Mission Impossible

‘Net-Zero’ is a non-starter without more minerals and better permitting.

In 2018, Center of the American Experiment released a report evaluating how environmentally responsible mining would boost Minnesota’s economy. With the help of economist John Phelan and Debra Struhsacker, a seasoned hardrock mining policy expert, we estimated that mining would bring 8,500 jobs and $3.7 billion to Minnesota’s economy.  

In October, we published another report, again enlisting the expertise of Struhsacker, entitled, “Mission Impossible: Mineral Shortages and the Broken Permitting Process Put Net Zero Goals Out of Reach.” Why revisit mining in 2024? Because the importance of mining to America’s future has never been greater. Without enough critical minerals, achieving Net Zero by 2050 (NZE) is unattainable — and trying to achieve it will endanger national security and the modern economy. 

“Net Zero by 2050” refers to the 2015 Paris Agreement, where 190 nations, including the U.S., committed to restricting global temperature increases to 1.5 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels by 2050. The U.S. is implementing policies to this end, such as requiring that 50 percent of all new passenger vehicles be electric by 2030, and 100 percent by 2050. Other policies, like the EPA’s Clean Power Plan 2.0, are phasing out reliable and 24/7 dispatchable coal and natural gas power plants in favor of intermittent wind and solar. Many states, including Minnesota, have set their own goals for “clean” electricity by 2040, electric vehicle (EV) adoption, and renewable energy generation.  

Our report doesn’t take a position as to the wisdom of an energy transition. Instead, we highlight the realities of mineral shortages, permitting delays, decreasing electric grid reliability, and unintended consequences — and argue that these should be seriously considered in any cost-benefit accounting. Looming mineral shortages and a lengthy, litigious permitting process make these goals unachievable within the ambitious timeline set by policymakers, if not altogether impossible. 

Critical mineral demands outpace mineral supplies  

Few people truly understand how dependent they are on minerals for their standard of living. Every American uses 3.02 million pounds of minerals in their lifetime, or about 40,630 pounds per year, according to the United States Geological Survey. The average American uses over 55,000 pounds of cement, nearly 252,000 pounds of coal, more than 1,000 pounds of copper, and over 18,000 pounds of iron throughout his or her lifetime. It isn’t a simple question of quantity, either; a modern lifestyle uses a wide variety of minerals. A smartphone, for instance, uses aluminum, cobalt, copper, gold, lead, lithium, nickel, silver, silicon, and zinc — to name a few.  

Many minerals are needed to construct wind turbines, solar panels, battery storage, and electric vehicles, including copper, nickel, cobalt, and rare earth elements (REEs). A 3-megawatt wind turbine, the average size of a new turbine in 2021, requires nine tons of copper, 335 tons of steel, 1,200 tons of concrete, three tons of aluminum, and two tons of rare earth elements. An average offshore 3.6 MW wind turbine requires approximately 32 tons of copper.  

The primary driver of energy transition mineral demand is battery electric vehicles, which use 80 kilograms of copper compared to 22 kilograms for an average internal combustion engine (ICE) vehicle. EVs also need manganese, lithium, nickel, cobalt, graphite, and rare earths — materials not needed for ICEs. Electric buses are even more mineral-intensive, needing 253 kilograms of copper.  

Copper will be strained further as more is needed to expand the grid to accommodate EV charging stations and transmission lines. In 2021, the U.S. used only 11 terawatts of electricity to charge EVs; by 2030, electricity demand for EVs is estimated to rise to 230 terawatts. 

The 2022 Inflation Reduction Act has compounded U.S. demand for electrification minerals. An S&P Global report estimated that “energy-transition demand for lithium will be 15% higher by 2035 than projected pre-IRA; 14% higher for nickel; 13% for cobalt; and 12% for copper.”  

Achieving NZE by 2050 will require a veritable treasure trove of minerals like lithium, copper, nickel, cobalt, graphite, and rare earths. However, policymakers are starting to realize that we won’t have enough minerals in time. The International Energy Agency (IEA) predicts copper demand will outstrip supply after 2025, with cobalt and nickel demand exceeding supply after 2030.  

The vogue issue of 2024 has been power-hungry artificial intelligence (AI), and it is no mere hype that more AI data centers will exacerbate electricity demand. Data center construction is already exacerbating copper demand. Copper is used in data centers’ power cables, busbars, electrical connectors, and other components, needing “27 tonnes per MW of applied power,” according to the Copper Development Association. JP Morgan estimates that additional power consumption by data centers will expand a predicted global copper deficit by another 2.7 million metric tons by 2030. Bank of America estimates that data centers will add around 200,000 metric tons of copper demand per year between 2025 and 2028.  

The IEA proposes that mining for new materials may require 50 new lithium mines, 60 more nickel mines, and 17 more cobalt mines constructed by 2030. Other estimates from the UN Conference on Trade and Development suggest 80 more copper mines, 70 new lithium and nickel mines each, and 30 new cobalt mines by 2030, which would cost anywhere from $360 to $450 billion. Recycling and technological advances, such as efficiency improvements in battery technology, might help, but they will not fully close the gap between what we have and what we might need. 

It’s a matter of national security, stupid  

Minerals are indispensable for alternative energy tech like wind, solar, and EVs. But aerospace, defense, telecommunications, electronics, and transportation sectors will still need critical minerals, even if policymakers prioritize NZE instead.  

The U.S. government officially recognizes 50 critical minerals. In 2022, the U.S. was 100 percent reliant on imports for 10 and more than 50 percent import-reliant for 31 others. China is a major supplier of many critical minerals, including 35 percent of the U.S.’ graphite and germanium and 74 percent of the U.S.’ rare earth elements. This is a serious problem. The Department of Defense warns that in a conflict with China, the U.S. would face shortfalls of 69 minerals, 20 of which are primarily sourced from China. This reliance on a geopolitical rival is precarious and could jeopardize national defense and other essential sectors. 

China has already demonstrated its willingness to wield critical minerals as a geopolitical pawn. In July 2023, China imposed restrictions on gallium and germanium exports, which are used in high-tech semiconductor chips. The consequence? Exports of germanium plummeted from 8.63 metric tons pre-ban to one kilogram in August 2023; exports of gallium fell from 5.57 tons pre-ban to zero.  

In August 2024, China restricted exports of antimony, which is used in military applications such as armor-piercing ammunition, night vision goggles, flame retardant fabrics, and precision optics. The U.S. imports 83 percent of its antimony, with 63 percent coming from China. Antimony prices surged to a record high of $25,000 per metric ton post-ban. China is currently restricting exports of germanium, gallium, graphite, rare earth elements — and antimony.  

An easy but insufficient solution is to increase imports from friendly nations rather than import from unfriendly ones. Yet this strategy isn’t risk-free. For example, the U.S. relies on Canada, the second-most important source of minerals behind China, for 66 percent of its zinc and 45 percent of its nickel. Yet Canada may need to prioritize domestic mineral use for its own economic and energy goals, and China’s significant investments in Canadian mining companies complicate national security concerns. The Canadian government is attempting to limit Chinese influence in its mining sector, but whether it does so successfully is uncertain.  

U.S. mines are among the safest and cleanest in the world. Foreign mines often lack the stringent safety and environmental standards that U.S. mines adhere to. Mines in foreign countries have higher carbon emissions due to coal-based electricity for mining and processing. Some unregulated “artisanal” cobalt mines in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, which produces 65 percent of the world’s cobalt, employ child labor. According to the IEA, over one million children work in mines and quarries worldwide. It’s abhorrent that U.S. policymakers today utilize an “out of sight, out of mind” mentality as an acceptable solution to America’s growing mineral demands.  

Federal policies hinder mining access and impede NZE goals  

The U.S. cannot grow its domestic mining industry because of the lengthy, litigious, and politicized permitting process under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). NEPA mandates federal agencies to thoroughly analyze the impacts of any proposed project that could affect the environment — including mining, wind and solar projects, oil and gas, and transmission lines. A prolonged permitting process extends U.S. dependence on foreign countries for critical minerals and endangers national security.  

NEPA significantly delays and cancels critical projects. Prolonged permitting timelines chill investments: hundreds of millions of dollars and years of permitting, with no guarantee of success, is a hard pill to swallow for companies that might otherwise invest in Minnesota. 

The NorthMet and Twin Metals projects are poster children for the protracted and litigious permitting system that has thwarted the development of important mineral resources. Permitting for the NorthMet mine began in 2004 with the initial projection that construction could begin as early as 2015. Twin Metals was proposed more recently in 2019. Yet the Biden-Harris administration derailed the permitting process for both projects when it revoked the Clean Water Act Section 404 permit for the NorthMet project and canceled the federal mineral leases for the Twin Metals project. Adding insult to injury, lands were withdrawn from mineral development in the Superior National Forest where Twin Metals is located. For future investors to consider undertaking hundreds of millions of dollars and two decades, as in the case of NorthMet, they must have confidence that the rug won’t be yanked out from under them by a politicized permitting process.  

But NEPA doesn’t just affect oil, gas and mining; it affects every kind of project that would be needed to achieve ambitious net-zero timelines. The time required for renewable energy projects to move from proposal to construction has more than doubled since the early 2000s. To achieve net-zero by 2050, over one million miles of transmission lines would need to be built — a tall order considering the U.S. constructs only about 700 line-miles per year.  

Our report spells it out clearly: “At this rate, it will take 1,400 years to permit one million miles of transmission lines… policymakers have embraced grossly unrealistic goals and timelines in which to achieve any semblance of an energy transition.”  

NEPA is not a protection act, it’s a policy act. NEPA requires an analysis of impacts; it does not prescribe the rules and standards that protect the environment, like the Clean Air and Clean Water Acts. Recent Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) rulemakings fundamentally distort NEPA’s purpose: Rather than being a procedural analysis of environmental impacts, the CEQ’s rules require agencies to identify and select alternatives that achieve an environmentally preferable outcome — as defined by the CEQ. These rules preclude agencies from meeting their statutory obligations to permit a certain level of environmental impact for necessary projects. 

Congress might consider shortening the statute of limitations for claims under NEPA, which currently stands at six years from the date of the final agency action, require agencies to act quickly on remanded permits, set time limits on injunctions, and consider streamlining other processes under other environmental regulations. Some congressional proposals, including the Energy Permitting Reform Act of 2024 introduced in the Senate, would establish a 150-day statute of limitations and implement other reforms.  

Although many mines are developed on private and state lands, exploration and development on public lands is hindered. The likelihood of discovering a copper deposit has significantly decreased in recent years. Approximately 20 new copper deposits of at least 0.1 million tonnes (Mt) per year were discovered between 2001 and 2010. From 2015 to 2022, fewer than 10 discoveries were made each year. Currently, the probability of finding an initial copper occurrence is one in 5,000. Once an initial occurrence is identified, the chances of it becoming an economically viable deposit range from one in 100 to one in 800.  

More than 10 federal policies within the Biden-Harris administration’s tenure have damaged domestic mining and access to public lands. For instance, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) recently finalized its Public Lands Rule, which allows third parties to lease lands for “conservation” and “mitigation,” potentially restricting public access for up to a decade. This rule is currently facing legal challenges from five states (Alaska, Montana, North Dakota, Utah, and Wyoming) as well as various public land user groups. 

The BLM has also finalized its Western Solar Plan, which prioritizes utility-scale solar energy development over mining and other land uses on 31 million acres across 11 western states. Unless a formal claim validity examination confirms the discovery of a valuable mineral deposit, solar development is given precedence over ongoing mineral exploration and development.  

Conclusion  

It is imprudent for the U.S. to persist in its “Net Zero by 2050” dreams while hindering domestic mining development and compromising national security. Every time the U.S. decides to outsource the environmental, worker health, and safety impacts of mining to foreign countries, it reflects a value judgment. Should an energy transition proceed if it comes at such a steep cost, and what values are we projecting when America makes such decisions?