Boris,
Have you seen and read this article about the materials needed to implement wind, solar, and batteries as a replacement for fossil fuels?
https://issues.org/environmental-economic-costs-minerals-sol…
The opening statement is rather mild:
Today’s plans to decarbonize global energy systems center on a massive expansion in the use of solar, wind, and battery technologies, with the goal of these becoming the dominant means to power society. But scaling up these energy sources entails a radically heavier materials footprint than is associated with fossil fuels, paradoxical though it may seem. The unavoidable scale of materials demand will have significant impacts on commodities markets and prices, as well as on the environment. Most policy formulations fail to account for these implications. The country is long overdue for thoughtful and realistic planning that honestly acknowledges the tradeoffs and consequences arising from the materials needed to accelerate what is being called the energy transition.
The article, however, gets much more explicit.
In a recent report from the Geological Survey of Finland, researchers considered the minerals implications for achieving a so-called full transition; that is, using solar and wind to electrify all ground transport as well as to produce hydrogen for both aviation and chemical processes. They found the resulting demand for nearly every necessary mineral, including common ones such as copper, nickel, graphite, and lithium, would exceed not just existing and planned global production capabilities, but also known global reserves of those minerals.
A recent analysis by the Wood Mackenzie consultancy found that if EVs are to account for two-thirds of all new car purchases by 2030, dozens of new mines must be opened just to meet automotive demands—each mine the size of the world’s biggest in each category today. But 2030 is only eight years away and, as the IEA has reported, opening a new mine takes 16 years on average.
I didn’t find this article - someone on either the BRK or the METAR board did. But it startled me. Wish I could give that person credit.
I had long suspected that the aspects of supplying material for the transition from fossil fuels would be a challenge. However, before reading the article, I had not seen that quantified.
The article continues:
Despite these and similar analyses, many countries, and many US states, are now proposing to accelerate deployment of solar, wind, and battery technologies without clear plans for overcoming the material shortfalls. One study sponsored by the Dutch government offered a blunt statement of reality: “Exponential growth in [global] renewable energy production capacity is not possible with present-day technologies and annual metal production.”
The article goes on to basically dismiss recycling as a solution to these problems.
Point being, costs may go up going forward, not down.
The article concludes:
The material realities associated with solar, wind, and storage technologies do not obviate an expanded, or even a substantial, role for these energy systems. However, believing that such technologies make possible a rapid and wholesale replacement of fossil fuels ignores the underlying physics, engineering, and economics. Even more troublesome, putting so much effort and money into those technologies will lead the world down a path that won’t meet targets to reduce carbon dioxide emissions, but would cause massive collateral damage to economies and the environment. If Feynman were alive today, one suspects he would repeat another of his favored aphorisms: “For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for nature cannot be fooled.”
Worth a read and some deep thought.