Despite the growth in metals supply over the last decade, BloombergNEF’s (BNEF’s) annual Transition Metals Outlook finds that there are still not enough raw materials to meet growing demand. This supply squeeze could slow the adoption of clean energy technologies. In order to meet the demands of a net-zero emissions world, BNEF estimates $2.1 trillion is needed in new mining investments by 2050.
The report indicates that key energy transition metals such as aluminum, copper and lithium could face deficits in primary supply this decade…
Kwasi Ampofo, head of metals and mining at BNEF and lead author of the report said, “the prolonged deficit of these metals will lead to higher prices for raw materials, which increases the cost of clean energy technologies. High costs could slow their adoption, and the energy transition at large”.
Growing demand! Gosh, I am, uh, not at all surprised, and believe growing demand in this instance better than shrinking?
2 trillions dollars! That is, uhm, for worldwide expenditure, and is total investment not new projects in addition to maintaining improving current, and is spread out over the next 25 years…. gosh, I just do not find that alarming or daunting or the least bit surprising, so long as we do not surrender to grotesque levels of international stupidity. But stupidity is always a possibility and seems to be the most dangerous, especially as bunches of the wealthy have fallen in love with super status symbols.
The US is not an environment where a new mining project will be a first priority - UNLESS the financials become so grotesque as to tease some poor financing and operating team in to trying it - or by .gov mandate (which would be interesting and include some equally grotesque tax payor burdens)
I’ll not speak about others, but for aluminum, commodity pricing still favors recycling over new mining. I estimate that post consumer scrap will continue to be more valuable in the near future (5-10 years) such that additional mining capacity will be developed OUTSIDE of the US.
Canada and Brazil are excellent sources, currently.
For those within the USA, recycling will continue to be a preferred method of sourcing feedstock for casting new alloys.
1010 ingot or equivalent (99.9% aluminum with trace silicon, etc.) is needed to mix with the recycled aluminum trash to ensure acceptable aluminum alloy quality in finished products.
The consumer has tremendous power in demanding high recycled content. This premium is typically about 25-35% at the wholesale level.
Since material costs vary quite substantially, this may not be linear in the final price.
Examples: Automotive - Ford, GM and Tesla all require mechanical and dimensional quality. Tesla ALSO demands recycled content with maximum C02 concentration.
The premium for Tesla products is in the wholesale range. You be the judge of how this value flows to the end product.
Sign of the times department: the moment I saw the headline, I thought “so the “JCs” are angling for another government handout, instead of making the investment themselves, in their normal course of business, like companies used to”.
This is part of why I’ve invested, and continue to invest, in COPX, the copper miners ETF, despite it having a somewhat high expense ratio (if anyone knows of an equivalent with lower expenses, I would consider it).
Also, $2.1T over 25 years is not such a crazy high number. It’s only $84B a year, and considering that these materials are used in almost everything industrial, that may not be such a ridiculous number.
It’s VERY new and still tiny. If it hits critical mass (meaning I believe it can continue to exist with an 0.35% expense ratio) I would definitely consider it.
Over the last week, I managed to buy some COPA. It wasn’t easy because it hardly trades and the bid/ask is all over the place. If I am reading it correctly, the fund is truly tiny, even minuscule, at only $779k in total. I suppose all new ETFs start small.
Of course!!! I never use anything but a limit order for thinly traded things like this. For giant stocks with massive liquidity I might rarely use a market order because the bid/ask spread is only a cent or half a cent so it doesn’t matter much.
Sodium Ion batteries don’t use any rare earth elements in their manufacture. True, they’re 3 times as heavy, but not every application is weight-sensitive or limited.
Solid-state batteries can be lighter than sodium-ion batteries because solid electrolytes are less dense:
Solid-state batteries
Solid-state batteries can be smaller and lighter than lithium-ion batteries because solid electrolytes are less dense. This can make electric cars smaller and lighter, or give them a greater range for the same size and weight.
Sodium-ion batteries
Sodium-ion batteries have a relatively low energy density, which means they are bulkier and heavier than other batteries. Sodium weighs nearly three times as much as lithium, and it cannot store the same amount of energy
