Seaver Wang Profile picture
Aug 15, 2023 11 tweets 4 min read Read on X
Finally found time yesterday evening to take an unofficial satellite's-eye-view tour of the quasi-legendary Spruce Pine ultra-high-purity quartz mine in North Carolina.

It'd be an understatement to say this mine is currently key to the semiconductor + solar PV industries. 🧵 Image
IIRC, there's no other ultra-high-purity quartz mine of this scale, creating quite the potential bottleneck. A fire at a Spruce Pine facility may have contributed to the 2008 spike in polysilicon prices that arguably set off the last decade's solar boom.

Ultra-high-purity quartz is used for chip factory tools + crucibles used to contain molten silicon during manufacturing of ultrapure monocrystalline silicon ingots for chips + solar PV wafers via the Czochralski process. Pure quartz reduces impurities in the resulting product. Image
Sibelco's processing facility pictured in the screenshot shown in the first tweet of this thread is fairly easy to find by simply zooming in towards the town of Spruce Pine (35.90, -82.06). Image
The surrounding area shows many signs of mining activity, and it is unclear which of these sites are the source of this extremely valuable material.

This region has a long history of minerals production for other high-quality sand materials like mica and feldspar. Image
This is a fascinating related book excerpt (h/t to @DustinMulvaney) from a few years back that describes the high secrecy (and aggressive legal strategies) that Sibelco subsidiary Unimin uses to protect its operations.

wired.com/story/book-exc…
A neat tidbit from the article that I wasn’t aware of: after WWII it was actually public sector Tennessee Valley Authority scientists in nearby Asheville who adapted froth flotation to separate out high-purity quartz from mined rock, with TVA electricity.

tva.com/Newsroom/TVA-H…
Exact production from these mines is a guarded secret, but experts interviewed in this late 2021 SCMP article suggest that Spruce Pine mines then produced 180,000-200,000 tons/yr, 80-90% of the global supply. Local mine expansion efforts are ongoing.

scmp.com/news/china/art…
In nearly all cases, the absolute quantity of minerals on Earth is more than sufficient to meet raw material needs for the transition to low-carbon energy.

The much more relevant question is if the rate of mineral production may slow the transition.

It's worth noting that the ultra-high-purity quartz crucibles used to manufacture chips and solar PV wafers are expended during this process.

For now, Spruce Pine and other mines may suffice. But over the longer term, we could have to get creative.

The transition to low-carbon energy tech can be protected from unexpected shocks by making sure not too many eggs depend on single/narrow supply chain links.

Upstream investments (and maintaining a porfolio of diverse low-CO2 technologies) could save much headache down the road.

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with Seaver Wang

Seaver Wang Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @wang_seaver

Apr 25
To supply low-carbon power to a grid via nuclear, solar, wind, or grid batteries, how much material must we dig up to build those power plants?
Answer: far less than for fossil fuels, with nuclear needing the least mining. New @TheBTI report by my team:
thebreakthrough.org/issues/energy/…
Image
Big takeaways:
Coal? Digs ~1.18 million kgs of rock+coal per GWh for fuel only
Solar+wind have improved much in last 10 yrs
Nuclear still needs least mining + critical minerals per GWh
Cu, steel, Ni, Li, U, Ag offer ways to improve mining footprint further
thebreakthrough.org/issues/energy/…
What inspired this analysis? Energy transition mining remains divisive, but discussions often cite flawed or out-of-date data, or end up handwavy. For this analysis, we wanted to make an up-to-date comparison, w transparent methodology using public sources
apps.openei.org/REMPD/
Read 24 tweets
Jan 28
From 2018 to 2023, silver use in solar PV cells has dropped by around half! (h/t @solar_chase)

Indeed academic papers (incl my own) tend to lean several yrs out of date. But industry intel is often paywalled, hence my habit of obnoxiously saving whatever nuggets I come across. Image
This is a clear example of why getting the stamp of peer-review doesn't mean something is right or the golden truth of science.

The most crucial round of peer review is really the permanent, continuous reactions/feedback from other experts once a study is actually publicly read.
I had assumed 10g per watt in my @Joule_CP paper, and had thought afterwards that might've been generous--but now it's right on the money.

Where I was way off was concrete, which is no longer used to anchor solar mountings in most utility-scale plants.

sciencedirect.com/science/articl…
Read 4 tweets
Jul 27, 2023
Expanding energy access + clean energy in Asia + Africa won’t be as easy as many high-profile “100% renewable” papers suggest.

My new analysis shows how 100% RE models on Asia/Africa assume implausibly low costs + overlook key infrastructure challenges.

thebreakthrough.org/issues/energy/…
A flashy review paper from @ChristianOnRE + coauthors allegedly compiling hundreds of “100% renewable energy system” studies worldwide has received a lot of recent attention.

But this isn’t as big/rigorous of a field as such stated numbers might imply.

https://t.co/L23TRAoo9C
Image
Given my interests in Asia climate/energy policy, I noticed this review generating buzz early on, and was keen to dig deeper.

I noticed some funny things at a first glance (see linked thread), but over the past months I found much more serious issues...

Read 27 tweets
Jul 26, 2023
Untangling @enricomariutti's solar PV CO2 analysis as quoted by Shellenberger, Part 2

To his great credit, Enrico has made his calculations available, emphasizing he has nothing to hide.

In the same spirit I agreed to take a close look--and I think I've isolated the key issues. Image
I’m going to work through these numbers step by step below.

I’ve made a copy of Enrico’s calculations sheet that I’ll share here in case anybody else wants to take a look. Fair warning, the units change often and are not clearly denoted:

https://t.co/JvyYOngSGLdocs.google.com/spreadsheets/d…
Image
LIFETIME GENERATION:

Enrico uses the full equivalent hours method here, assuming generation at full capacity for the equivalent of 1137 hours/yr in Italy. Other key factors include 25 year lifetime, module degradation at 2% the 1st year + 0.5%/yr thereafter, and 5.6% grid losses Image
Read 20 tweets
Jul 25, 2023
I think this solar PV CO2 analysis from @enricomariutti promoted by Shellenberger is too high for reasons I'll point out.

Mariutti gives range of 170-250 g/kWh (!!)
Many literature estimates range 12-80 g/kWh
My rough estimate of upper-end is maybe a bit more than 72 g/kWh
I think Mariutti is correct to point out that much of the LCA literature is not sufficiently accounting for more CO2-intensive Chinese manufacturing.

But Mariutti then bases electricity inputs for silicon supply chain on a 2006 study

Mariutti's calcs: https://t.co/f8PBWRYC11enricomariutti.it/the-dirty-secr…
Image
I can appreciate why he likes the transparency of the 2006 study? But this misses the past 17 years of learning-by-doing as the solar-grade polysilicon sector has scaled many times over.

He takes 1.61 GWh/MWp as the electricity input for solar-grade polysilicon, for instance.
Read 16 tweets
Jul 18, 2023
🇺🇸 lacks key clean tech know-how writes @robinsonmeyer

I think I largely disagree. Was looking at battery-grade graphite, which 🇺🇸 virtually didn't make b4 now.

Seems we may hit 100k tons/yr by 2025 + 200k t/yr by 2028--and I might be missing projects.

nytimes.com/2023/07/17/opi…
I struggle to think of sectors/technologies where the US truly has a vacuum of essential know-how. Even in areas like upstream silicon-based solar factories or LFP batteries where the US is behind, we're competitive in alternative commercial tech (CtTe solar + NMC batteries)...
I do think @robinsonmeyer is correct in pointing out Ford/CATL's proposed Michigan LFP battery factory as a case where Congressional anti-China posturing has impeded a project arguably in the US's net interest.

But it's incorrect that the US can't make LFP batteries otherwise. Image
Read 12 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Don't want to be a Premium member but still want to support us?

Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal

Or Donate anonymously using crypto!

Ethereum

0xfe58350B80634f60Fa6Dc149a72b4DFbc17D341E copy

Bitcoin

3ATGMxNzCUFzxpMCHL5sWSt4DVtS8UqXpi copy

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us!

:(