environment for companies to develop critical mineral capabilities in UK, including exploration, extraction, refining, materials manufacturing, recovery and recycling”. It is worth a read.
Other developments
There is a Critical Minerals Expert Committee, which first met on 2nd December 2021, and which has at least twenty external members, with some pretty impressive-looking expertise. In addition, there is a UK Critical Minerals Intelligence Centre, launched in July 2022 and run by the British Geological Survey, with support (presumably financial) from the BEIS.
At least Paul Lusty, the Intelligence Centre’s Director, recognises the problem:
The UK has announced world-leading targets to decarbonise the economy, which include plans to build an electric vehicle supply chain and transform the energy system using offshore wind and clean hydrogen. Building these technologies and the associated infrastructure will require substantial quantities of critical minerals. The UK’s current critical mineral needs are met almost entirely from overseas, through complex and dynamic international supply chains that often have poor end-to-end visibility. The Centre will help the Government and industry understand future UK critical minerals demand, and potential chain supply vulnerabilities.
Irony
The notes with the email relating to the WEET conference on critical minerals make a rather oblique reference to the Indonesia-UK memorandum of understanding, which was signed in October 2022, and (so the notes tell me) was “intended to boost investment in sectors the UK excels in, including through access to critical minerals”.
This is intriguing, since the memorandum includes not a single reference to critical minerals. The recitals to the agreement are borderline hilarious, since they purport to acknowledge “Indonesia’s climate leadership…as set out in Indonesia’s Nationally Determined Contribution (NDC).” The last time I looked at Indonesia’s NDC, I noted this:
Their INDC is surprisingly light on detail, for a country with approximately 260 million inhabitants (the 4th most populous country on the planet) and with rather large problems from burning forests (ironically much of which is to clear land for biofuels growth)…
…Their INDC even admits that “Most emissions (63%) are the result of land use change and peat and forest fires, with combustion of forest fuels contributing approximately 19% of total emissions.”
All of which makes the virtuous noises in Indonesia’s INDC a little hard to stomach. They offer an unconditional 29% reduction in GHG emissions by 2030, and up to 41% with international support, but this is against a Business as Usual scenario. The problem with this is the rate at which their GHG emissions are increasing. They tell us that GHG emissions were 1,400 MtCO2eq in 2000, had risen to 1,800 in 2005, and the BaU scenario will see them double by 2030 from their 2000 figure, to 2,800. So even the conditional offer would only take them back to 2005 levels, and the unconditional offer would see their emissions rise.
Their INDC runs to only 8 pages plus a 3 page annex. It is extremely light on hard information. They would like international financial assistance, but they don’t say how much. They devote one small paragraph to steps to clamp down on land use change, despite the hugely significant importance of this topic in the context of their GHG emissions.
To say I’m unimpressed would be an understatement.
In the relatively short time since I wrote that, Indonesia’s population is thought to have increased to 276.3 million people, which offers up an indication of the scale of the problem.
The Memorandum of Understanding appears to be based around the idea that the UK will help Indonesia with the creation and maintenance of forestry and other land use (FOLU) CO2 “sinks”. In return (presumably, as it has been left unwritten) is the hope that Indonesia will supply the UK with critical minerals. It seems to be well placed to supply many of them. It’s more than a little ironic that the UK’s net zero plans seem to be dependent, at least in part, on a country with the tenth highest annual CO2 emissions currently and few meaningful plans to reduce them.
Green Lithium
It appears that green lithium is a thing. Teesside is to be the site of “the UK’s first large-scale merchant lithium refinery, providing battery grade materials for use in the electric vehicle, renewable energy and consumer technology supply chains”. This stuff always costs the taxpayer, but in the context of net zero expenditure, this is small change:
The UK Government has backed Green Lithium with a grant of over £600,000 through the Automotive Transformation Fund.
The plan is to reduce the CO2 emissions associated with processing lithium. The idea that this is “green” might be a little optimistic, according to Green Car Congress in October 2020:
With demand for lithium set to increase over the next decade… CO2 emissions from lithium production are set to triple by 2025 versus current levels and to grow by a factor of six by 2030, with the vast majority of this coming from mineral concentrate production, shipping and refining.
Reducing emissions associated with refining lithium is all well and good, but there are still mining and transport to consider. And as the Guardian headline from June 2021 reminds us “The rush to ‘go electric’ comes with a hidden cost: destructive lithium mining”.
Odds and ends
As seems to be the case with all WEET conferences discussing Net zero issues, there is a section about support for industry (which I assume can be translated as meaning more taxpayer support) and “tackling barriers”. Despite the constant cost to the taxpayer and the barriers to be tackled, the net zero juggernaut rolls on and on relentlessly.
Conclusion
It’s difficult to know what to make of all this. Many people are worried about the potentially environmentally destructive aspects of mining critical minerals, whether there are even enough of them to satisfy the international “green” agenda, and the emissions associated with extracting, transporting and refining them. The Chinese dominance of this area is a matter for concern, with real worries about supply chains. After all, if we in the UK cannot access sufficient minerals to satisfy net zero plans, then net zero plans (and jobs) must be in jeopardy. On the plus side, the government does seem to have woken up to some of these problems, but apparently not enough to wonder whether these issues cast any doubt on the net zero agenda.
Climate Scepticism 
The dictatorship of the climatocracy….
LikeLike
Hi Mark – Merry Xmas Mate
your post header pic tells a story as well (can’t tell where it’s from).
just look how windy the way trucks (Diesel I presume) need to go just to get to the bottom/top.
no wonder it’s expensive to mine like this.
ps – Alan has been quite lately, is he OK?
LikeLike
Mark notes well enough that the issue of critical mineral supply is obliquely acknowledged but with no sensible pathway for any resolution.
As I noted in the earlier discussion on this, and even if Michaux’ paper is disregarded (which those of us involved in attempting to thread the needle do not), the lack of practical discussion says that resolution is not actually taken seriously. To paraphrase, perhaps summarise, “elite” thinking: the proles can wait.
Australia has enormous numbers of deposits for some of the materials required for NZ. On any reasonable attempt at estimating potential NZ demand, we regard these deposits as completely inadequate in any case. A group of academics has put up a large scale proposal for “renewable energy hubs” across the northern half of the continent. Three of these, actually, each with a geographic area about twice the size of the UK. Immediately, the green contingents of the MSM attacked it for potential destruction of habitats (not for the wholly impractical nature of the proposals) and the various indigenous groups have instantly claimed ownership of the land with all that may entail for deciding on land use. For comparison, the current land use for mining in Australia totals 0.1% of the geographical areas outside the cities and towns – and this is under constant attack.
LikeLiked by 1 person
dfhunter, the picture I used was simply a generic one – sometimes it can be a bit of an effort to find one that does exactly what I’m looking for and which is copyright-free. However, a quick internet search for pictures of critical minerals will quickly produce many pictures of massive environmentally damaging mines. Even the Guardian, in the article I linked to near the end of the above piece, admits this:
Needless to say, the answer, so far as climate alarmists are concerned, is “yes”.
LikeLike
When it comes to rare earths and other obscure elements, it pays to look at what a blogger, whose politics might differ from yours, says, simply because of practical experience as a scandium trader. Anything the mass media says about obscure minerals is simply wrong, inaccurate or misleading, and that probably extends to oil, steel and coal as well. For example
https://www.timworstall.com/2022/12/mr-duncan-smith-to-the-white-telephone-please-white-telephone-for-mr-duncan-smith/
How much do the proponents of EVs with lithium batteries know about the sources of lithium and the extraction processes? Also rare earth minerals are not rare in the sense of being hard to find or locate : they are rare in the sense of being strange. They all occur together and it takes energy costly and environmentally hostile techniques to pull them apart…
LikeLiked by 1 person
Interesting – thanks for drawing attention to that. Would Tim Worstall approve or decry the UK government’s strategy, I wonder?
Of course, the UK has plenty of coal and gas. We could just use that for energy…
LikeLike
Man in a Barrel,
“Anything the mass media says about obscure minerals is simply wrong, inaccurate or misleading, ..”
Tesla has been using batteries that look like they are about the size of AA batteries. They have new ones that look similar to D batteries. I’m finding all kinds of conflicting stuff about whether they have any cobalt in them.
LikeLike
TW is agnostic about global warming but, if you think it is worth bothering about, you should just tax CO2 emissions. In his view, any government strategy other than that will either fail or exacerbate the problem. Putting words into his mouth of course….
LikeLike
Mark I doubt very much if an opencast excavation like that which you highlight your article would be used to extract rare earths. Opencasts are for extracting materials like copper present uniformly in very small amounts. Rare earths are much more likely to be concentrated in parts of an ore, so mining technologies for selective removal are most likely to be used, leaving the dross behind.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Alan,
Normally I would defer to you on such issues, but this time I ‘m not sure. Search the internet for images of lithium or cadmium mines, for example, and you will find plenty of similar pictures. Of course they may be making the same (incorrect?) assumptions as me and also be using incorrect stock photos. However, I don’t think so. Take a look at the image used with this article:
https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2012/02/a-visit-to-the-only-american-mine-for-rare-earth-metals/253372/
Nevertheless, welcome back!
LikeLike
Hi Mark,
bit O/T & old news, but relevant to your “Dependence on China” –
from your Atlantic link above, dated 2012.
I googled “Molycorp” & latest article found – https://www.mining.com/molycorp-shuts-down-mountain-pass-rare-earth-plant/
“Cecilia Jamasmie | August 26, 2015 | 3:00 am Battery Metals China Europe Rare Earth
Molycorp, the U.S.’s only miner and processor of rare earths, said it would transition the facility to a “care and maintenance” mode, adding it plans to continue serving its rare earth customers via its production facilities in Estonia and China.”
LikeLike
Mark. There is something odd about the molycorp article you supplied, Firstly only Molycorp supplied any photograph of an opencast mine. The majority were taken by Atlantic’s authors and do no show any surface workings. Second, most photographs of working opencasts show pristinely sharp quarry edges, they have to, the roadways provide the only access to the quarry floor and new material. If a truck skidded of the roadway it would be a disaster, shutting down the mine. Most of the Molycorp’s quarry walls are degraded. Those roadways with trucks on them appear distinctly sharper and still look maintained. They don’t rise to the quarry top.
I suggest Molycorp was originally mining something else originally and subsequently switched to rare earths. It has essentially abandoned its old opencast mine and only uses part of it for access.
All speculation of course, but to me it makes sense.
LikeLike
Alan, Good to see you back: all the best for a speedy recovery!
From a bit of background reading, this Mountain Pass mine has a chequered past with a variety of owners, bankruptcy and environmental breaches.
Further to your point, a comment on one of the articles I read makes me wonder if they have switched from mining fresh ore to re-processing tailings from earlier operations. The mine has been open a long time – over 70 years aiui – so there will have been some changes in the minerals sought and, I guess, in the extraction performance.
Also, would I be right in saying that most rare earths are recovered as by-/co-products of mining for copper and/or nickel?
LikeLike
Here is a very interesting article, just published, on Mountain Pass and the demise of molycorp. The mine is currently owned and run by an outfit called MP Materials.
I don’t know how old the photograph accompanying the article is but according to the text the mine is still active.
LikeLike
Oops…I forgot the link:
https://www.sciencenews.org/article/rare-earth-mining-renewable-energy-future?utm_source=email&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=latest-newsletter-v2&utm_source=Latest_Headlines&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Latest_Headlines
LikeLike
“Huge rare earth metals discovery in Arctic Sweden”
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-64253708
LikeLike
Alan, Mike and Paul, thanks for your ongoing input. However, the picture accompanying the piece about Molycorp was only intended as an example – one of many I selected at random after a quick internet search.
As for mining rare earth minerals generally, this might (or might not!) be of interest:
“How Rare-Earth Mining Has Devastated China’s Environment”
https://earth.org/rare-earth-mining-has-devastated-chinas-environment/
I will grant that, for instance, Getty Images of rare earth mines, although environmentally awful, are by and large perhaps not so dramatic as the stock photo I used:
https://www.gettyimages.co.uk/photos/rare-earth-mining
LikeLike
Mikehig. I know very little about the geology of rare earths, other than they substitute in minor amounts for other common earth metals like calcium or magnesium in common minerals like feldspars. They are usually well dispersed. Wikipedia has a good article.
LikeLike
“Revealed: how US transition to electric cars threatens environmental havoc
By 2050 electric vehicles could require huge amounts of lithium for their batteries, causing damaging expansions of mining”
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/jan/24/us-electric-vehicles-lithium-consequences-research
The answer, it seems, is not to stop going down the EV route; rather we have to use cars less – a lot less.
LikeLike
Mark; it’s not that we need to use cars less, it’s that we need to have fewer cars! That’s the only way to reduce the demand for virgin material.
Of course there are many hypothetical scenarios where we will cease to own cars and will just summon an automated cab when we want to go somewhere. Yeah, right.
The problem with this article is that it ignores human ingenuity and technical progress. We have a long track record of developing/finding alternatives when a key material becomes scarce. Indeed one of the concerns for EV owners is that better battery technology will emerge, undermining the residual values of their “old tech” vehicles.
LikeLiked by 1 person
“The green revolution is fuelling environmental destruction”
Rare earths, cobalt, lithium, etc. Interesting read.
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/world/the-green-revolution-is-fuelling-environmental-destruction/ar-AA16zk3V
LikeLiked by 1 person
Jit, from your link –
“Paul Atherley, the company’s chairman, who is also chairing a scheme to establish lithium refining in Teesside, says Pensana’s feedstock will come from a mine in Longonjo, western Angola. He is also seeking to source lithium from Australia for his other company.
“What we’re arguing is that Australia, and South America and Africa should be doing what they are good at, which is mining and the extraction phase. And the processing should be done in Europe, in UK chemical parks hooked up to offshore wind, so we create these independent and sustainable supply chains, independent of China, so we can be absolutely sure about how it’s mined and how it’s processed.”
contrast the above link topic to – https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/explainers-56023895
“Cumbria coal mine: Will it threaten the UK’s climate targets? Published 8 December 2022”
LikeLike
Meanwhile, in Germany, irony is alive and well:
“Tremor fears lay down hurdles for Germany’s lithium mining plans
Berlin is keen to source more critical raw materials at home — but is meeting with opposition from locals.”
https://www.politico.eu/article/germanys-lithium-extraction-earthquake-mining/
I note that the F word is verboten – fracking doesn’t receive a single mention in the article.
LikeLike
“The Green Economy’s Heart of Darkness” – a commentary on “Cobalt Red: How the Blood of the Congo Powers Our Lives”.
https://compactmag.com/article/the-green-economy-s-heart-of-darkness
LikeLike
Mark; I’ve just read your previous post about Lithium mining in Germany. The methodology sounds very similar to that used in geothermal projects, in which case fracking will be employed to open up flow paths.The locals have some reason to be concerned about tremors. Europe’s largest tremor associated with drilling/fracking occurred near Basle some years ago and caused a geothermal project to be shut down.
LikeLike
This is from the Geological Survey of Finland:
“Assessment of the Extra Capacity Required of Alternative Energy Electrical Power Systems to Completely Replace Fossil Fuels ”
Click to access 42_2021.pdf
Rather chilling, but not particularly surprising.
LikeLike
An updated email has arrived pushing the WEET conference on 8th June. Regarding recent developments, I learn this:
“UK and Canada sign agreement to boost green tech supply chains”
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/uk-and-canada-sign-agreement-to-boost-green-tech-supply-chains
It sounds good, but it’s just a press release, with the usual verbiage, and I don’t see much of substance behind it.
Ditto this:
“UK and Saudi Arabia pledge to deliver closer co-operation on critical minerals”
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/uk-and-saudi-arabia-pledge-to-deliver-closer-co-operation-on-critical-minerals
And the government is throwing some money at recycling:
“Government invests £15m in rare earth minerals research
Tonnes of rare earth elements – used for EVs and wind turbines – could soon be recycled as a result of government-backed research”
https://www.energylivenews.com/2023/02/28/government-invests-15-in-rare-earth-minerals-research/
Both Labour and Tories seem to believe (hope?) that throwing some taxpayer money at the problem will persuade private investors to solve the problem for them. I remain unconvinced.
LikeLike
Scots sites on ‘green mines’ list”
https://www.pressreader.com/uk/the-scotsman/20230418/281513640449726
More of Scotland’s beauty to be sacrificed on the net zero altar, then.
LikeLike
“Europe’s green dilemma: Mining key minerals without destroying nature
Conservationists are spooked by Brussels’ plans to ramp up mining of critical raw materials, but advocates say it’s needed to hit the bloc’s green goals.”
https://www.politico.eu/article/europes-green-dilemma-mining-key-minerals-without-destroying-nature/
Green groups are worried? Finally? Oh, the irony.
Overlap again – I could just as easily have posted that here:
LikeLiked by 1 person
“Australia warned of ‘over-mining’ risk in race to secure minerals needed for clean energy
Research says mining boom to support renewable energy risks ‘significant social and environmental damage’”
https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2023/may/04/australia-warned-of-over-mining-risk-in-race-to-secure-minerals-needed-for-clean-energy
That’s another one that could just as well have been posted as a comment under “Saving The Planet By Trashing It”.
LikeLike
Green groups are worried? But . . . . . they weren’t worried when China was polluting its natural landscapes and ground and surface waters were they? They weren’t bothered by Africans being exploited by Chinese companies to mine for rare earths. So it’s OK to trash far off places and for Asian people to exploit poor African people to provide the materials needed for Greens here in Europe to virtue signal their squeaky clean intent on saving the planet from an imaginary Thermageddon, but when it comes to spoiling nature reserves on their own doorstep, they get worried.
LikeLiked by 1 person