Tag: cobalt

Fritz Vahrenholt: The expansion of renewable energies will fail due to the shortage of critical metals

The new German government is also sticking to the goal of climate neutrality in 2045. To achieve this, it relies on the 100% expansion of renewable energies for energy supply (apart from the planned 20 GW of gas-fired power plants with CO2 capture, which the federal government wants to allow to avert blackouts).
In my newsletters, I have repeatedly pointed out that the German way of energy supply, which is based almost exclusively on solar and wind energy

From KlimaNachrichten

As the chart above shows, the global mean temperature in May fell compared to the previous month. The deviation from the long-term average of satellite measurements is now 0.5 degrees Celsius. The decline in global temperatures is clearly visible, as they continue to decline towards the long-term average.
Today I want to deal with the unsatisfactory metal demand of the energy transition and the accelerated expansion of nuclear energy in the USA and China. Both are highly topical topics.

The expansion of renewable energies will fail due to the shortage of critical metals

The new German government is also sticking to the goal of climate neutrality in 2045. To achieve this, it relies on the 100% expansion of renewable energies for energy supply (apart from the planned 20 GW of gas-fired power plants with CO2 capture, which the federal government wants to allow to avert blackouts).
In my newsletters, I have repeatedly pointed out that the German way of energy supply, which is based almost exclusively on solar and wind energy, will fail for the following reasons:

1. The costs of the energy system due to the extremely expensive storage of the fluctuating electricity supply will multiply and lead to deindustrialization and massive losses of prosperity.
2. The tripling to fivefold increase in solar and wind energy will lead to the destruction of the landscape, the habitats of many animal species and to a change in meteorological conditions that is difficult to estimate.
3. A secured, frequency-stable power supply is not guaranteed. (see Spain blackout April 2025).

Through a publication by Simon Michaux of the Finnish Geological Survey, we have now been made aware of a fourth reason that leads this path of the energy transition ad absurdum:
The specific metals necessary for the installation of solar and wind turbines, cable trays, storage systems (batteries and hydrogen), e-vehicles and heat pumps, such as copper, nickel, lithium, cobalt, vanadium and graphite, are used according to Michaux will not be sufficiently available in the next 20 years. It is well known that the replacement of coal, oil and gas is only possible with a considerable amount of metals: A 6-MW wind turbine consists of 30-50 tons of copper and up to 300 kilograms of rare earths. An electric vehicle needs 10 kilograms of cobalt, 10 kilograms of nickel and 60-80 kilograms of copper, 4-5 times as much copper as a diesel or gasoline engine.
Michaux’s calculation is based on the fact that today only 4% of the world’s energy supply is covered by wind and solar energy, 11.2% by hydropower and nuclear energy and 84.7% by fossil energies. If the world were to follow Germany’s example and replace the 84.7% share of fossil fuels with wind and solar energy, an additional 6000 million tons of copper would be needed. The annual production of copper is 28 million tons. The demand for a 100% renewable energy supply corresponds to 200 times as much.
The following graph (source report, p. 242) puts the gigantic, additional consumption of critical metals in relation to the amount that can be extracted. Michaux assumes that not only the known reserves, but also unknown resources, such as seabed mining, are developed. In addition, Michaux expects the recycling volumes of the metals to increase. The case presented here, calculated by Michaux, requires an energy storage system for 28 days (battery/hydrogen) that can survive dark doldrums of 28 days.
The result: In all cases – from copper to vanadium – the demand for metals exceeds the estimated availability including new sources many times over. (see the following graphic)

One can only be glad that no nation in the world is following the German pioneering path of a 100% solar and wind energy transition, but like the USA and China, for example, wants to base a large part of the future energy supply on nuclear energy and fossil sources and only wants to cover a part of it with renewable energies.

But even if Germany goes it alone without nuclear energy and without fossil fuels, it will pose problems for the world: If you break down Michaux’s global figures to Germany, which has about 1.74% of the world’s primary energy consumption, 1.74% of 6000 million tons of copper will have to be used in Germany until the goal of climate neutrality in 2045 is achieved. That is then 104 million tons of copper in 20 years. This corresponds to 15% of world copper production over the next 20 years (about 700 million tons by 2040, see page 254). This amount would have to be reserved for Germany, which today consumes only about 4% of world production (about 1 million tons per year). It is certain that such an increase in demand will cause prices for the energy transition to rise additionally.
In addition, if the energy transition continues as before, we will have to knock very politely on the door of the Chinese, who have now secured almost 50% of the world’s copper production.

China dominates the world in 19 out of 20 critical raw materials

The International Energy Agency IEA’s Global Critical Minerals outlook 2025, published in May, revealed that China is the world’s dominant producer of critical metals and products, be it copper (45%), cobalt (80%), lithium (70%), graphite (95%) or rare earths (90%). (Source: IEA, 2025)

And China is making strong use of its monopoly position: the export restrictions are a tried and tested means in world trade and in the geopolitical debate. China has banned the export of the metals gallium, germanium and antimony to the USA in December 2024. A general export restriction for all countries was decreed in February 2025 for rare earths, graphite, tungsten, bismuth, indium, tellurium and molybdenum.

The last 5 years show that China is expanding its monopoly position (see next chart source IEA 2025). In copper, lithium, cobalt, graphite and rare earths, China has massively increased its world market share since 2020. This applies to wind turbines, solar systems, batteries, e-cars, electric motors and generators.

China will replace the US as the world’s largest nuclear power operator

On May 24, 2025, President Trump signed an executive order to accelerate nuclear power expansion in the United States. Electricity generation from nuclear energy is expected to quadruple from just under 100 gigawatts to 400 gigawatts by 2050. The U.S. has 95 operating nuclear power plants. In the last 40 years, only two nuclear power plants have been built. The last nuclear power plant Vogtle in Georgia had a licensing period of 15 years because the nuclear energy licensing authority NRC kept developing new requirements to prevent the expansion process. Therefore, the president has determined that the approval periods should only last 18 months. He has severely curtailed the rights of the NRC. Even 4th generation experimental power plants must be approved within 30 months. Interior Minister Dough Burgum said that if you want to win the race with China for artificial intelligence AI, you have to have enough reliable energy available. “What we do in terms of energy in the next 5 years will decide the next 50 years.”
But China has used the last 20 years to develop its own competitive power plants (Hualong – Chinese dragon) from imported nuclear power plants (e.g. from Westinghouse or Framatome). China has now built nuclear power plants with a capacity of 58 gigawatts and will have completed another 10 nuclear power plants in 2026. (a Chinese nuclear power plant has 1.1 gigawatts)
With 2.8 billion dollars for a nuclear power plant, China is building power plants that cost seven times as much in Europe or the USA. China’s plan is to produce more nuclear energy than the US as early as 2030. It is impossible that the West will be able to catch up with China’s lead in reactor construction, which is about 5-10 years.

In the shadow of the race between the US and China, all countries in Europe – except Germany and Austria – are now ready to build or consider new nuclear power plants in Europe, as even Denmark recently did. Former Danish Prime Minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen described an exclusion of nuclear power as “ridiculous”. “Wind and sun are good as long as you have wind and sun. But you need a non-fossil base load, and it is ridiculous to exclude nuclear power from the outset.”

Only the new German Environment Minister Carsten Schneider (SPD) has spoken out against supporting nuclear power plants at the European level as a sustainable solution to reduce CO2 emissions. There will be no classification as sustainable power plants with the SPD, Schneider said. In Germany, people like to import nuclear energy electricity in dark doldrums, but at the same time they dupe their neighbours because they think they know better. What did Prime Minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen say? “Ridiculous”. Can you contradict him on that?

Trump’s tariffs signal ‘new sheriff in town’ to China

When President Trump imposed tariffs in February, his decision was not received well by either the Chinese government or some in the Democrat party.

From CFACT

By Craig Rucker

When President Trump imposed tariffs in February, his decision was not received well by either the Chinese government or some in the Democrat party.

“This is not ‘America First,’” U.S. Rep. Shri Thanedar (D-Detroit) wrote on X. “Tariffs are bad for business.”

“If war is what the U.S. wants, be it a tariff war, a trade war or any other type of war, we’re ready to fight till the end,” proclaimed China’s embassy to the United States, also on X.

Such rants, I suppose, should not be unexpected. Fortunately, they will not likely deter this President. Nor should they.

The Chinese Communist Party is challenging the United States on many fronts, including militarily in the Pacific Ocean over Taiwan and control of what should be international shipping lanes. Little known to many, however, is that the Chinese government is also waging another campaign – on energy, transportation and environmental fronts – to also weaken our nation.

This can be seen, for example, in China’s near monopoly over the mining and processing of graphite, rare earth elements, cobalt, and other metals and minerals that are vital to our economic interests. It does this while still building 40-50 new coal-fired power plants annually for its own use.

China recently blocked exports of rare earths that have US military and civilian applications. It signaled it would do the same for additional commodities in the event of future tensions or conflicts.

The CCP uses its monopolies, low-cost energy, cheap and slave labor, and minimal to nonexistent environmental, workplace safety and pollution control rules to underprice competitors for sales of metals and minerals, transformers, wind turbines, solar panels and electric vehicles.

These hard realities should give President Trump all the authority he needs to advance tariffs.  But for those yet unconvinced, there’s still more reasons to be concerned.

Chinese companies have purchased thousands of acres of land near military bases, potentially enabling them to spy on those facilities. Other CCP actors, including students on American college campuses, have engaged in cyber theft of sensitive business, industrial, government, and defense data and information.

For decades, the CCP has been sending millions of dollars to U.S. universities and activist groups, to promote “green energy” – thereby spurring sales of Chinese wind, solar, battery and transformer equipment to America. It was a daring, devious, and all-too-successful tactic.

The Energy Foundation was launched in 1991 with grants from Pew, Rockefeller and MacArthur “charitable” foundations, which later established the Energy Foundation China, in Beijing. Today the China office is running the operation – calling itself simply the “Energy Foundation” and using the original US tax ID number, but with clear ties to the Chinese Communist Party.

The metamorphosed entity has become primarily a “pass-through” organization, which can receive anonymous donations (“dark money”) from American, Chinese and other secretive donors – and quietly send funds to universities and activist organizations around the USA, to influence policies, regulations, legislation and subsidies.

Its success can be measured by how thoroughly “climate alarmist” ideologies infected the Biden White House and Democrat Party. They helped advance programs to frighten people about “climate cataclysms,” eliminate fossil fuels, ban gas stoves and furnaces, and to transform US and Western economies to wind and solar power and electric vehicles – policies which weakened the American economy but advanced Chinese business interests.

Infinitely more alarming, however, is what former FBI Director Christopher Wray told “60 Minutes” in January: The Chinese government and military have “pre-positioned themselves” and inserted backdoor portals into nearly the entire critical American civilian infrastructure!

They are now able to simply “lie in wait on those networks,” ready at a moment’s notice to “wreak havoc” and “inflict real-world harm at a time and place of their choosing.” While Mr. Wray’s FBI was targeting people praying at abortion clinics and speaking up at school board meetings, the Chinese were setting themselves up to attack America’s “water treatment plants, transportation systems, energy sector, electric grid, natural gas pipelines,” major and neighborhood transformers, and other facilities.

Imagine the horrific implications. Amid roiling tensions or an actual war, China could render our water unsafe to drink, shut down our gas pipelines and electricity grid, disrupt subways and traffic lights, commandeer vehicles, interrupt food shipments – or merely threaten to do so … or hit just one city to give us a taste of what they are capable of.

Millions of lives would be at risk, and we could be powerless to stop them.

Little of this is new news. But the previous administration and Congress – like the electric utility, water and transportation sectors – have been grossly inadequate in their responses to the growing crisis.

Fortunately, times have changed.  While the tariffs may not impact these matters directly, they do send a message to the Chinese that the new sheriff in town is keeping an eye on them.  They best tread lightly.

This article originally appeared at NewsMax

Weakest link for EV’s is in China’s supply chain

Consequentially, China isn’t the only EV supply chain threat.

From CFACT

Federal and state energy policies, now pushing electric vehicles on a reluctant public, are running in conflict with other social and environmental restrictions banning vital materials and component imports.

As consequences, U.S. and European auto companies are racing into Chinese rare earth monopoly and other supply traps posing inevitable economic and national security threats.

American EV consumers who ride along will be left in a ditch along with dealers who lack essential inventory and profitable markets.

This is already occurring.

U.S. customs officials have seized thousands of German Volkswagens over a single part made in China’s Xinjiang region, believed to be in violation of the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act (UFLPA), which requires importers to provide evidence that their goods were not produced with forced labor in order to avoid penalties.

The German company is a joint venture partner with Chinese-owned SAIC Motors, which owns a factory in Xinjing’s capital, Urumqi.

Volkswagen was previously linked to such a violation when the German newspaper Handelsblatt reportedly obtained photographs showing Uyghur workers in military uniforms during the three-year construction of a car-testing track.

As reported in the Financial Times, U.S. authorities have also impounded and are investigating luxury brands produced by Porsche, Bentley, and Audi over suspected UFPLA violations involving electronic components, resulting in delivery delays of uncertain length.

A recent Human Rights Watch report has also warned that carmakers, including Tesla, General Motors, Volkswagen, and Toyota, are failing to ensure they aren’t using aluminum produced by Uyghur forced labor.

Aluminum is used extensively in EV manufacture as a mileage economy measure to compensate for heavy battery weight.

Whereas Tesla owns a factory in Shanghai that builds cars for both Chinese and international markets, they had reportedly tracked its supply chain back to the mining level without evidence of forced labor.

Then, factor in influences of new and existing environmental regulations influencing rare earth mining and processing for batteries, which represent a major EV cost

Biden administration’s anti-drilling and pro-EV policies have made America increasingly dependent on rare earth minerals mined for those batteries under atrocious slave labor and environmental conditions bureaucrats ignore.

China controls a stranglehold monopoly of about 80% of the global supply, with Congo a 90% source of vital cobalt.

As a consequence, Mountain Pass in California, the sole remaining operational U.S. rare earth mine that lost two years of production due to a 2016 bankruptcy, incredulously continues to send its mined ore to China for processing.

Expect those battery costs to escalate in concert with increased global demands for nickel — a primary component of lithium-ion cathodes — having already risen over six years from $10,336 per metric ton in August 2016 to $16,104 currently.

Purchasers should consider that, with a Tesla battery typically costing about $10,000, their resale price will likely have to be significantly higher than that of a comparably aged and sized internal combustion model in similar condition.

Also, expect that on the resale end, an average on-the-road 12-year-old used EV will be on its second or third new battery before an owner can sell it.

Ford, Toyota, Volkswagen, Honda, Nissan, and Subaru have meanwhile all had to adjust new model sales prices upward due to the scarcity of semiconductors, a supply condition that will only become more precarious if and when government-mandated EV numbers multiply.

Currently, despite huge auto investments and government subsidies, this isn’t happening.

As reported in The Wall Street Journal, in September of last year, it took retailers over two months to sell an EV, compared with around a month for gas-powered vehicles and only three weeks for a gas-electric hybrid.

Falling demand and rising prices have prompted Ford to cut previously planned 2024 production of its F-150 electric truck in half after losing $60,000 on each EV sold while also pausing construction of a $3.5 billion battery plant in Michigan.

Facing similar realities, General Motors has said it will delay opening a planned large EV truck factory in Michigan by a year, citing a need “to better manage capital investments while aligning with evolving EV demand”.

This slowdown and resulting industry business losses are occurring both despite and in addition to generous $7,500 federal tax credit subsidies offered as EV incentives to reluctant buyers and jacked-up costs for gasoline models consumers truly want to keep vehicle manufacturers financially afloat.

Consequentially, China isn’t the only EV supply chain threat.

A 2024 political climate change returning the presidency and Congress to Republican control will hopefully replace that EV subsidy supply chain with free market choices that will end the greatest threat of all — Biden and Beijing’s influence over what we buy and drive.

This article by Larry Bell originally appeared at NewsMax

More than 3,000 auto dealers sign letter opposing Biden’s electric vehicle mandate

Electric vehicles ‘are stacking up on our lots,’ car dealers write to Biden

https://www.foxbusiness.com/politics/3000-auto-dealers-sign-letter-opposing-bidens-electric-vehicle-mandate

By Thomas Catenacci

FOXBusiness

A coalition of more than 3,000 auto dealers nationwide is sending an open letter to President Biden, calling on him to “tap the brakes” on his administration’s aggressive electric vehicle (EV) push.

The coalition — which includes dealers located in all 50 states and who collectively sell every major car brand — is taking particular aim at the Biden administration’s tailpipe emissions standards released earlier this year which are the most aggressive federal regulations of their kind ever issued. Under the regulations proposed by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the majority of new vehicle purchases will be electric within a decade.

“These vehicles are ideal for many people, and we believe their appeal will grow over time,” the dealers wrote in their letter to Biden on Tuesday. “The reality, however, is that electric vehicle demand today is not keeping up with the large influx of BEVs [battery electric vehicles] arriving at our dealerships prompted by the current regulations. BEVs are stacking up on our lots.”

“Last year, there was a lot of hope and hype about EVs,” the letter continued. “Early adopters formed an initial line and were ready to buy these vehicles as soon as we had them to sell. But that enthusiasm has stalled. Today, the supply of unsold BEVs is surging, as they are not selling nearly as fast as they are arriving at our dealerships — even with deep price cuts, manufacturer incentives, and generous government incentives.”

They added that, while the goals of the EPA regulations are admirable, they are also “unrealistic based on current and forecasted customer demand.” The dealers further noted that the best indicator of customer demand in the auto marketplace is how EVs are stacking up in their lots.

The letter further noted that there are many issues facing the EV industry such as lacking charging infrastructure, energy grid instability and a lack of reliable mineral supplies vital for EV batteries.

“Mr. President, it is time to tap the brakes on the unrealistic government electric vehicle mandate. Allow time for the battery technology to advance. Allow time to make BEVs more affordable. Allow time to develop domestic sources for the minerals to make batteries,” the letter stated. 

“Allow time for the charging infrastructure to be built and prove reliable. And most of all, allow time for the American consumer to get comfortable with the technology and make the choice to buy an electric vehicle.”

According to the International Energy Agency (IEA), for example, China produces about 75% of all lithium-ion batteries, a key component of EVs, worldwide. The nation also boasts 70% of production capacity for cathodes and 85% for anodes, two key parts of such batteries.

In addition, more than 50% of lithium, cobalt and graphite processing and refining capacity is located in China, the IEA data showed. Those three critical minerals, in addition to copper and nickel, are vital for EV batteries and other green energy technologies. Chinese investment firms have also been aggressive in purchasing stakes in African mines in recent years to ensure a firm control over mineral production.

UK government drops support for controversial deep sea mining as it backs temporary pause

Greenpeace International activists paint the word ‘RISK!’ on the starboard side of Normand Energy, a vessel chartered by the Belgian company Global Sea Mineral Resources (GSR). The Rainbow Warrior is bearing witness to equipment tests carried out by GSR using the Patania II nodule collector, at approximately 4500 metres deep in the Clarion Clipperton Zone. The mining company is aiming to commercially extract minerals from the seabed in the future. The Greenpeace ship is in the Clarion Clipperton Zone in the Pacific to bear witness to the deep sea mining industry. Part of the ongoing ‘Protect the Oceans’ campaign.

Environmentalists have warned deep sea mining could be “catastrophic” for the vast and little understood habitat, which holds minerals needed for green technologies.

The UK has for the first time come out in support of a pause in highly controversial mining of the deep sea bed, having previously supported it, reports Sky News.

On Monday, the government added its name to a group of countries seeking a moratorium on new licences to exploit minerals such as lithium, copper and cobalt – vital for green energy – from the deep sea.

The environment department said the precautionary pause is designed to protect the world’s ocean from such projects, which involve heavy machinery scraping deposits from the world’s largest habitat, until more evidence on the impact is available.

It said it would establish a new UK-based network of experts to collect further scientific data.

Components of a subsea mining machine pictured in 2014

Environment Secretary Therese Coffey said the UK will use “our scientific expertise to fully understand the impact of deep sea mining on precious ecosystems; and in the meantime, we will not support or sponsor any exploitation licences”.

The announcement comes as negotiations at the United Nations regulator, the International Seabed Authority, start on Monday, and take place one month before the COP28 climate talks commence in Dubai in December.

Previously, Prime Minister Rishi Sunak’s government had been in favour of exploratory licences, a position criticised by Labour and dozens of scientists.

Other than from a few small tests, no commercial mining has happened at scale yet, and campaigners say it will be extremely destructive, with full environmental impacts hard to predict.

But deep sea mining is regarded as a potential solution to the expected global shortage of raw materials considered critical to a greener energy future, and used in things like batteries and renewable power.

It is also seen as a way to reduce dependence on the relatively few countries that hold deposits on land, including China, Australia, Russia, South Africa and Zimbabwe.

Read the fullreport here.

Copper, “The New Oil”?

Critical materials for energy: aluminum, cobalt, copper, dysprosium, electrical steel, fluorine, gallium, iridium, lithium, magnesium, natural graphite, neodymium, nickel, platinum, praseodymium, silicon, silicon carbide and terbium.

From Watts Up With That?

Guest “There’s copper in them thar hills” by David Middleton

Copper Is Critical for America’s New Energy Economy

By Andy Kireta, Jr.
October 18, 2023

The U.S. Department of Energy’s (DOE) new designation of copper as a critical material follows the lead of the EU, China, Japan, and others in labeling the metal as critical – and shows copper is on the cusp of a generational shift from an everyday material to a geopolitically significant commodity.

This new strategic importance stems from copper’s criticality to a wide range of clean and renewable energy technologies, such as waste heat recovery and electric vehicles, which can reduce global GHG emissions by two-thirds. As a result, experts estimate copper demand is set to double between 2035 and 2050 as industries work to meet their climate goals.

It is no wonder, then, that some are referring to copper as “the new oil.” 

[…]

The shift from a global economy built entirely on oil to a digitized and electrified future, with copper at its foundation, has already begun. If Washington wants the U.S. to lead this global shift, it must recognize copper as a critical material for the nation’s future economic and national security.

Andy Kireta, Jr., is the President and CEO of the Copper Development Association and the North American Regional Director of the International Copper Association. RealClearEnergy

The notion that we are transitioning from fossil fuels to an electrified future is nonsense. However, technological advances and government policies are increasing the demand for many mineral resources. This is having an effect on the mineral resource criticality matrix. Non-critical mineral resources are shifting towards becoming critical materials.

U.S. Department of Energy, Critical Materials Assessment 2023

Critical Materials

The Energy Act of 2020 defines a “critical material” as:

  • Any non-fuel mineral, element, substance, or material that the Secretary of Energy determines: (i) has a high risk of supply chain disruption; and (ii) serves an essential function in one or more energy technologies, including technologies that produce, transmit, store, and conserve energy; or
  • A critical mineral, as defined by the Secretary of the Interior.

The Energy Act of 2020 defines a “critical mineral” as:

  • Any mineral, element, substance, or material designated as critical by the Secretary of the Interior, acting through the Director of the U.S. Geological Survey.

US Department of Energy

The US DOE’s 2023 critical materials report is an odd combination of wishful thinking and reality checks.

Wishful Thinking

Executive Summary

The global effort to curb carbon emissions is accelerating demand for clean energy technologies and the materials they rely on. Demand for these materials will only continue to grow, especially as some nations aim to achieve net-zero emissions by 2050. While some major materials like steel, copper, and aluminum are already powering the fossil fuel economy, others are more minor materials with potential supply risks. These risks could jeopardize the ability to reduce greenhouse gas emissions within the desirable timeframe to avoid significant climate change. In some cases, it may be necessary to take action to improve the resilience of these material supply chains and mitigate supply risks. Understanding the importance of individual materials to clean energy and the supply risks associated with them is necessary to identifying which materials may serve as potential roadblocks to a clean energy future.

[…]U.S. Department of Energy, Critical Materials Assessment 2023

Pretty well all of the assessed individual materials face roadblocks, irrespective of the government’s clean energy wishes.

Reality Checks

The report assesses the supply of critical materials under four scenarios:

Demand trajectories were developed for each material that passed the screening in Chapter 3. For each material, four trajectories were developed using high and low market penetration and material intensity assumptions for different energy technologies/applications, shown in Table 4.1. The goal of these trajectories is not to predict the future, but to outline various possibilities of material demand that can inform RD&D strategies.U.S. Department of Energy, Critical Materials Assessment 2023

U.S. Department of Energy, Critical Materials Assessment 2023

DOE forecasts that the demand for copper for uses other than energy (gray curve) will exceed current production by 2035. They forecast that copper demand will exceed current production capacity by the end of this decade.

DOE forecasts that cobalt demand will exceed production capacity by 2025 in three of the four trajectories. Cobalt is a key ingredient in long-range electric vehicle batteries.

The comma in 50,0000 is obviously misplaced; it should be 500,000. U.S. Department of Energy, Critical Materials Assessment 2023

The demand for almost all of the assessed materials quickly exceeds production capacity in almost all of the scenarios.

You Can’t Get There From Here

Identified world terrestrial cobalt resources are about 25 million tons. The vast majority of these resources are in sediment-hosted stratiform copper deposits in Congo (Kinshasa) and Zambia; nickel-bearing laterite deposits in Australia and nearby island countries and Cuba; and magmatic nickel-copper sulfide deposits hosted in mafic and ultramafic rocks in Australia, Canada, Russia, and the United States. More than 120 million tons of cobalt resources have been identified in polymetallic nodules and crusts on the floor of the Atlantic, Indian, and Pacific Oceans.USGS

The USGS estimates the current global cobalt reserves to be 8,300,000 tonnes. Trajectory D would burn through the global cobalt reserves by the end of this decade. At the 2035 rate of 2,700,000 tonnes/year, Trajectory D would eat up the entire terrestrial resource in less than a decade.

Reserves vs Resources (BGS)

Who’s up for Deep-Sea Mining?

Although the nodules appear in various places around the deep ocean, the primary target of potential mining is the Pacific’s Clarion-Clipperton Zone (CCZ), a 5,000-kilometer stretch of seafloor between Hawaii and California that extends 4,000–5,500 meters deep. The CCZ hosts trillions of mineral-rich nodules.

The Clarion-Clipperton Zone spans approximately 4,500,000 square kilometers. Credit: Horizon, CC BY 4.0

Reaching the nodules involves a three-stage process: First, a support ship lowers a remotely operated vehicle to the seafloor. Next, the vehicle—like a Roomba vacuum for seafloor mining—drives around through the soft sediments scooping up nodules. Last, a large pipe sucks the nodules to the ship above. Cobalt, copper, iron, manganese, and nickel can then be extracted from the nodules during onshore processing and refining.

A dozen European and Asian countries and several island nations have sponsored companies for exploration permits so far. The United States cannot apply for permitting through ISA because it has not ratified the treaty that presides over it, the U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea. However, a subsidiary of the U.K. arm of the American company Lockheed Martin, UK Seabed Resources, has two permits for exploratory mining.

No need to worry about environmental issues… Wink, wink, nudge, nudge. I wonder how many opponents of offshore oil & gas drilling will be all for deep-sea mining?

Are You Psyched Up for Asteroid Mining?

Opportunities in Asteroid Mining

Generally, asteroid mining remains hypothetical, mostly because of its exorbitant cost. While specific estimates of the cost of commercial mining remain unclear, similarities can be drawn between such programs and NASA’s OSIRIS-REx mission, which seeks to obtain samples from a near-earth asteroid named Bennu. Despite only being projected to return between 400 grams and 1 kilogram of material, the mission is projected to take 7 years and cost over US$1 billion. Planetary Resources and Deep Space Industries were unable to finance themselves to meet such high development costs. Both companies were acquired by other businesses in 2018 and 2019, respectively.

Despite the high price tag, the development of asteroid mining technology may very well be a worthwhile endeavor due to the extremely valuable resources that asteroids have to offer. For example, Asterank, which measures the potential value of over 6,000 asteroids that NASA currently tracks, has determined that mining just the top 10 most cost-effective asteroids–that is, those that are both closest to Earth and greatest in value–would produce a profit of around US$1.5 trillion. There is also great potential for further expansion. One asteroid, 16 Psyche, has been reported to contain US$700 quintillion worth of gold, enough for every person on earth to receive about US$93 billion.Harvard International Review

Maybe the Psyche mission will save the day. Although, recent work indicates that the mineral treasure trove might be less than originally thought.

Better start rounding up the world’s best deep core drillers.

Meet the New Oil, Same as the Old Oil

Texas Sees Host of Oil and Gas Records

by Andreas Exarheas

|

Rigzone Staff

|

Wednesday, October 18, 2023

Texas has seen a host of oil and gas related records recently, the Texas Oil & Gas Association’s (TXOGA) latest monthly energy economic analysis, which is prepared by the organization’s Chief Economist Dean Foreman, pointed out.

In the analysis, TXOGA estimated that, for the month of September, Texas saw its highest crude oil production rate ever, at 5.9 million barrels per day, and its highest natural gas production gross withdrawal figure ever, at 34.6 billion cubic feet per day.

[…]Rigzone

Frac On Dudes!

References

Cobalt – USGS Publications Warehouse. (n.d.). https://pubs.usgs.gov/periodicals/mcs2023/mcs2023-cobalt.pdf

Duncombe, J. (2022), The 2-year countdown to deep-sea mining, Eos, 103, https://doi.org/10.1029/2022EO220040. Published on 24 January 2022.

Kireta, A. (2023, October 18). Copper Is Critical for America’s New Energy Economy. RealClearEnergy. https://www.realclearenergy.org/articles/2023/10/18/doe_is_right_copper_is_critical_for_americas_new_energy_economy_986948.html

U.S. Department of Energy, Critical Materials Assessment (2023). Retrieved October 19, 2023, from https://www.energy.gov/sites/default/files/2023-07/doe-critical-material-assessment_07312023.pdf.

Yarlagadda, S. (2022, April 8). Economics of the Stars: The future of asteroid mining and the global economy. Harvard International Review. https://hir.harvard.edu/economics-of-the-stars/

Carnage of Child Labor and Ecological Destruction “Elsewhere” acceptable to Wealthy Countries

Global cobalt demand soared with the advent of cell phones and laptop computers. Cobalt improves battery performance, extends driving range and reduces fire risks. Now, cobalt, lithium, and other materials are exploding with the arrival of electric vehicles in tandem with government EV mandates and subsidies.


From Watts Up With That?

Wealthy countries’ actions, to meet their emission goals, show little concern for the humanity atrocities and the environment degradation in “other” countries.

Published August 19, 2023, at the Heartland Institute https://heartland.org/opinion/carnage-of-child-labor-and-ecological-destruction-elsewhere-acceptable-to-wealthy-countries/

Ronald Stein  is an engineer, senior policy advisor on energy literacy for the Heartland Institute and CFACT, and co-author of the Pulitzer Prize nominated book “Clean Energy Exploitations.”

Global cobalt demand soared with the advent of cell phones and laptop computers. Cobalt improves battery performance, extends driving range and reduces fire risks. Now, cobalt, lithium, and other materials are exploding with the arrival of electric vehicles in tandem with government EV mandates and subsidies.

All that electrical transformation equipment will require billions of tons of cobalt, lithium, copper, nickel, graphite, iron, aluminum, rare earths, and other raw materials at scales unprecedented in human history. That will necessitate mining, ore processing, manufacturing, land disruption and pollution at equally unprecedented levels.

The Administration is laser-focused on ending the “climate crisis” by switching to “clean” electricity. It has few qualms about importing the critically needed materials from foreign countries, primarily China – regardless of economic, defense, national security, ecological or human rights implications. It just wants the dirty aspects of “clean” electricity far away and out of sight.

Cobalt mining involves unimaginable horrors that are never discussed by environmentalists nor by government leaders. However, the Biden Administration opposes mining in the United States even under stringent US pollution, workplace safety and mined-land reclamation regulations.

An educational and entertaining  45-minute discussion between Stu Turley of Sandstone Media’s Energy News Beat and Ronald Stein about “Clean Energy Exploitations” brings transparency to the humanity exploitations and environmental degradation in the developing countries that are mining for the exotic minerals and metals required to create the batteries needed to store “green electricity”.  Just a few minutes into the video I provide an explanation of the exploitations that should be considered in the buying process for an EV that should be viewed by all environmentalists and government leaders.

In California, Governor Gavin Newsom has been vocal about his commitment to reducing greenhouse gas emissions in the state. However, some of his recent actions of “leaking” emissions to other countries violate many sections of the written legal framework of The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and California Global Warming Solutions Act (AB32).

We hear much about reparations for descendants of American slaves, but little about reparations for Native Americans, and zilch about compensating these modern-day slaves in developing countries like those in the Democratic Republic of Congo in Africa that holds 72 percent of the world’s known supplies of cobalt.

The silence is deafening from billionaires like Bill Gates, John Kerry, Mark Zuckerberg, George Soros, Michael Bloomberg, and President Biden. Through the encouragement of tax incentives and subsidies to go to EV’s and electricity from wind and solar, they are providing financial incentives to China, who already controls the supply chain for the minerals and metals to go green, furthering our total dependence on China to achieve the green goals of America.

With demographics of EV owners predominantly middle-aged white men earning more than $100,000 per year, Social Security shows that the national average wage index for 2021 is only $60,575 ($40,000 less than the average EV owner). US News recently reported that more than 60 percent of adults are living from paycheck to paycheck and that 48 percent of Americans with annual incomes over $100,000 are also living paycheck to paycheck. As U.S. consumers struggle to afford their day-to-day lifestyle, many are relying on credit cards or dipping into savings, making them financially vulnerable.

Besides the affordability of ANY new car, ICE or EV, is it ethical and morally responsible to purchase an EV knowing where the supply chain of EV battery materials originates?

Those that are less fortunate in poorer developing countries are the ones mining for exotic minerals and metals to support the movement in wealthy countries to EV’s and intermittent electricity from wind and solar.

The wealthy country elites continue to demonstrate their lack of ethical, moral, and social responsibilities, by using subsidies that encourage the continued exploitations of people with yellow, brown, and black skin and the environmental degradation occurring “elsewhere”, out of view of those living in wealthy countries.

Ronald Stein, P.E.

Ambassador for Energy & Infrastructure

Energy Literacy website           

Ronald Stein (energy consultant) Wikipedia page

Cobalt Carnage, Child Labor and Ecological Destruction

Global cobalt demand soared with the advent of cell phones and laptop computers. It exploded with the arrival of electric vehicles and now is skyrocketing in tandem with government EV mandates and subsidies. Cobalt improves battery performance, extends driving range and reduces fire risks.

From Watts Up With That?

Horrific for cell phones, worse for electric vehicles, calamitous under Net Zero

Paul Driessen

Global cobalt demand soared with the advent of cell phones and laptop computers. It exploded with the arrival of electric vehicles and now is skyrocketing in tandem with government EV mandates and subsidies. Cobalt improves battery performance, extends driving range and reduces fire risks.

Demand will reach stratospheric heights if governments remain obsessed with climate change and Net Zero. States and nations would have to switch to electric cars, trucks, buses and tractors; end coal and gas electricity generation; convert gas furnaces, water heaters and stoves to electricity; and provide alternative power for windless, sunless periods. Electricity generation would triple or quadruple.

Weather-dependent Weather-dependent wind turbines and solar panels would require billions of battery modules, to stabilize power grids and avoid blackouts every time wind and sunshine don’t cooperate. and solar panels would require billions of battery modules, to stabilize power grids and avoid blackouts every time wind and sunshine don’t cooperate.

All that Net Zero transformation equipment – plus transmission lines, substations and transformers – will require billions of tons of cobalt, lithium, copper, nickel, graphite, iron, aluminum, rare earths and other raw materials at scales unprecedented in human history. That will necessitate mining, ore processing, manufacturing, land disruption and pollution at equally unprecedented levels.

Just President Biden’s first tranche of US offshore wind turbines (30,000 megawatts by 2030) will require some 110,000 tons of copper, for the turbines alone. Transmission lines, transformers and batteries are extra. Based on average global ore concentrations, getting that copper would require extracting 40,000,000 tons of surface rock (overburden) and 25,000,000 tons of copper ore.

But those 2,500 12-megawatt 800-foot-tall turbines would provide barely enough electricity to power New York state on a hot summer day, if the wind is blowing, and before its Net Zero mandates kick in.

However, the Biden Administration opposes mining in the United States – even for essential Net Zero materials; even under stringent US pollution, workplace safety and mined-land reclamation regulations. The President’s horse-blindered Secretary of the Interior has vetoed mining for materials in Alaska, Minnesota and almost anywhere critical metals and minerals might be found.

The Administration is laser-focused on ending the “climate crisis” by switching to “clean” energy. It has few qualms about importing the critically needed materials from foreign countries, primarily China – regardless of economic, defense, national security, ecological or human rights implications. It just wants the dirty aspects of “clean” energy far away and out of sight.

Cobalt mining involves unimaginable horrors. Cobalt Red, by Nottingham University associate professor of modern slavery Siddharth Kara, exposes the excruciating realities that Stop Oil and Net Zero campaigners strive to keep buried – along with the bodies of parents and children killed in cave-ins or dying slowly and painfully after being maimed or poisoned in cobalt mines.

Professor Kara took multiple trips to the Democratic Republic of Congo, risking his health and life to document conditions for desperate Africans in a region that holds 72% of the world’s known supplies of cobalt. He estimates that 70% of this cobalt (half the world’s entire supply) involves some measure of child labor, while much of the rest involves near-slave labor.

The DRC’s once-verdant southeastern corner hosts the largest, most accessible, highest grade cobalt ore deposits known on Earth. For EV buyers, Net Zero aficionados, and corporate and government elites, the land is blessed with cobalt interspersed with copper, other Net Zero metals, uranium, chromium, gold and silver. For those toiling at the bottom of the Congo food chain, the land is cursed with those metals.

In DRC mines, “labor is valued by the penny, life hardly at all,” Kara says. Miners in its big industrial mines get somewhat decent working conditions, medical care and pay (perhaps $10 per day).

But almost one-third of Congo cobalt is gouged from the earth by artisanal miners: men and women, and boys and girls as young as six. They and their families live and work in a treeless “hellscape of craters and tunnels patrolled by maniacs with guns.”

Noxious clouds of gas permeate air that even infants must breathe. Families fish, play and bathe in – and drink from – rivers and lakes contaminated with metals and industrial chemicals.

They labor ten to twelve hours a day in sweltering heat and toxic mud, water and dust, in enormous pits hundreds of feet deep – hacking at rocky walls and in long, narrow tunnels that collapse with frightening frequency. Injured miners may get initial medical care; then nothing.

In some areas, their clothing and skin are covered with mustard-colored dust – dried sulfuric acid from processing the ores. Almost everywhere, breast, kidney and lung cancers are rising, because adults, children and babies are exposed constantly to heavy metals and uranium in everything around them. High lead levels cause permanent neurological damage.

15-year-old Muteba hobbled on crutches, his shattered, mangled legs dangling below his skinny waist. He was the only survivor from a cave-in that buried his brother and six others alive. 16-year-old Makano fell into a pit, broke and gashed his leg and hip, and was left with a festering, infected wound that desperately required antibiotics and medical attention he was unlikely to receive.

There are thousands more like them – maimed, paralyzed, disfigured or dead.

“Fair living” wages? Male artisanal miners receive around $2-4 a day – for output that might reach two 90-pound (40-kilogram) sacks of heterogenite cobalt ore. Women and children are typically paid half that, regardless of how much they produce or the purity of the ore they mine.

Those who disobey mine overseers can get “locked in a shipping container with no food or water for up to two days.” At Kanina, two boys who tried to get more than the usual pittance for their 65-pound bags of ore were gunned down – murdered – by security guards.

“Here it is better not to be born,” a mother lamented. A miner reflected, “Here we work in our graves.” Of course we fear the dangers, said another, “but if we do not work, we do not eat.”

And still mining, tech and EV companies, ESG investment firms, politicians and climate zealots tell us they require and ensure “responsible sourcing” of Net Zero supply chains, good wages, safe working environments, and prevention of child labor and slavery. What indifferent, self-serving fraud.

No DRC buyer knows or cares where a quantity of cobalt ore came from, under what conditions it was mined, or whether children dug it out. The entire marketplace is designed to collect and mix ores from formal industrial mines and legal or illegal artisanal operations – making it impossible to trace sources or tell whether child slaves or brutal militias were involved.

At least one marketplace is a remote night operation that can have no other purpose “than to launder artisanally mined cobalt into the formal supply chain completely our of view.” Every mixed load of ore is then thrown into acid baths for initial processing – before being sent out of country, mostly to China.

We hear much about reparations for descendants of American slaves – but little about reparations for Native Americans, and zilch about compensating these modern-day slaves.

Nor do we hear from billionaires like Bill Gates, John Kerry, Mark Zuckerberg, George Soros and Michael Bloomberg. They lavishly fund “climate crisis” and “clean energy” campaigns. Have they spent one dime bringing decent wages, working conditions, living standards and medical care to Congo’s miners?

These human rights issues should top their charitable giving – and the agenda for anyone promoting the climate crisis, ESG, Net Zero and batteries, especially President Biden, Senator Sheldon Whitehouse and UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres.

Paul Driessen is senior policy advisor for the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow (www.CFACT.org) and author of books and articles on energy, climate change, environmental policy and human rights.

Mining Of Cobalt for Electric Vehicle Batteries: THE SOCIAL IMPACTS

Of these, the mining and processing of cobalt has attracted the most recent media attention because of the adverse social and environmental impacts. The purpose of this article is to shed more light on the nature of the social impacts.

From Friends of Science Calgary

Contributed by Robert Lyman © 2023. Robert Lyman’s bio can be read here.

Inside practically every electric vehicle (EV) is a lithium-ion battery that depends upon several key minerals to help power it. Typically, these include nickel, graphite, aluminum, copper, steel, lithium, cobalt, and manganese. Of these, the mining and processing of cobalt has attracted the most recent media attention because of the adverse social and environmental impacts. The purpose of this article is to shed more light on the nature of the social impacts.

The typical EV battery needs 6-12 kilograms of cobalt. The majority of the cobalt that is extracted in the world is a by-product of existing copper mines. Four fifths of the existing cobalt reserves are located in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC), and it is by far the largest producer. Most of the cobalt production in the DRC is from deep, highly mechanized mines. However, about 15% of the world production comes from “artisanal” and small-scale mining (ASM). In the latter, labourers work with primitive tools like picks, shovels, and buckets. The mining and refining processes are labour-intensive and associated with a variety of health problems due to accidents, overheating, overexertion (lifting of heavy loads), dust inhalation, exposure to toxic chemicals and gases, poor sanitation and violence.

Cobalt production from artisanal mining in the DRC exceeds that from industrial mining in any other country. While in theory there are legal differences between industrial and artisanal mining supplies, in reality the boundary between the two remains quite blurry. Companies mix the two sources together as part of their supply chains prior to processing.

Artisanal mining is not new; it has been going on for decades. While data are poorly collected, it is currently estimated that between 140,000 and 200,000 people work as artisanal miners in the DRC. According to the U.S. Department of Labor, at least 25,000 and perhaps as many as 40,000 children are working in artisanal cobalt mines in the DRC, a number that is sure to grow as the production of electric cars increases.

The adverse conditions in the artisanal mines also affect the women who work in them. The Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom in 2016 published a report on the working conditions these women face. The women work under difficult conditions for eight to ten hours per day. They experience “immeasurable” fatigue. The work is highly liable to lead to cancer in the future and to malformations in their offspring. Most of them work barefoot. Most of them suffer from menstrual disruption and are victims of miscarriages . Most of them have vaginal yeast infections. The report offers a sad picture of the lack of adequate shelter in one area.

“On both sites, there are makeshift houses consisting of huts made from tree branches, without any conveniences, that do not protect the population against bad weather. These huts do not have any sanitation whatsoever. These sites do not have a health centre or medical staff. Injured and sick people and pregnant women have to travel long distances in difficult conditions to reach a treatment centre.”

The reasons people work in these conditions are largely economic. Most artisanal miners in the DRC earn less than US $10 per day. While that is low compared to incomes in the OECD countries, it is considerably more than most earners in the DRC, who are living on an estimated US $1.90 per day. According to the World Bank, ASM is “indispensable” and “the most important non-farm activity in the developing world”.

Yet, the social costs are extraordinary. Siddharth Kara, a UK-based expert on modern slavery and senior fellow at the Harvard School of Public Health, recently published a book entitled Cobalt Red. Based on her research, “The destruction caused by cobalt mining in the name of renewable energy is without contemporary parallel”. She writes:

“We shouldn’t be transitioning to the use of electric vehicles at the cost of the people and environment of one of the most downtrodden and impoverished corners of the world,” he says. “The bottom of the supply chain, where almost all the world’s cobalt is coming from, is a horror show.”

Before one begins to blame western mining companies for these practices, it is best to be reminded of the role played by Chinese companies, owned and controlled by the government of China, in the cobalt supply chain. They dominate it, from extraction of the mineral at mine sites in the DRC to smelters and refiners. Fifteen of the 19 cobalt-producing mines in the DRC were owned or financed by Chinese companies in 2020, according to the New York Times. Two-thirds of the world’s cobalt production is processed in China. Miners complain that the Chinese impose the price as they see fit, keeping it low to supply Chinese industry. As in many other areas, China is the primary beneficiary of the climate policy decisions made in OECD countries.

The Expensive Impossibility of Green Hydrogen From Part-Time Wind and Solar

These hydrogen jobs will last only as long as the subsidies do.

From Real Clear Energy

By Frank Lasee

There has been some new thinking from the anti-CO2 religionists. The fact that the world is desperately short of lithium and

for electric vehicle batteries, at the scale they want to force, is dawning on them. There isn’t enough and likely will not be enough in the coming decades to meet the electric batteries demand. Certainly not enough for grid scale electric batteries too.  

The climate alarmists haven’t let the facts get in the way of their unrealistic green fantasy of averting climate doom with part-time wind and solar. That it could somehow replace all the coal, oil, and natural gas we use, which provide us with 80% of our energy.  

Except one huge, huge problem. Wind and solar produce little or no energy 70% of the time.  

Reliable, full-time, on demand electricity keeps the heat going and the lights on when it is dark, and the wind is not blowing. The new expensive, impractical, and impossible federal $9.5 billion hydrogen subsidies talking point is wasted spending.  

Green hydrogen made from wind and solar is not practical and is a very expensive form of energy storage and transport.  

Hydrogen is not a fuel. Hydrogen must be created; it must be made from another energy source, just as electricity must be made from other energy.  

No one is making green hydrogen at scale because it is difficult, expensive and requires major factories. Spoiler alert, there isn’t excess “green” energy – wind and solar – to make hydrogen with. 

Green hydrogen requires 13 times more water than hydrogen produced. Sea water must be desalinated first for an added cost. More water is needed for cooling. So, it is a good idea to locate hydrogen facilities near abundant water, not in the chronically short of water western U.S.  

Then the water must be heated to 2,000 degrees and electrocuted. Then the hydrogen must be super chilled to near absolute zero. Then it’s compressed to 10,000 psi, three times the psi of an average scuba tank. Then you have usable hydrogen- liquid, super- cold, compressed hydrogen. This is an expensive energy-intensive process. 

The insurmountable problem with this process is that it cannot be turned on an hour after sunrise and an hour before sunset when solar panels provide the electricity. Or turned on when the wind blows and turned off when the wind stops.  

Without some other energy storage device to store the “over-produced” wind and solar electricity, making green hydrogen is impossible. The costs of over-building wind and solar, then adding batteries to provide a steady stream of 24/7 electricity to make “green” hydrogen is astronomical. And in 25 years when the wind towers and solar panels wear out, or when the batteries need to be replaced every 10 years, you need to essentially start over. 

Green hydrogen sounds good. And there is a well-funded industry of selling it and obscuring the truth. They have to cover up the facts and mislead people in order for the government and investor gravy train to keep them in business.  

Don’t fall for the green or the pink hydrogen hype. It just doesn’t make sense. Apply a little common sense and critical thinking and you will join me in opposing this waste of money.  

The hydrogen lobby duped congress to provide $9.5 billion for hydrogen hubs. Even red states who know this is a boondoggle are attempting to land this federal largesse. 

Because it will create jobs with borrowed taxpayer money. I remind you that the US is $31 trillion in debt, with estimates it will balloon to over $50 trillion over the next decade.  

These hydrogen jobs will last only as long as the subsidies do. Then like the Obama U.S. solar revolution, they will go bankrupt.  

Frank Lasee is a former Wisconsin state senator and former member of Governor Scott Walker’s administration. The district he represented had two nuclear power plants, a biomass plant and numerous wind towers. He has experience with energy, the environment, and the climate. You can read more energy and climate information at www.truthinenergyandclimate.com which Frank leads.