"To have, or not to have- that is the question", like Hamlet faced the dilemma on minerals.
Geological survey of Finland (GTK) and their A/Prof S. Michaux faced too, and answered:
“World doesn’t have enough mineral reserves for the energy transition”
What's that all about?🧵
Geological survey of Finland (GTK) and their A/Prof S. Michaux faced too, and answered:
“World doesn’t have enough mineral reserves for the energy transition”
What's that all about?🧵
Shakespeare aside, in more specific terms GTK describe in their study that:
“It is clear that there are not enough minerals in the currently reported global reserves to build just one generation of batteries for all EV’s and stationary power storage."
Seems worth checking out.
“It is clear that there are not enough minerals in the currently reported global reserves to build just one generation of batteries for all EV’s and stationary power storage."
Seems worth checking out.
The report has acquired some high praises in Finnish media and social media.
It has been said that: “every decision maker and citizen should read it though.”
It has been said that: “every decision maker and citizen should read it though.”
https://twitter.com/JussiSHeinonen/status/1557259122260811778?s=20&t=FZhqT2OwDI0nghMnikPyPA
Internationally it has also got quite a lot likeminded attention from the energy transition and renewable energy skeptics alike.
https://twitter.com/PeterDClack/status/1583935606421585920
Simon himself has been in the Finnish press claiming that “humanity has been taken over by blind faith.”
And: “The claim that technology will safe us, doesn’t respect the reality of mineral resource quantity or their availability.”
hs.fi/visio/art-2000…
And: “The claim that technology will safe us, doesn’t respect the reality of mineral resource quantity or their availability.”
hs.fi/visio/art-2000…
In the same article he claims that “the production, assembly and disassembly of windturbines and solar panels might in theory require more energy than what they produce during their lifetime.”
That would meen an EROI (energy return on investment) of less than one for wind & PV.
That would meen an EROI (energy return on investment) of less than one for wind & PV.
However, in this recently published literature review and harmonization study of different EROI value studies, wind and PV have EROI values
Well above > 10.
To me that Michaux claim/ estimate seems bit of an outlier.
Well above > 10.
To me that Michaux claim/ estimate seems bit of an outlier.
https://twitter.com/Peters_Glen/status/1586626960926466049?s=20&t=FZhqT2OwDI0nghMnikPyPA
I hope I got your attention by now.
As they put in this call for action:”It’s time to wake up”
So, let’s wake up, and check these numbers because the immediate after question should be:
"Yes, but for what?"
gtk.fi/en/research/ti…
As they put in this call for action:”It’s time to wake up”
So, let’s wake up, and check these numbers because the immediate after question should be:
"Yes, but for what?"
gtk.fi/en/research/ti…
Positives from the study:
👍 Electricity grid flexibility and reliability for seasonal wind & solar intermitted supply cannot only rely on batteries. >> That's why it's rarely suggested.
👍 The call for open discussion about understanding the transition and its requirements.
👍 Electricity grid flexibility and reliability for seasonal wind & solar intermitted supply cannot only rely on batteries. >> That's why it's rarely suggested.
👍 The call for open discussion about understanding the transition and its requirements.
Don’t get me wrong. This study must be taken seriously because it comes with such a strategic magnitude.
This is a wakeup call to mineral reserves and their development, but it is counter-initiative to come up with such exaggerated claims.
You can do better, GTK.
This is a wakeup call to mineral reserves and their development, but it is counter-initiative to come up with such exaggerated claims.
You can do better, GTK.
The first report was published August 2021 and has 985 pages but there are NONE explicitly stated mineral requirements for transition.
Still they claim to know best the energy transition mineral requirements.
That should make one consider, shouldn’t it.
tupa.gtk.fi/raportti/arkis…
Still they claim to know best the energy transition mineral requirements.
That should make one consider, shouldn’t it.
tupa.gtk.fi/raportti/arkis…
Only one graph, page 651 states that the we will run out of mineral reserves.
It’s based on assumption that we need a 574 TWh of stationary battery storage for intermitted energy production (wind & solar).
Electric vehicles make only 10% of that cumulative amount.
It’s based on assumption that we need a 574 TWh of stationary battery storage for intermitted energy production (wind & solar).
Electric vehicles make only 10% of that cumulative amount.
So how big number 574 TWh battery storage is?
Assuming 70 kWh battery size for vehicles, that would be enough for 8,2 billion electric vehicles.
Though, it would take us 102 years with current car production levels, if we would ever have such a capability.
Assuming 70 kWh battery size for vehicles, that would be enough for 8,2 billion electric vehicles.
Though, it would take us 102 years with current car production levels, if we would ever have such a capability.
The first report estimates were only based on NMC-811 battery chemistry which seems less likely primary chemistry, especially in stationary storage.
We critizised this, and other assumptions in September with @T1Heikkila and @MattiKahra (Finnish).
kauppalehti.fi/uutiset/asiant…
We critizised this, and other assumptions in September with @T1Heikkila and @MattiKahra (Finnish).
kauppalehti.fi/uutiset/asiant…
How much more 574 TWh is than the others predict?
1⃣IEA NZE Scenario 2050
- 3,86 TW of power
- 6h storage= 23,2 TWh (range from 1-8h)
- wind & solar share 69%
2⃣S&P estimate is around 8,1 TWh.
3⃣BNEF estimate 4,5 TWh
That is not a modest estimate.
1⃣IEA NZE Scenario 2050
- 3,86 TW of power
- 6h storage= 23,2 TWh (range from 1-8h)
- wind & solar share 69%
2⃣S&P estimate is around 8,1 TWh.
3⃣BNEF estimate 4,5 TWh
That is not a modest estimate.
U.S. Department of Energy’s National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) has published a study (2022) which claims that US can reach
94% of RE-share with 6 TWh and 930 GW stationary battery. Wind & solar share is 71%.
That means only 6,5h of capacity.
nrel.gov/docs/fy22osti/…
94% of RE-share with 6 TWh and 930 GW stationary battery. Wind & solar share is 71%.
That means only 6,5h of capacity.
nrel.gov/docs/fy22osti/…
GTK's study fails to look the seasonal storage from global perspective, with all the geographical variations.
Most of the people live in southern latitudes, where seasonal intermittency of solar, for instance, is less of an issue. Map @undertheraedar
Most of the people live in southern latitudes, where seasonal intermittency of solar, for instance, is less of an issue. Map @undertheraedar
Why is GTK's estimate is so much off from the others?
- They assume that we need a FOUR-week stationary battery (672h) for wind and solar power.
Here's a study that estimates that li-ion batteries are pricewise optimal for only < 16h of storage, in 2040.
sciencedirect.com/sdfe/reader/pi…
- They assume that we need a FOUR-week stationary battery (672h) for wind and solar power.
Here's a study that estimates that li-ion batteries are pricewise optimal for only < 16h of storage, in 2040.
sciencedirect.com/sdfe/reader/pi…
Wouldn’t it be odd if we used only batteries to mitigate electricity grid flexibility.
The World Energy Outlook 2022 offer much more holistic approach to this matter.
Batteries account only 20-25% of the flexibility demand by 2050 in different scenarios.
The World Energy Outlook 2022 offer much more holistic approach to this matter.
Batteries account only 20-25% of the flexibility demand by 2050 in different scenarios.
Seems like something is missing from this “overall mineral requirement study” that the others take into account, but I’m afraid to say that this is not the end of it.
There’s another, even bigger elephant in the room, which you might have noticed.
In fact, couple of them.
There’s another, even bigger elephant in the room, which you might have noticed.
In fact, couple of them.
The second part of the study comes with even bigger number of stationary battery storage= 2017 TWh.
The main reason for this is a 3,5-factor increase in wind & solar share, and the assumption of the global 672h of stationary battery storage still remains.
The main reason for this is a 3,5-factor increase in wind & solar share, and the assumption of the global 672h of stationary battery storage still remains.
https://twitter.com/Finsif/status/1590713900072247296?s=20&t=P9214wSyfEPHMoDenboH4A
Like the first part of the study, 2nd has not been peer-reviewed.
In fact, it has not even been published…
Most of these online circulating mineral requirement claims are based on the presentation set.
That’s where I got these numbers, too.
In fact, it has not even been published…
Most of these online circulating mineral requirement claims are based on the presentation set.
That’s where I got these numbers, too.
Professor Eliot Jacobson praised this 2nd (unpublished) part of the study as a:
"Proof that green energy transition is a bright green lie."
So let's have a look at the numbers.
"Proof that green energy transition is a bright green lie."
So let's have a look at the numbers.
https://twitter.com/EliotJacobson/status/1563589171486175238?s=20&t=yifLL3v2ABFrWRZ8Mhi1hQ
The main reason for inflated mineral requirements is the increase in Renewable energy production (mainly wind and solar).
That puts this 2nd (unpublished) study more in-line with other RE-scenarios.
The changes between 1st and 2nd study in production estimates are large.
That puts this 2nd (unpublished) study more in-line with other RE-scenarios.
The changes between 1st and 2nd study in production estimates are large.
The additional power estimate difference between the studies from 2021 and 2022 are:
Wind increases 168%
Solar increases 497%
Nuclear decreases -75%
Hydro decreases -71%
So much so, for the energy transition predictability, I guess.
Wind increases 168%
Solar increases 497%
Nuclear decreases -75%
Hydro decreases -71%
So much so, for the energy transition predictability, I guess.
For instance, why annual nuclear generation decreases by almost 8000 TWh?
That’s almost 500 Olkiluoto 3 sized (1600MW) reactors gone.
Here are the original tables.
That’s almost 500 Olkiluoto 3 sized (1600MW) reactors gone.
Here are the original tables.
The 2nd study leaves us with the 27 600 TWh of wind & solar generation which based on their study requires FOUR weeks of 2017 TWh of stationary battery storage.
Only now we can deal the mineral requirements because they are so heavily influenced by these assumptions.
Only now we can deal the mineral requirements because they are so heavily influenced by these assumptions.
As a sidenote, I don't have time to check every mineral requirement of every technology but seems like Michaux mostly refers to IEA data.
However the EV battery metal requirement estimate comes with some peculiarities.
However the EV battery metal requirement estimate comes with some peculiarities.
For instance, the EV battery minerals quantities seem quite inflated in comparison to IEA battery chemistry predictions assuming "2030 Constrained-scenario".
Lithium:
- Michaux 14kg/EV
- IEA 7kg/EV
>>>That's 100% more!
These things matter when predicting 66 TWh of batteries.
Lithium:
- Michaux 14kg/EV
- IEA 7kg/EV
>>>That's 100% more!
These things matter when predicting 66 TWh of batteries.
EV battery mineral requirement is not the main issue here, however.
It is the battery storage, as you might have expected.
Most of the stationary storage is based on LFP but other chemistries exist too.
Let's take a closer look how it affects the copper demand estimation.
It is the battery storage, as you might have expected.
Most of the stationary storage is based on LFP but other chemistries exist too.
Let's take a closer look how it affects the copper demand estimation.
Copper estimate has 4576 Mt total cumulative copper demand in GTK 2nd study.
Out of this, stationary battery storage requires 4370 Mt, which is 95,5% of the total amount.
All the other technologies require only 4,5%. -I mean all.
Out of this, stationary battery storage requires 4370 Mt, which is 95,5% of the total amount.
All the other technologies require only 4,5%. -I mean all.
Here’s a graph from S&P The Future of Copper study (2022) which estimate the copper demand for stationary battery storage quite another way around.
The biggest copper demand share in S&P prediction, Transmission & distribution is missing from GTK’s mineral estimate.
The biggest copper demand share in S&P prediction, Transmission & distribution is missing from GTK’s mineral estimate.
Analysing the previous graph year 2040 estimate in similar pie-chart fashion. Stationary storage requires only 2,3% of the total copper demand from energy transition technologies in 2040 based on S&P.
How about IEA vs GTK. What is the difference between them? when we:
- Have the IEA NZE 23,2 TWh battery storage
- Have IEA EV battery mix in IEA estimate
- Keep every other technology mineral requirement/MW the same?
Surprise, global copper reserves are adequate.
- Have the IEA NZE 23,2 TWh battery storage
- Have IEA EV battery mix in IEA estimate
- Keep every other technology mineral requirement/MW the same?
Surprise, global copper reserves are adequate.
Like shown before, an important thing seems to be missing from GTK copper demand, the electricity grid.
According to IEA grids are the most copper heavy transition application and require up to 4,9 to 10,1Mt annually by 2040. That's 250 Mt cumulative
iea.org/data-and-stati…
According to IEA grids are the most copper heavy transition application and require up to 4,9 to 10,1Mt annually by 2040. That's 250 Mt cumulative
iea.org/data-and-stati…
Also, what points out to me in the prof. Jacobson table based on Michaux study is the Vanadium demand and the claim that we have only 3,52% of the required vanadium reserves.
So, what's that all about?
So, what's that all about?
According to the 2nd study world will have 66,3 TWh of vanadium redox flow batteries (VRB).
While, VRB batteries offer some advantages to li-ion they are not there, yet.
That amount is comparible to total global EV-fleet demand.
Seems a bit excessive.
cleantechnica.com/2021/01/25/res…
While, VRB batteries offer some advantages to li-ion they are not there, yet.
That amount is comparible to total global EV-fleet demand.
Seems a bit excessive.
cleantechnica.com/2021/01/25/res…
Okay, let's stop messing around.
Let's compare IEA NZE scenario and GTK (2nd-scenario) energy additions, and mineral requirements.
IEA scenario produces 70% more electricity. In other words, IEA plan replaces the current system 1,7 times more than GTK study.
Let's compare IEA NZE scenario and GTK (2nd-scenario) energy additions, and mineral requirements.
IEA scenario produces 70% more electricity. In other words, IEA plan replaces the current system 1,7 times more than GTK study.
Let's assume that GTK's mineral values for electricity generation technologies are correct.
Process: Previously shown ⚡️- generation differences between the scenarios are factored and the GTK's mineral assumptions are multiplied by this factor for IEA NZE requirement demand.
Process: Previously shown ⚡️- generation differences between the scenarios are factored and the GTK's mineral assumptions are multiplied by this factor for IEA NZE requirement demand.
For instance, IEA’s wind power generation additions are 1,59 times the GTK’s, so in this model the GTK’s wind power mineral requirements are multiplied with the factor.
Differences are quite substantial.
IEA’s NZE scenario metal requirements are enough for more than two transitions.
GTK's 4-week stationary storage assumption inflates the critical mineral requirement by a factor between 26-83 times.
That's how they claim what they claim.
IEA’s NZE scenario metal requirements are enough for more than two transitions.
GTK's 4-week stationary storage assumption inflates the critical mineral requirement by a factor between 26-83 times.
That's how they claim what they claim.
Here are the references and sidenotes to the previous table 1A.
Out of general curiosity, let's also add another scenario with 12h of battery electric stationary storage (BESS) based on the IEA NZE scenario 3,86 TW of power.
That makes 46,3 TWh of stationary battery storage.
That makes 46,3 TWh of stationary battery storage.
This is how the cumulative mineral requirement scenarios look visually. Including:
- Identified mineral reserves
- GTK’s 2nd study scenario
- IEA NZE scenario (6h BESS)
- IEA NZE scenario (12h BESS)
Bear in mind that IEA scenarios has 70% more electricity than GTK
- Identified mineral reserves
- GTK’s 2nd study scenario
- IEA NZE scenario (6h BESS)
- IEA NZE scenario (12h BESS)
Bear in mind that IEA scenarios has 70% more electricity than GTK
To sum this up, let's visit the original claim, once more:
"It’s time to wake up - The currently known global mineral reserves will not be sufficient to supply enough metals to manufacture the planned non-fossil fuel industrial systems"
"It’s time to wake up - The currently known global mineral reserves will not be sufficient to supply enough metals to manufacture the planned non-fossil fuel industrial systems"
To me the way that they have run the research and have published the studies seems like an effort to directly downplay to energy transition technological opportunities.
It’s neither in line with stated motivation:
"Increasing the mining and recycling of minerals greatly"
It’s neither in line with stated motivation:
"Increasing the mining and recycling of minerals greatly"
Another claim: "The World needs a new plan"
No, we don’t need "a new plan" or even a breakthrough in technology.
Plans and technologies continuously evolve and naturally develop according to market needs with the free & open market, and research-based insights.
No, we don’t need "a new plan" or even a breakthrough in technology.
Plans and technologies continuously evolve and naturally develop according to market needs with the free & open market, and research-based insights.
We don’t need the wishful blue-eyed thinking that some new out-of-the-blue-technology might in decade or two emerge and save us all, if we keep our fingers crossed.
That’s how we ended up in this mess in the first place.
We need concrete development.
That’s how we ended up in this mess in the first place.
We need concrete development.
We need to rapidly extend the deployment, production and development of the existing zero-emission technologies, and materials & minerals associated with them.
We need adaptabilty in their application for different energy markets, energy mixes, and geographical seasonalities.
We need adaptabilty in their application for different energy markets, energy mixes, and geographical seasonalities.
Market has a built in mechanism to deal with the mineral shortages, if they occur, and that is, the high prices. Bottlenecks tend to fix themselves.
High prices increases the development of primary and secondary mineral processes and hopefully product design, too.
High prices increases the development of primary and secondary mineral processes and hopefully product design, too.
It's worth considering the material and mineral externalities on Earth while transition pace increases.
Then one must consider the mineral extraction of other metals, fossil fuels etc. today.
Which leaves us, in fact far better off than previously.
Then one must consider the mineral extraction of other metals, fossil fuels etc. today.
Which leaves us, in fact far better off than previously.
https://twitter.com/AukeHoekstra/status/1586847277846503426?s=20&t=dkxBJBaXv2KhOkewxnnQPw
Thanks for tuning in./End.
Ping @mattikahra, @T1Heikkila, @aukehoekstra @ketanjo @simonahac, @stepien_przemek and everyone else interested.
Ping @mattikahra, @T1Heikkila, @aukehoekstra @ketanjo @simonahac, @stepien_przemek and everyone else interested.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
