Monday 10 April 2023

If we are to 'save the planet' we need more mining, not less

A few weeks' ago UN chief Antonio Guterres said that a major new report on climate change is a "survival guide for humanity". The report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the scientific body that advises the UN on rising temperatures, was agreed on by all governments involved. At a meeting in Switzerland to agree their findings, climate scientists warned a key global temperature goal will likely be missed and their report lays out how rapid cuts to fossil fuels can avert the worst effects of climate change.

In response to the findings, Antonio Guterres said that all countries should bring forward their net zero plans by a decade, from the previously agreed deadline of 2050 (posting of 21 July 2019). Many who say this cannot be done argue that the reasons are essentially political,  but forget, or are unaware, that mining is the most important industry for the eventual attainment of net zero, whether this be in 2040, 2050 or further in the future.

Many environmental groups have ludicrously called for a ban on mining altogether, as it is one of the world's greatest producers of CO2 and a massive consumer of energy, and indeed a number of new mining developments have had to cease recently due to environmental concerns.

Although many major mining companies are striving for net zero carbon, in many cases by up to 30-40% in the next 10-15 years, and to place themselves in a net-zero emissions position by 2050, it is true that the minerals industry is a major source of CO2 emissions. The cement industry alone is the source of about 8% of the world's CO2 emissions, and cement is the most widely used man-made material in existence, being second only to water as the most-consumed resource on the planet. But, while cement - the key ingredient in concrete - has shaped much of our built environment, its massive carbon footprint is such that, if the cement industry were a country, it would be the third largest emitter in the world, behind China and the US. It contributes more CO2 than aviation fuel (2.5%) and is not far behind the global agriculture business (12%). We look forward to Prof. Jannie van Deventer's keynote lecture at June's Sustainable Minerals '23, where he will propose a pathway for the adoption of new technology to decarbonise cement and concrete.

Despite the high carbon footprint of mining it is essential for the green transition, in the manufacture of renewable sources such as wind turbines and electric vehicles. Many metals and non-metals are essential in their manufacture and it must be remembered that huge amounts of energy are required just to mine and extract these materials so non-renewable sources of energy, either fossil fuels or nuclear, will be needed for some time in the transition.

The lithium-ion battery is the heart of an EV and the figures below show estimates of the commodities in a typical battery pack, and how the demand on commodities would change if all cars became electric by 2050. In order for all vehicles to be electric, we will need around 400 extra graphite, Li, Ni, and Co mines by 2035, an EV requiring about six times the mineral content of a comparable international combustion engine vehicle.

Source: UBS estimates

The most important metal in wind turbines and electric vehicles is copper, which is at the heart of either producing electricity or providing motive power. A large turbine requires around 4.5 tonnes of copper, and electric vehicles up to 100 kg. Average mined copper grades fell from 1.31% in 2000 to 0.94% in 2018, raising operating costs and slowing the enthusiasm to develop new mines, exacerbated by ESG concerns. Last month Chile, which accounts for a quarter of the world’s mined copper, posted its lowest monthly production in six years. Codelco said this will only get worse this year as it strives to tap new areas of its aging deposits after decades of under-investment.

When Cornwall was the world's biggest producer of copper in the mid 19th century, worldwide production was around 60,000 tonnes. Now it is well over 20 million tonnes of mined copper, even though Europe, for example, recycles around 50% of its copper. 

In 2021 the world consumption of copper was over 25 million tonnes, and it is predicted that demand for copper could nearly double by 2050. The interesting graphic below shows that over the next 27 years the world will demand nearly twice the volume of copper that the world has produced over the last 3000 years!

So the minerals industry is crucial to achieving these goals, and mineral processing is at the forefront of the battle. What would we do without froth flotation, probably the world's most important technology, as without it the essential metals, such as copper, nickel, cobalt, manganese would be classed as precious metals. This is why we feel that our flotation series of conferences, such as November's Flotation '23 are of prime importance in helping ensure a plentiful supply of these and other metals and minerals as grades decline and ores become more complex.

It is ironic that in a few days time I will be on my way to Cape Town, for Comminution '23, which begins next Monday. In many hard-rock mine sites, comminution constitutes over 50% of the total energy consumption, and there are claims in published papers and the popular press that comminution in the mining industry may consume upwards of 7% of global electricity use, so I look forward to lively discussion on comminution and energy next week.

If it can't be grown it must be mined!

@barrywills

8 comments:

  1. Great summary! Not only energy is used in grinding but water is a necessity. Water resource is not always available so we need to increase the mineral Processing Science and Engineering to process these necessary metals in an environmentally, safe and profitable ways.

    ReplyDelete
  2. “Before it was yours it was mined” my favourite new saying borrowed from the Minerals Council of Australia. Everyone should know this.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Thanks Barry,

    I huge topic indeed, but very unfortunately its understanding and interpretation, especially by the non-scientific community, have both lost the plot. Of the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, only 3% of 400 ppm is generated by mankind one way or another. The other 97% exists in equilibrium between the atmosphere and the oceans. How are we to control the 97% if we only have control of 3%?

    I would add that carbon dioxide is an essential life-supporting gas. Without this gas we would have no photosynthesis and therefore no food. The minimum level of carbon dioxide necessary in the atmosphere is 200 ppm; we are just above that level. Plus if there was no carbon dioxide the planet's average temperature would be 30 deg C lower, so the oceans would freeeze and there would be no rain.

    When we look at this topic in a geological time scale, especially with information of the ice ages and the Milankovitch cycles, a different interpretation emerges. These climate study groups are examining the topic in a timescale of a human's lifetime. The planet's climate has been in a state of flux for 4.5 billion years.

    Respectfully

    Norm

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks Norm. I am in transit to Cape Town at the moment, but will respond more fully in the next few days. Interesting to hear that we humans only contribute 3% of CO2 in the atmosphere. This is new to me

      Delete
    2. Your comment is interesting Norman. I asked questions on this topic over 4 years ago in the posting Is CO2 the most maligned gas in history? . Further comments very welcome

      Delete
  4. I do believe that the general public have been misinformed about the "climate crisis", and that we need to set the record straight. Once again, politics have taken over the management of a technical subject, so the interpretation of observations has become twisted.

    No question that we do need to clean up our act, including plastics and other pollution. But to project the EV as the technology that will save the planet is spurious. Yes, it is indeed an interesting alternative technology that may be worth developing, however the status of development is embryonic and much more work needs to be done.

    A big factor in the carbon balance of the planet is the reservoir effect of the oceans, not only dissolved carbon dioxide in the seawater, but also the ocean sediment, where crustaceans and corals have formed carbonate species in solid form. Also, in geology, the continent's rocks carry plenty of carbonate, e.g. the white cliffs of Dover.

    As we move through the Milankovitch cycles of our orbital around the sun, we see variation in the temperature of the seasons, which causes changes in the ocean temperature. By Henry's Law, warmer oceans hold less dissolved carbon dioxide than colder oceans, so the observed carbon dioxide in the atmosphere increases. Additionally it is spurious to believe that the heat supply from the sun is constant. The world's climate has been in a state of flux for 4.5 billion years, and that is not about to suddenly change.

    Prior to the growth of forestation, the carbon dioxide level in the atmosphere was approximately 6,500 ppm. Once forestation took hold (approximately 2-3 billion years ago), photosynthesis reduced this drastically to a few hundred ppm. We are now in an era of the lowest atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration in the history of the world. The critical level of carbon dioxide for sustainable photosynthesis is between 150 and 200 ppm; we are presently at 400 ppm. The trap is to look at only the last fifty years, and yes, it does seem to be rising. Step back and look at the big picture and we see a different story.

    Hope the comminution conference is going well.

    Best regards
    Norm
    Norman O. Lotter, President and Consulting Engineer, Flowsheets Metallurgical Consulting Inc., Canada

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hi Norm
      The Milankovitch cycles are very good at explaining long term effects, but do not explain the rapid recent rise in global temperatures. Surely this must be human-induced?

      Delete
    2. Interesting but true observation. But rather than allow the environmental "green" camp to fuel the fire of fear in most folk with unchecked information, we should be trying to feed the discussion with facts and science. Granted that as humans we do generate additional carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, but not all of the measured carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is generated by us. What concerns me most is that they have caught the ear of governments who seem hell-bent on banning the internal combustion engine because they see the project as a vote-winner.

      There are several ways that we could approach a remedy for this.
      Look at heavy industry and see where we can replace diesel generators with small nuclear power plants, for example. At Glencore's Raglan mine in the Arctic, two huge diesel generators deliver approximately 30 MW of electricity for the mine. This mine has the largest operating inventory of diesel in Canada. Something similar at Fort McMurray.
      Design, build and commission more nuclear power plants in strategically-located sites that are not earthquake-prone, e.g. in the mid-continent of North America.
      Extend the application of electrified public transport to cities where diesel-powered buses operate, and encourage wider use of public transport. Johannesburg used electric trams from the early 1920s until even the 1970s. Not a new idea!
      Encourage reforestation projects. More trees, less carbon dioxide by photosynthesis. Remember that without carbon dioxide, we as humans would not exist.
      The US Navy has been using nuclear-powered ships for more than 50 years. Nobody says anything about that.
      Have a good look at the cement industry where large amounts of the gas are generated by the manufacturing process. What innovative changes could be made there?
      Geopolitics - as Carl Sagan said in his meeting with the US Senate in 1985, even if America went completely "green" the whole of Asia and Russia would be carrying on as before, and what global gain would this amount to? Climate change is a global issue, and to manage it we have to act globally as one society. He added that without our greenhouse effect, the average temperature of our planet would be 30 deg C colder and the oceans would freeze.
      And so on until we get to a point where the EV has developed into a mature technology and is a practical alternative. My friend Arthur Barnes in Kamloops, BC, says that he has a local friend who works on one of the nearby mines and uses an EV to commute to work. He drives the car for about 30 minutes then parks it at a charging station where it stays all day. He drives back home in the afternoon and plugs the car in for recharging overnight. Not much flexibility there.

      In sum, I agree that there is opportunity for practical things to be done that should be done. But to allow the green lobby group to carry on spouting alarm and despondency would be wrong. Rather put science and logic to work.

      Interesting and compelling topic.

      Delete

If you have difficulty posting a comment, please email the comment to bwills@min-eng.com and I will submit on your behalf