Roger Caiazza
The Bulletin of the Geological Survey of Finland “publishes the results of scientific research that is thematically or geographically connected to Finnish or Fennoscandian geology.” Bulletin 416 Special Issue publishes two articles by Simon P. Michaux that are of interest to anyone concerned about challenges of the transition away from fossil fuels.
The Preface to the Bulletin explains the purpose of the report:
The two contributions published in this Special Issue of the Bulletin of the Geological Survey of Finland highlight that a successful transition to renewable energy requires a comprehensive raw materials strategy that considers both the upstream metal demands and the downstream infrastructure needs. In technological and innovation space, exploring alternative battery chemistries, improving recycling rates, and developing more resource-efficient technologies will be crucial to mitigating the strain imposed on metal supply chains.
The earlier work of the sole author of these two papers has been widely quoted, debated, and criticized in the media and amongst policy makers and academic audiences in the past few years. The premises, process, and conclusions of these studies have questioned the validity of some of the basic assumptions underlying the current energy and natural resource policy, but have still, largely mistakenly, been taken as a statement in favor of the status quo. On the contrary, these contributions are intended as the beginning of a discourse and attempt to bring alternative, often overlooked, views into the discussion about the basic assumptions underlying the material requirements of the energy transition. Out of necessity, they make simplifications in recognizing and mapping out the scale of some key challenges in the raw materials sector that need to be overcome if the energy transition is to be realized. Calculations and estimations need to be refined and, naturally, in addition to raw materials production and the material transition, other crucial aspects such as technology and infrastructure development, workforce requirements, land use changes, and societal impacts, among others, also need to be considered.
Nevertheless, the challenges related to the complex and interconnected nature of the problem should not be taken as a cause to halt the development and innovation needed to overcome it. Further research, policy interventions, and international collaboration are all essential in securing sustainable supply chains, promoting responsible sourcing practices, and ensuring a just and equitable green and digital transition for everyone.
Scope of the Replacement System
The reference to the first article is:
Michaux, S. P. 2024. Scope of the replacement system to globally phase out fossil fuels. Geological Survey of Finland, Bulletin 416, 5–172, 50 figures, 51 tables and 10 annexes.
The Abstract states:
The task to phase out fossil fuels is now at hand. Most studies and publications to date focus on why fossil fuels should be phased out. This study presents the physical requirements in terms of required non-fossil fuel industrial capacity, to completely phase out fossil fuels, and maintain the existing industrial ecosystem. The existing industrial ecosystem dependency on fossil fuels was mapped by fuel (oil, gas, and coal) and by industrial application. Data were collected globally for fossil fuel consumption, physical activity, and industrial actions for the year 2018.
The estimated sum total of extra annual capacity of non-fossil fuel power generation to phase out fossil fuels completely, and maintain the existing industrial ecosystem, at a global scale is 48,939.8 TWh.
A discussion on the needed size of the stationary power storage buffer to manage intermittent energy supply from wind and solar was conducted. Pumped hydro, hydrogen, biofuels and ammonia were all examined as options in this paper. This study uses four stationary power buffer capacities: 6 hours, 48 hours + 10%, 28 days and 12 weeks. This power buffer is assumed to be supplied through the use of large battery banks (in line with strategic policy expectations).
An estimate is presented for the total quantity of metals required to manufacture a single generation of renewable technology units (EV’s, solar panels, wind turbines, etc.) sufficient to replace energy technologies based on combustion of fossil fuels. This estimate was derived by assembling the number of units needed against the estimated metal content for individual battery chemistries, wind turbines, solar panels, and electric vehicles. The majority of the metals needed were to resource the construction of stationary power storage to act as a buffer for wind and solar power generation.
It was shown that both 2019 global mine production, 2022 global reserve estimates, 2022 mineral resources, and estimates of undersea resources, were manifestly inadequate for meeting projected demand for copper, lithium, nickel, cobalt, graphite, and vanadium.
The analysis takes a bottom-up approach to determine what is needed for global fossil fuel replacement. For example, Michaux estimates how many vehicles were used for transport by class and the miles traveled to estimate how much fossil fuel was used and the energy needed for replacement. He proposes non-fossil fuel technology as replacements. The work estimates “the quantity of electrical energy required to charge the batteries of a complete EV system” and “the quantity of electrical energy to manufacture the required hydrogen for a complete H2 Cell system” as an alternative. Estimates for “electrical energy generation, building heating with gas and steel manufacture with coal” were also determined. The analysis found that:
The estimated sum total of extra annual capacity of non-fossil fuel power generation to phase out fossil fuels completely, and maintain the existing industrial ecosystem, at a global scale is 48,939.8 TWh. This builds upon an existing 9,528.7 TWh of non-fossil fuel electrical energy generation annual capacity. If a non-fossil fuel energy mix was used (based on an IEA prediction for 2050, IRENA 2022) was assumed, then this translates into an extra 796,709 new non-fossil fuel power plants will need to be constructed and commissioned. A discussion on the needed size of the stationary power storage buffer to manage intermittent energy supply from wind and solar was conducted. Four calculations of the size of the power buffer were done (6 hours, 48 hours, 28 days and 12 weeks). Pumped hydro, hydrogen, biofuels, battery banks and ammonia were all examined as options in this paper.
Given that Michaux is trying to estimate global energy use it is understandable that there are many simplifying assumptions. For the intended purpose I do not think any of my observations would change the general results, i.e., I believe the estimates are close enough for results that are the right order of magnitude. My primary interest is the electric sector. Section 14: Performance of existing fleet of electricity generation power stations estimates the availability and power production in Table 36. In Table 38 the assumptions and estimated number of power stations needed to replace fossil-fired power stations are listed. In the following table I combined data from both tables.
I have a few observations about these results. Michaux had to estimate the energy split between the power systems. Solar thermal is included, which I think is a niche system suitable only for deserts. Back calculating from the total energy requirement, he estimated the energy needed for each generation type. The average installed plant capacity was from a reference and used to estimate the power produced by an average plant of each type. The availability across the year parameter is close enough to capacity factor that they are interchangeable. I think nuclear availability is low. I am sure that wind and solar advocates would argue that the availabilities used are also low. The result is a conservative estimate of the number of new power plants needed.
I did not see a distinction between onshore and offshore wind in this article, but the second article described below states:
This study projects that 1.3 million wind turbines (each one assumed to be a 6.6 MW (Megawatt capacity) will need to be operational as part of the task to completely phase out fossil fuels. Onshore units will account for 70% of this number, corresponding to 910,000 wind turbines. Offshore units will account for 30%, requiring 390,429 wind turbines.
In my opinion it would have been better to split onshore and offshore wind into two categories because the availabilities will differ.
The analysis also calculates the size of the power buffer needed to back up the predicted generation resources which is a particular interest of mine. I will postpone a discussion of that for another post. For the purposes of this article note that the report includes an exhaustive analysis of energy storage requirements and potential technologies to provide the necessary storage.
The first article estimates the energy necessary for the transition which was used in the second article to determine the materials resources needed for the transition. The article notes that a massive number of new facilities will be required and that a “large wind and solar power systems would need to be internally self-sufficient and need a buffer for stable operation”. Despite the caveat that the author did not intend to support the status quo reality intervenes. Michaux notes: “If there are technical issues in storing the needed quantity of power for the needed time period, then it is concluded that wind and solar power generation systems are not practical as the primary energy source for the next industrial era after fossil fuel based technology.”
Quantity of Metals Required
The second article was referenced:
Michaux, S. P. 2024. Quantity of metals required to manufacture one generation of renewable technology units to phase out fossil fuel. Geological Survey of Finland, Bulletin 416, 173–293, 38 figures, 60 tables and 2 annexes.
The abstract states:
An estimate is presented for the total quantity of raw materials required to manufacture a single generation of renewable technology units (solar panels, wind turbines, etc.) sufficient to replace energy technologies based on combustion of fossil fuels. This estimate was derived by assembling the number of units needed against the estimated metal con- tent for individual battery chemistries, wind turbines, solar panels, and electric vehicles. The majority of the metals needed were to resource the construction of stationary power storage to act as a buffer for wind and solar power generation.
This study uses four stationary power buffer capacities as modelled in a previous study: 6 hours, 48 hours + 10%, 28 days and 12 weeks. This power buffer is assumed to be supplied through the use of large battery banks (in line with strategic policy expectations). Metal quantities were calculated for all four capacities and compared with mining production, mineral reserves, mineral resources, and known under sea resources. It was also assessed whether recycling could deliver this metal quantity by comparing calculations against the sum total mined metal between 1990 and 2023. The quantity of metal mined over the last 34 years was inadequate, which means recycling cannot deliver the needed capacity, and the mining of minerals would have to be the primary source of metals for at least the first generation of non-fossil fuel technology. If a metal has not yet been mined, then that metal cannot be recycled.
There are two highlights in the following: the quantity of metals available is “manifestly inadequate” and technological scaling up issues mean wind and solar “may not be viable as the primary energy source” for the transition:
It was shown that both 2019 global mine production, 2022 global reserve estimates, 2022 mineral resources, and estimates of undersea resources, were manifestly inadequate for meeting projected demand for copper, lithium, nickel, cobalt, graphite, and vanadium. Comprehensive analysis of these calculations suggest that lithium-ion battery chemistry (on its own) is not a viable option for upscaling to meet anticipated global market demand. This then implies that battery banks would not be viable as a power buffer for wind and solar in the quantities needed. As previous work had shown that pumped hydro storage and hydrogen storage face logistical issues in scale up, the belief of strategic policy makers was that battery banks were the solution. As all of these technologies face scale up issues, wind and solar may not be viable as the primary energy source to support the next generation of industrialization.
Consequently, the development of alternative battery chemistries is recommended. The calculated shortfall in copper and nickel production was also of concern, as both metals are vital to the existing economy and there is no known viable substitute or alternative for either commodity. Another alternative would be to develop an entirely new form of electrical power generation that did not need such heavy resource supply in construction or operation.
The calculations in the first article provided the number of generating resources needed provided. This article determined how many metals would be required for each resource based on those numbers. For anyone wanting to evaluate material requirements for wind, solar, and battery equipment the analysis provides a lot of documentation. Also note that Michaux included metals needed for doubling the current nuclear energy capacity, additional hydropower, and more geothermal.
In an analogous process Michaux calculated the number of zero-emission “technology units” needed to replace fossil fuels in industry and transportation. Electric vehicles are an example of a technology unit. Fuel cell vehicles are also included. Table 49 from the article is the sum of all metal from all parts of this study into one quantity by metal (split into the four different power buffer storage capacities).
Source: Published in Geological Survey of Finland Bulletin 416
Conclusion
This is an ambitious analysis that covers the entire global energy system. As such there are bound to be oversights and limitations as well as interpretative assumptions that could be issues. In my opinion, however, the approach and assumptions are reasonable and should give a reasonable estimate of the metals needed. The mass of metals available is another challenge but I think there is better historical data available. Comparing the metals needed to the metals available leads to the inescapable conclusion that the dreams of replacing fossil fuels will be unable to overcome reality.
Roger Caiazza blogs on New York energy and environmental issues at Pragmatic Environmentalist of New York. This represents his opinion and not the opinion of any of his previous employers or any other company with which he has been associated.
Related