The Clean Tech Opportunity Cost of Mine Opposition

A Report on the Significance of Copper and Nickel Mining for Clean Energy Transition

Introduction

During the last world war, Americans intimately understood the connection between raw materials and the tools necessary for national victory. The head of an old shovel could supply the metal for four hand grenades, while a broken radiator might contain enough steel for seventeen rifles. At a strategic scale, iron mines like those of Minnesota’s Iron Range supported the production of armies’ worth of tanks and the largest naval fleet in the history of mankind.

The Role of Mining in Clean Energy Transition

People in Northern Minnesota have not forgotten the role that previous generations of Minnesotan miners played in fighting for a more hopeful and just world, but misguided mining opponents and anxious policymakers seem determined today to keep the state’s wealth of clean energy metals in the ground rather than putting them to work in the clean energy transition. The valuable copper and nickel contained in Minnesota’s long-stalled NewRange Copper Nickel (NewRange) and Twin Metals Minnesota (Twin Metals) mine projects—and the batteries, solar panels, and wind farms they could support—represent a missed opportunity to support climate efforts.

Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)

1. Goal 7: Affordable and Clean Energy
2. Goal 9: Industry, Innovation and Infrastructure
3. Goal 13: Climate Action

Potential Emissions Benefits

Assuming that even just 25% of the annual copper production from these two projects went to support either solar or wind farm construction, the cumulative emissions benefits of the resulting solar and wind capacity could be on the order of 800 to 1500 million metric tons of CO2 over a 20-year period. For comparison, should the state achieve its 2030 target of 50% emissions cuts relative to 2005 levels and continue that pace of reductions over the following decade, cumulative Minnesota emissions from 2020-2040 would total 1800 million metric tons of CO2. This suggests that the additional climate value of the clean energy infrastructure that these two Minnesota nickel projects could support may be on the order of 40%-80% of the state’s total emissions over roughly the next twenty years.

Importance of Copper and Nickel for Clean Energy Technologies

Both copper and nickel are increasingly important clean energy minerals facing growing global demand driven not just by accelerating deployments of solar farms and batteries but also by general societal needs like wiring, electronics, and stainless steel. With opposition to mining in democratic, well-regulated countries effectively encouraging more carbon-intensive, polluting, and socially irresponsible mining overseas, American production of our fair share of energy transition copper and nickel is not only the duty of a wealthy developed nation responsible for climate change, but likely better for people and the environment.

Challenges Faced by Twin Metals and NewRange Projects

Twin Metals: The push to develop the Twin Metals project regained speed in 2012 when Antofagasta, a mining firm, applied to renew long-idled project leases acquired from the company’s predecessor, International Nickel Company. Over ten years later, the proposed underground mine still has no clear path forward—not because of a lengthy environmental review or lawsuit, but instead because different administrations have flip-flopped back and forth on the project.

NewRange: The NewRange project’s delays originate from avoidable agency procedural failures caused by poor coordination. The project started its environmental review in 2005, with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) subsequently warranting a supplemental review to address potential impacts to local water quality. State and federal agencies then began granting permits for functions such as tailings dam construction or water discharge. The EPA, however, failed to meet their legal obligations to notify the Fond Du Lac Band that the Clean Water Act permit issued by the Army Corps of Engineers (ACE) in 2019 could potentially impact them.

Analytical Approach

We adopted expected mine production rates for copper and nickel for the first 20 years of operation based on the production schedule presented in a for the Twin Metals project for the NewRange project, as well as estimated production rates published in a recent promotional report for the Twin Metals project. We then assume that only 25% of copper or nickel production from these projects enters clean technology supply chains—a percentage that could be much higher or lower based on market factors or direct supply agreements with downstream clean tech customers.

Potential Clean Energy Deployment

To convert these production rates into gigawatts of solar or wind capacity and units of electric vehicle batteries, we assumed a copper intensity of 2840 tons/GW for utility-scale solar PV installations and 2369 tons/GW for onshore wind facilities. For electric vehicles, we assumed a nickel demand of 39 kg in the cathode active materials for a 60 kWh nickel-manganese-cobalt 811 electric car battery.

Cumulative Emissions Benefits

For the solar/wind capacity produced from the mines’ output in each year, we calculated annual generation output assuming a solar PV capacity factor of 24.6% and a wind capacity factor of 34.6%. We calculated total generation for either the solar case or the wind case only over the 20-year period of interest, considering 20 years’ worth of electricity generation from the wind/solar units produced in the first year, 19 years of generation from units produced in the second year, and so forth.

Conclusion

The material value of the NewRange and Twin Metals mines in terms of their ability to support clean technology deployment is undeniably significant. The value of mined copper in terms of solar or wind farms could be of comparable magnitude to one-half to three-quarters of Minnesota’s future state-wide emissions. In comparison, the emissions benefits of the mined nickel in electric vehicle terms is much smaller, but still respectable at 78 million metric tons of CO2 avoided over the 20-year period. Rather than force upstream mineral supply chains out of sight and out of mind, it is time for advocates and policymakers to recognize that democracy, accountability, and transparency are strengths that can help America lead by example in crafting more just clean technology supply chains.

SDGs, Targets, and Indicators Analysis

1. Which SDGs are addressed or connected to the issues highlighted in the article?

• SDG 7: Affordable and Clean Energy
• SDG 9: Industry, Innovation, and Infrastructure
• SDG 13: Climate Action
• SDG 15: Life on Land

The article discusses the potential of mining projects in Minnesota to support clean energy transition, reduce emissions, and contribute to climate efforts. These issues are directly connected to SDG 7 (Affordable and Clean Energy), SDG 9 (Industry, Innovation, and Infrastructure), SDG 13 (Climate Action), and SDG 15 (Life on Land).

2. What specific targets under those SDGs can be identified based on the article’s content?

• Target 7.2: Increase substantially the share of renewable energy in the global energy mix.
• Target 9.4: Upgrade infrastructure and retrofit industries to make them sustainable.
• Target 13.2: Integrate climate change measures into national policies, strategies, and planning.
• Target 15.2: Promote the implementation of sustainable management of all types of forests.

The article highlights the potential of mining projects to support the deployment of renewable energy technologies such as solar panels and wind farms, which aligns with Target 7.2. It also emphasizes the importance of responsible mining practices to ensure sustainable infrastructure development, which relates to Target 9.4. The discussion on the role of mining in supporting climate efforts and reducing emissions is relevant to Target 13.2. Lastly, the article mentions the importance of considering environmental concerns and sustainable management of land resources, which connects to Target 15.2.

3. Are there any indicators mentioned or implied in the article that can be used to measure progress towards the identified targets?

• Indicator 7.2.1: Renewable energy share in the total final energy consumption.
• Indicator 9.4.1: CO2 emissions per unit of value added.
• Indicator 13.2.1: Number of countries that have integrated mitigation, adaptation, impact reduction, and early warning measures into their national policies, strategies, and planning.
• Indicator 15.2.1: Progress towards sustainable forest management.

The article does not explicitly mention these indicators, but they can be used to measure progress towards the identified targets. Indicator 7.2.1 can assess the share of renewable energy in the energy mix, Indicator 9.4.1 can measure the carbon intensity of industries, Indicator 13.2.1 can track the integration of climate measures into national policies, and Indicator 15.2.1 can evaluate the progress in sustainable forest management.

Table: SDGs, Targets, and Indicators

Copyright: Dive into this article, curated with care by SDG Investors Inc. Our advanced AI technology searches through vast amounts of data to spotlight how we are all moving forward with the Sustainable Development Goals. While we own the rights to this content, we invite you to share it to help spread knowledge and spark action on the SDGs.

Fuente: thebreakthrough.org

Join us, as fellow seekers of change, on a transformative journey at https://sdgtalks.ai/welcome, where you can become a member and actively contribute to shaping a brighter future.