FST JOURNAL

Summary:

• We require a wide variety of materials for energy transition-related tech and for other essential items used in our daily lives. We must make decisions now on where our finite volume of materials will be sourced from and allocated to
• Science and technology is key to ensuring we maximise the use and value of materials we already have in circulation – for example through designing products for reuse rather than recycling or discarding as waste
• We may need to change our expectations and behaviours to use what is available to us – for example, cars that may not travel as far as we are used to on a single charge
• Mining of additional minerals and metals should be a last resort, but is currently necessary.  The unlocking of natural resources should be a positive for the local community and economy, and business models should support this  
• We should use transdisciplinary approaches to revolutionise how we extract the materials we need
• We cannot alter the physical rocks, but we can improve our understanding and interpretation of the data related to them.

The first-ever critical mineral strategy for the UK was only published in 2022.  This was in part instigated by COP26, the major climate change summit held in Glasgow in 2021.  Back in 2021, the connection between the world of rocks, minerals, metals, and the technology needed for the energy transition had not yet been widely recognised, especially here in the UK. However, one country had already made that connection—China. One of the reasons why China dominates this field is that they skilfully developed their minerals strategy over 40 years ago and executed it exceptionally well. This puts the rest of the world at a crossroads: do we play catch-up, or do we change the game?

How can S&T support the UK’s Critical Minerals Strategy

I believe science, technology, innovation, and research and development can significantly influence the contents of our new Critical Minerals Strategy. One of the UK’s many strengths is in science and technology, therefore we should be able to develop new designs for standard technology that currently wastes or uses excessive volumes of critical materials.  

The future is where we begin to understand our needs: we require various materials for technologies related to the energy transition and for essential items like ventilators. We must make decisions now on where these materials will be allocated—whether they will be directed towards batteries and wind turbines or utilised in other areas. The reason materials are termed critical is that we need a wide array of them to sustain our lives. Moreover, as I highlight a major aspect of this discussion, it is important to note that we should not mine materials unless absolutely necessary. Most people perceive mining negatively, partly due to a lack of understanding regarding the processes. As someone who has lived and worked on many mine sites around the world—starting out as an exploration geologist—I can attest that mining often faces scrutiny. It is a perspective we need to address in our discussions today.

What can we change? 

Regarding the future and the critical minerals we need, there is fundamentally one thing we (as humans) cannot change: the natural rocks themselves. They of course change over millenia, but no matter how hard we wish that we might be sitting on a resource of valuable materials, it’s only there if the Earth’s natural processes have put them there.  The most important people in this room are the geologists! We cannot alter the physical rocks, but we can improve our understanding and interpretation of the data related to them. Regardless of our efforts or beliefs, the rocks themselves remain unchanged. This leads us to a critical discussion point: what do we need? This is where assessments come into play, albeit with a broad perspective that may need refining as we consider our future needs and priorities in mineral resources.

Recycling and changing behaviours

Currently, much of what we refer to as recycling is actually downcycling. For example, when we take a car, strip it down, and discard its components into the steel production process, we are not maximizing the value of those materials. I remember an event at the Institute of Physics a few years ago where I was shocked to learn that one of the least valuable types of steel, known as rebar, contains approximately 0.42% nickel and 0.31% copper. To put that into perspective, there are copper ore bodies being mined right now that have a grade (or concentration) of just 0.31%. From a geological standpoint, this seems irresponsible; we should respect and preserve valuable resources like copper rather than throw them away. The reason we do this is that the steel and scrap industry prioritises volume. They often do not or can’t take the time to figure out better ways to extract and utilize these materials. This creates a complex situation where science, metallurgy, economics, and market forces clash. It begs the question: how can we revolutionise our approaches and practices? While we can certainly change our behaviours, encouraging people to use less electricity is a significant challenge, especially as the world moves forward and seeks development. So, how do we make these necessary changes? The answers lie with everyone in this room. It's our expertise, imagination, and creativity that will drive progress. We also need to cultivate a willingness to challenge each other. I’m sure we have individuals from various disciplines present here, and the real innovation often occurs when we step into that uncomfortable zone of unfamiliarity, where new ideas emerge. To harness this potential for innovation, we must encourage conversations across disciplines.

Ultimately, in addressing the critical minerals aspect of our examination question—how can science and technology support the UK's strategy? —we need to rethink our approach. Current material flows are constrained, so we must innovate to meet future demands.