Copper mining capacity is currently an insurmountable barrier to universal EV adoption in the U.S. according to a recently published study by the International Energy Forum, making the Inflation Reduction Act’s goal of an all-electric passenger fleet by 2035 impossible.
The study claims the mining expansion needed to make every new vehicle an EV in just 11 more years is impossible, but the universal adoption of hybrids would provide solid environmental benefits while keeping copper demand manageable, the University of Michigan reports.
“We show in the paper that the amount of copper needed is essentially impossible for mining companies to produce,” one of the study’s co-authors, earth and environmental science professor Adam Simon, states. He points out that an EV needs three to five times the copper required in the manufacture of an equivalent ICE vehicle. The professor cites the Honda Accord, which uses 40 pounds of copper when built with a gasoline engine but 200 pounds of the metal for an equivalent battery-electric vehicle.
Upgrading renewable power generation and the electric grid to meet EV electricity demand requires even more copper. A single offshore wind turbine needs 20 tons, or 40,000 pounds, of copper, while land-based turbines contain about 10 tons of copper apiece.
Simply continuing current levels of copper use will require producing 115 percent more copper from mines between now and 2050 than has been extracted during the rest of human history combined. Meeting the sharply increased demand caused by all-EV vehicle manufacture, as the Inflation Reduction Act calls for, would require boosting this output by 55 percent, an impossibly high figure.
Six new high-capacity copper mines would need to begin operating each year for decades in order to meet this demand. As an alternative, the study proposes a goal of making 100 percent of new vehicles as hybrids rather than EV models by 2035. Hybrids use approximately the same amount of copper as ICE vehicles and are much “greener” than gas models. Simon remarks that “we know, for example, that a Toyota Prius actually has a slightly better impact on climate than a Tesla.”
You can watch a video summary of the study’s findings and arguments below:
Simon added that he and his co-author “are hoping the study gets picked up by policymakers who should consider copper as the limiting factor for the energy transition” and that policy focus will change from electric vehicle production to hybrid production for the next several decades.
Subscribe to GM Authority for more GM business news, GM electric vehicle news, and around-the-clock GM news coverage.
Comments
It’s articles like these that make me question the argument that EVs are inevitable because of legal mandates. With that said, a counterargument can be made that China is successfully pumping them out and there are no signs of them slowing down.
The math tends to support that counterargument. CNBC reported that there were 341,000 wind turbines on the planet in 2017. Let’s use it to produce conservative estimate. The U Michigan report states that each wind turbine uses 10-20 tons of copper. Ten-twenty tons is 22,400-44,800 lbs. So 341,000 times 22,400-44,800 lbs = 7.6-15.2 billion lbs of copper used in windmills alone as of 2017. That’s enough copper to produce nearly 38.2-76.4 million EVs. Many more windmills have been built since then with more on the way.
The US Geological Survey reports many more tons of copper have been discovered and with more than half yet to be discovered. In a worst-case scenario, we can repurpose existing copper (e.g. recycle end-of-life windmills), but I don’t see an impending copper shortage.
China EV’s are also a fragment the size. Their most popular, wuling mini, has a 9kwh battery. You can make 8 Chinese EV’s out of a model Y, 23 out of the Hummer EV. It also can’t exceed 60mph, and cost as much as a side by side. China like these as they can burn more coal and get off American petroleum, and these “cars” boost their economy numbers, though if they get to count these, shouldn’t we also count every lawn mower and side by side sold in the USA?
Also, copper is a “rare earth mineral” it’s not that it’s rare, we have an almost infinite amount of it, but you need insane amounts of energy to extract it. A good iron mine will have ore where 30-50% of the rock they take out is usable iron. Copper veins of this density are very rare, and it’s not efficient at all to melt a rock that’s 2% copper 98% rock.
Also, aren’t Chinese EV’s moving to aluminum coils in their motors to cut costs? It’s a fraction the efficiency, but it’s way cheaper. Maybe Elon will have spaceX go grab that asteroid made of solid gold After all
I hear your points. I’m not disagreeing with the conclusion that ICE, Hybrids, and EVs can and should co-exist, but the claim that we will run out of copper appears to exclude the idea of the Wuling Mini EV and repurposing and recycling existing copper.
To be honest, I think your comments on the Wuling Mini make a case for it. It takes up fewer resources, costs only $5,500 and provides 75 miles of range (higher trims cost double or triple with up to 170 mi). That won’t appeal to US buyers, but it will appeal to a large spectrum of the world and perhaps take up less copper so the dire reports are not as bad.
Case never was about running out, it’s keeping pace. Also, the wuling mini only works in 3 cities in the world. 1, bejing, 2, New York, 3 Paris. FYI, England tried these types of cars in the post war malaise era and they were too small for even London. Most of Europe has since then suburbanized and the smallest they’ll go is a mini cooper which now are way larger than the original VW. We’re talking model Y sized cars at the least, and the needed infrastructure.
The Wuling Mini will work wherever motorbikes are still a significant source of transportation, and that includes Africa, India, and Indonesia. Potentially Latin America and other parts of Asia as well. Kei cars are still popular in Japan and shares some similarities. Lithuania is already importing these under another name. Just because it doesn’t serve certain American or European cities does not mean it’s a failure elsewhere in the world. There are billions who can be served with small EVs that have a better price-range ratio.
As for copper, we’ll keep pace with innovation, developing alternatives, and repurposing existing mined materials.
Motorbikes get 200miles esnge, can survive potholes, and amazingly carry just as much as the mini.
You beat me to it Steve!!
Let Elon Musk ride his solar powered unicorn pulled by his I-robot reindeer to snatch a meteor and park it in the middle of Texas!!
…Of course resulting in a “rapid unplanned disassembly of the ecosystem of planet earth”
Ok yeah and to the latter statements of energy transmission blah blah blah-
One of the last things Steven Hawking commented on was the future physical impact of friction on the warming of the surface of the planet being of much more consequence than greenhouse gases.. but that’s below your pay grade all you overpaid party members you😉
In Soviet Russia, Data processes you!!
( Simpsons cameo )
I guess it’s a good thing other metals are also conductive…. Rhian is such a garbage journalist. Just constant no fact checking, anti ev propaganda. I wonder who is paying him?
In addition to different metals, there are also new technologies. I believe both are being contemplated/implemented for power transmission lines. And I’d speculate that the transmission lines are the reason for the large discrepancy in the amount of copper needed for land and off-shore wind turbines.
Transmission lines are aluminum and steel, and always have been. Carbon fiber is being introduced to replace the steel, which sags less and therefore allows more current.
Yes, I shouldn’t necessarily have said different metals, but that change is one I was thinking of. There are others which are more technological than physical.
But pointing that out does raise the question of why land based wind turbines would need so much less copper. Maybe the underwater lines have a different metal composition???
I’m reporting the study’s claims, not passing personal judgment on their accuracy or inaccuracy.
This is not a political opinion column nor am I an investigative researcher on this topic. I am reporting the assertions made by the study, nothing more or less, without criticism or endorsement. Just as I do not interject my vehicle color preferences – or yours – into an article showing available paint colors.
If you are personally offended by the study’s conclusions, writing to the study authors and/or the University of Michigan might be more fruitful than attacking the messenger reporting accurately and plainly what the study claims.
Thanks for your opinion and enjoy your day.
So what you are saying is that you did zero investigation of your own. Copied and pasted an article, than took offense that someone called you out on it. I thought journalists did actual research… if I can just copy and paste other peoples work, i’ll take it!
Rhian reported the study along with a link to it and embedded a video about it, without adding opinion or political bias. You get to form your own opinion and even comment here about what you think without much censorship on this site. Pretty unique in today’s reporting world, isn’t it? LOL.
Many people who questioned the physical and logistical sanity of these green policies have been pushed aside for years. This whole green push this quickly was always a fool’s errand and was to put money (and more power) in the pockets of select groups.
All this article said was we need more mining and processing of copper. That’s more jobs and money for the producers. It’s a win-win
Great point, John. I’ll add that coal extraction has been vilified for its environmental impacts (streams, contaminants, habitat destruction, etc.). These are all legit concerns. Somehow, extraction for ‘green’ causes gets a pass even though many of the same methods are used and negative impacts are had.
Coal is negatively affecting the environment two folds. Once during mining and the second time when is burned out in the coal powered electrical plants.
And coal is the main energy source for China and their EV push.
Fact Checker: I’m sure you have some data you can share with us so we can make judgement on the garbage journalism charge.
Man, if I had a penny for every time I posted a comment on the infeasible nature of the whole EV dream. And this study was not done by amateurs.
That doesn’t mean it wasn’t done without an agenda. Perhaps it was paid for by big oil, or some other business entity with an agenda.
“Big oil” doesn’t have the power anymore that you keep postng about. In fact, many of the big oil companies’ largest shareholders are the same shareholders that own and control everything else in the world now, including many of the consulting companies that come up with studies to support THEIR agendas.
I don’t believe I’ve ever posted about Big Oil before–anywhere. And my post was not limited to them, specifically mentioning others with an agenda. Companies that mine copper would be an obvious possibility, desiring to get looser environmental regulations or tax benefits. The problem with “sponsored” studies is well known.
The same Big Oil that lubricates the wind turbines, EV’s, mining equipment, dang near everything.
This article is moot if the majority of people won’t by a stupid EV.
Let’s Go Blue!