Guest Post by Willis Eschenbach
There’s been a lot of talk lately about how the scarcity of “rare-earth” minerals like lithium and cobalt will short-circuit the “green revolution”. In that regard, I came across an interesting 2022 Standard & Poors Global (SP Global) study on the amount of plain old everyday copper needed for a Net-Zero 2050 scenario. The study is entitled “The Future of Copper: Will the looming supply gap short-circuit the energy transition?“, and the answer is … yep. It will.
In my post “Bright Green Impossibilities” I listed a number of physical, political, and economic reasons why we can’t get to “Net-Zero” CO2 emissions by 2050. This post is about one reason that I didn’t mention in that post.
The problem is that copper is the material most suitable in most conditions for conducting electricity … and in addition, it’s used in building construction, appliances, electrical equipment, brass hardware, and cell phones, as well as expanding applications in communications, data processing, and storage.
[UPDATE: As several commenters have mentioned, aluminum is replacing copper for the transmission of electricity at high voltages (generally over 480V.) However, copper is still used for to-the-home and in-home wiring, as well as all the other uses listed above. And the numbers in the linked study and in the graphic below are unchanged.]
So if we’re going to go to an all-electric world, we’re going to need a truly massive amount of copper.
How much? Well, according to “The Future of Copper” linked above, here’s the bad news:
Figure 1. Estimates of the amount of copper needed to achieve Net-Zero 2050.
No bueno.
And as they say on the TV, “But wait, there’s more!” The USGS estimates that there are 880 million tonnes of recoverable copper in the ground. And here’s how that compares to the cumulative copper needs shown in Figure 1.
Figure 2. Cumulative amount of copper required for Net-Zero 2050 per Figure 1, and known recoverable copper reserves using current technology.
So … by 2040 we’ll need about all the proven reserves of copper we’ve currently located in the ground, and we’re still nowhere near Net-Zero 2050. We’re likely to find more in the ground, which will allow for further recoverable reserves. But it will generally be very poor ore and expensive to mine. “Back in the day”, as they say, ores which were 4% or even 6% copper were not uncommon. But newly discovered ores are on the order of 0.1% copper. Of course, as it becomes more scarce it will become more expensive, allowing poorer ores to be economically viable … but that leads to another problem.
The current London Metal Exchange price for copper is about ten thousand dollars per tonne. So the copper necessary for Net-Zero will cost a minimum of fourteen trillion dollars at current prices. However, as noted immediately above, as copper becomes more scarce the prices will inevitably rise. So the likely total cost will be at least fifty percent higher or even more, call it a minimum of twenty trillion dollars …
And that’s just for the smelted copper. It doesn’t include turning the copper into electrical wiring with insulation, transporting the wire and other copper products to where they’re going to be used, installing the new transmission lines, substations, switching gear, generators, and all the other costs to get the global electrical grid up to what would be required for an all-electrical world. Top consulting firm McKinsey says:
Our analysis of the industry-standard scenario for net zero by 2050 suggests that about $275 trillion in cumulative spending on physical assets, or approximately $9.2 trillion per year, would be needed between 2021 and 2050.
That means we’d have to spend $25 billion each and every day, including weekends, until 2050. Starting tomorrow. Riiight … full McKinsey article here.
And expanding any kind of mining faces a host of political, environmental, and regulatory problems. It can easily take ten years and billions of dollars before the first shovel goes into the ground. Opposition from “greens” has stopped almost all new mining in the US … while at the same time, those geniuses clamor for an end to fossil fuels.
A final difficulty factor. Much of the copper ore, and the majority of the refining and smelting facilities, are in … yep … China. From the linked study:
The challenge will be compounded by increasingly complex global geopolitical, trade, and country-level risk environments. There are several dynamics that will have a particular bearing on copper access. China holds a preeminent position in copper smelting (47%), refining (42%), and usage (54%), in addition to its sizable position in production, making it the epicenter of world copper. Continued trade tensions and other forms of competition between the United States and China could affect the copper market going forward. Supply chain resilience has emerged as a strategic imperative, particularly after the COVID-19 pandemic and the war in Ukraine. The study finds that by 2035 the United States will be importing between 57% and 67%—that is up to two-thirds—of its copper needs. An intensifying competition for critical metals is very likely to have geopolitical implications.
And if you think the Chines won’t play those “geopolitical implications” to their advantage, you don’t understand our Eastern friends.
So can we please stop this Net-Zero nonsense? It’s an impossible goal that will not solve an imaginary problem, and it will bankrupt us all, cause widespread energy poverty, and shaft the poor in the process.
Best to everyone on a lovely winter day,
w.
As Is My Wont: I can defend my words. I can’t defend others’ interpretations of my words. So when you comment, please quote the exact words you are discussing.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
New copper mine projects have at least as long an approval process (stall tactics) as pipelines in the U.S. and Canada is on par with this also.
Resource.
IIRC the EIA.org mentioned the average mine in the US takes ~ 16 yrs from concept
to start of digging.
Recent example was the Pebble Mine project in Alaska. It died a slow death Dec 2022
after > 10 years of wrangling with the government & courts (lawsuits).
Thirty-five years ago a length of 3/0 copper wire sold for about the same price as an equal length of US Pennies. That was when a US penny had 95% copper. Today, that same length of 3/0 copper wire is over $5.00. Prices are for better quality insulated wire suitable for Powerplant, commercial buildings, High-rise buildings or homes. If you have underground service you want the BEST wire, closer to $9.00/ft, 3/0 Gauge (AWG) wire has an amperage capacity of 300 amps for a length of 15 feet, enclosed. Recommended for a 200 amp service drop or underground service feed to a home, and needed for any high-speed EV Charger. About $500 for just the wire. You will then need a larger conduit, etc. etc, You say you have a solar Pannel? That will probably be of little use as the inverters will not handle that current. That means you will be hit with a high demand charge every time you use your charger. I would be lying if I said your electric bill would double. It will at least triple or quadrupple.
In a related vein.
The (Government) Plan… Where ENERGY is concerned
In the beginning was The Plan (NET ZERO).
And then came the assumptions (WIND, SOLAR)
And the assumptions were without form. (NOT RATIONAL)
And the plan was without substance. (AS IS ALWAYS THE CASE)
And darkness came upon the face of the workers (NO ELECTRICITY).
And they spoke amongst themselves saying:
“It is a crock, and it stinketh mightily.” (BUT WE WILL BE OUT OF A JOB IF WE TELL THEM THE TRUTH ABOUT IT).
And the workers went unto their Supervisors and said,
“It is a pail of dung, and none may abide the odor therefore.”
And the Supervisors went unto their Managers saying,
“It is a container of excrement, and it is very strong,
such that none may abide by it.” (BUT GIVE US OUR UNEARNED BONUSES AND WE WILL LEARN TO LOVE IT).
And the Managers went unto their Directors saying,
“It is a vessel for fertilizer, and none can abide by its strength.”
And the Directors spoke amongst themselves, saying to one another,
“It contains that which aids plant growth, and is very strong.”
And the Directors went unto the Vice Presidents saying,
“It promotes growth, and it is very powerful.”
And the Vice Presidents went unto the President saying unto him,
“This new plan will actively promote the growth and vigor
of the company, with very powerful effects.”
And JUSTIN looked upon The Plan and saw that it was good.
And the Plan became Policy (even though it was crazy and could not work).
AND NO ONE LIVED HAPPILY EVER AFTER, BECAUSE THERE WAS NO ONE LEFT. AS WE’D ALL FROZEN TO DEATH IN OUR CANADIAN WINTER.
The original joke had the president saying that it was a crock of shit! (pardon my French). But we all know that none of the current world presidents are that smart, or honest.
This is why all the big global mining companies had representatives at Davos. NutZero is a gift that will never end for the big miners as long as it remains any government policy. Ferrous and base metals will underpin any effort toward NutZero. As well as coal being burnt in China of course.
UK debt denominated in other currencies will end UK NutZero effort. Unwillingness of China and Japan to accept USD denominated debt will end USA NutZero effort. I think Russia has already put a spoke in the works for Europe’s Nut Zero.
Canada and Australia can continue toward NutZero as they have enough accessible mineral wealth to trade with China for the NutZero stuff.
Climate science is having us accelerating the desiccation of the landscape. This due to their contrived moral imperative and deeply uncertain logic.
Evidently, something has gone awry at the science-policy interface, with a net-damaging reciprocity.
Considerations:
What is the equation for surface temperature Ts?
Ts= [S-1a/4εσ]^1/4
S = solar input, say 1365 W m-2
a = albedo
ε = emissivity
σ = stefan-boltzmann constant 5.6704×10−8 W-m2·K^4
Scenario 1: Blackbody System
ε = 1
a = 0
Ts = 278K
Scenario 2: Blackbody System with Cloud
ε = 1
a = 0.3
Ts = 255K
Scenario 3: Earth-like System no Cloud
ε = 0.87
a = 0
Ts = 288K
Scenario 4: Earth-like System
ε = 0.6
a = 0.3
Ts = 288K
So, the common greenhouse effect 33K supposed on Earth is simply a consequence of the blackbody assumption ε = 1 with also 0.3 albedo. A deeply unphysical set of assumptions not possible in nature.
This results in a virtual imagined temperature of 255K.
The rest is imaginary physics to arrive at a 33K greenhouse enhancement 288K-255K
A more appropriate starting point if one insists on using a blackbody assumption is evidently 278K; Scenario 1
This leads to a greenhouse enhancement only about 10K, or less than 1/3rd that of 33K. This may be closer to something empirical, but still deeply unphysical.
One must consider that as cloud albedo is introduced the emissivity of the Earth-Atmosphere system must decline.
There are no clouds even remotely resembling blackbody radiators.
Conversely, as clouds are reduced, emissivity will rise. It is a useful relationship to understand. This is illustrated in Scenarios 3 and 4.
Does your Earth rotate?
correcture: Ts= [S(1-a)/4εσ]^1/4
To understand the Earth energy balance it is most appropriate to consider the net upward emission from the planet.
There is no use confusing matters with back radiation.
The net upward emission to space is the combination of energy transmitted through the atmosphere, T, and energy emitted from the the atmosphere, E.
Outgoing Radiation at top of atmosphere = T + E.
We know, always, in a thermodynamically equilibrated system, Δemission = Δabsorption.
In the case of Earth, the atmosphere is in local thermodynamic equilibrium up to several kms in height. It has had billions of years to spin up its internal dynamic processes, including both radiative and non radiative flux equilibrium constraints.
We know also, that as transmittance decreases, absorption increases. This is logical, more energy is absorbed rather than flowing directly to space. Addition of more IR active gases, for example, conceivably reduces transmittance.
(-) transmittance = (+) absorption.
And, Δabsorption = Δemission in the full thermodynamic system.
Subsequently. T + E remains unchanged. This is an expression of Kirchhoff’s law. The reduced transmittance is compensated by increased emission.
This increased atmospheric emission can be achieved through various means internally, including non radiative flux energy re-distribution. It must be so.
I’ll try again: Does the Sun shine at night?
I’m not trying to make a climate model. I’m trying to illustrate some issues with consensus logic in energy balance climatology. You are engaging in process modelling. If you wish to share your ideas please do so.
I intend to visit the Sun at night. Want to come along?
Julian Simon pointed out long ago that there is NEVER a failure due to a shortage of raw materials – new discoveries and recycling ALWAYS provide enough.
I would be more impressed with your graph showing demand and available reserves if you showed those reserves going up with the passage of time – as they do…..
I couldn’t find info on historical estimates of recoverable copper. So instead I said:
So you’re “unimpressed”? Don’t care. If you know so much, how about YOU write up your analysis of the copper situation, so I can sit on the sidelines and nitpick it?
I’ll wait …
w.
What day was that? 🙂
And what *place* was that, that “ores which were 4% or even 6% copper were not uncommon”?
The reason I ask is that the Bingham Canyon Mine’s original surface mining in 1906 was slightly below 2% copper (at 39 pounds per ton).
When I visited every operating primary copper smelter in the U.S. in the early 1990s –there were at least 8 that I can recall…but my memory of “back in the day” is fuzzy–I don’t think anyone was even close to 4%, let alone 6%. (My memory…which may easily be faulty…was that the Copper Range underground mine was by far the highest, at a bit less than 2 percent. I think the rest were all a bit below 1 percent.)
P.S. I’m just bustin’ your chops, Willis. (And showing off a bit. ;-).) If one considers traditional surface mines, copper concentrations have definitely declined from “back in the day.”
A really important fact of resource estimation is the cost of extraction. By definition, there is no ore if its value is lower than its cost of recovery. It is just a worthless mineral deposit.
The cost of mining in the USA is rising and ore reserves will fall as a result of higher cost. To offset that, the value of the contained metal must rise to maintain the reserves, which has occurred. However this cannot go on indefinitely because if the apparent valuable item does return beneficial utility then the whole economy crashes. Using copper in any stuff needed to pursue NutZero is a waste of the copper.
Right now, the NutZero illusion is kept alive by China’s willingness to make stuff using vast quantities of low cost domestic coal. Crunch time comes when they are no longer willing to hold USD denominated debt.
DG,
Would you class the present EU gas shortage as a failure of a mineral supply? Geoff S
Dodgy, I was only allowed one to reduce abuse by one. From a long time mining man (geologist and engineer) you are right on the money!
Not sure which will come first, new copper projects in Arizona or new NG pipelines in the Northeast.
All those Trillions! Is Gore the 10%-guy this time?
Aluminium cannot be used in residential or commercial past the fusebox according to my sparky (currently building) – it’s not approved in the regs.
You can feed Aluminium to the house – as we removed some old supplies and there was a 50m run, I was thinking ooh will weigh that in, but it was Aluminium. They replaced that with a 70mm copper 3 phase.
Will be interesting to see how the reality of Net Zero pans out. It’s an absolute travesty of modern dogma with very little thought or fact.
Has it been established that the end-product requirements can all be produced in a timely manner within the assumed time-scale: 2035, 2050, etc., whatever
For example, is it possible that discovery, development, transporting, refining, and production and installation of the final form(s) of all the various materials cannot be accomplished within the assumed time scale? Especially those for which the downstream objective(s) require a significant upstream investment; specific copper wire designed for wind-turbine electric generators, for example. Present-day production capacity has been set, more-or-less, by supply and demand. The additional capacity requirements have so far been sent down by dictate. I think, because electrical energy is the subject, future capacity is the sum of the present demand, plus growth in that demand, plus the additional demand as we move toward an all-electric economy.
Establishment of almost any new production facility, or even increasing the capacity of an existing facility, will be challenged. Can the required capital equipment, especially those of a highly specialized nature, be produced in the time-scale of their requirement? Huge mining and refining stuff, for example. How about can even the necessary skilled-labor requirements be met?
In addition, given the current status of our energy systems, all this work will be done with fossil fuels, including the growth in electrical-energy consumption needed to produce the fossil-fuel-free end objectives.
This is about a major investigation of metal supplies vs demands
There are mentions of 7000 years of current supply rates need in the next decade.(for net-zero) for some
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MBVmnKuBocc
This gets you an 8 page summary of the report.
https://mcusercontent.com/72459de8ffe7657f347608c49/files/be87ecb0-46b0-9c31-886a-6202ba5a9b63/Assessment_to_phase_out_fossil_fuels_Summary.pdf
There is a much larger full report but I recall some comments about three links in one post causing problems.
Andy
Thx for the links!
The 8 page summary was quite good. Excerpt:
“In conclusion, this report suggests that replacing the existing fossil fuel powered system (oil, gas, and coal), using renewable technologies, such as solar panels or wind turbines, will not be possible for the entire global human population. There is simply just not enough time, nor resources to do this by the current target set by the
World’s most influential nations. What may be required, therefore, is a significant reduction of societal demand for all resources, of all kinds. This implies a very different social contract and a radically different system of governance to what is in place today. Inevitably, this leads to the conclusion that the existing renewable energy sectors and the EV technology systems are merely steppingstones to something else, rather than the final solution. It is recommended that some thought be given to this and what that something else might be.”
Wow.
This assessment dovetails with Richard Greene’s post above.
And here is a link to the full 2021 report:
https://tupa.gtk.fi/raportti/arkisto/42_2021.pdf
There is a lot of undiscovered copper ore deposits out there, or discovered copper at grades too low to mine now, but $7 a pound is very viable for new green field and expanding existing copper mines. I suppose the same argument for fossil fuel availability. At $140 oil, the reserves double. It’s a similar argument for copper…just replace oil for copper where people say we are running out of oil.
Whether it makes economic sense to build an electric car with $10 a pound copper probably isn’t a deal breaker either, since there is180 pounds of copper in a Tesla, compared to an ICE car with 50 pounds. But there probably isn’t enough copper on the planet to electrify everything at any price, especially by 2050. Which is the subject of the article, but a higher price for copper means there will be more copper found. I am all for new copper mines.
A good way to get even with the copper companies, and the fossil fuel companies, is to buy their shares, especially the ones that pay a healthy dividend. Buying into good quality mining companies that have many years of copper reserves and in ‘safe’ political jurisdictions, and getting in while a recession is ongoing at the bottom will pay a good reward. Have done very well just buying and selling a small group of copper miners based upon the economic cycle of Dr. Copper. Buy low, sell high. Rinse and repeat.
These days it isn’t just an issue of economics. Mines are opposed based on ‘religious’ principles, and the environmental regulations work against any rapid ramp-up.
+50
Copper ingots are just the start of problems. Who is ordering all the equipment needed? Who is going to make the cable, connectors, insulators, poles, cross-arms, transformers, switching gear, conduit? Who is beginning to hire the labor force to install the equipment? You don’t go fiddling with high voltages without oodles of training. Just making connections on high voltage lines takes specialized training and hardware. How many pole transformers are going to need replacing? The list goes on and on. I’m glad I’m not a project manager who is going to be responsible for doing this in a decade!
There is an important question that should be answered before any of this.
WHO IS DOING THE PLANNING?
The answer is NO ONE. Because there is a no viable plan. It is all bunkum with the certain outcome of going nowhere.
Yes, the person responsible for dictating our future isn’t even smart enough to start his fireplace with paper in boxes sitting in the garage.
leave out cookies for the elves
Willis: ““Back in the day”, as they say, ores which were 4% or even 6% copper were not uncommon”; you might want to check the 4-6% copper content comment as being “not uncommon”; in an online story at https://miningforzambia.com only two mines in the top ten in the world were 5% or more in copper content. Just a suggestion….
Copper has been mined for over 3,000 years. Your data is for modern mines, not historical mines. Heck, they couldn’t even utilize copper ores of less than 2% until about 1900 …
Best regards,
w.
As an example of ores “back in the day”, and not even that far back, here’s the Alaska Kennecott copper mine in 1901.
w.
Hi Willis,
If it helps, here are some comments from a scientist whose team, Geopeko, found several new copper mines near Parkes in central New South Wales and several at Tennant Creek in Central Northern Territory, Australia.
It is very difficult to find a large, new copper mine. I’ll talk about the Parkes project that started about 1973. Some of our geologists (total about 20 in number then) examined the whole of Australia’s known geology and past mining in detail and concluded that the area within about 100 km of Parkes might have suitable rock types for base metals such as Lead, Zinc, Copper and exotics like Gold, Silver and Molybdenum. We commenced a programme of detailed Geology, Geophysics and Geochemistry. The countryside was quite flat with extensive wheat farms. Outcrops of any rock was rare. There had been small mines for gold in the past, but they were tiny in size compared to our targets, which were in terminology of the times, mainly VMS for Volcanogenic Massive Sulphides style.
To discover the geology under the wheat fields, we started shallow drilling through the soil, about 10 m deep, then into the start of rock. We started along public roads to avoid farming operations. At the same time, we started airborne geophysical analysis of mainly magnetic data and ordered further, more detailed surveys. The bottom-of-hole drill samples were analysed (from memory) mainly for Cu, Pb, Zn. Gold analysis was too expensive and not sensitive enough for low levels then. It was not long after the start of the Australian invention of Atomic Absorption Spectrophotometry, AAS.
In the middle of 1976, one roadside drill sample showed quite a lot of Copper. After some speculation, we settled on the rock type being consistent with the Porphyry Copper type of deposit. We had already examined dozens of these down the extent of Eastern Australia, which helped. They were often large, but the Copper grades were usually low – below 0.1% Cu in our limited overall estimates, so we passed them by.
One version of what followed at Parkes is here, from 2005, so sometimes outdated.-
https://smedg.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/Lyeab.pdf
Quote, “Abstract Porphyry copper-gold mineralisation was discovered in the Northparkes area in 1976 when one kilometre spaced roadside traverse drilling by Geopeko intersected the E22 deposit. Grid based RAB drilling discovered the E27 and E26 deposits in 1978 and 1980 respectively. Testing of a discrete magnetic target with co-incident copper geochemistry in 1992 led to the discovery of the E48 deposit. Sub-vertical quartz monzonite porphyries intrude the host volcanic sequence, with mineralisation and alteration zoned around these porphyries”.
More data –
https://miningdataonline.com/property/865/Northparkes-Mine.aspx
Geopeko, the discoverers in 1976, followed the usual course of handing over to mining engineers and we ceased our exploration there by 1993 or so. Four porphyry copper mines have resulted so far, at locations named Endeavour 22, 26, 27 and 48. Exploration continues. More mining is planned until at least 2038 with recent forward reserve estimates at 31.5 million tonnes of ore at 0.48% Cu and 0.28 grams per tonne of Gold.
The whole exercise is a beautiful example of integration of the disciplines of Geology, Geophysics and Geochemistry, supported by a parent Board of Directors with the vision to fund mineral exploration while being aware of its high risks.
Thank you, Willis, for this WUWT article about planning from a distance. With my comments about planning a discovery I hope to add a little feel about the vast space between on-paper and actual mining. It is very, very hard to face a few hundred square miles of wheat farms and then pinpoint a future mine less than a mile wide. One cannot plan on this happening anywhere, or by any time. Typically the process takes a decade or two from concept to the first ore processing.
Here is an aerial photo collection of some of the bigger mines from Geopeko discoveries 1970 to 1990. Total revenues from product sales now exceed 70 billion Aust dollars in 2020 dollars. Total exploration expenditure exceeded $160 million in days when a million bucks was a lot.
http://www.geoffstuff.com/fourmines.jpg
Top to bottom, Lake Cowal Au, Kanowna Belle Au, Northparkes Cu Au, Ranger One U.
Geoff S E & OE, doing this from memory.
Thanks, Geoff. Your comments are always interesting.
w.
Willis,
I did not know quite what to write. There are very few people in the world with first hand experience of discovering a new copper mine from scratch, let alone also being WUWT bloggers, so I more or less advertised availablity of first hand comment to WUWT readers.
Also, I emphasise the big difference between hands on with rocks and writing about experiences of others.
Therefore, WUWT readers are cordially invited to send questions relevant to the topic Willis has chosen for a further perspective. Geoff S
There’s lots of copper
Reserves of copper in the ground is the actual measured amount in existing deposits determined by drilling adequately spaced holes to be statistically certain of their
existence. These tons should be understood as inventory for mine planning only.
It costs money to drill and assay mineralization. Before the present inflationary period it was ~ $100/meter and drill programs in the large low grade deposits are commonly 100,000m or more with follow-up infill drilling as required. They drill off only enough for there planning horizon.
They also have so-called Probable resources that require infill drilling before they can be upgraded to Reserves, and Inferred Resources which are a combination of drilling and geological knowledge of the deposit. Theses tonnages generally are similar in size to Reserve tonnage. So it’s fairly safe to say that the ultimate tonnage before abandoning the deposit is double or triple reported reserves.
Since you “find other elephants in elephant country” chances are pretty good that the favorable regional geology contains others yet unknown. A recent study by the USGS estimates copper to be found is 3.5 billion metric tons.
Also, 40% of copper demand comes from recycling. I’ve been musing about writing a detailed article for WUWT about this little understood topic of the abundance of resources.
Resource shortages are the bread and butter of Malthusians and, unfortunately, their flawed understanding seems to resonate with their readers. The real resource is human ingenuity. There is no shortage of anything! My favorite example, by way of explanation, is – we do not demand zinc (a Club of Rome example for which I coined the example to refute their premise back in the day), we demand non-corroding barn roofs and culverts, batteries, car door handles, onguent creams, …
Link for USGS copper abundance study:
https://www.usgs.gov/news/national-news-release/global-undiscovered-copper-resources-estimated-35-billion-metric-tons
Our Tennant Creek mines were for decades the biggest global supply of the metal Bismuth.
At times, the biggest use was for indigestion powders for eaters of French food.
We just produced the Bi as a by product. The French ordered as much as they needed. Supply/demand.
Statistics can be fascinating. Geoff S
Yeah Geoff, I’m a geologist and engineer (mining and metallurgy) and have done regional exploration, mineral deposit drill programs for tonnage and ore processing research for plant design.
The trouble with reporting reserves is they get misinterpreted by the lay public, added together and divided by the annual demand to reveal that were headed for trouble. This why we have so much Malthusian BS over the last
couple of centuries about the the end of the world.
Counterintuitively (for the layman), copper reserves and resources are larger today than they they were 20years ago and even the costs to produce per lb are lower in 20year old dollars! It is safe to predict that if demand picks up, copper reserves and resources will increase, despite the reduction in deposits from mining!
Many of the smart people here that have speculated on resource availability in articles have fallen into the Malthusian failing in their analyses. I criticize their offerings, but rarely see a sign that they bothered to read it.
Dodgy Geezer’s comment above was right on the money, but he has been down-voted several times, excoriated by Willis and others. I gave him my upvote to lighten the abuse.
Dodgy geezers correct comment.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2023/01/24/the-copper-conundrum/#comment-3670798
Thanks, Gary. I didn’t “excoriate” the Geezer for his opinion. Nor did I say he was incorrect, for the simple reason that he wasn’t incorrect. Dodgy said:
To that, I responded:
===
“I couldn’t find info on historical estimates of recoverable copper. So instead I said:
So you’re “unimpressed”? Don’t care. If you know so much, how about YOU write up your analysis of the copper situation, so I can sit on the sidelines and nitpick it?
I’ll wait …
w.”
===
Recap. I said I didn’t provide a graph because I couldn’t find the data needed. In addition, I said very clearly in that quote that reserves are a function of price, that we will “find more in the ground” and that as copper becomes more expensive, more economically recoverable reserves will be identified. And that was EXACTLY what Dodgy had said, as well as what you said just above.
But nooo, that wasn’t enough for Dodgy, he wanted a graph.
Now, Dodgy could easily have provided us a graph of how that’s played out over time … but instead, he just stood on the sidelines and whined that I hadn’t provided such a graph.
And even after I invited him to provide such a graph and write up the situation himself, he provided … nothing.
No graph.
No data showing increasing copper reserves.
Not even a link to a history of proven copper reserve estimates by year, which I could have turned into a graph.
Obviously, he just wanted to bitch about the work that I did, but when it came to actually doing the work himself, funny, but he was nowhere to be found …
I stand with Theodore Roosevelt on this issue, who famously said:
Here’s the ugly truth. No matter what I write, someone will find fault with it. Either it’s too long, or it’s too short. Either it’s too simple, or it has too much detail. Either it doesn’t emphasize what they want highlighted, or it highlights what they think is unimportant. There’s always someone out there to point out where I stumble, where I could have done better, and where I’ve come up short. People are all too happy to tell me what I should have done.
And the commonality of all these folks, and the Geezer as well?
They’re all talk and no action. They’re the critics, and I’m the man in the arena. As I said to Dodgy, hey, if I’m not doing it the way you want, you publish it in the way you want, show us how it should be done, and guess what?
…
… crickets from the critic.
And that, my friend, is why I told the Geezer “So you’re “unimpressed”? Don’t care.”
I used to care when I first started writing for WUWT.
But now, after writing over a thousand posts for WUWT, I’ve realized that as Roosevelt said, “It is not the critic who counts.” I realized that Ricky Nelson was right when he sang
As a result, I’ve stopped being concerned or hurt when people tell me they’re “unimpressed”. If they want a graph, they’re free to provide one.
My best to you,
w.
You rarely have a cross word.
Cabin fever?
Thanks, Cocky. Just trying to explain why I have no use for whiners, complainers, and folks who either can’t write or don’t write but still want to tell me how to write and what to write.
Not cross at all, it’s a lovely day here, just fed up.
w.
I have an idea that somebody has already done this for oil, but an article on reserves and resources, and how they change over time would be quite useful.
I don’t know the area well enough or write well enough, so perhaps one of the resource people will rise to the challenge.
Perhaps dodgy geezer’s wording was unfortunate, but the idea of a chart showing reserve growth over time wasn’t unreasonable. Of course, it’s always easier to suggest things after the fact.
Hi Willis. Here is what I have on world copper reserves over time as a sampler from USGS:
https://www.usgs.gov/centers/national-minerals-information-center/mineral-commodity-summaries
1994 (in the 1996 issue) Reserves 310,000kt (metric). They also give in these earlier years, ‘Reserves base’ which is Measured Reserves + Probable Resources (needs infill drilling to qualify legally as ‘Reserves’), the latter combined is usually ~double ‘Reserves’ reported.
2021 Reserves 870,000kt
They dont give the ‘Reserve Base’ figure for some reason, but I suggest that it’s highly likely that 1.5 billion t of copper can be recovered from the present batch of global mines.
Interestingly there are a few Copper geologists that think Mount St. Hellens is a major porphyry copper deposit in the making! Nice to take some samples from the ejecta that blasted out the side of the volcano during the last eruption.
Mining types are a stoic lot that don’t say much about their business, so they are not very forthcoming with info to help the public understand the nature of mineral resources. They’ve had a lot of if hassles and bad press. Folks don’t get it with oil and gas. With minerals and metals (without which we would likely have gone extinct) they they get it even less! Why, I wonder, would they name the stages of human development : The Stone Age, The Bronze Age, The Iron Age.😉⚒
Apropos of nothing, I watched a youtube clip the other day of a presentation by an archeologist who proposed that the collapse of the eastern Mediterranean Bronze Age civilisations was initiated by a natural disaster which removed their supply of tin.
This led on to more use of iron, which at the time was both harder to produce than bronze and had less desirable properties. Improvements followed, leading to the Iron Age
Willis, I have nothing but admiration for all the very fine work you have done, most on the cutting edge of climate science and always eminently readable. A great gift. Yes, you did invite geezer to supply a graph of his own. My ‘excoriated’ was carelessly flung.
Thanks, Gary, much appreciated.
w.
Gary,
Like you, I agree with Dodgy.
Here is part of a comment I made earlier:
…………………..
But the big effect that you are missing is sudden acceleration. The mining industry cannot simply dial in double the present production and have it start tomorrow.. It takes years and years to double production.
If net zero was possible by 2050, the accelerated production might, just might, be achieved by 2050. But it has to build up.
So what are we going to use during this huge and very costly acceleration from now to 2050? Dream on.
Net zero carbon by 2050 is a deadly concept that cannot succeed. Many people will be murdered in its early stages before sanity prevails. How can you, in good conscience, support this push that will be labelled mass murder Pot Pol style unless wisdom dominates over dogma and stops it dead? Geoff S
………………….
Nick responded with an academic graph of projected production. Another example of my point also above that there is a difference between hands-on knowledge and paper knowledge. Geoff S
Aluminum wires are possible, but aluminum requires thicker wires for the same amount of resistance over the distance and I have yet to find a durable aluminum wire in any of my electronic devices, so I would imagine that aluminum wires will increase maintenance costs dramatically.
the need for copper will force us to rediscover the monroe doctrine and integrate more deeply with south america.
https://investingnews.com/daily/resource-investing/base-metals-investing/copper-investing/top-copper-reserves-country/
copper is not a problem its an opportunity.
China has long since beat us to the punch.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-copper-substitution/analysis-copper-market-braces-for-more-substitution-idUSTRE6BM1M020101223
Nut Zero at any cost. Let the next generation know they better plan to live in their car because they won’t be able to afford a house. The car will cost as much.
When I digitize the Global Refined Copper Usage graph, it doesn’t seem completely compatible with the Cumulative Sum Refined Copper graph.
Specifically, I get a cumulative sum of refined copper of about 1100 million tonnes from the bar graph, versus about 1400 million tonnes in their cumulative graph.
Further, I get a cumulative demand from “nonenergy transition demand” of 818 million tonnes…which is almost at the “known reserves” value of 880 million tonnes. So we would presumably be toast even without the energy transition.
As someone who used to own a house built in the late 60’s with aluminium wiring I don’t think that aluminum is a reasonable alternative.
Maybe if you re-spec the wiring from scratch and go with 10 gauge, rather than just patch in 12 gauge aluminum for 14gauge copper, then it might work. But you need to.reengineer everything from.the ground up, not switch metals.in the middle of the stream.
Years ago there was a large cross border flow of coins between Canada and the US. While it was illegal to melt down coins in your own country, melting down foreign coins was not a problem.
We will never run out of copper. We will run out of cheap copper. Really, really expensive copper will not run out.
Fred,
But what if the max world grows a pressure group demanding net zero copper by 2050? Geoff S
We are more likely to see max size dwellings and no new cars and trucks of any type (mass transit required) by that point.
Valuable advice from the past, via wonderful Wikipedia:
When you have an imaginary problem to solve, any imaginary solution is possible.
It actually gets even more profound than that.
To solve an imaginary problem, you can ask anybody, even someone with zero experience about anything, say a school drop out character for instance for the answer.
” More soup on your Picasso sir?”