Testimony to the US House Committee on Energy and Commerce

This testimony was delivered at the U.S. House Energy and Commerce Hearing on “Securing America’s Critical Materials Supply Chains and Economic Leadership” on June 13, 2024.

Summary

Energy transitions are complex and will vary hugely across regions and countries. Supply chains matter. Energy transitions require materials transitions. Sustainability is multi-faceted. Innovation and growth will shape the future of energy (and economies). The main questions for minerals and materials supply chains are these.

• How will supply chain realities play out across competing end uses? With what tensions between and among producers and consumers?
• As pressures to demonstrate sustainability — broadly defined — continue to unfold, how will these impinge on ability of the extractives industries to respond to demand signals?
• What will be the effect of ever more complicated geopolitical and trade alignments?
• How will budget constraints ultimately dictate what businesses and governments can reasonably do?
• And finally, what could materials transitions for energy transitions even look like?

The minerals and mining industries face challenges that are definitive with respect to supply chains. It is our belief that these challenges need better understanding in order to craft and implement appropriate responses, much less to be strategic. The grand challenges are: Minerals occurrences, commercialization, maturing assets, project cycle times, China’s dominance, competitiveness (a U.S. dilemma), sustainability, markets, and old and new insecurities. There will be success cases for mining, minerals, and materials and potential breakthroughs. The path will be much longer and more arduous than typically presented to public audiences. Much of the political debate around materials challenges is embedded in conventional wisdom that use of fossil fuels must end. “Ending fossil fuels” affects deliverability of materials from hydrocarbons value chains, along with much else, not least national and economic security and resilience.

Many ideas exist for how to innovate in minerals and metals extraction. “In situ” mining has long been held out as a possibility for fuels (uranium and oil shale) and even essential metals. Capturing remaining products embedded in mined waste is a high and increasing priority but bears many technical and environmental considerations. Mining and processing are targets for digitization and automation. Technology does not alter underlying geology, but it can stretch the boundaries for commercial recoverability. For the ultimate geology game changer, frontiers — the oceans, space? — attract plenty of imagination. Recycling is held up as a key solution for minerals and metals and most views are that we cannot pursue metals-dependent energy futures without it. Recycling is an industrial activity that entails its own requirements and bears its own sustainability tradeoffs.

Could we leapfrog challenges in metals with advanced materials? Carbon-based materials predominate across sectors, segments, and end use applications. We have swapped plastics for metals for decades to reduce weight and cost and improve performance. Carbon nanotube fiber, CNTF, could unlock new options for applications that require electrical and thermal conductivity and tensile strength, for all of which CNTF excels. In all, governments should place materials first for policy making before attempting to pick technology “winners.”

To access the full testimony, download the PDF or watch here.

Wherever feasible, this material was reviewed by outside experts before it was released. It has not been through editorial review. Any errors are the author's alone. 

This material may be quoted or reproduced without prior permission, provided appropriate credit is given to the author and Rice University’s Baker Institute for Public Policy. The views expressed herein are those of the individual author(s), and do not necessarily represent the views of Rice University’s Baker Institute for Public Policy.