From: lessgovt@gmail.com   
      
   US minerals industries are booming. Here’s why.   
   By James Temple, March 13, 2023, MIT Tech Review   
      
   A recent set of sweeping US laws have already kicked off a boom in proposals   
   for new mining operations, minerals processing facilities, and battery plants,   
   laying the foundation for domestic supply chains that could support rapid   
   growth in electric    
   vehicles and other clean technologies.   
      
   That’s by design. A stipulation in the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA),   
   enacted last year, restricts EV tax credits to vehicles with batteries that   
   contain a significant portion of minerals extracted or refined within the US,   
   or from countries that have    
   free-trade agreements with it. Manufacturing the batteries that power these   
   vehicles requires significant amounts of finished materials such as cobalt,   
   graphite, lithium, manganese, and nickel. Today these often come from other   
   nations, particularly    
   China.   
      
   Billions of dollars of investments in battery materials have been announced in   
   North America since the IRA passed, according to BloombergNEF. The “domestic   
   content requirements” helped spark or accelerate those plans, observers say.   
   But it’s still    
   not clear which nations will qualify for providing the processed materials,   
   and some allies have accused the US of providing unfair advantages to its own   
   industries.    
      
   Some experts also worry that the requirements, which become stricter over   
   time, are so stringent they could have the unintended effect of actually   
   slowing the shift to cleaner technologies. After all, it takes years to get   
   new mines and plants running    
   under the best of circumstances, and the permitting process for major projects   
   in the US is notoriously slow. Adding to the potential delays, some   
   communities are already pushing back on certain proposals, citing   
   environmental impacts, indigenous land    
   concerns, and other issues.    
      
   David Turk, deputy secretary of the Dept of Energy, spoke with MIT Technology   
   Review about what a US mining resurgence means, why it’s crucial to build up   
   these supply chains, and how the Biden administration is striving to strike   
   the right balance on    
   the attendant concerns.   
      
   The following interview has been edited for length and clarity.   
      
   Q: The US has largely been content to leave critical mineral mining and   
   processing to other nations for decades. What will it mean to bring back and   
   build up these industries once again? Why is it important to do so?   
      
   A: This is a big, big deal, not only for this department—the Department of   
   Energy—but for this administration.    
      
   When you look at some of the technologies and many of the supply chains,   
   it’s really China dominated. And so that should be hopefully a wake-up call   
   for everybody who wasn’t woken up already on this. This administration is   
   determined not only to    
   really try to bring some of those processing pieces back here in the US, but   
   to have diverse energy supplies and diverse supply chains when it comes to   
   critical minerals, with allies and with fellow democracies.   
      
   You want diversity of supply chains. And you also want to have partners that   
   you can rely on.    
      
   Q: Some observers have noted that building up domestic manufacturing and   
   mining could easily take years, while the domestic content requirements in the   
   IRA kick in soon. Is there a risk that we could stall US clean tech and   
   climate progress, if we don’   
   t build up these sectors quickly enough to qualify for government support?   
      
   A: We’re trying to be both aggressive and smart on this. And we’re working   
   with our Treasury colleagues and IRS colleagues who are doing the heavy   
   lifting on the tax incentives and the periods of time. There are some   
   flexibilities in the way Congress    
   wrote the legislation, but there’s also some clear policy direction and some   
   areas where it’s not very flexible along those lines.   
      
   Q: It takes a long time to permit any large project. And we’ve already seen   
   pushback against some mining proposals, including a lawsuit against the   
   Thacker Pass lithium mine in Nevada. How will the DOE or the administration   
   ensure that the nation can    
   build up adequate capacity to hit climate goals, while also balancing   
   environmental impacts and community concerns?    
      
   A: There’s a reason we have the [National Environmental Policy Act] and   
   other environmental laws, and we need to be true to both the spirit and the   
   text of it. But we also have a real need, just as you said in your question,   
   to try to build up quickly.   
      
   You can do permitting that’s smart and thoughtful and takes into account all   
   the environmental repercussions and ramifications. But you can do it in a   
   timely way, and in a way that doesn’t just drag out for years and years and   
   years. Especially if    
   you do it in a way that has community engagement right from the get-go. A lot   
   of times you get lawsuits and delays if you’re trying to do things and   
   you’re not bringing the community along right from the start and making sure   
   that there’s a    
   mutually beneficial piece to it.    
      
   The other thing that we’re certainly doing from the Department of Energy   
   side is a lot of focus on recycling, especially as we get higher and higher   
   volumes of these materials. We’re also looking at alternative chemistries   
   and other research and    
   development—to try to use less of this, more of this, if it’s more readily   
   found to have less environmental implications. So that’s something that   
   we’re spending a lot of funding and time and energy on as well.   
      
   Q: The IRA has created friction with the EU and other allies, including   
   complaints that the local-content requirements and other provisions will   
   unfairly favor US industries. Can you describe what efforts the administration   
   is taking to address those    
   concerns?   
      
   A: We are having a lot of very constructive and good conversations with our   
   European colleagues on some of their concerns on the IRA, and some of the   
   concerns on the provisions. We’re stronger if we go forward together,   
   including on critical minerals,    
   including on the supply chains.    
      
   There’ll be additional meetings on that front. But I’m quite pleased with   
   the fact that we can have open, candid conversations, and we can work through   
   these issues—as allies should, as partners should.   
      
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)