I live in Canada and we are just starting to get into this mineral production. I feel like we dropped the ball a decade ago and doubled down on oil rather than investing in mining development. Now we’re so far behind countries like Australia and we’re scrambling to catch up.
same here in Germany and in many countries of the world, Fossil Nuclear Propaganda at its best the last fifty Years, but now china is on track and sells the oil of the next gen, PV panels, battery, Wind Power, Electric Cars and so on and so on.... now the can not stop it anymore...
@@FJStraußinger It's not propaganda. No hydrocarbons means no more civilization. Global warming is easily debunked nonsense and wind turbines and photo cells never generate enough energy in their entire lifetimes to make up for the energy they took to make. That so many big brains can't see through this shows how cult like humans are.
The O&G industry has huge influence over Canada, via AB and both provincial and federal conservative governments (at least since the Reform party's inception)
No, actually, in the 70s, we were one of the largest cobalt suppliers for cancer treatment, but it was too environmentally damaging so we shut it down. Now we don't care if we destroy the planet as long as we feel good about it!
The difference in strategic risk between minerals and fossil fuels is that if prices spike you don't need to buy. OPEC controls the world oil price and can send inflationary shockwaves around the world, and yet here we are saying "better be cautious about China processing those minerals".
Thank you for a fact based explanation of the situation. If we could get everyone on board with what needs to happen rather than exploiting people’s ignorance for power games it would be a huge step to solving these very manageable challenges. Appreciate your videos.
Very good, even handed and accurate presentation. One thing worth mentioning: the real concern about lanthanides (the real "rare earths") is their MILITARY applications, not their cleantech applications which all have substitutes. Furthermore, getting rid of fossil mining (or at least reducing petroleum mining greatly, eliminating coal mining and nearly eliminating gas mining) will dramatically reduce how much actual mining goes on here on earth. The transition not only allows substitution that the fossil fuel paradigm fundamentally was incapable of, but also will result in less mining and a near elimination of resource destruction- all the cleantech applications of "critical minerals" allow recycling- they don't dump the product into the atmosphere at end of life.
I've got one coming up on mining in general and how to make it zero emissions. It's crazy to me that we keep hearing how the energy transition will require six times as much mining... That's true for minerals but conveniently leaves out that HALF of all mining today is for fuels! So far less mining overall and as you point out that's only in the short term. In the longer term there should be very little as recycling takes over from extraction.
@@EngineeringwithRosieWould love to hear how remote mines get electricity. How feasible is it to connect them to the grid? Or use renewables and storage? How much is dirty diesel generators? 🤮
Heron Fundamentally the U.S. needs fossil fuel and if the U.S. needs it so do all western nations. The U.S. declared bankruptcy in 1971. Then the U.S. dollar was saved as a global reserve currency because oil became priced in dollars. If the west ends oil then opec will join the BRICs and sell oil priced in yuan. You’re effectively destroying the ability of the U.S. to offshore inflation. If you stop oil you end the ability of endless government growth or endless war and bank bailouts. Even Canada or Australia won’t give up their bank power to bailout their banks or prop up their real estate. Wake up and smell reality.
@@hansverbeek822, you can either invest your energy in something that gets you long-term energy or you can invest it in getting one-time energy. The fact that you need energy to do anything is not in dispute, but the idea that you can't electrify extractive processes is both wrong in itself and a terrible reason to not invest in better energy.
@@johncrofford: I'm not saying that it is impossible to electrify mining and transport. I'm am just noticing that it will be a huge and difficult enterprise and we have barely started with it. In my opinion we won't get very far. You are entitled to a different opinion
@@hansverbeek822, I don't think it will be that bad. Electric motors are powerful, battery chemistries are consistently advancing, and we aren't limited to electrifying the vehicle and equipment shapes of today if another form factor fits the power/weight ratio of electric mining tools/vehicles better. If you are involved in the mining industry, maybe you can set me straight, but it seems to me that electric would be great for mining because it doesn't generate fumes in tight spaces underground and mines are (relatively) static places so you can build infrastructure. And as for mining-related transport, we can electrify trains relatively easily and having rail sidings at mines seems like a no-brainer if they are moving a lot of materials and equipment. You are entitled to your opinion, but I'm not sure why you are so sure that we won't be able to replicate things that we have already done once with a different power source.
Another excellent video Rosie. A couple of points came to mind, it never hurts to point out that a significant user of Cobalt is in production of Diesel, which is more than a tad ironic. You could add to the list of things Tesla is doing as they are building a Lithium refinery in Texas to further onshore. Sandy Munroe said in a video he did that he had been hired by Valle to improve the air filtration at a mine because although the standard was sufficient for the government, Tesla insisted on higher standard from it's suppliers.
@@lylestavast7652 Do you know if that has changed or looks to change with Na and LiFePo batteries now being sold in end products? When/where were your stats from?
@@PinataOblongata I looked this up a while ago and lylestavast's numbers look about right. I think I got 7% for catalysts and related uses, but it mostly depends exactly what you include. The IEA say 30% 'EVs+storage', 70% everything else, in 2020. Benchmark say batteries went from 38% of lithium demand to 85% between 2016 and 2023 so things are changing fast and checking the date on any stats is important. They also say total production will grow 30% by 2026 and 90% of that will end up in batteries. So all the 'other' uses (steels, ceramics, catalysts, medical) will become increasingly de minimus.
There's an enormous quantity of lithium clay in Northern Nevada. It's a significant fraction of all known lithium in the world. It still has to be mined and refined, but I just mention it to point out that lithium is not rare.
Oz has got a great opportunity to be a big big player on the planet if they start processing/refining locally. Isn't BMW already getting rid of rare-earths from their motors?
"Australia is a lucky country run mainly by second rate people who share its luck. It lives on other people's ideas, and, although its ordinary people are adaptable, most of its leaders (in all fields) so lack curiosity about the events that surround them that they are often taken by surprise." The Lucky Country by Donald Horne. Author's comment: "I had in mind the idea of Australia as a [British] derived society whose prosperity in the great age of manufacturing came from the luck of its historical origins … In the lucky style we have never 'earned' our democracy. We simply went along with some British habits."
@Aermydach There is no need to reinvent the wheel. Good ideas are just good. We do not have a USA type of government. Economic sharks in big trading economies steal good ideas, like the internet, and much more. If we build it they will steal it. And we go broke. I have several examples of Australian good ideas lost.
Yes BMW, Rolls Royce, Nissan, and Renault have all transitioned to electronically excited electric motors which are a step forward in efficiency/performance and completely dodge the use of rare earth magnets.
@@karlInSanDiegoexcited? Is this a translation? This is not commonly described.. What is original language/ country of origin, if you don't mind me asking?
Wow! Amazing video! I love the way you're not afraid of explaining the technical details. I see Australia as having an opportunity to produce green critical minerals where as more of the required energy comes from our abundant renewable energy for onshore refining!
Having worked in the underground mining industry since the late 90s, the volumes of diesel used to extract these 'Green' minerals are truly staggering. The average person on the street would not be able to comprehend the numbers comparing it to their car or 4wd... There's nothing green about mining minerals and there's no way to change that in an economical way.
@@zen1647 No, not really. We currently have a test machine EV Sandvik Jumbo (face drill). It's been on site for about 4 months now and is only just looking like getting it underground to try. The drills normally run on diesel power to move around and 1000v power while drilling. This EV version is not capable of 'traming' very far - one to two levels at most. This may work in some mines, but not all of them, as most have their workshop facilities on the surface where logistics and manpower is better and diesel machine can easily travel to. For the loaders, Sandvik is also trialling EV versions, but not in the capacity sizes used in Australian mining - move more with one Machine = more profitable enterprise. Electric Underground trucks are a long way off for decline mining, due to the travel distances and power required to move the 65t load plus the truck up a 1:7 decline slope for 6 or 7km of roads. The current Volvo power plant is a 567kw. They have a battery variant available, but it is suited to tramming in the levels and dumping underground into ore passes rather than hauling to the surface. Both the loader and the truck have a battery exchange function and could be used as short haul units, but they are more costly to purchase and then need banks of batteries on charge for the fleet. In addition, we all know the risks of a runaway battery fire, now try to imagine how that would be when you are in the same underground location and breathing the same air with that battery pack and all you have is a respirator mask you need to quickly put on and make your way through the smoke to a refuge chamber... In theory, yes the 'fleet' could be electrified, in practice there is a great many hurdles to pass over.
Doubt it. The Lithium we mine here in Western Australia is processed using good old Collie Coal, although more coal is imported from New South Wales I beleive nowadays. The processing of green minerals in WA is absolutely minimal - just the bare minimum to reduce the weight so that it can be shipped to China and Korea more economically. Whilst I dislike West Australias dutch disease as much as the next Sandgrouper, reality is, we have a labour shortage as it is (apparently anyway), so the idea of putting more skilled labour towards minerals value-adding is a bit of a silly sausage notion. I fully admire your good intentions though, I'd like to see it myself..
@@zen1647 I short, yes but no. It's technically possible to electrify just about any process, whether it is practical or economical is the thing that most people overlook. Open pit mining excavators and face shovels can be plugged into grid power, and surface haul trucks can use a pantograph system if they are following a set route, and maybe have very limited battery capacity to drive 'off course' away from the high voltage power. Underground drills run on 1000v power already for drilling operations, but use diesel engines to tram to different locations around the mine (and surface workshops, fuel bays etc) There are battery rigs available and our company has some, but we're still carrying out risk assessments for they due to the massive battery packs and the fact that workers share their breathable air with these machines. Some U/G trucking and loading operations on single levels could be set up for the latest battery pack 'swap and go' machines, but not for regular mining operations where locations constantly change during a shift and trucks run up a 1:7 incline for 30 mins carrying 65t of dirt. All of the above also assumes that the incoming mine power supply is endless. Most mines are out in the middle of nowhere and the power supply infrastructure was chosen and supplied based on a known projected future energy requirement. (The remaining energy accounted for in diesel) To suddenly replace all of the diesel with electrons would in some cases, require changes right back to the initial point of supply. I'm no 'fan' of diesel, having shared the U/G air with the machines for years, but there is no simple economical quick fix.
Impressed at how much information you just raced through in a relatively short time. I hope the political and economic aspirations of current leaders doesn't doom us all.
The world reserves of fossil fuels have been "running out" to my personal knowledge for at least 50 years. What is actually happening is that places and/or sources that are more difficult to exploit come into play as the economic demand and technology develop to exploit them. And that's just oil. When the British coal industry was destroyed by the Tories in the 1980s and 1990s by weakening the Miner's Union until cheap coal could be imported in bulk from Eastern Europe, there were many British coalmines with estimated reserves of 300 years... they're still there!
There’s a ‘Brute Force” method of E-Waste, trashed electronics items, recycling, that technically works, but requires a LOT of energy or electricity, to even start up. You use liquid Nitrogen to supercool, freeze the E-Waste so that it’s super BRITTLE, and feed into a hammer mill or grinder, to break it all down into tiny fragments or particles, which are immediately fed into a giant chamber where a powerful artificial whirlwind is created by jets. The whirlwind will segregate the particles, according to their specific mass densities or weights, into free-floating ‘Saturn Rings’, of separated elements. After these floating particles rings are fully separated, chutes pop up to catch the rings and shunt the particles into separate bins, so that they can be easily recycled. EOJ
China will likely benefit more from this than Australia will. Power prices here will continue to rise, pushing people into energy poverty and making Australia more like a developing country.
The number one technology hardware manufacturer on earth… 🍎 always was and always will be predominantly Chinese made. Aint no new thing. “The story of stuff” was released in 2007. The fear based motivation to attempt to decouple or catch up with China that’s a bit more recent.
Not dangerously dependent but foolishly going down that road, we can still use fossil fuels for transport (China does use carbon and is the biggest polluter at 29%, US 20%, Australia just over 1%, UK less than 1%) and new nuclear along with renewables when they are cheaper and widely available not when we are going to be dependent on another dictator country, we all known what is going to happen in that regard. The imposition on dates for renewable energy transfer is a false construct and will increase prices to an extent to ensure that the COP (Out) plans will not work. Hosting the COP climate change in Dubai has shown that the carbon producers (Who had the biggest delegations in COP previously) have taken control of that enterprise and the deleting of carbon to be phased out from the charter confirms that (Although carbon will in actual fact be used up until the end of the century anyway it was unrealistic to think that it could be totally replaced). The transition from Carbon to Renewables (Not Green as some of them are green only because they are so toxic!) Should be carried out as like with horse and carts to steam and then petrol by economic factors only, not by political intervention on prices, this is having a backlash as it's unaffordable by the majority. For example my old back boiler packed in (30 years service) and it was replace that with a gas boiler, £2,000 tops, or have solar, battery back up, insulation and an air source heat pump £60,000), so funny enough it was replace the gas boiler, later on I will insulate the outside walls internally (£3,000) and it will never pay me back to go "green" in the remainder of my lifetime!?!
Hi Rosie, probably the biggest issue with the clean/green energy transition is that it is almost completely viewed through a first world lens. What about the citizens of less wealthy countries, I'm sure they would like all the mod cons we have. A prime example are electric vehicles, these are a first world luxury because they are expensive and use large amounts of "critical minerals". I know that many people believe there isn't a critical minerals crunch and that there is a lot of copper on earth and rare earth minerals aren't that rare. However, most of the low hanging fruit regarding high concentration mineral deposits have been exploited and mining lower grade deposits is more expensive. At some point the economics won't make sense and who wants the pollution and environmental issues that will come with a huge increase in exploitation of "critical minerals". To replace all the internal combustion engine (ICE) vehicles in the world with electric vehicles using copper wiring and rare earth magnets would require significantly more copper than is present in ICE vehicles and where will it come from? I know that there are other alternatives to electric motors using copper wiring and rare earth magnets one example is an induction motor with aluminium wiring. However, the resistivity of aluminium is lower than copper and larger wires would be necessary. A benefit is that induction motors could potentially be lighter, but they would be bulkier and would be less powerful per unit volume because the same current densities achieved in copper wiring couldn't be reached before melting the wiring. Another huge issue I haven't heard mentioned or discussed is that electric vehicles are a tremendous waste of valuable minerals. I doubt the majority of car owners use them for more than 3h a day. If we are generous and say 4 h that corresponds to a vehicle being idle for approximately 83% of the time. Those resources would be better used for generating renewable electricity from sources can operate at a rate > 17% of the time. And this is not to mention electric cars usually have 2 or 4 motors compared to a possible electric motor cycle. We should consider producing liquid fuels from renewable sources such as biological waste streams, cellulosic biomass etc and live with the energy penalty. The resources that would go to electric vehicle could be put to more productive uses to offset the liquid fuel energy penalty and wean us off fossil fuel use for other applications. We have to remember that we can't sit in our first world ivory tower and need to consider the aspirations of all. Ideally nuclear fusion with cheap and plentiful electricity would come to the rescue, but as it is said, nuclear fusion is always 10-20 years away. Best regards, Dr Beavis (organic chemist)
See Sandy Munro, Tesla induction motors, efficient use of copper, phenomenal torque. Fusion's progress was slow; the Sun's quadrupolar fields discovery preceded the Princeton-MIT theory for harnessing Tokomak plasma. Equity financed fusion is exploring more innovations, time is of the essence
I know this comment will be rejected by some as in appropriate and irrelevant but I’m compelled to say that it is wonderful to hear a woman speak so fluently and so knowledgeably about science. Well done and thank you for educating us about this important topic Rosie.
9:52 If you want to scale up mining and purifying minerals by a factor of six, you will need a lot more energy. Can we double mining, shipping and purifying those minerals, without using more diesel? Or should we stop flying and use the jet-fuel to get the minerals we need out of the ground? I'm not a "climate-denier". But you seem to ignore the amount of energy that is needed for the energy transition. Can you please make another video explaining where we can possibly get the diesel for the sixfold increase in mining?
Don't forget copper! Very important in electric cars, and especially important for the power grid. It is estimated that global production needs to go up something like 5X what it is now to fully decarbonize. (Don't worry, we have enough, but there will be environmental damage from mining it, which needs to be kept below the environmental benefits of decarbonization .)
Except the mines take 10 to 16 years to be set up and the companies aren't doing it. So this renewable fantasy by 2030 is physically impossible, and 2040 and 2050 probably too. The companies probably expect renewables energy price rises to cause such massive demand destruction that there will be no need for additional minerals.
This is great! I was potentially thinking of covering this in a future video too and you've explained everything I had in mind and more here, nice work! The periodic table animation is fantastic too!
Great video, as always! BYD have actually produced EVs with LiFe batteries for a long time. Their electric buses have displaced a significant part of all the fossil fuels that's been displaced by EVs, globally due to the facts like that they been producing them for some time, since 2010, and of course, diesel buses that run all day use a lot of fuel.
I've heard China 🇨🇳 has electrified 500,000 buses. I'd like to confirm that! True, or aspirational, China is driven to achieve, and this is one reason they can be a great partner. Of importance is what the economic strategy will be. Focus provides advantages, and several legacy companies need to catch up. No country wants to be left behind. FYI - Exxon Mobil is mining lithium in Arkansas now... right!
That was going to be one of my points..... BYD (and other Chinese producers) have been the earliest producers at scale and adopters of LFP... And now sodium battery technology ... Not Tesla....
I've heard commentators say that Copper is the one they're most worried about because we're going to need so much of it. And it's not so easily substituted. Wonder if you could do a video on copper? And thanks for all your other videos. They're all fantastic!!!
I’ve read that globally we’ve produced 700mil/t of copper since the beginning of time. To meet the green transition goals, we need to produce 1.4bil/t by 2050.
@Tom-dt4ic a google search on how much copper will be needed by 2050 can give you an enormous range of answers. My response was published by Canada Action July, 2023. Dan Yergin of S & P Global estimates we need to double copper production by 2035. It takes 10-16 years for new mines to come online and building new mines at that scale is not happening. It will be years before the green transition’s needs for critical minerals becomes clear. In the meantime everyone will believe what they want to.
Copper conductors are easily substituted with various metals. Copper is easy to use, and cheap; if it becomes no longer cheap, some uses will switch to aluminium or whatever, easing up the pressure on copper.
Great video Rosie. Yttrium is used in LFP cels to increase the voltage, to improve the cycle life and lower the minimum temperature the cells can be charged at. For solid state Yttrium is used for the separator, so batteries does use at least one REE.
One thing that annoys me is that critical minerals often go into stationary battery solutions. Why use Lithium for home and utility batteries? If it has the energy density characteristics to sit there and not be mobile at all, and it's affordable, safe and long lasting, then it's a perfectly good stationary battery chemistry. I sincerely hope sodium ion can fulfill this role without too many other rare minerals. I don't care if my home battery is the size of a garden water tank. Truly. Makes it harder to steal even. Stationary batteries are as important for tackling climate change as EV batteries. Especially when you consider that stationary batteries compliment renewable energy and EV charging infrastructure very well.
It's not just climate change deniers that are saying that there is access to insufficient mineral resources to satisfy the proposed scale of battery production. Simon Michaux talks about the practicalities of mining the required minerals such as lithium and concludes that it's likely unfeasible. He was commissioned by the IEA to provide the feasibility research, so would hardly be considered a climate change denier. There is so much more to mining than looking at the probable and possible reserves. A basic understanding of mining will recognise that it's energy intensive and also takes time. Time that we don't have if we are to meet the deadlines for net zero. Renewable energy such as wind, solar, wave, hydro all take time to produce the energy at their steady rate of production(there is also non producing time). Where is the huge amount of energy to mine the minerals coming from? It's like using a chisel to dig holes for tree planting and telling someone that they are anti-tree planting when they sensibly suggest to use a spade instead. There is a climate change problem but the current way we are going to address it is a kin to digging with a chisel. Companies like janus electric and the x-bus team are putting resources into user removable EV batteries which will allow users to only take as much battery capacity as needed on each trip. But no one is listening because big EV players are promoting the frivolous use of excessively large batteries regardless of trip distance.
Thanks for this, I think this was the main thing causing me genuine panic about the viability of it all. Doomers like to insist it's all over already because there ain't enough copper and lithium etc, and due to it being such an esoteric subject it's difficult to find anything solid refuting that.
once again the supply of copper does not look equal to the demand for upgrading grids and adding the interconnections needed for dispersed green energy generation. Might Rosie take a look at this?
It's simply not happening. The companies are probably betting that renewables energy price hikes are going to cause such massive demand destruction that there will be no need for additional minerals. No need for added capacity.
Did you know that high-tension lines were not made of copper anymore, but of aluminium? As long as there will be copper cheap enough to be used in home-building applications, in which it can be fully substituted, there will be enough for critical energy or transportation applications!
1. By decentralising energy generation via microgrids (and installing them closer to the demand centers), we can defer the transmission grid upgrades. 2. Front-of-meter energy storage is essential for such microgrids. In this case, redox flow battery can substitute lithium-ion battery. There are 2 options for RFB: Vanadium and Zinc-Iron
I am curious whether the lives of the people of Congo will be improved by the shift away from Cobalt or worsened, because they lack their export product.
More hopium! Civilizations ate massive heat engines no matter how they are powered & infinite growth on a finite planet is unsustainable. Reducing emissions at this point will only increase heating by reducing the cooling effect of atmospheric aerosols! It's a done deal!
Great summary! Seems we are in good shape with Lithium until at least 2027, and there are lots of options for other critical minerals. Australia could certainly make a play to refine the many minerals it already produces.
I'm not a climate change denialist, but I still think renewables are not a feasible way to power a complex society. You need energy density for that, and they don't have it.
Quoting the guy about shortages of copper, I saw someone claim that the electrical cable in EVs will be harder to source than the lithium. They use much more for all those high voltage cables.
Outstanding video - thanks Rosie. I value your bullet point texts & images reinforcing your explanations. As ever, I appreciate your rapid yet clear explanations.
So nice to see someone who actually know what they are talking about. I get very irritated by people talking about rare earths in batteries when essentially there isn't any (there is one LFP supplier that puts a bit of Yterrbium in). And rare earths not being rare, and lithium not being rare either, and more coming from Australia than South America and so on. And cobalt all being mined by kids (when this has already been pretty-much stopped and was never more than 1% of supply). We have enough things to worry about without people just making random shit up and then arguing about that instead of real issues.
It's a catalyst used for purification. The problem is that it's a powder, and because of the difficulty and cost of recovery they throw it away. An ICE vehicle uses a much cobalt in a few years as an older battery does, but it's not recyclable--the battery is. Any ICE proponent who mentions cobalt as a problem isn't going to like hearing that fact.
@@SocialDownclimber As far as I've seen it's that they have no idea it's used in petrol manufacture cos of how they've been taught/brainwashed. Most disbelieve about the use in petrol until I show evidence.
@@thekaxmaxThat's a flat out lie and shows you don't have any idea how oil refineries work. All of the cobalt is recovered by cyclones, electrostatic precipitators, and baghouses to the hydrotreaters. Hydrotreating can use multiple different catalysts and cobalt isn't even the majority one. This is all quite unlike the cobalt in lithium ion barriers which is simply thrown away (because battery recycling is completely financially and energetically uneconomic and isn't commercial).
@@gregorymalchuk272 The newest Tesla batteries don't use cobalt at all (replaced with nickel), and the LFP batteries BYD use also don't have any. So recycling that's a moot point. And the crude oil refining that uses cobalt does recover most but not all. So yes, they are throwing away some cobalt--I never said they threw it all away. The chemical processes are fierce and nasty, and there have been leaks. And recycling car batteries for household use is 100% recycling. Keeps them useful until material recycling is a thing. They are dumped.
No matter how well you critique Michaux, the cries of DOOM DOOM DOOM DEGROWTH DOOM DEGROWTH will continue unabated. I find the Doomers almost as frustrating as the Denialists. “Can’t” is a cop-out when MUST is the problem.
@@davestagner I don't think it s useful to put people into football like teams, I just wish there where more conversations between a lot of people who are recognising the challenge. We don't need optimism or doomism we just need to clear the facts out. and they are quite complex. I listened to michaux amongst others and am actively looking for a comprehensive critique of his points. Couldn't find it. The arguments Rosie presents here are a start and intersting maybe but it would be good to have a more far reaching conversations on these subjects.
Look also at Copper & the increase of ore necessary to retain present levels of production. We need scores of new open pit mines but no one in the developed world wants them.
You are looking at this problem from the wrong end of the telescope. First do the calculation on how much power will be needed if the World goes totally Green and then see if that is possible from wind and solar plus whatever hydro is available. The calculation for the UK is that if we replace all ICE cars by EVs and all domestic and industrial gas use by electricity, assuming that is possible, then we need to increase supplies at least threefold. The looking at the land and sea area needed to produce this from wind and solar assuming these are deployed in the situations to give economic returns shows this is not possible - an engineer in the Netherlands showed that just to meet current demand they would have to cover all their land and sea area with wind and solar units. Then look at the increase in grid capacity to deliver this power from widely dispersed areas as well as the need to rewire residential areas to supply the needed power and it is obvious that the power needed cannot be produced by this route and the costs are beyond the ability of any country to meet being in the trillions of dollars. The only possibilities are to deploy nuclear and hydrogen technologies and that is exactly what the UK is doing with Rolls Royce small modular nuclear reactors (SMNRs)of 300 MW per unit to be deployed near residential and industrial areas to limit the need for a grid system. Since nuclear needs to operate 24/7 at full or near full load for efficient use the surplus power can be used to generate hydrogen locally thus reducing the need to liquefy and transport it - the UK intends to replace methane in its national gas grid with hydrogen for domestic and industrial use and this opens the way for hybrid vehicles running modified ICE engines and fuel cells using hydrogen. JCB the UK manufacturer of heavy construction and farm equipment has already started producing modified diesel engines using hydrogen and will also manufacture in India, as will Rolls Royce since India is one of the members of the SNU Partnership and recently Poland ordered eight similar units from the GEC-Toshiba combine. This leaves battery EVs as a niche market for those with homes large enough to sport enough solar panels to supply the necessary power for their own use. It also means that the only minerals required are those associated with building the SMNUs and the wiring for the grid plus the rare earths needed for the generators where at the moment China controls 70% of the refined supply..
Plenty of people have done that calculation. It's less than 1% of Australian land needed for either solar panels or wind turbines to power all of Australia including increased demand to account for increased electrification. Here's the analysis for solar power for each country/ region. Japan is the worst at nearly 8%. Africa, Australia, north and south America and Asia are all less than 1% of land needed to get all their electricity from solar power. carbontracker.org/reports/the-skys-the-limit-solar-wind/ There are so many more high quality analyses like this, try searching on Google Scholar to find peer reviewed studies. Some countries would struggle to get all they need from wind and solar, Japan, Korea are amongst the hardest. Uk and NE do not have great solar resources but offshore wind is pretty good and good connections to other parts of Europe with better resources.
Yeah the processing of rare earths only can happen in China because their environmental regulations allow for it. Since rare earths are often found with uranium, I wonder why we don't mine it here in Canada. We have always been one of the biggest suppliers of uranium in the world. Surely the tailings piles at our mines could be processed for neodymium or other rare earths without contaminating another location. I think that China is likely making better use of the rocks that they are mining by processing them in multiple ways to extract multiple kinds of minerals
I was surprised to hear a lot of the high-quality graphite used in batteries comes from oil! And the UK has one of the leading processors of this graphite. Would be interesting hear your thoughts on this?
Good work. My pet peav is the massive grid expansion costs many people ignore out of ignorance. The massive amount of resources, copper, aluminium, steel, zinc, fossil fuels, financial, decades, and decades and decades All for the expansion of the existing national grid 5 times. Every country is the same ??? Thinking can not remain in the horse and cart ways. Paradigm shifting with thinking. Climate destabilisation is extremely expensive.
Yep! Australia's infrastructure is struggling to do the job it has.😂 Let alone charge energy thirsty battery cars. All for what?💁♂️ Best case situation, if all ICE vehicle were replaced with EV's the CO2 reduction would be Waiting for it! Less 8% that's before you change it from the 75% coal power😂 If it was truly critical for swift change we would be stopping the big ticket items. Like the military machine!!😉👌 What a load of nonsense.
First, thanks for reminding people of the correct definition of rare earth minerals. I get a little twitchy at times when I hear some less that accurate use of the term. I know that for many of these things increased supply, as well as source diversification, is critical. I wonder how much this could be eased by robust recycling practices? Certainly that won't solve the problem, but it could somewhat ease the transition. As with every aspect of human existence, being efficient and mindful with the use of our resources is mandatory for our long term well being. Wonderful video, I look forward to seeing more along this line.
As a geologist, the frustration I have watching our raw materials shipped overseas for processing and then use, only to come back as finished products is extreme. Mobs like Lynas tried so hard to both mine and refine RE ore in Australia, and was eventually forced to export and process it in Malaysa. We have huge Li deposits in Western Australia (WA), predominatly as pegmatites, and we are lucky enough to have production of technical and chemical grade lithium products produced. Given WA's vast landmass rich with green energy sources and raw minerals, refining, production and manufacturing of high-end good should be very high on the To Do list for the State and Federal Government's. I'm sure other states have similar opportunities that could be with a bit of political will and spine.
We farm 50% of habitable land. We have mined (working and out of life mines) less than only 0.1% of habitable land. We have more than enough land to mine to satisfy everyone's needs.
One thing I always wonder about is Power to Gas. You can always take excess solar and wind and store it as hydrogen - then use it for fuel later to run generators. You don't need any special materials for these energy storage systems. All the parts are pretty standardized and obtainable.
Yeah, Aussies, just get up and process that rock! We need it! 🙂Must also be cheaper to transport it in processed form. Why hasn't the processing been viable for up to now?
"Climate change deniers will tell you that zero emissions economy is a pipe dream" That sentence is so catastrophically bad. It stopped me watching the video. I cant fathom how someone is (supposedly) doing so much research and then ruins it all by spouting such missimplifications off the bat. How then do you call all the people who are NOT climate deniers but DO worry about supply of copper and other materials needed?
Critical minerals go back well before that. Roman legions fought decades long campaigns to ensure they controlled critical supplies of things like tin, lead, copper, silver and gold
Let's all set this Rosie Gem aside in some easily acessible spot so we can easily refresh our minds as needed about these elements as policies are being developed and implemented.
You don't have to deny climate change to see there are some real problems here. There's good reason to believe supply shocks are likely. While it's good that we see law-makers trying to close the gaps, no amount of written law will overcome laws of nature. Prospecting, mining, refining and processing the necessary inputs takes time to develop. To make a substantial green transition within 10 years is going to require unprecedented new developments.
I wonder how much of the copper shortage was alleviated by Aluminum wiring. Long-distance transmission lines tend to be Al instead of Cu. When we got our ~40 year old electrical panel replaced: we were able to upgrade to 125A service from 100A service because #0 sized Al (rated for up to 135A) was used for the supply, instead of #2 Cu (rated for 100A) (due to a copper shortage in the 70's). New installations are supposed to have 0000 Al cable (rated for up to 205A).
I've been a part of the Green Movement since the end of the 1990s, working in Australian Underground mining for minerals including Gold, Copper, Nickle, Lead, Molybdenum and Rhenium. Feels great to know all those millions and millions of litres of diesel I've watched being burned to extract these valuable minerals is really making a difference. 😳 Jokes aside Rosie, your point about processing here in Australia is well made. Most of 'our' copper concentrate is shipped off shore to turn into copper metal. This certainly needs to change, but then I expect that there would 100% be an environmental backlash against the plant/s needed to do the job. There's never anything for free, unfortunately.
Fossil fuel use is the basic fundamental of production, mining and green revolutions are no different. Life and human existence is symbiotic to fossil fuels and at least in the short to medium term, they will still be vital. There is a dangerous misunderstanding in society that most are totally unaware that the green transition is still only possible with fossil fuel use,,, irony.
Going up the value-added production-manufacturing chain is key for Australia. As is usual, government policy, support and vision is essential. Overall I am optimistic that Australia will be bigger in the world economy in the future. Immigration will be important to our future. Love your videos. Cheers.
it's used as a catalyst to de-sulfur various cuts - for instance dropping the parts per million sufur content in gasoline and diesel, but also many others. it is consumed in the process but reclaimed at about a 98% level for re-use, so it's at least a quasi durable use of it for several process generations.
Yes, and it's recovered by cyclones, electrostatic precipitators, and baghouses and retuned to the hydrotreater. Unlike cobalt in lithium ion batteries which all goes to the landfill because battery recycling is financially and energetically uneconomic.
Engineering with Rose Coloured Glasses. The most important "Critical Mineral" is COPPER. There are various estimates of the amount of Copper required to enable the energy transition. Most agree that what's required is about 4 times current production and increasing production to that level very SOON. The reality is that copper mining is is generally mined as low grade/high tonnage operations. Most of these large operations from initial discovery through to first production has a time-span of about 15 years. Proving a deposit is expensive. Getting the project permitted is a lengthy process depending upon the location. The recently shut down Cobra Panama operation was a US$10 Billion development which was processing 80-100MTPa at an average grade of 0.4% Cu. The 15 year timeframe is not negotiable. And that's for each and every large-scale operation.
@@joshs470 We used to make steel in Oz, now we ship mostly dirt to China and buy back steel. Cost of shipping and pollution not counted? Cost of energy ruined metal refining in Oz.
There is no opportunity in Oz. The energy is some of the most expensive on earth due to government intervention. It takes government action for energy to be expensive on a continent made out of coal and uranium. 😂
Thorium Energy Alliance tried some years ago to set up a "Thorium Bank" to capture the radioactive waste stream from rare earth mining inside USA, since the reason USA doesn't mine them is because of nuclear regulations, not a lack of supply. It blows my mind it didn't get off the ground considering the supply chain risk they have.
@@microburn the only thing she really has is speed. But that is ramping as we speak. New lithium resources in North America have been discovered. The dominant chemistry for new EVs is LFP. Most of the world has access to iron and phosphate. Rare earth minerals will be processed in multiple places now. She talks about all of this. The claim is the minerals don’t exist and that is simply untrue.
@@williammeek4078 "The claim is the minerals don’t exist..." - That seems like a stupid claim. I thought the more valid claims were around 'time to mine' and 'feasibilty of mining'.
@@channel1_channel those more reasonable claims are simply not being made because they are debatable. You can’t debate some who just denies everything.
Look up Simon Michaux's videos. He has done a great deal of work calculating the volumes of materials which will be required for the energy transition. For copper, the amount is equivalent to 189 years at the current rate of production. Nickel is 400 years, Lithium is 9900 years. Graphite is 3288 years.
@@st-ex8506 Please explain. All he has done is calculate how much generation capacity is required, and the minerals required to construct the required capacity.
@@frankszanto yes indeed! But he is making major mistakes in his working hypotheses. The main one is over estimating the world’s energy storage requirement by a factor of ten. But that’s not the only one. I am a chemical engineer with 14 years of experience in the fields of renewable energies, as well as of bio-based chemistry, and have been critically analyzing what Michaux says. I could write a couple of chapters of a book on the matter, but YT is not the right place to do it. All I am telling you is that Michaux’s word cannot be taken as gospel, and that you should make yourself your own opinion. However, I agree that what I just said is difficult to do without quite a bit of technical experience.
@@st-ex8506 I don't think he is over-estimating the storage requirement. I have looked at the case of 6x wind + 3x solar (i.e. times what we currently have in Australia), and you can potentially have two weeks in winter with big deficit which can only be made up by huge storage - or something like gas turbines, which means you are no longer 100% renewable. And there is a significant cost to have such a large number capacity in turbines which you only use 2 weeks a year.
@@frankszanto People like RethinkX have simulated, based on real weather data , how much storage would be needed. And even for New England, a region with pretty unfavorable winter weather, they came with around 90 hours of storage. Other teams come, for the world average, to numbers between 60 and 70 hours. These numbers make storage very affordable, at 1-2 US cents per total kWh consumed. Michaux uses 2 MONTHS! He is more than 10 times off on one of the key parameters!
The problem is not only that it runs out but how much it costs and will cost to remove them, something that is already happening with copper, which since 2000 has tripled its price. Also do not forget that if global growth continues to rise steadily it will be exponential. And the calculations change completely
While renewables need to mine for materials, once they are mined, they can be recycled indefinitely unlike fossil fuels where they are burned and put into the atmosphere / spread other hundreds of square miles as pollution and so you have to keep mining them -which is why the drillers/mining companies/countries love them.
Oy Vay! More education required here for this one. Many of these rare earth metals are difficult to recycle. Solar panels and turbine blades generally end up in landfills. Lithium batteries theoretically should be recycleable, but if they do not burn up get stored in fields or landfills. China has 1/4 sections of land with parked and used electric cars and bicycles covering them. Can humanity switch to renewable energy? Probably, but not on the timeframe sold to the masses. Infrastructure can not handle what has been pushed so far. Technology needs to advance more on some things. Now open your mind. Is CO2 actually the cause of global warming and climate change? Scientists are starting to say that atmospheric CO2 is the result of atmospheric temperature not the cause. Now with an open mind, look at how spring unfolds in a rural setting. Go out to the edge of a forest that is undisturbed as spring is coming. Observe how high the sun gets and air temperatures. Observe from a bit of a distance the snow around blades of grass sticking out of the snow and around trees. How close to the grass or tree is the snow? Go again each week and note your observations in a note book. You will notice the sun getting higher and daytime temperatures slowly warming without much change around the grass and trees. Eventually the sun warms the grass and tree trunks enough to start melting the snow around them. The depth of snow has changed minimally. Eventually the suns rays or energy can reach the soil around the grass and trees. Snow and ice reflect the suns energy back to space while siol and water absorb it, getting warmer fairly quickly. As the soil.warms, melting around it speeds up. Lakes thaw from the shore areas because the soil warmed, melting the ice adjoining the shore. This water warms melting the ice. This is the same proccess that has been occurring since the iceage waned. What is happening now is we are coming to the summer after the iceage winter, a natural process. Think and study on this young one.
Over 30 years we are processing ore from 3-4 % and now 0.02% is viable but requires exponential increase in energy to process which can only be done via fossil fuels at the moment.
Major discoveries of Rare Minerals are recently reported in Minnesota and Wyoming, underlying lignite. It'll take a decade to develop and a decade to build the processing.
6 times the ampunt of holes in the ground (and process energy, and water use, and biodiversity impact)? If this is a "transition to clean energy", could we refine the very definition of the word "clean"? Thanks for your amazing videos - it is refreshing to hear a technical expert challenging the status quo (and technocratic view) of the mineral industry.
On the other hand, mobilizing the capital for a rapid build-out of copper etc mining and refining capacity is proving to be difficult. The issue is not whether reserves and resources are sufficient.
Just found out this video, thanks for your expert take on this, now I feel I have learned a lot more. I am actually excited about new ways we discover how to store, transfer energy, as it will change our lives dramatically. Also I really like how you underline gradual improvements which is how you get to high efficiency, but those can't be forced, they will take time. As for us running out of time....we will. There is no way we not gonna overshoot it. Question is by how much and can we be able to work with it. Hard times ahead, but as one book says "lets science the rare earth out of this" 😅
If cobalt is not needed in LFP batteries, rare earths and not needed in EVs (Tesla is going to stop using them), or Turbines with gearboxes, that seems to just leave Lithium. Lithium is really only needed for mobile batteries since those are the only places where energy density ( either volumetric or gravimetric ) matters. So it seems the question is will lithium become a problem before before sodium or another battery chemistry comes online. It sounds like FUD from the fossil fuels industry plus some extra fear from some politicians and the arms industry which need to keep the prospect of China as a major coming Cold War enemy on people's minds.
As Rosie said lithium is quite abundant. The extraction method being used by Tesla's new processing plant, and others, will bring brine lithium extraction to the forefront.
You miss the nuance in both your opening statements. Let's start with LFP. Current LFP tech may have more charge cycles available but is damaged by sub-zero temperatures and also doesn't charge as fast as NCM (for those traveling emergency trombone repairmen) In a cold climate (Scandinavia, Canada, Siberia, whatever) quite a bit of an LFP battery's energy is going to be spent keeping itself warm enough to function without damage. Offshore turbines are trending _much_ larger than their onshore counterparts (~3x today) . Building gearboxes that can handle that type of torque without failure for decades is not only expensive and resource intensive, it's incredibly heavy. Which is not helping at all when you're trying to hoist it into place from or keep it atop a floating platform. "Rare earths" are *_not_*_ so rare_ and the amounts of neodymium (or Samarium for high temp magnets) are a very small percentage. On average there's maybe 1kg of rare earths in an 1.800kg EV, and they are _all_ in the motors, not the batteries. While it would be great to find an alternative with the same high magnetic flux no one is going to be shoehorning 'new' elements into the periodic table.
Lithium isn't really a problem in the long run, supply chains will probably not be able to grow as fast as demand periodically, and cause variability in the price, for some time, but that will make lithium expensive only for limited periods, and for those that doesn't have a contract with a set price. The actual cost of producing it won't increase from increased demand, because there more than enough lithium. There are already sodium batteries in production. Sodium doesn't "just" make the batteries less energy dense, there are other disadvantages to the significantly bigger sodium ions. So, sodium is best considered "backup" for lithium, for keeping battery manufacturers busy during periods when lithium is too expensive for producing only li-ion batteries.
@@jimurrata6785 I think you slightly mistaken by LFP and cold temperature. AFAIK, you can store LFP at low temperature without damage. The damage only happens when you charge the battery at low tempertaure. So you need to low temperature charging protection and heat the batteries to 5 degrees C before charging. I don't think this is such a big deal. The places that are really cold aren't great for PV but often have abundant hydropower. And places that are cold are used to engineering for cold temperaturs.
@@richdobbs6595 Perhaps you live in a part of the world where it doesn't regularly get to -20C but i can guarantee that LFP cells will be damaged by discharge at these temps. Not to mention that they don't offer any sort of _reasonable_ discharge rate when this cold. "Storing" a battery means it's no better than a brick at balancing load or providing energy. That doesn't do you any good when your mode of transport will eat 20-25% of its charge getting to and maintaining operating temperature. We will continue to require NMC cells and their flammable electrolytes here in the North for all but Mw+ energy storage, and at that point there are better/cheaper chemistries like flow cells, or pumped hydro where the terrain makes it possible.
Thanks so much Rosie! I'm loving this series. The doomers in my blogosphere are really banging on about running out of minerals etc. I also enjoy the footage of the stuff being extracted as a raw resource and then processed etc. Anyway, question. If we were to 'run out' of copper as they so hysterically assert (forgetting various economic feedback loops and recycling etc) - what about this next claim? Aluminium - which is 8% of the earth's crust and more abundant than even iron ore at 5% - could substitute? I'd love you to chat with some industry insiders and technical people in EV's and what-not about what this would take. That's WITHOUT doping it with graphene and whatever people are working on to make 'superconductive aluminium.' Just bog standard aluminium with 60% of the conductivity. How would we do it? This is the claim. Just use more! "This means you will need a 25% thicker wire for the same results. However, the aluminium in this equivalent wire will cost and weight about half as much as copper. That’s it. Aluminium in power lines? Of course! Also underground! And in transformers and coils, in motors? Yes!" He claims over 90% of the roles of copper can be replaced with aluminium. I'd love you to either mythbust this one or confirm it with some electrical engineers - car engineers - wind turbine people - etc! www.shapesbyhydro.com/en/material-properties/how-we-can-substitute-aluminium-for-copper-in-the-green-transition/
Awesome video with no political slant, love it. It would be so smart to see Australia use your abundance of solar energy to value add all those products you mentioned and not export profits and products, win win for environment and having a political friendly country to deal with. Are there any Lithium extraction/refining that isn't rough on the environment? I've seen that most of the South American locations us a large amount of scarce fresh water .
Thanks for the informative video Rosie it was very interesting. Following on from this and if you are able, it would be great to know if you could do a video on the end of life processing (ie recycling) of these manufacture products that contain these minerals because to be fair I believe that these too are another major challenge with the energy transition that isn’t being properly dealt. Cheers, Matt.
I live in Canada and we are just starting to get into this mineral production. I feel like we dropped the ball a decade ago and doubled down on oil rather than investing in mining development. Now we’re so far behind countries like Australia and we’re scrambling to catch up.
same here in Germany and in many countries of the world, Fossil Nuclear Propaganda at its best the last fifty Years, but now china is on track and sells the oil of the next gen, PV panels, battery, Wind Power, Electric Cars and so on and so on.... now the can not stop it anymore...
@@FJStraußinger It's not propaganda. No hydrocarbons means no more civilization. Global warming is easily debunked nonsense and wind turbines and photo cells never generate enough energy in their entire lifetimes to make up for the energy they took to make. That so many big brains can't see through this shows how cult like humans are.
The O&G industry has huge influence over Canada, via AB and both provincial and federal conservative governments (at least since the Reform party's inception)
@@robertchanrussell2010 and O&G shall
do their thing, I will do
mine and I have come to stay 😘😘😘😘😘👻👻👻👻👻O&G
No, actually, in the 70s, we were one of the largest cobalt suppliers for cancer treatment, but it was too environmentally damaging so we shut it down. Now we don't care if we destroy the planet as long as we feel good about it!
The difference in strategic risk between minerals and fossil fuels is that if prices spike you don't need to buy.
OPEC controls the world oil price and can send inflationary shockwaves around the world, and yet here we are saying "better be cautious about China processing those minerals".
Thank you for a fact based explanation of the situation. If we could get everyone on board with what needs to happen rather than exploiting people’s ignorance for power games it would be a huge step to solving these very manageable challenges. Appreciate your videos.
Very good, even handed and accurate presentation. One thing worth mentioning: the real concern about lanthanides (the real "rare earths") is their MILITARY applications, not their cleantech applications which all have substitutes. Furthermore, getting rid of fossil mining (or at least reducing petroleum mining greatly, eliminating coal mining and nearly eliminating gas mining) will dramatically reduce how much actual mining goes on here on earth. The transition not only allows substitution that the fossil fuel paradigm fundamentally was incapable of, but also will result in less mining and a near elimination of resource destruction- all the cleantech applications of "critical minerals" allow recycling- they don't dump the product into the atmosphere at end of life.
I've got one coming up on mining in general and how to make it zero emissions. It's crazy to me that we keep hearing how the energy transition will require six times as much mining... That's true for minerals but conveniently leaves out that HALF of all mining today is for fuels! So far less mining overall and as you point out that's only in the short term. In the longer term there should be very little as recycling takes over from extraction.
@@EngineeringwithRosieWould love to hear how remote mines get electricity. How feasible is it to connect them to the grid? Or use renewables and storage? How much is dirty diesel generators? 🤮
@@EngineeringwithRosie I bet artisanal cobalt mining is zero emission, or close to it. Is that the green future?
Fossil fuels are also limited and are not exactly environmentally friendly to extract either.
But we use diesel to mine the minerals we need for the transition. You cannot have your cake and eat it
Heron
Fundamentally the U.S. needs fossil fuel and if the U.S. needs it so do all western nations.
The U.S. declared bankruptcy in 1971. Then the U.S. dollar was saved as a global reserve currency because oil became priced in dollars. If the west ends oil then opec will join the BRICs and sell oil priced in yuan.
You’re effectively destroying the ability of the U.S. to offshore inflation. If you stop oil you end the ability of endless government growth or endless war and bank bailouts. Even Canada or Australia won’t give up their bank power to bailout their banks or prop up their real estate. Wake up and smell reality.
@@hansverbeek822, you can either invest your energy in something that gets you long-term energy or you can invest it in getting one-time energy. The fact that you need energy to do anything is not in dispute, but the idea that you can't electrify extractive processes is both wrong in itself and a terrible reason to not invest in better energy.
@@johncrofford: I'm not saying that it is impossible to electrify mining and transport. I'm am just noticing that it will be a huge and difficult enterprise and we have barely started with it.
In my opinion we won't get very far. You are entitled to a different opinion
@@hansverbeek822, I don't think it will be that bad. Electric motors are powerful, battery chemistries are consistently advancing, and we aren't limited to electrifying the vehicle and equipment shapes of today if another form factor fits the power/weight ratio of electric mining tools/vehicles better.
If you are involved in the mining industry, maybe you can set me straight, but it seems to me that electric would be great for mining because it doesn't generate fumes in tight spaces underground and mines are (relatively) static places so you can build infrastructure.
And as for mining-related transport, we can electrify trains relatively easily and having rail sidings at mines seems like a no-brainer if they are moving a lot of materials and equipment.
You are entitled to your opinion, but I'm not sure why you are so sure that we won't be able to replicate things that we have already done once with a different power source.
I would really enjoy getting down to the nitty gritty of mining and processing of Lithium and other minerals mentioned in this video.
That may not exactly paint the rosy picture the green zealots push on us.
Another excellent video Rosie.
A couple of points came to mind, it never hurts to point out that a significant user of Cobalt is in production of Diesel, which is more than a tad ironic.
You could add to the list of things Tesla is doing as they are building a Lithium refinery in Texas to further onshore. Sandy Munroe said in a video he did that he had been hired by Valle to improve the air filtration at a mine because although the standard was sufficient for the government, Tesla insisted on higher standard from it's suppliers.
New lithium mine opening in 2024 at the Salton Sea in California.
catalyst use of cobalt is about 3% by volume of all produced. EV batteries are about 40%, other light batteries 30% and alloys about 15%.
@@lylestavast7652 Do you know if that has changed or looks to change with Na and LiFePo batteries now being sold in end products? When/where were your stats from?
@@PinataOblongata I looked this up a while ago and lylestavast's numbers look about right. I think I got 7% for catalysts and related uses, but it mostly depends exactly what you include. The IEA say 30% 'EVs+storage', 70% everything else, in 2020. Benchmark say batteries went from 38% of lithium demand to 85% between 2016 and 2023 so things are changing fast and checking the date on any stats is important. They also say total production will grow 30% by 2026 and 90% of that will end up in batteries. So all the 'other' uses (steels, ceramics, catalysts, medical) will become increasingly de minimus.
There's an enormous quantity of lithium clay in Northern Nevada. It's a significant fraction of all known lithium in the world. It still has to be mined and refined, but I just mention it to point out that lithium is not rare.
Oz has got a great opportunity to be a big big player on the planet if they start processing/refining locally. Isn't BMW already getting rid of rare-earths from their motors?
"Australia is a lucky country run mainly by second rate people who share its luck. It lives on other people's ideas, and, although its ordinary people are adaptable, most of its leaders (in all fields) so lack curiosity about the events that surround them that they are often taken by surprise."
The Lucky Country by Donald Horne.
Author's comment: "I had in mind the idea of Australia as a [British] derived society whose prosperity in the great age of manufacturing came from the luck of its historical origins … In the lucky style we have never 'earned' our democracy. We simply went along with some British habits."
@Aermydach
There is no need to reinvent the wheel.
Good ideas are just good.
We do not have a USA type of government.
Economic sharks in big trading economies steal good ideas, like the internet, and much more.
If we build it they will steal it.
And we go broke.
I have several examples of Australian good ideas lost.
Yes BMW, Rolls Royce, Nissan, and Renault have all transitioned to electronically excited electric motors which are a step forward in efficiency/performance and completely dodge the use of rare earth magnets.
@@karlInSanDiegoexcited? Is this a translation? This is not commonly described.. What is original language/ country of origin, if you don't mind me asking?
But cheap coal is forbidden here, so no more cheap energy. Better to do it in China
After watching videos from Electric Vikings, Economics Explained, and Engineering with Rosie back-to-back, I am getting an Australian accent.
Wow! Amazing video! I love the way you're not afraid of explaining the technical details.
I see Australia as having an opportunity to produce green critical minerals where as more of the required energy comes from our abundant renewable energy for onshore refining!
Having worked in the underground mining industry since the late 90s, the volumes of diesel used to extract these 'Green' minerals are truly staggering.
The average person on the street would not be able to comprehend the numbers comparing it to their car or 4wd...
There's nothing green about mining minerals and there's no way to change that in an economical way.
@@Danger_mouse Couldn't most mining operations be electrified?
Also, fossil fuel mining uses a lot of fossil fuels!
@@zen1647 No, not really.
We currently have a test machine EV Sandvik Jumbo (face drill). It's been on site for about 4 months now and is only just looking like getting it underground to try.
The drills normally run on diesel power to move around and 1000v power while drilling. This EV version is not capable of 'traming' very far - one to two levels at most.
This may work in some mines, but not all of them, as most have their workshop facilities on the surface where logistics and manpower is better and diesel machine can easily travel to.
For the loaders, Sandvik is also trialling EV versions, but not in the capacity sizes used in Australian mining - move more with one Machine = more profitable enterprise.
Electric Underground trucks are a long way off for decline mining, due to the travel distances and power required to move the 65t load plus the truck up a 1:7 decline slope for 6 or 7km of roads. The current Volvo power plant is a 567kw. They have a battery variant available, but it is suited to tramming in the levels and dumping underground into ore passes rather than hauling to the surface.
Both the loader and the truck have a battery exchange function and could be used as short haul units, but they are more costly to purchase and then need banks of batteries on charge for the fleet.
In addition, we all know the risks of a runaway battery fire, now try to imagine how that would be when you are in the same underground location and breathing the same air with that battery pack and all you have is a respirator mask you need to quickly put on and make your way through the smoke to a refuge chamber...
In theory, yes the 'fleet' could be electrified, in practice there is a great many hurdles to pass over.
Doubt it. The Lithium we mine here in Western Australia is processed using good old Collie Coal, although more coal is imported from New South Wales I beleive nowadays. The processing of green minerals in WA is absolutely minimal - just the bare minimum to reduce the weight so that it can be shipped to China and Korea more economically. Whilst I dislike West Australias dutch disease as much as the next Sandgrouper, reality is, we have a labour shortage as it is (apparently anyway), so the idea of putting more skilled labour towards minerals value-adding is a bit of a silly sausage notion. I fully admire your good intentions though, I'd like to see it myself..
@@zen1647 I short, yes but no.
It's technically possible to electrify just about any process, whether it is practical or economical is the thing that most people overlook.
Open pit mining excavators and face shovels can be plugged into grid power, and surface haul trucks can use a pantograph system if they are following a set route, and maybe have very limited battery capacity to drive 'off course' away from the high voltage power.
Underground drills run on 1000v power already for drilling operations, but use diesel engines to tram to different locations around the mine (and surface workshops, fuel bays etc)
There are battery rigs available and our company has some, but we're still carrying out risk assessments for they due to the massive battery packs and the fact that workers share their breathable air with these machines.
Some U/G trucking and loading operations on single levels could be set up for the latest battery pack 'swap and go' machines, but not for regular mining operations where locations constantly change during a shift and trucks run up a 1:7 incline for 30 mins carrying 65t of dirt.
All of the above also assumes that the incoming mine power supply is endless.
Most mines are out in the middle of nowhere and the power supply infrastructure was chosen and supplied based on a known projected future energy requirement.
(The remaining energy accounted for in diesel)
To suddenly replace all of the diesel with electrons would in some cases, require changes right back to the initial point of supply.
I'm no 'fan' of diesel, having shared the U/G air with the machines for years, but there is no simple economical quick fix.
Impressed at how much information you just raced through in a relatively short time. I hope the political and economic aspirations of current leaders doesn't doom us all.
The world reserves of fossil fuels have been "running out" to my personal knowledge for at least 50 years.
What is actually happening is that places and/or sources that are more difficult to exploit come into play as the economic demand and technology develop to exploit them. And that's just oil.
When the British coal industry was destroyed by the Tories in the 1980s and 1990s by weakening the Miner's Union until cheap coal could be imported in bulk from Eastern Europe, there were many British coalmines with estimated reserves of 300 years... they're still there!
There’s a ‘Brute Force” method of E-Waste, trashed electronics items, recycling, that technically works, but requires a LOT of energy or electricity, to even start up. You use liquid Nitrogen to supercool, freeze the E-Waste so that it’s super BRITTLE, and feed into a hammer mill or grinder, to break it all down into tiny fragments or particles, which are immediately fed into a giant chamber where a powerful artificial whirlwind is created by jets. The whirlwind will segregate the particles, according to their specific mass densities or weights, into free-floating ‘Saturn Rings’, of separated elements. After these floating particles rings are fully separated, chutes pop up to catch the rings and shunt the particles into separate bins, so that they can be easily recycled. EOJ
Great stuff. Wonderful mindset. And nice to watch issues being settled. Sincerly from Denmark.
Absolutely a blast, as always. Still perplexed why the move of many battery manufacturers to LiFePO4 isn't obvious to the critics...
A really interesting topic and one that shows just how dangerously dependent we’ve become on China.
China will likely benefit more from this than Australia will. Power prices here will continue to rise, pushing people into energy poverty and making Australia more like a developing country.
The number one technology hardware manufacturer on earth… 🍎 always was and always will be predominantly Chinese made. Aint no new thing. “The story of stuff” was released in 2007. The fear based motivation to attempt to decouple or catch up with China that’s a bit more recent.
Not dangerously dependent but foolishly going down that road, we can still use fossil fuels for transport (China does use carbon and is the biggest polluter at 29%, US 20%, Australia just over 1%, UK less than 1%) and new nuclear along with renewables when they are cheaper and widely available not when we are going to be dependent on another dictator country, we all known what is going to happen in that regard. The imposition on dates for renewable energy transfer is a false construct and will increase prices to an extent to ensure that the COP (Out) plans will not work. Hosting the COP climate change in Dubai has shown that the carbon producers (Who had the biggest delegations in COP previously) have taken control of that enterprise and the deleting of carbon to be phased out from the charter confirms that (Although carbon will in actual fact be used up until the end of the century anyway it was unrealistic to think that it could be totally replaced). The transition from Carbon to Renewables (Not Green as some of them are green only because they are so toxic!) Should be carried out as like with horse and carts to steam and then petrol by economic factors only, not by political intervention on prices, this is having a backlash as it's unaffordable by the majority. For example my old back boiler packed in (30 years service) and it was replace that with a gas boiler, £2,000 tops, or have solar, battery back up, insulation and an air source heat pump £60,000), so funny enough it was replace the gas boiler, later on I will insulate the outside walls internally (£3,000) and it will never pay me back to go "green" in the remainder of my lifetime!?!
I love how you explained this topic. Lots of hard work into putting all of this into one 15 min video!
Hi Rosie, probably the biggest issue with the clean/green energy transition is that it is almost completely viewed through a first world lens. What about the citizens of less wealthy countries, I'm sure they would like all the mod cons we have. A prime example are electric vehicles, these are a first world luxury because they are expensive and use large amounts of "critical minerals". I know that many people believe there isn't a critical minerals crunch and that there is a lot of copper on earth and rare earth minerals aren't that rare. However, most of the low hanging fruit regarding high concentration mineral deposits have been exploited and mining lower grade deposits is more expensive. At some point the economics won't make sense and who wants the pollution and environmental issues that will come with a huge increase in exploitation of "critical minerals". To replace all the internal combustion engine (ICE) vehicles in the world with electric vehicles using copper wiring and rare earth magnets would require significantly more copper than is present in ICE vehicles and where will it come from? I know that there are other alternatives to electric motors using copper wiring and rare earth magnets one example is an induction motor with aluminium wiring. However, the resistivity of aluminium is lower than copper and larger wires would be necessary. A benefit is that induction motors could potentially be lighter, but they would be bulkier and would be less powerful per unit volume because the same current densities achieved in copper wiring couldn't be reached before melting the wiring. Another huge issue I haven't heard mentioned or discussed is that electric vehicles are a tremendous waste of valuable minerals. I doubt the majority of car owners use them for more than 3h a day. If we are generous and say 4 h that corresponds to a vehicle being idle for approximately 83% of the time. Those resources would be better used for generating renewable electricity from sources can operate at a rate > 17% of the time. And this is not to mention electric cars usually have 2 or 4 motors compared to a possible electric motor cycle. We should consider producing liquid fuels from renewable sources such as biological waste streams, cellulosic biomass etc and live with the energy penalty. The resources that would go to electric vehicle could be put to more productive uses to offset the liquid fuel energy penalty and wean us off fossil fuel use for other applications. We have to remember that we can't sit in our first world ivory tower and need to consider the aspirations of all. Ideally nuclear fusion with cheap and plentiful electricity would come to the rescue, but as it is said, nuclear fusion is always 10-20 years away.
Best regards,
Dr Beavis (organic chemist)
See Sandy Munro, Tesla induction motors, efficient use of copper, phenomenal torque.
Fusion's progress was slow; the Sun's quadrupolar fields discovery preceded the Princeton-MIT theory for harnessing Tokomak plasma. Equity financed fusion is exploring more innovations, time is of the essence
I know this comment will be rejected by some as in appropriate and irrelevant but I’m compelled to say that it is wonderful to hear a woman speak so fluently and so knowledgeably about science.
Well done and thank you for educating us about this important topic Rosie.
9:52 If you want to scale up mining and purifying minerals by a factor of six, you will need a lot more energy.
Can we double mining, shipping and purifying those minerals, without using more diesel?
Or should we stop flying and use the jet-fuel to get the minerals we need out of the ground?
I'm not a "climate-denier". But you seem to ignore the amount of energy that is needed for the energy transition.
Can you please make another video explaining where we can possibly get the diesel for the sixfold increase in mining?
Don't forget copper! Very important in electric cars, and especially important for the power grid. It is estimated that global production needs to go up something like 5X what it is now to fully decarbonize. (Don't worry, we have enough, but there will be environmental damage from mining it, which needs to be kept below the environmental benefits of decarbonization .)
Except the mines take 10 to 16 years to be set up and the companies aren't doing it. So this renewable fantasy by 2030 is physically impossible, and 2040 and 2050 probably too. The companies probably expect renewables energy price rises to cause such massive demand destruction that there will be no need for additional minerals.
This is great! I was potentially thinking of covering this in a future video too and you've explained everything I had in mind and more here, nice work! The periodic table animation is fantastic too!
Great video, as always! BYD have actually produced EVs with LiFe batteries for a long time. Their electric buses have displaced a significant part of all the fossil fuels that's been displaced by EVs, globally due to the facts like that they been producing them for some time, since 2010, and of course, diesel buses that run all day use a lot of fuel.
I've heard China 🇨🇳 has electrified 500,000 buses. I'd like to confirm that!
True, or aspirational, China is driven to achieve, and this is one reason they can be a great partner. Of importance is what the economic strategy will be.
Focus provides advantages, and several legacy companies need to catch up. No country wants to be left behind.
FYI - Exxon Mobil is mining lithium in Arkansas now... right!
That was going to be one of my points..... BYD (and other Chinese producers) have been the earliest producers at scale and adopters of LFP... And now sodium battery technology ...
Not Tesla....
I've heard commentators say that Copper is the one they're most worried about because we're going to need so much of it. And it's not so easily substituted. Wonder if you could do a video on copper? And thanks for all your other videos. They're all fantastic!!!
I’ve read that globally we’ve produced 700mil/t of copper since the beginning of time. To meet the green transition goals, we need to produce 1.4bil/t by 2050.
@@Beanbeeb Good to know.
@Tom-dt4ic a google search on how much copper will be needed by 2050 can give you an enormous range of answers. My response was published by Canada Action July, 2023. Dan Yergin of S & P Global estimates we need to double copper production by 2035. It takes 10-16 years for new mines to come online and building new mines at that scale is not happening. It will be years before the green transition’s needs for critical minerals becomes clear. In the meantime everyone will believe what they want to.
@@richardbracy4732 Yeah, just in time doesn't work so well with mining.
Copper conductors are easily substituted with various metals. Copper is easy to use, and cheap; if it becomes no longer cheap, some uses will switch to aluminium or whatever, easing up the pressure on copper.
Great video! So well laid out. It's refreshing to have quality information and content!
Great video Rosie. Yttrium is used in LFP cels to increase the voltage, to improve the cycle life and lower the minimum temperature the cells can be charged at. For solid state Yttrium is used for the separator, so batteries does use at least one REE.
Really appreciate your contribution to the AEVA conference earlier this month! Hope to get you on a webinar early next year :)
One thing that annoys me is that critical minerals often go into stationary battery solutions. Why use Lithium for home and utility batteries? If it has the energy density characteristics to sit there and not be mobile at all, and it's affordable, safe and long lasting, then it's a perfectly good stationary battery chemistry. I sincerely hope sodium ion can fulfill this role without too many other rare minerals. I don't care if my home battery is the size of a garden water tank. Truly. Makes it harder to steal even.
Stationary batteries are as important for tackling climate change as EV batteries. Especially when you consider that stationary batteries compliment renewable energy and EV charging infrastructure very well.
It's not just climate change deniers that are saying that there is access to insufficient mineral resources to satisfy the proposed scale of battery production. Simon Michaux talks about the practicalities of mining the required minerals such as lithium and concludes that it's likely unfeasible. He was commissioned by the IEA to provide the feasibility research, so would hardly be considered a climate change denier.
There is so much more to mining than looking at the probable and possible reserves. A basic understanding of mining will recognise that it's energy intensive and also takes time. Time that we don't have if we are to meet the deadlines for net zero. Renewable energy such as wind, solar, wave, hydro all take time to produce the energy at their steady rate of production(there is also non producing time). Where is the huge amount of energy to mine the minerals coming from?
It's like using a chisel to dig holes for tree planting and telling someone that they are anti-tree planting when they sensibly suggest to use a spade instead. There is a climate change problem but the current way we are going to address it is a kin to digging with a chisel.
Companies like janus electric and the x-bus team are putting resources into user removable EV batteries which will allow users to only take as much battery capacity as needed on each trip. But no one is listening because big EV players are promoting the frivolous use of excessively large batteries regardless of trip distance.
Michaux is working out of very incorrect hypotheses. So, it is quite understandable he ends up with incorrect conclusions!
Thanks for this, I think this was the main thing causing me genuine panic about the viability of it all. Doomers like to insist it's all over already because there ain't enough copper and lithium etc, and due to it being such an esoteric subject it's difficult to find anything solid refuting that.
There are alternatives to copper, not that there's a real problem. Lithium is abundant in the world, it's easy lithium is rarer.
There are enough rare earths for full electrification, and there is very little need for cobalt moving forward.
I would like to get your point of view on future availability of copper.
once again the supply of copper does not look equal to the demand for upgrading grids and adding the interconnections needed for dispersed green energy generation.
Might Rosie take a look at this?
It's simply not happening. The companies are probably betting that renewables energy price hikes are going to cause such massive demand destruction that there will be no need for additional minerals. No need for added capacity.
Did you know that high-tension lines were not made of copper anymore, but of aluminium?
As long as there will be copper cheap enough to be used in home-building applications, in which it can be fully substituted, there will be enough for critical energy or transportation applications!
@@st-ex8506 I thought the current thinking was to go back to copper.
Anyhow electric vehicles use huge amounts of copper compared to ICE vehicles.
@@brianjonker510 not really if the harnesses are in aluminium, like they are in the Model Y.
@@st-ex8506 You are much more ignorant than you realize.
Thanks so much for clarifying all this!
1. By decentralising energy generation via microgrids (and installing them closer to the demand centers), we can defer the transmission grid upgrades.
2. Front-of-meter energy storage is essential for such microgrids. In this case, redox flow battery can substitute lithium-ion battery. There are 2 options for RFB: Vanadium and Zinc-Iron
I am curious whether the lives of the people of Congo will be improved by the shift away from Cobalt or worsened, because they lack their export product.
I would assume that the children there would continue to get exploited regardless, if not mining cobalt, then for something else.
More hopium! Civilizations ate massive heat engines no matter how they are powered & infinite growth on a finite planet is unsustainable. Reducing emissions at this point will only increase heating by reducing the cooling effect of atmospheric aerosols! It's a done deal!
Great summary! Seems we are in good shape with Lithium until at least 2027, and there are lots of options for other critical minerals. Australia could certainly make a play to refine the many minerals it already produces.
I'm not a climate change denialist, but I still think renewables are not a feasible way to power a complex society. You need energy density for that, and they don't have it.
Since I slowed down the speed here I can now actually follow youre talking.. If there s a speed talking competition one day you can definetly applie.
Quoting the guy about shortages of copper, I saw someone claim that the electrical cable in EVs will be harder to source than the lithium. They use much more for all those high voltage cables.
Then this guy writes BS. Did you know that the Tesla model Y electric harness is already made of aluminium, not copper?!
Well done. Deeply appreciated.
Outstanding video - thanks Rosie. I value your bullet point texts & images reinforcing your explanations. As ever, I appreciate your rapid yet clear explanations.
That's the best summary I've seen on the topic. Excellent video🎉
So nice to see someone who actually know what they are talking about. I get very irritated by people talking about rare earths in batteries when essentially there isn't any (there is one LFP supplier that puts a bit of Yterrbium in). And rare earths not being rare, and lithium not being rare either, and more coming from Australia than South America and so on. And cobalt all being mined by kids (when this has already been pretty-much stopped and was never more than 1% of supply).
We have enough things to worry about without people just making random shit up and then arguing about that instead of real issues.
AWESOME video! So much educational content. Thanks Rosie.
I thought cobalt is also used heavily in oil refineries. Can someone elaborate on how much/for what is it used there?
It's a catalyst used for purification. The problem is that it's a powder, and because of the difficulty and cost of recovery they throw it away. An ICE vehicle uses a much cobalt in a few years as an older battery does, but it's not recyclable--the battery is.
Any ICE proponent who mentions cobalt as a problem isn't going to like hearing that fact.
@@thekaxmax Yup, the problem most people have with cobalt isn't the ethical concerns of its extraction, it is that it is used in EVs.
@@SocialDownclimber As far as I've seen it's that they have no idea it's used in petrol manufacture cos of how they've been taught/brainwashed. Most disbelieve about the use in petrol until I show evidence.
@@thekaxmaxThat's a flat out lie and shows you don't have any idea how oil refineries work. All of the cobalt is recovered by cyclones, electrostatic precipitators, and baghouses to the hydrotreaters. Hydrotreating can use multiple different catalysts and cobalt isn't even the majority one. This is all quite unlike the cobalt in lithium ion barriers which is simply thrown away (because battery recycling is completely financially and energetically uneconomic and isn't commercial).
@@gregorymalchuk272 The newest Tesla batteries don't use cobalt at all (replaced with nickel), and the LFP batteries BYD use also don't have any. So recycling that's a moot point.
And the crude oil refining that uses cobalt does recover most but not all. So yes, they are throwing away some cobalt--I never said they threw it all away. The chemical processes are fierce and nasty, and there have been leaks.
And recycling car batteries for household use is 100% recycling. Keeps them useful until material recycling is a thing.
They are dumped.
Good to see these concerns adressed. Would be great to see a in-depth analysis of Simon michaux s numbers for example though.
No matter how well you critique Michaux, the cries of DOOM DOOM DOOM DEGROWTH DOOM DEGROWTH will continue unabated. I find the Doomers almost as frustrating as the Denialists. “Can’t” is a cop-out when MUST is the problem.
@@davestagner I don't think it s useful to put people into football like teams, I just wish there where more conversations between a lot of people who are recognising the challenge. We don't need optimism or doomism we just need to clear the facts out. and they are quite complex. I listened to michaux amongst others and am actively looking for a comprehensive critique of his points. Couldn't find it. The arguments Rosie presents here are a start and intersting maybe but it would be good to have a more far reaching conversations on these subjects.
Look also at Copper & the increase of ore necessary to retain present levels of production. We need scores of new open pit mines but no one in the developed world wants them.
You are looking at this problem from the wrong end of the telescope. First do the calculation on how much power will be needed if the World goes totally Green and then see if that is possible from wind and solar plus whatever hydro is available. The calculation for the UK is that if we replace all ICE cars by EVs and all domestic and industrial gas use by electricity, assuming that is possible, then we need to increase supplies at least threefold. The looking at the land and sea area needed to produce this from wind and solar assuming these are deployed in the situations to give economic returns shows this is not possible - an engineer in the Netherlands showed that just to meet current demand they would have to cover all their land and sea area with wind and solar units. Then look at the increase in grid capacity to deliver this power from widely dispersed areas as well as the need to rewire residential areas to supply the needed power and it is obvious that the power needed cannot be produced by this route and the costs are beyond the ability of any country to meet being in the trillions of dollars. The only possibilities are to deploy nuclear and hydrogen technologies and that is exactly what the UK is doing with Rolls Royce small modular nuclear reactors (SMNRs)of 300 MW per unit to be deployed near residential and industrial areas to limit the need for a grid system. Since nuclear needs to operate 24/7 at full or near full load for efficient use the surplus power can be used to generate hydrogen locally thus reducing the need to liquefy and transport it - the UK intends to replace methane in its national gas grid with hydrogen for domestic and industrial use and this opens the way for hybrid vehicles running modified ICE engines and fuel cells using hydrogen. JCB the UK manufacturer of heavy construction and farm equipment has already started producing modified diesel engines using hydrogen and will also manufacture in India, as will Rolls Royce since India is one of the members of the SNU Partnership and recently Poland ordered eight similar units from the GEC-Toshiba combine. This leaves battery EVs as a niche market for those with homes large enough to sport enough solar panels to supply the necessary power for their own use. It also means that the only minerals required are those associated with building the SMNUs and the wiring for the grid plus the rare earths needed for the generators where at the moment China controls 70% of the refined supply..
Plenty of people have done that calculation. It's less than 1% of Australian land needed for either solar panels or wind turbines to power all of Australia including increased demand to account for increased electrification. Here's the analysis for solar power for each country/ region. Japan is the worst at nearly 8%. Africa, Australia, north and south America and Asia are all less than 1% of land needed to get all their electricity from solar power. carbontracker.org/reports/the-skys-the-limit-solar-wind/ There are so many more high quality analyses like this, try searching on Google Scholar to find peer reviewed studies. Some countries would struggle to get all they need from wind and solar, Japan, Korea are amongst the hardest. Uk and NE do not have great solar resources but offshore wind is pretty good and good connections to other parts of Europe with better resources.
Thanks for this excellent information Rosie.
Yeah the processing of rare earths only can happen in China because their environmental regulations allow for it. Since rare earths are often found with uranium, I wonder why we don't mine it here in Canada. We have always been one of the biggest suppliers of uranium in the world. Surely the tailings piles at our mines could be processed for neodymium or other rare earths without contaminating another location. I think that China is likely making better use of the rocks that they are mining by processing them in multiple ways to extract multiple kinds of minerals
The most interesting facts are how much polution is made by extracting and processing those minerals. This facts are not explained in this video
I'm afraid that these might be a little bit too on-the-nose for the current green energy agenda pushed on the public.
Thank you for this interesting and clear rundown!!
I was surprised to hear a lot of the high-quality graphite used in batteries comes from oil! And the UK has one of the leading processors of this graphite. Would be interesting hear your thoughts on this?
Good work.
My pet peav is the massive grid expansion costs many people ignore out of ignorance.
The massive amount of resources, copper, aluminium, steel, zinc, fossil fuels, financial, decades, and decades and decades
All for the expansion of the existing national grid 5 times.
Every country is the same ???
Thinking can not remain in the horse and cart ways.
Paradigm shifting with thinking.
Climate destabilisation is extremely expensive.
All a scam to avoid building common sense nuclear reactors.
Yep!
Australia's infrastructure is struggling to do the job it has.😂
Let alone charge energy thirsty battery cars. All for what?💁♂️
Best case situation, if all ICE vehicle were replaced with EV's the CO2 reduction would be Waiting for it! Less
8% that's before you change it from the 75% coal power😂
If it was truly critical for swift change we would be stopping the big ticket items.
Like the military machine!!😉👌
What a load of nonsense.
At 3:02, that graph you breezed past looked a bit critical to me.
First, thanks for reminding people of the correct definition of rare earth minerals. I get a little twitchy at times when I hear some less that accurate use of the term.
I know that for many of these things increased supply, as well as source diversification, is critical. I wonder how much this could be eased by robust recycling practices? Certainly that won't solve the problem, but it could somewhat ease the transition. As with every aspect of human existence, being efficient and mindful with the use of our resources is mandatory for our long term well being.
Wonderful video, I look forward to seeing more along this line.
As a geologist, the frustration I have watching our raw materials shipped overseas for processing and then use, only to come back as finished products is extreme. Mobs like Lynas tried so hard to both mine and refine RE ore in Australia, and was eventually forced to export and process it in Malaysa. We have huge Li deposits in Western Australia (WA), predominatly as pegmatites, and we are lucky enough to have production of technical and chemical grade lithium products produced. Given WA's vast landmass rich with green energy sources and raw minerals, refining, production and manufacturing of high-end good should be very high on the To Do list for the State and Federal Government's. I'm sure other states have similar opportunities that could be with a bit of political will and spine.
We farm 50% of habitable land. We have mined (working and out of life mines) less than only 0.1% of habitable land. We have more than enough land to mine to satisfy everyone's needs.
Minerals aren’t evenly distributed, though, and not all land is suitable for mining.
One thing I always wonder about is Power to Gas. You can always take excess solar and wind and store it as hydrogen - then use it for fuel later to run generators. You don't need any special materials for these energy storage systems. All the parts are pretty standardized and obtainable.
Yeah, Aussies, just get up and process that rock! We need it! 🙂Must also be cheaper to transport it in processed form. Why hasn't the processing been viable for up to now?
"Climate change deniers will tell you that zero emissions economy is a pipe dream"
That sentence is so catastrophically bad. It stopped me watching the video. I cant fathom how someone is (supposedly) doing so much research and then ruins it all by spouting such missimplifications off the bat.
How then do you call all the people who are NOT climate deniers but DO worry about supply of copper and other materials needed?
Critical minerals go back well before that. Roman legions fought decades long campaigns to ensure they controlled critical supplies of things like tin, lead, copper, silver and gold
Owli,matter green has a new extraction tech
Niron will make magnets with no rare earth
Let's all set this Rosie Gem aside in some easily acessible spot so we can easily refresh our minds as needed about these elements as policies are being developed and implemented.
You don't have to deny climate change to see there are some real problems here. There's good reason to believe supply shocks are likely. While it's good that we see law-makers trying to close the gaps, no amount of written law will overcome laws of nature. Prospecting, mining, refining and processing the necessary inputs takes time to develop. To make a substantial green transition within 10 years is going to require unprecedented new developments.
As an engineer, I enjoy your videos.
I wonder how much of the copper shortage was alleviated by Aluminum wiring. Long-distance transmission lines tend to be Al instead of Cu.
When we got our ~40 year old electrical panel replaced: we were able to upgrade to 125A service from 100A service because #0 sized Al (rated for up to 135A) was used for the supply, instead of #2 Cu (rated for 100A) (due to a copper shortage in the 70's). New installations are supposed to have 0000 Al cable (rated for up to 205A).
The talking speed is right at the higher limit in terms of one's the ability to follow. Good content tough.
I've been a part of the Green Movement since the end of the 1990s, working in Australian Underground mining for minerals including
Gold, Copper, Nickle, Lead, Molybdenum and Rhenium.
Feels great to know all those millions and millions of litres of diesel I've watched being burned to extract these valuable minerals is really making a difference.
😳
Jokes aside Rosie, your point about processing here in Australia is well made.
Most of 'our' copper concentrate is shipped off shore to turn into copper metal. This certainly needs to change, but then I expect that there would 100% be an environmental backlash against the plant/s needed to do the job.
There's never anything for free, unfortunately.
Fossil fuel use is the basic fundamental of production, mining and green revolutions are no different. Life and human existence is symbiotic to fossil fuels and at least in the short to medium term, they will still be vital.
There is a dangerous misunderstanding in society that most are totally unaware that the green transition is still only possible with fossil fuel use,,, irony.
Going up the value-added production-manufacturing chain is key for Australia. As is usual, government policy, support and vision is essential. Overall I am optimistic that Australia will be bigger in the world economy in the future. Immigration will be important to our future.
Love your videos. Cheers.
Is cobalt also used in oil refinery?
it's used as a catalyst to de-sulfur various cuts - for instance dropping the parts per million sufur content in gasoline and diesel, but also many others. it is consumed in the process but reclaimed at about a 98% level for re-use, so it's at least a quasi durable use of it for several process generations.
Yes, and it's recovered by cyclones, electrostatic precipitators, and baghouses and retuned to the hydrotreater. Unlike cobalt in lithium ion batteries which all goes to the landfill because battery recycling is financially and energetically uneconomic.
Most excellent, Rosie. Thank you.
Engineering with Rose Coloured Glasses. The most important "Critical Mineral" is COPPER. There are various estimates of the amount of Copper required to enable the energy transition. Most agree that what's required is about 4 times current production and increasing production to that level very SOON. The reality is that copper mining is is generally mined as low grade/high tonnage operations. Most of these large operations from initial discovery through to first production has a time-span of about 15 years. Proving a deposit is expensive. Getting the project permitted is a lengthy process depending upon the location. The recently shut down Cobra Panama operation was a US$10 Billion development which was processing 80-100MTPa at an average grade of 0.4% Cu. The 15 year timeframe is not negotiable. And that's for each and every large-scale operation.
So what is Australia going to do to address security, as you have no heavy industry for refining or producing solar panels or batteries?
Use Australia's rich deposits of uranium instead.
Once Australia is done banning coal and nuclear energy, it will securely be a potato patch. 🥔
Nice all the information regarding critical minerals...Alot of love 💕 from India
Good that you are visiting mines where it all begins. Would like to see the processing details.
I am interested in knowing whether desalination can be low (enough) impact on coastal ecosystems and an effective source of lithium.
Yes, Australia presents a large opportunity for production engineering, to build effective processing facilities quickly.
If only Twiggy and the politicians were not in Chinese pockets.
Yeah, and imagine the costs of the products if everything was processed and produced here.
@@joshs470 We used to make steel in Oz, now we ship mostly dirt to China and buy back steel. Cost of shipping and pollution not counted? Cost of energy ruined metal refining in Oz.
There is no opportunity in Oz. The energy is some of the most expensive on earth due to government intervention. It takes government action for energy to be expensive on a continent made out of coal and uranium. 😂
I may have attracted ... something.
What about silver?
Thorium Energy Alliance tried some years ago to set up a "Thorium Bank" to capture the radioactive waste stream from rare earth mining inside USA, since the reason USA doesn't mine them is because of nuclear regulations, not a lack of supply. It blows my mind it didn't get off the ground considering the supply chain risk they have.
Fantastic video Rosie. I will reference this in discussions with the “not enough minerals” crowd.
lol we bet you will 😂
10 minutes into the video she explains for 3 minutes why that crowd has credible concerns.
@@microburn the only thing she really has is speed. But that is ramping as we speak. New lithium resources in North America have been discovered. The dominant chemistry for new EVs is LFP. Most of the world has access to iron and phosphate. Rare earth minerals will be processed in multiple places now. She talks about all of this. The claim is the minerals don’t exist and that is simply untrue.
@@williammeek4078 "The claim is the minerals don’t exist..." - That seems like a stupid claim. I thought the more valid claims were around 'time to mine' and 'feasibilty of mining'.
@@channel1_channel those more reasonable claims are simply not being made because they are debatable. You can’t debate some who just denies everything.
Look up Simon Michaux's videos. He has done a great deal of work calculating the volumes of materials which will be required for the energy transition. For copper, the amount is equivalent to 189 years at the current rate of production. Nickel is 400 years, Lithium is 9900 years. Graphite is 3288 years.
Except that Michaux is totally off in his base hypotheses!
@@st-ex8506 Please explain. All he has done is calculate how much generation capacity is required, and the minerals required to construct the required capacity.
@@frankszanto yes indeed! But he is making major mistakes in his working hypotheses. The main one is over estimating the world’s energy storage requirement by a factor of ten. But that’s not the only one.
I am a chemical engineer with 14 years of experience in the fields of renewable energies, as well as of bio-based chemistry, and have been critically analyzing what Michaux says.
I could write a couple of chapters of a book on the matter, but YT is not the right place to do it.
All I am telling you is that Michaux’s word cannot be taken as gospel, and that you should make yourself your own opinion. However, I agree that what I just said is difficult to do without quite a bit of technical experience.
@@st-ex8506 I don't think he is over-estimating the storage requirement. I have looked at the case of 6x wind + 3x solar (i.e. times what we currently have in Australia), and you can potentially have two weeks in winter with big deficit which can only be made up by huge storage - or something like gas turbines, which means you are no longer 100% renewable. And there is a significant cost to have such a large number capacity in turbines which you only use 2 weeks a year.
@@frankszanto People like RethinkX have simulated, based on real weather data , how much storage would be needed. And even for New England, a region with pretty unfavorable winter weather, they came with around 90 hours of storage. Other teams come, for the world average, to numbers between 60 and 70 hours. These numbers make storage very affordable, at 1-2 US cents per total kWh consumed.
Michaux uses 2 MONTHS! He is more than 10 times off on one of the key parameters!
The problem is not only that it runs out but how much it costs and will cost to remove them, something that is already happening with copper, which since 2000 has tripled its price.
Also do not forget that if global growth continues to rise steadily it will be exponential. And the calculations change completely
While renewables need to mine for materials, once they are mined, they can be recycled indefinitely unlike fossil fuels where they are burned and put into the atmosphere / spread other hundreds of square miles as pollution and so you have to keep mining them -which is why the drillers/mining companies/countries love them.
Oy Vay! More education required here for this one.
Many of these rare earth metals are difficult to recycle. Solar panels and turbine blades generally end up in landfills. Lithium batteries theoretically should be recycleable, but if they do not burn up get stored in fields or landfills. China has 1/4 sections of land with parked and used electric cars and bicycles covering them.
Can humanity switch to renewable energy? Probably, but not on the timeframe sold to the masses. Infrastructure can not handle what has been pushed so far. Technology needs to advance more on some things.
Now open your mind. Is CO2 actually the cause of global warming and climate change? Scientists are starting to say that atmospheric CO2 is the result of atmospheric temperature not the cause.
Now with an open mind, look at how spring unfolds in a rural setting. Go out to the edge of a forest that is undisturbed as spring is coming. Observe how high the sun gets and air temperatures. Observe from a bit of a distance the snow around blades of grass sticking out of the snow and around trees. How close to the grass or tree is the snow? Go again each week and note your observations in a note book.
You will notice the sun getting higher and daytime temperatures slowly warming without much change around the grass and trees. Eventually the sun warms the grass and tree trunks enough to start melting the snow around them. The depth of snow has changed minimally. Eventually the suns rays or energy can reach the soil around the grass and trees. Snow and ice reflect the suns energy back to space while siol and water absorb it, getting warmer fairly quickly. As the soil.warms, melting around it speeds up. Lakes thaw from the shore areas because the soil warmed, melting the ice adjoining the shore. This water warms melting the ice.
This is the same proccess that has been occurring since the iceage waned. What is happening now is we are coming to the summer after the iceage winter, a natural process.
Think and study on this young one.
How did you not do a basic search on what happens to most wind turbines, and solar panels?
excellent video Rosie!!!
Over 30 years we are processing ore from 3-4 % and now 0.02% is viable but requires exponential increase in energy to process which can only be done via fossil fuels at the moment.
Major discoveries of Rare Minerals are recently reported in Minnesota and Wyoming, underlying lignite. It'll take a decade to develop and a decade to build the processing.
Geology Rocks! (:
it's the only impressive thing I know to say at the moment
6 times the ampunt of holes in the ground (and process energy, and water use, and biodiversity impact)? If this is a "transition to clean energy", could we refine the very definition of the word "clean"?
Thanks for your amazing videos - it is refreshing to hear a technical expert challenging the status quo (and technocratic view) of the mineral industry.
On the other hand, mobilizing the capital for a rapid build-out of copper etc mining and refining capacity is proving to be difficult. The issue is not whether reserves and resources are sufficient.
Just found out this video, thanks for your expert take on this, now I feel I have learned a lot more. I am actually excited about new ways we discover how to store, transfer energy, as it will change our lives dramatically. Also I really like how you underline gradual improvements which is how you get to high efficiency, but those can't be forced, they will take time. As for us running out of time....we will. There is no way we not gonna overshoot it. Question is by how much and can we be able to work with it. Hard times ahead, but as one book says "lets science the rare earth out of this" 😅
If cobalt is not needed in LFP batteries, rare earths and not needed in EVs (Tesla is going to stop using them), or Turbines with gearboxes, that seems to just leave Lithium. Lithium is really only needed for mobile batteries since those are the only places where energy density ( either volumetric or gravimetric ) matters. So it seems the question is will lithium become a problem before before sodium or another battery chemistry comes online. It sounds like FUD from the fossil fuels industry plus some extra fear from some politicians and the arms industry which need to keep the prospect of China as a major coming Cold War enemy on people's minds.
As Rosie said lithium is quite abundant. The extraction method being used by Tesla's new processing plant, and others, will bring brine lithium extraction to the forefront.
You miss the nuance in both your opening statements.
Let's start with LFP. Current LFP tech may have more charge cycles available but is damaged by sub-zero temperatures and also doesn't charge as fast as NCM (for those traveling emergency trombone repairmen)
In a cold climate (Scandinavia, Canada, Siberia, whatever) quite a bit of an LFP battery's energy is going to be spent keeping itself warm enough to function without damage.
Offshore turbines are trending _much_ larger than their onshore counterparts (~3x today) .
Building gearboxes that can handle that type of torque without failure for decades is not only expensive and resource intensive, it's incredibly heavy.
Which is not helping at all when you're trying to hoist it into place from or keep it atop a floating platform.
"Rare earths" are *_not_*_ so rare_ and the amounts of neodymium (or Samarium for high temp magnets) are a very small percentage.
On average there's maybe 1kg of rare earths in an 1.800kg EV, and they are _all_ in the motors, not the batteries.
While it would be great to find an alternative with the same high magnetic flux no one is going to be shoehorning 'new' elements into the periodic table.
Lithium isn't really a problem in the long run, supply chains will probably not be able to grow as fast as demand periodically, and cause variability in the price, for some time, but that will make lithium expensive only for limited periods, and for those that doesn't have a contract with a set price. The actual cost of producing it won't increase from increased demand, because there more than enough lithium.
There are already sodium batteries in production. Sodium doesn't "just" make the batteries less energy dense, there are other disadvantages to the significantly bigger sodium ions. So, sodium is best considered "backup" for lithium, for keeping battery manufacturers busy during periods when lithium is too expensive for producing only li-ion batteries.
@@jimurrata6785 I think you slightly mistaken by LFP and cold temperature. AFAIK, you can store LFP at low temperature without damage. The damage only happens when you charge the battery at low tempertaure. So you need to low temperature charging protection and heat the batteries to 5 degrees C before charging. I don't think this is such a big deal. The places that are really cold aren't great for PV but often have abundant hydropower. And places that are cold are used to engineering for cold temperaturs.
@@richdobbs6595 Perhaps you live in a part of the world where it doesn't regularly get to -20C but i can guarantee that LFP cells will be damaged by discharge at these temps. Not to mention that they don't offer any sort of _reasonable_ discharge rate when this cold.
"Storing" a battery means it's no better than a brick at balancing load or providing energy. That doesn't do you any good when your mode of transport will eat 20-25% of its charge getting to and maintaining operating temperature.
We will continue to require NMC cells and their flammable electrolytes here in the North for all but Mw+ energy storage, and at that point there are better/cheaper chemistries like flow cells, or pumped hydro where the terrain makes it possible.
Thanks so much Rosie! I'm loving this series. The doomers in my blogosphere are really banging on about running out of minerals etc. I also enjoy the footage of the stuff being extracted as a raw resource and then processed etc. Anyway, question. If we were to 'run out' of copper as they so hysterically assert (forgetting various economic feedback loops and recycling etc) - what about this next claim? Aluminium - which is 8% of the earth's crust and more abundant than even iron ore at 5% - could substitute? I'd love you to chat with some industry insiders and technical people in EV's and what-not about what this would take. That's WITHOUT doping it with graphene and whatever people are working on to make 'superconductive aluminium.' Just bog standard aluminium with 60% of the conductivity. How would we do it? This is the claim. Just use more! "This means you will need a 25% thicker wire for the same results. However, the aluminium in this equivalent wire will cost and weight about half as much as copper. That’s it. Aluminium in power lines? Of course! Also underground! And in transformers and coils, in motors? Yes!"
He claims over 90% of the roles of copper can be replaced with aluminium. I'd love you to either mythbust this one or confirm it with some electrical engineers - car engineers - wind turbine people - etc! www.shapesbyhydro.com/en/material-properties/how-we-can-substitute-aluminium-for-copper-in-the-green-transition/
Awesome video with no political slant, love it. It would be so smart to see Australia use your abundance of solar energy to value add all those products you mentioned and not export profits and products, win win for environment and having a political friendly country to deal with. Are there any Lithium extraction/refining that isn't rough on the environment? I've seen that most of the South American locations us a large amount of scarce fresh water .
Great episode very well explained. Would love to see a discussion with you and Michael Micheaux
Do you mean Simon Micheax?
@@MrTimAuld yep, that one 😬
@@MrTimAuld Add Mark Mills to the chat as well.
Thanks for the informative video Rosie it was very interesting.
Following on from this and if you are able, it would be great to know if you could do a video on the end of life processing (ie recycling) of these manufacture products that contain these minerals because to be fair I believe that these too are another major challenge with the energy transition that isn’t being properly dealt.
Cheers,
Matt.
Great video!
Thank you for adding some badly needed clarity to a topic which has had far more than its share of misinformation.