The carbon footprint of electrification: what we need to know

TL;DR

• Minerals such as lithium, nickel, cobalt, manganese, copper, aluminium, and graphite are critical to the effective construction and running of many renewable energy technologies. 

• Mining and processing many of these minerals comes with significant greenhouse gas emissions; cobalt mining is responsible for 1.5 million tonnes of carbon emissions annually while lithium mining produces 1.3 million tonnes each year.  

• Mining can also contaminate the water supply, destroy natural habitats, and contribute to unsafe employment practices that contravene basic human rights.  

• However, the environmental impact of mineral mining could be reduced if a localised and considered approach is taken. Mining companies should also embrace innovations to make their operations more sustainable.  

• Recycling also offers an alternative solution, making use of minerals in spent batteries to relieve pressure on the supply chain.   

• Swapping lithium-ion batteries with sulphur-ion or sodium-ion alternatives may help to curb the demand for new lithium stocks as both materials are in abundant supply, although further innovation is needed to make these batteries fit for purpose.  

The detail

Following on from last week’s look at the importance of electrification in the energy transition – and the bottlenecks hindering its progress – it’s important that we continue to look at the topic more holistically. As we discovered, working towards a greener future sadly isn’t as easy as simply deciding to switch from fossil fuel-based technologies to electrified alternatives.  

To both satisfy future demand and combat climate change, there is an acute need to scale up renewable energy assets and reduce the carbon footprint of electricity generation. Currently, the methods used to generate electricity are responsible for over 40% of all energy-related emissions. It’s clear that moving away from fossil fuels and replacing them with green or carbon-neutral power sources will be a crucial decarbonisation lever.  

Even so, renewable energy sources have their own carbon footprint that will need to be mitigated. From the materials used to construct solar and wind power plants to the resources plugged into the lithium-ion batteries that power electric vehicles (EVs), there are several environmental impacts to consider that go beyond supply chain bottlenecks.  

Mining for minerals  

Minerals are critical to the effective construction and running of many of the technologies we are relying on to power the energy transition. In fact, this is one area where renewable energy sources fall behind their fossil fuel competitors, with solar PV plants, wind farms and EVs all generally requiring more minerals to build than their fossil fuel equivalents. A typical EV, for example, demands six times more minerals than a standard car, while onshore wind farms need nine times more than gas-fired plants.  

A variety of minerals play a role in electrification including lithium, nickel, cobalt, manganese and graphite. The electricity network itself relies on an extremely high volume of copper and aluminium, while rare elements help form the permanent magnets used in turbines and electric vehicle motors.  

For supply to meet demand, all these minerals will be required in greater quantities in the coming years. The International Energy Agency (IEA) predicts that, to meet the goals of the Paris Agreement, electrification will drive a 40% increase in demand for copper and rare earth elements, 60-70% for nickel and cobalt, and an almost 90% increase for lithium. Overall, this means we will need four times as many minerals to power clean energy technologies by 2040, with estimations suggesting that the predicted that the market value of minerals could reach $400 billion. 

Emissions and ecosystems 

Unfortunately, obtaining and processing these minerals has myriad environmental impacts. The negative consequences run the gamut from increased carbon emissions and water pollution to human rights and safety concerns.  

When it comes to greenhouse gas emissions, the significant levels that we already see are only going to increase as electrification progresses. Cobalt mining, for example, is currently responsible for emitting around 1.5 million tonnes of carbon dioxide annually and lithium mining contributes an additional 1.3 million tonnes each year. Many emerging technologies, which are replacing traditional production methods, are also more energy intensive. The switch from lithium carbonate to lithium hydroxide comes with higher emissions, as does extracting nickel from laterite resources. Similarly, lithium production is transitioning from brine-based mining in Chile to hard rock extraction in Australia – a change that has tripled emissions.  

Mineral mining has a significant impact on water supply and cleanliness. The process typically needs a large volume of water to operate effectively, which exacerbates the pressure on areas that are often already facing high – or extremely high – levels of water stress. The evaporation method used for lithium extraction alone requires up to half a million gallons of brine water to produce one tonne of lithium.  

16% of the world’s land-based critical mineral mines are found in areas prone to water stress. 40% of the water supply in these regions is diverted to meet the existing mineral mining demand, resulting in high competition and potential shortages for those living and working in the local area. In Salar de Atacama in Chile, the mining of lithium and copper has reportedly consumed over 65% of the local water supply with the indigenous farming communities being the hardest hit. The same has been seen in the rest of Chile and into Argentina where the indigenous population has reported that fresh water used for drinking, livestock and agriculture has been contaminated by mineral mining activities.  

When an area is identified as a potential mining site, communities can be displaced and animal habitats lost, including those of endangered species. Biodiversity loss is often a casualty of mineral mining accidents. Acid mine draining, wastewater discharge and leaks of environmental contaminants during the mining process can all be hazardous to both human and animal health. It can also lead to underground fires, emitting harmful substances like arsenic.  

On a human level, the demand for minerals, coupled with the political climate of the countries where the most deposits are found, can leave the industry open to corruption and inhumane working practices. The Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) produces 60-70% of the world’s cobalt, but is known to have dangerous working conditions. The country’s cobalt mining industry employs between 140,000 and 200,000 people, many of whom are attracted by the daily wage of $3 (double the DRC’s average daily wage of $1.90). However, according to Earth.Org, workers can be exposed to dangerous and polluted conditions. 

A conscious way forward 

Happily, there are several potential solutions to these issues that could help to make the clean energy supply chain more ethical and sustainable, without eliminating mineral mining altogether.  

There are a variety of ways that mining operators can limit their environmental impact. These typically involve taking a more conscious approach to land use, both during and after it is mined, and working closely with local communities. Emerging, efficient technologies can offer a way for miners to extract, process, and reuse materials while introducing hybrid and electric equipment can also limit harm.  

Cornwall serves as an ideal case study to illustrate the possibilities when it comes to sustainable mining practices. St Austell, a former mining site, has undergone land reclamation and been returned to its natural state with additional trees planted to encourage biodiversity. Water pollution has also been addressed with the construction of the Wheal Jane Mine Water Treatment Plant, which ensures that acidic mine water doesn’t enter the clean water supply of the Carnon River or Fal Estuary.  

Taking a localised approach to mining activities could be transformative. Working with communities surrounding the mine boosts the socioeconomic benefits of the project, creating jobs, developing skills, and promoting local development. Choosing to mine for minerals in Cornwall rather than further afield could reduce emissions, cut transportation costs and improve governance. The EU has taken steps to promote mineral mining in its territories, unveiling plans to cut its project approval times from 10-15 years to just 27 months under the Critical Raw Materials Act.  

Reuse and recycle  

Urban mining and mineral recycling could ease some of the pressure on the mining industry. Instead of uncovering new raw minerals, urban mining extracts rare earth elements from electronics like smartphones once they reach the end of their life. Similarly, the number of used electric vehicle batteries is expected to surge after 2030 and recycling the minerals within them could be impactful. While unlikely to eliminate the need for new minerals entirely, recycled copper, lithium, nickel, and cobalt from batteries could reduce mining requirements by approximately 10% by 2040.  

This reduced reliance on new minerals is not the only benefit offered by recycling, it could be game-changing in regions with wide deployment of clean energy technologies due to the greater economies of scale involved. Coupled with strategic stockpiling, recycling could improve overall energy security and help countries weather short-term disruptions in supply.  

If the EU’s current battery recycling target of 80% becomes a global aspiration, the industry could generate $6 billion in profits by 2040.   

From AI to sodium-ions 

Innovation also has a role to play in offsetting the potential harm caused by mineral mining. Not only could it improve recycling processes but, with support from investors, mining companies could improve their efficiency and sustainability with changes that enable them to use more low-grade ores, enhance their productivity, and delay the development of new mines. AI could be employed to support faster and more precise exploration of sites as well as optimising the processing of critical materials and supporting battery condition analysis, while blockchain technology can enhance traceability throughout the supply chain.  

Extraction processes, especially when it comes to lithium, can definitely be improved. Extracting lithium from brine or hydrogeological sources is a promising alternative to conventional raw material extraction. Alternatively, an electrochemical ion pumping process allows lithium ions to be selectively extracted from aqueous solutions.  

Speaking of lithium, battery technology has untapped potential. Lithium batteries require a vast quantity of minerals, and the market is expected to grow from $57 billion in 2023 to $187 billion by 2032. The impact of this expansion could be offset by switching to sodium-ion batteries instead. Unlike lithium, sodium is widely available, cheap to source, and requires 682 times less water to extract one tonne of sodium compared to one tonne of lithium. It’s a naturally abundant, direct replacement for lithium.  

However, it’s not a plug-in-and-play solution. While it can be safely stored and isn’t very flammable, it has a low energy density, which impacts the range it can offer to EVs. It can only manage a short number of charging cycles; just 5,000 versus the 8,000-10,000 achievable with lithium. Even so, further research could improve these statistics: in 2023, scientists and engineers in China achieved 6,000 cycles using a different type of electrode.   

Lithium-sulphur batteries are another alternative that still use some lithium but replace the nickel, manganese, and cobalt in their cathode with sulphur. Sulphur is a by-product of natural gas processing and oil refining, which is why the US already produces 8.6 tonnes of it each year. Unfortunately, it also suffers from poor chargeability and the number of charging cycles it can achieve is limited to 50.  

A six-point strategy for success 

While electrification has a pivotal role to play in the race to net-zero, it’s clear from our analysis of its supply chain and carbon footprint that it’s not a flawless solution. If we are to avoid replicating the issues of the fossil fuel industry as the demand for renewable energy grows, it’s vital that we not only look to remove the roadblocks hindering supply, but also look at ways to reduce the impact of mineral mining on the environment and surrounding communities.  

It's when faced with conundrums like this that it can help to turn to the six recommendations issued by the IEA. To reduce the negative impact of mining for critical materials in the clean energy transition, it suggests ensuring investment in diversified sources; promoting innovation throughout the supply chain; scaling up recycling; enhancing supply chain resilience; standardising environmental, social, and governance expectations; and strengthening international collaboration between producers and consumers.  

It's not a quick fix, but there is a way forward. Electrification can be expanded in a sustainable and considered way with innovation, investment, and international collaboration.  

— Lew 👋

As ever your feedback is important to me. Please help by letting me know what you love or what you think can improve.

The Transition’s work is provided for informational purposes only and should not be construed as advice in any capacity. Always do your own research.