Critical Minerals and Energy: Meeting the Mining Demands for Energy Transition by 2030

Highlights

• Nearly 300 new mines and processing plants must be developed by 2030 to meet the demand for battery, solar, and wind energy materials.
• U.S. mine development can take up to 29 years, creating significant bottlenecks in scaling mining operations for the energy transition.
• Trump’s policy shift potentially challenges renewable energy momentum by prioritizing domestic fossil fuel production and withdrawing from international climate agreements.

---

The global shift towards renewable energy and electric vehicles necessitates a significant increase in the production of key minerals such as lithium, cobalt, nickel, and copper. According to Benchmark Mineral Intelligence, nearly 300 new mines and processing plants must be developed by 2030 to meet the projected material demand for batteries, solar farms, and wind turbines. For instance, the demand for lithium alone will require 52 new mines, while the demand for copper will require 61 mines.

Minerals like manganese, used in battery production, will require a fourfold increase in output, necessitating 21 new processing plants. However, developing these new mines presents a significant challenge due to lengthy permitting and funding processes. In the U.S., establishing a new mine can take up to 29 years, whereas countries like the Democratic Republic of Congo and Laos have much shorter timelines of 10 to 15 years.

This underscores the critical bottlenecks in scaling up mining operations to support the energy transition and highlights the need for streamlined permitting processes and international cooperation to address mineral supply chain gaps, reports Bruno Venditti at Elements (opens in a new tab).

What about the Contrarian View?

President Donald Trump’s recent policy shift emphasizes bolstering domestic oil and gas production, marking a significant departure from previous renewable energy initiatives. This pivot includes declaring a national energy emergency to expedite fossil fuel projects, withdrawing from the Paris Climate Agreement, and reversing incentives for electric vehicles and renewable energy infrastructure.

This redirection could slow the global momentum toward alternative energy by reducing U.S. participation in international climate efforts and potentially influencing other nations to deprioritize renewable investments. However, it may also galvanize other countries to intensify their clean energy commitments, aiming to fill the leadership void left by the U.S.

Domestically, would such a policy shift lead to increased greenhouse gas emissions and environmental concerns?  Will Trump’s American move possibly undermine the burgeoning renewable energy sector, which has been a significant source of job creation and economic growth?  In one way, it’s a move by the United States to outflank China, which has the advantage in the alternative energy space.

The long-term impact on the global energy transition will depend on various factors, including market responses, technological advancements in renewables, and policy decisions by other major economies. Only time and unfolding events will tell.