Clean Energy Is Not So Clean

Clean Energy Is Not So Clean

– By Howard Sierer –

President Biden wants to convert the country’s electric power generation to 100 percent renewable sources by 2035. No less an authority than the International Energy Agency says he’s got to be kidding.

The IEA is no oil company front group: it’s the world’s prime supplier of energy information to governments around the world. Its membership is made up of virtually all the governments of the world’s developed economies. Its mission statement is to provide a secure and sustainable energy future for all. Renewable energy and climate change are the primary focus of policy alternatives presented to government leaders.

So, if the IEA has all this green credibility, why is it throwing cold water on Biden’s goals?

In a 287-page report released this month, “The Role of Critical Minerals in Clean Energy Transitions,” the IEA spells out why so-called clean energy is not so clean, is not easy and won’t be happening soon. The data-filled IEA report focuses on a critical – and until now largely ignored – aspect of the energy transition: It requires mines and infrastructure that don’t exist.

Wind, solar and battery technologies are based on a variety of what the report calls “energy transition minerals,” or ETMs, that must be mined and processed. The IEA finds that with a global energy transition like the one President Biden envisions, demand for key minerals such as lithium, graphite, nickel and rare-earth metals would explode, rising by 4,200%, 2,500%, 1,900% and 700%, respectively, by 2040.

There is no move afoot to construct the necessary ETM mines and refineries.  And if such plans were formulated in the quantities needed by Biden’s energy transition, the world would face daunting environmental, economic and social challenges, along with geopolitical risks.

Renewable energy equipment requires far more ETMs than does conventional power equipment. The IEA report notes that “A typical electric car requires six times the ETM inputs of a conventional car, and an onshore wind plant requires nine times more ETM resources than a gas-fired power plant. Since 2010, the average amount of ETMs needed for each new unit of power generation capacity has increased by 50% as the share of renewables has risen.” That was merely to bring wind and solar to a 10% share of the world’s electricity.

The IEA report goes on, stating that so-called clean energy represents a “shift from a fuel-intensive to a material-intensive energy system.” Like them or not, oil and gas extraction leave a comparatively light footprint that can be restored. Hydrocarbon pipelines are energy efficient and have a light footprint as well.

In contrast, mining rock and solid materials leaves a long-term scar on the land and requires energy-consuming transportation to haul ore to chemical processing and refining plants.

Even mentioning the prospect of new mines will bring out legions of opposing environmental activists and their attorneys. The IEA notes something every mining company knows: “It has taken on average over 16 years to move mining projects from discovery to first production.” New ETM output wouldn’t begin until after 2035.

Surprisingly, the environmental left is opposing even some of today’s clean energy projects where no new mines are involved: a solar power project in the nearby Moapa Valley, a hydropower project in Maine and others. Once not-so-clean ETM mines and ore processing plants are proposed, expect environmentalist lawsuits to stymie production for years.

The IEA points out yet another environmental complication. “Mining and mineral processing require large volumes of water,” a serious issue when around half of global lithium and copper production takes place in areas of water scarcity. The report notes that water used in mining “poses contamination risks through acid mine drainage, wastewater discharge and the disposal of tailings.”

Breaking the usual norm for international organizations, the IEA shows that expanded ETM mining will occur mainly in countries with “low governance scores” where “corruption and bribery pose major liability risks.” Further, the top three producers for three key ETMs control more than 80% of global supply. China is at the top of a list in which the U.S. is hardly mentioned.

Energy use per pound mined is on the rise. The IEA data show that, depending on the location and nature of future mines, the emissions from producing ETMs could wipe out much of the emissions saved by driving electric cars.

If this report had come from a pro-hydrocarbon entity, the report would be banned as fraudulent by the censors at Facebook and elsewhere. Credit the IEA for boldly going where few policy makers have gone before.

Full disclosure: I’m no troglodyte. I’m planning to purchase an all-electric SUV to be charged with solar panels on the roof of my home. If the IEA is right, sounds like I better hurry before prices rise and I’m branded as a polluter!

Viewpoints and perspectives expressed throughout The Independent are those of the individual contributors. They do not necessarily reflect those held by the staff of The Independent or our advertising sponsors. Your comments, rebuttals, and contributions are welcome in accordance with our Terms of Service. Please be respectful and abide by our Community Rules. If you have privacy concerns you can view our Privacy Policy here. Thank you! 

Click here to submit an article, guest opinion piece, or a Letter to the Editor