Minerals for the green agenda, implications, stalemates, and alternatives

1 Introduction

The global average surface air temperature during the first nine months of 2024 [1] exceeded pre-industrial levels by 1.54°C. At the same time, global annual energy consumption from fossil fuels is growing several times faster than the combined growth of energy from solar and wind power plants [2], while CO₂ emissions have reached a historic maximum. These disturbing data suggest that the adequacy and appropriateness of measures taken to mitigate climate change should be re-examined. The largest global emitters of CO₂ are energy and transportation [3], which brought electric vehicles, solar power plants, wind farms, and grid storage in the backbone of low-carbon technologies [4]. While phasing out fossil fuels is quite slow, the backbone solutions listed require much greater consumption of critical raw materials [5,6], geochemically scarce minerals that are present in the earth’s crust (lithosphere) in an amount considerably less than 0.01%. Already existing crisis in the supply of essential minerals is aggravated by the decline in the ore grade, which increases the energy intensity, and by the neglect of socio-environmental aspects [7]. The latter increases the resistance of the local population to companies that practice cheap mining at the expense of the environment, with harmful effects on the living world and public health. An unfavorable series of events and circumstances further increases China’s already large dominance in the field of mineral procurement. Meanwhile, green agenda could increase demand for critical minerals up to nine times in the electricity sector and up to seven times in the transport sector [8]. Faced with the laws of physics, the aforementioned actions encounter insurmountable obstacles, which is where the cause of the failures so far should be sought. All such policies and strategies which only consider one aspect could bring about severe problems in other areas.

While the world is faced with significant risks brought about by climate change [9], the regions that provide the world with minerals for low-carbon technologies are additionally threatened by multifold increased exploitation in unfavorable financial and environmental conditions [10]. Limited reserves [11], declining ore grade and increasing energy expenditure to extract and refine minerals (i.e. energy intensity), reveal a growing scarcity of most critical minerals. Many devices and systems that were called renewable cannot be renewed and rebuilt due to the scarcity of minerals. Many recent technologies are facing bottlenecks in their supply chain that has raised concerns for their future use [12]. A study of the quantities of critical minerals needed for green agenda devices and key mineral [12] reserves highlights the need to review low-carbon technologies and eliminate the negative consequences of current mineral procurement practices. The second section of this document [12] provides an overview of contemporary low-carbon solutions and an estimate of the required quantities of critical minerals, sufficient to achieve climate neutrality by 2050. An estimate of the grid storage capacity necessary for the integration of solar and wind power plants by 2050 is also provided. The third section presents the current availability of critical minerals, an overview of their reserves, resources, energy intensity, and prospects for their long-term availability. The considerations in the fourth section start from the goals of net-zero emissions in 2050 and give the aggregate quantities of batteries, electric vehicles, solar power plants, and wind power plants that need to be produced for this purpose. Based on this, the necessary amounts of critical minerals are determined and then expressed as a share of global reserves as well as multiples of current annual demand. The fifth section presents the general experiences of mineral resource exploitation in various countries and regions around the world. As a characteristic and illustrative example, the sixth section is dedicated to the financial, environmental, social, and political implications of the planned exploitation of lithium, boron, and other essential minerals in Serbia, including the Jadar River Valley, which is sought to supply the European Union (EU) and thus reduce dependence on Chinese minerals. The summary of the key findings, proposed remedies, and feasible solutions are given in Section 7, along with conclusions.

2 Contemporary low-carbon technologies and their requirements for critical minerals

Data on trends in energy consumption, changes in the energy mix, and CO₂ emissions can be found in accessible and mutually consistent sources [2,13–15]. The global annual primary energy reaches 659 EJ, with less than 18% supplied from solar, wind, biofuels, hydropower, and traditional biomass. The amount of energy from fossil fuels exhibits an annual growth of 7.37 EJ, considerably larger than the most optimistic estimate (2.32 EJ) of combined growth in solar and wind from 2022 to 2023 (objective estimates state 1.21 EЈ). Relative share of coal, natural gas, and oil in fossil fuels is 0.342, 0.316, and 0.342 (relative), respectively. Road transportation and air transport use 0.144 and 0.028 (relative) of the energy from fossil fuels. As a consequence, total CO₂ emissions exceeded 40 GtCO₂ (41.6), thus reaching the historical maximum, with fossil fuel CO₂ reaching 37.4 GtCO₂, and the rest from deforestation and other sources.

The global need for critical minerals depends on the quantity and ratings of low-carbon devices, such as electrical vehicles (EV), and solar and wind power plants. It also depends on the specific amount of minerals needed to build individual unit-rated devices. Based on the net-zero emission scenario of [2], Table 1 summarizes the predicted rise in the annual production of electrical energy and the predicted increase in annual production from grid-connected solar and wind power plants. The required installed capacity of the corresponding plants is calculated using capacity factors obtained as a global average, calculated from global annual energy production and installed power in 2022. The value RES Total (Renewable Energy Sources Total) of Table 1 is larger than RES (electrical) due to a relatively small but finite share of wind and sun energy used off-grid. The last column in Table 1 (New capacity) represents the difference between globally installed capacity in 2050 and globally installed capacity in 2022. The number of units that will need to be produced by 2050 is greater than the New capacity due to the replacement of many existing sources that will have reached the end of their useful life in the meantime. This addition is not taken into account in subsequent calculations, so all estimates of the necessary amounts of critical minerals that will follow in the subsequent considerations should be considered as a lower limit.

In addition to decarbonization in the energy sector, there are plans to replace internal combustion engine (ICE) vehicles with electric vehicles. The global share of electric vehicles has reached 3% [16], which corresponds to a number of about 40 million. Of the approximately 82 million cars sold annually, about 8% are battery-powered electric cars, about 16% are hybrid cars, while about 76% of cars have an IC-Engine [17]. Replacing all existing ICE-powered cars with battery-powered electric vehicles (BEV) would require the production of over 1.4 billion (1.4e9) EVs. Key materials required for making one BEV are obtained from [18] and listed in Table 2. The cars with ICE engines require considerably lower quantities of the key minerals. Among the critical minerals listed in Table 2, they need just 12 kg of copper and some 1 kg of manganese. The data in Table 3 was obtained in a different way, by summing the critical minerals necessary for the production of an EV battery [16,17,18,19], and adding the critical materials used in the electric motor and the glider (the rest of the car, except the battery and the electric motor) [18,19]. Some 12 kg of copper and 2 kg of manganese are required for the electric motor, and also some 16 kg of copper and 10 kg of manganese for the glider. With minor differences, there is a good match between the two tables.

The key minerals required for wind and solar power plants are calculated from the data found in [16,17,18,19] and presented in Table 4. While the estimates for the first seven minerals are taken from the IEA publication [18], the quantity of neodymium is obtained by averaging the most recent designs, with a reduced quantity of Nd. Therefore, the ratio between the Nd and the rare earth mixture, taken from [18] and given in Table 4, differs from the expected one. Namely, in advanced designs of wind turbines, the quantity of rare earth mixture is lower than 243 kg/MW. It is important to notice that many older onshore wind turbines use gearboxes and doubly-fed induction generators; hence, the figures of Table 4 for rare earths and neodymium do not apply to them.

Electrification will raise the demand for key minerals from 2 to 7 times by 2030 [2]. Annual demand for Cu for electrification alone is expected to increase from 5.8 to 12.2 Mt, most of it used for expanding transmission and distribution grids. Annual demand for Si (Silicon) would rise from 0.8 to 2 Mt, mostly for solar panels [2]. Recent developments have reduced the quantity of silver used in solar panels below 8 g/m², thus reducing the requirements from 80 t of Ag for each installed GW of solar panels down to 40 t/GW.

The increasing share of solar and wind power plants creates a need for grid-connected energy storage. Wind and solar power cannot be controlled at will, and therefore excess energy must be stored and used in “dunkelflaute” intervals with no wind and no sun.

One of the storage systems promoted within the green agenda is utility-grade battery storage, although there are other solutions such as reversible hydroelectric plants, compressed air storage, thermal storage technologies, and others. It is necessary to estimate the total amount of grid storage that may be needed by 2050. In an electric power system with a total source power (p _SRC), a total load (p _LOAD), and a power (p _INTER) arriving via interconnections with neighbouring systems, the power of energy exchange with the storage (p _STOR) is given by equation (1), and it represents the first derivative of the stored energy (W _STOR). The power (p _SRC) corresponds to the aggregate power of controllable and uncontrollable production equation (2). For the purposes of this calculation, the instantaneous power (p _SRC(t)) is presented in a simplified form, as a sum of 7 groups that differ in controllability, peak power, total annual energy, dependence on weather conditions, dynamics and characteristic time intervals. The seven components in equation (3) correspond to the instantaneous power of baseload sources (p _BASE), wind power plants (p _WIND), solar power plants (p _SUN), run-of-river hydropower plants (p _{HE_ROR}), dam hydropower plants (p _{HE_DAM}), combined cycle and cogeneration gas power plants (p _GASC), and open cycle gas power plants (p _GASO). The power (p _LOAD) (3) corresponds to the aggregate power of controllable and uncontrollable consumption. The calculation assumes that part of the load (p _CONT(t)) is a flexible part of the demand, and it is modeled as the energy consumption that can be planned, managed, increased, reduced, or shifted in time if needed. Load control can help reduce the storage capacity needed. From now on, the highest flexibility targets set so far are assumed to be achieved by 2050, whether on an hourly, daily, weekly, or seasonal scale. It is also assumed that the power of the interconnections (p _INTER) is not limited; that is to say, all necessary interconnections will be built and power limitations will never restrict energy exchanges where a surplus in one system coincides with a deficit in the other, at all technically and economically justifiable distances. By the nature of the changes in production and consumption, exchanges in the east-west direction are primarily on a daily basis, while exchanges in the north–south direction also include a seasonal component.

The overall calculation of minimum storage capacities is reduced to a base period of one year, performed with a 10-min resolution. It consists of determining technically, economically, and logistically feasible vectors of the instantaneous power of controllable sources (p _BASE, p _GASO, p _GASC, p _{HE_ROR,} and p _{HE_DAM}) for a period of one year and with a resolution of 10 min, along with planning the changes in controllable part of the load (p _CONT(t)), so as to obtain the minimum required energy storage capacity, i.e. the minimum difference between the extreme values of W _STOR(t) in equation (4). It has to be noted that hydropower plant management is restricted and conditioned by inflows, while for base sources, periodic repairs must be planned and carried out. The calculation is based on the seemingly optimistic, but still partly realistic, assumption that all changes in wind and solar power, changes in power consumption, and changes in hydroelectric power plant inflows for the observed year will be known at the very beginning of the year. This assumption significantly reduces the time required to find optimal vectors using modern Matlab tools.

The calculation results yield the annual change in p _STOR(t) and W _STOR(t) in the case of optimal control of sources and loads. The obtained results allow for determining the power and capacity for each of the storage technologies that need to be implemented. For each of the storage technologies, there are two basic parameters that define them, namely the storage capacity (i.e. the maximum energy that can be stored in them) and the storage power (i.e. the maximum rate of change of said energy). The dependence of the required storage capacity on the share of solar and wind power plants is shown in Figure 1. The discontinuous character of the curve shown results from the fact that it is not a representation of an analytical expression, but rather a set of points obtained through individual optimization for each of the given quotas of wind and solar energy (on the abscissa). The optimization includes variables of a binary nature as well as variables with discontinuous change. For the share of wind and solar power plants planned for 2050 [2] in the scenario with zero net emissions, and for the projected annual electricity production, the total necessary storage capacity exceeds 6,000 TWh, some 8% of the global annual electricity.

Figure 1

Combined storage capacity of a well-interconnected system based on the share of wind and solar energy in total electricity production.

Important conclusions about the most suitable storage technologies can be obtained starting from the vector of calculated storage power p _STOR(t) for a period of about a year, whose 10-min samples need to be arranged in decreasing amplitudes. The corresponding results are shown in Figure 2, for 2022 (a) and 2050 (b). The maximum storage power in 2050 will be 3,2 times larger than the average annual power of the considered electrical network. It can be seen that the intervals with extreme charging and extreme discharging power will be relatively short, suggesting that such needs can be met by battery storage.

Figure 2

Storage power vector reordered and sorted according to its amplitudes. In 2022 (a) and in 2050 (b). In 2050, according to the zero net emissions scenario, annual electricity production is close to 77 PWh, which corresponds to an average total load (p _LOAD) of 8,790 GW.

In order to verify the viability of the present low-carbon solutions, it is of interest to study the availability of Cu, Ni, Mn, Cr, Mo, Zn, rare earths, Nd, Si, Ag, Li, Co, graphite, and some other critical materials.

3 Availability of critical minerals and prospective of their reserves and recycling

Most critical minerals are considerably more abundant in the earth’s crust (lithosphere) than in seawater. There are also critical minerals in the magma, but their concentration is too low to justify their exploitation with available technologies. The most significant source of minerals is, for now, the continental part of the lithosphere. A particularly valuable insight into the availability of minerals from the lithosphere was provided in the research of Skinner [20]. Within 10–50 km of depth, at least traces are available for 88 chemical elements. Only 12 elements are present at levels above 0.1% by weight, and these are O, Si, Al, Fe, Ca, Mg, Na, K, Ti, H, Mn, and P. These elements are considered geochemically abundant, and they were widely used in traditional industries. Notwithstanding steadily declining grade of ore, geochemically abundant minerals will be readily available and there are no major technological barriers to their extraction.

Other elements (Zn, Cr, Ni, Cu, Co, U, Sn, Ag, and Au.) are considered geochemically scarce, yet many of them are used in low-carbon devices and systems. The exploitation of scarce minerals is further complicated by the nature of their distribution in the lithosphere. They rarely form separate minerals in common rocks, and the vast majority of their content is represented as randomly distributed atoms [20] trapped by isomorphous substitution where a scarce atom replaces an atom of an abundant element. A very small fraction of the total scarce mineral content is found within geologically limited volumes in higher concentrations. These volumes are the result of some rather rare circumstances in which scarce compounds of desired minerals occur in much higher concentrations than in areas with isomorphous atomic substitutes. An example is Pb, which represents 0.001% of the continental crust, while it is obtained from ores containing at least 2% Pb. Proven Pb ore reserves are more than 10⁵ times smaller than the total amount of Pb in the lithosphere [20].

When these very small amounts of scarce minerals are depleted, the remaining portions of scarce minerals will be present as isomorphic atomic substitutions, very difficult to exploit. When the reduction in ore grade falls below the level called mineralogical barrier, the ore is not amenable for exploitation due to logistic barriers, technological problems, and a considerable increase in energy intensity. Excluding special cases (Au, U, and Ga.), the barrier lies somewhere between 0.01 and 0.1% [20]. In the case of scarce minerals other than Pb, it is of interest to estimate their share available in concentrations higher than the mineralogical barrier, ruling out their presence as isomorphic atomic substitutes at very low concentrations.

The report [21] establishes a mineralogical barrier for Cu at 0.1%, and it states that only 0.01% of total Cu in the continental crust is found with ore grades above 0.1%. For most scarce minerals, the share of their content in the lithosphere beyond the corresponding mineralogical barrier falls between 0.001 and 0.01%. Once the barrier is reached, previously used concentration, smelting and refining can no longer be employed, and the energy demand for alternative processes can jump by a factor of 100 to 1,000 times [20]. Therefore, exploitation of ore grades below the mineralogical barrier seems rather unlikely. A visible decline in the ore grade of Au, Ag, and several other metal ores has already begun.

An overview of critical minerals is given in Table 5, largely based on [11,12,18–22], including the relevant resources, reserves, annual demand, and energy intensity (i.e., the total internal and external energy consumption required to obtain the unit quantity of the desired mineral).

A certain impermanence of estimated reserves arises from their definition of being economically exploitable now or in the near future, from their dependence on the results of geological exploration and economic factors, and from the innate volatility of technological, legal, and market studies. Since the resources are defined as concentrations of minerals in the lithosphere that have reasonable prospects for eventual economic extraction in the future, they are closely related to the mineralogical barrier, presumed acceptable depth of ore bodies, new explorations, extraction difficulties, projected changes of the ore grade, and borderline energy intensity. In all cases where there are different estimates, the higher values are entered in Table 5, such as 1 Gt of copper reserves instead of commonly cited 886 Mt, 1.74 Mt of silver resources instead of 1.3 Mt [20], and similar.

In column 4 of Table 5, the current annual demand is expressed in [Mt/year]. Based on available data on energy intensity in [MWh/t], energy W1Y is calculated, which represents the total energy expenditure for the annual production of considered minerals. For reference, the W1Y quantity is also presented as a share of annual global electricity consumption, as well as a share of global primary energy. The energy required to produce lithium carbonate from spodumene is over six times greater than the energy required to produce lithium from brine [23]. The total energy required to obtain the annual lithium consumption was calculated in two ways, first assuming that all lithium is obtained from spodumene and then assuming that all lithium is obtained from brine. Reserve and resource data are given for lithium content, while energy consumption calculations are based on equivalent lithium carbonate.

Recycling can reduce critical mineral supply problems [18]. The rate of recycling depends on the logistical problems in the collection of the worn-out devices, the energy required for recycling, extraction difficulties, mineral content in the waste, and the market price of recycled minerals. The recycling rate of gold, platinum, and silver exceeds 80, 60, and 50%, respectively. Recycling rates for Cu and Al exceed 40%, while Cr, Zn, and Co have recycling rates in excess of 30% [18]. Recycling requires significant amounts of energy, particularly when the devices to be recycled have not been designed to facilitate recycling. Therefore, recycling may reduce resource depletion problems but cannot eliminate the need to use significant amounts of energy to extract minerals [2,15,18]. According to predictions published in IEA [18] for 2040, recycling and reuse of EV and storage batteries could reduce the primary supply requirement for minerals by only 12%, while the share of recycled minerals could reach 8%, both figures being rather modest results. The current practice of designing and optimizing key devices also has a negative impact on the mineral recycling potential. As an example, solar panels are being designed to achieve higher efficiency, greater robustness and durability, and lower cost. The possibility of recycling used panels is not taken into account during design, which significantly reduces the chances of recycling with reasonable energy consumption. In the long run, it makes sense to focus development efforts on technologies and devices that use minerals abundantly available in geological structures.

4 Increased share of EV, solar & wind power: Case studies and minerals expenditure

About 97% of existing cars still use ICE engines. As part of the decarbonization of transport, it is planned to replace them with battery-powered electric cars (EV) that do not use fossil fuels. After replacing all ICE-engine cars with battery-powered EVs, they will continue to be produced to replace worn-out vehicles. The amount of key minerals needed to produce one typical battery-powered EV is given in Tables 2 and 3. Based on the estimate that there are about 1.47 billion cars in the world today, it is possible to estimate the amount of minerals needed for the “first generation” of battery-powered EV. The described calculation does not take into account later needs for minerals for the replacement of worn-out EVs and their batteries. The results of the calculations are given in Table 6. The necessary total quantities of Li, Co, graphite, and rare earths exceed the current annual production from 38 to 81 times, while the required amount of cobalt is 1.71 times larger than the assessed total available reserves.

The calculation of the amount of minerals for the production of EVs can be estimated in an alternative way, starting from the specific amount for each battery minerals expressed in kg for each kWh of battery capacity. Based on the information published in [2,15,16,17,18,19] it is possible to estimate the necessary specific amounts expressed in [kg/kWh]. These data are given in the second column of Table 7. With an energy consumption of 1/6 [kWh/km] and with a required autonomy of 300 km, one EV would need a battery of 50 kWh. With the EV battery capacity of 50 kWh, it is possible to calculate the total amount of required minerals in [Mt], which is given in the third column. The calculation takes into account the “first generation” of battery-powered EVs, so the need to replace EVs that have reached the end of their useful life is not taken into account here. The data in first 3 columns of Table 7 do not take into account the amounts of copper and manganese required for the glider and the electric motor. These amounts are approximately, 28 kg of copper and 12 kg of manganese for each EV. In total, figure Q ₁ in the fourth column of Table 7 includes 41.1 Mt of copper and 17.64 Mt of manganese. Notice that data in the last 3 columns of Table 7 consider quantity Q (battery only) and not Q ₁ (the whole car). Required amounts of battery materials Li, Co, and graphite are more than 40 times larger than the actual annual production, the amount of cobalt is larger than the available reserves, and the main conclusions are similar to those derived from Table 6. Due to the significantly increased amount of material, the extrapolated effects of falling ore grade and the consequent increase in energy needed to obtain minerals should be taken into account, which was not done on this occasion.

It is also of interest to estimate the amount of critical materials required for the construction of grid-connected battery storage and to add such figures to the ones obtained for EV batteries (Table 6). In addition to batteries, utility storage also includes compressed air technology, reversible hydroelectric power plants, thermal storage, and other technologies. According to the estimate obtained for the year 2050, shown in Figures 1 and 2, the overall, cumulative capacity and power of all the utility storage technologies reach 6,147 TWh and 3.2 × 8,790 = 28,128 GW. Batteries represent only one part of these figures, most often dedicated to short-term storage, where the instantaneous power exchange (p _STOR(t)) is significant, and it covers a considerable part of the peak power needs plotted in Figure 2.

The capacity (energy) of battery storage is planned to be relatively small compared to other technologies, much smaller than the total storage capacity required, because the most common battery-based storing and recovering processes are shorter than 2–4 h. In exceptional cases, such as in India, where solar energy makes a considerable contribution during the daytime, batteries would have to withstand charge (or discharge) times of up to 10 h [15]. To increase the durability of batteries and avoid too frequent replacement of modules or cells, it is beneficial to specify a higher capacity and thus reduce changes in the relative charge of the battery. To this aim, a good practice is to install a battery with a rated capacity between 1.5 and 2 times greater than the load variation under normal operating conditions.

Batteries are planned to provide up to one-third of the total short-term flexibility of the grid [2,15]. Forecasts for battery storage needed in 2050 are constantly increasing. According to the publication World Energy Outlook [2,15] for 2022, 2023, and 2024, the prognosis of battery power required in 2050 reached 3,860 GW in World Energy Outlook 2022, increased to 4,199 GW in 2023, and reached 5,512 GW in 2024 [15]. If we assume that the batteries will provide only one-third of the peak power required to integrate wind and solar power plants in 2050 (Figure 2) and that their rated discharge time will be specified as 8 h, then the required grid-connected battery storage capacity is calculated as 75 TWh. Data on the materials needed to manufacture such batteries are taken from column two of Table 7, where they are expressed in [kg/kWh]. Critical mineral resources required to manufacture utility-grade storage batteries, to be installed by 2050, are detailed in column 3 of Table 8, expressed in [Mt].

The results suggest that, for all materials except manganese, the quantities required exceed current annual production by an order of magnitude, up to 96 times. In the case of nickel and cobalt, the required quantities are significantly higher than estimated global reserves. Since the data in Table 8 represent an optimistic estimate that does not take into account the need for replacement of worn-out cells and batteries, nor does it consider the fact that ore grade will decline, the conclusion is that the planned decarbonization trajectory is unlikely to be achieved.

The data in Table 9 show the necessary quantities of critical minerals for the production of solar panels planned for 2050. According to the data given in Table 1, achieving net-zero emissions of CO₂ by 2050 requires that the total installed power of solar power plants be increased by 26,296 GW. The specific quantities of key minerals for the construction of solar power plants are given in Table 4 and expressed in kg per each MW of installed power (kg/MW). The total amount of required materials is given in Table 9. As in the previous Table, the data presented do not take into account the need to replace solar panels that have reached the end-of-life. Implementing the current decarbonization plan would require a total amount of silver more than 40 times greater than the current annual demand, exceeding estimated global reserves by more than 1.7 times. The energy required to produce solar-grade silicon is nearly twice the current annual global electricity use.

In order to achieve net-zero-emissions of CO₂ by 2050, the plan we currently rely on (Table 1) requires that the total installed power of wind power plants be increased by 9,359 GW. The specific quantities of key minerals for the construction of wind power plants are given in Table 4 and expressed in [kg/MW]. The total amount of required materials is given in Table 10.

The first two rows in Table 10 show copper consumption first for the case when all new installations would be onshore, and then for the case when all new installations would be offshore. Currently, the ratio of the former and the latter is 12:1, but it is planned that it will change to around 2:1 by 2050. Therefore, the total consumption of copper will be higher than shown in the first row, and lower than shown in the second row of Table 10. Rare earths aside, the consumption of remaining minerals for onshore and offshore power plants is not too different. Rare earths and neodymium enable the construction of directly coupled light generators without gearboxes, so that high-power wind turbines can be manufactured with relatively low weight and without excessive investment in supports and construction. However, a significant number of existing onshore wind power plants still use traditional doubly-fed induction generators (DFIG) with gearboxes, which are still planned for low-power plants. Therefore, it should be noted that the total consumption of rare earths and neodymium in Table 10 will actually be lower than it is shown, to the extent that lower power turbines with gearboxes and DFIGs are retained.

Unlike the unattainable quantities of minerals required for the construction of solar power plants, electric vehicles, and batteries (Tables 6–9), the situation is somewhat more favourable for wind power plants. The need for molybdenum and zinc is less than four years’ current global production, while the energy consumption shown for obtaining the minerals is quite achievable. The need for rare earths is very significant, exceeding their current annual production by 13 times. If the needs for rare earths required for the production of EVs are added (Table 6), then the total needs would reach an amount 52 times higher than the current annual production.

From the presented results, it can be concluded that the planned production of key devices required for the green agenda will be faced with very serious problems in obtaining critical minerals. The needs for silver and cobalt significantly exceed the available global reserves, while the needs for other minerals are up to 60–70 times higher than the current annual production, which makes the possibility of obtaining them questionable due to logistical problems, problems of ore grade decline and the increasing energy consumption in the processes of extraction and refining. Over the past 12 years, considerable efforts have been devoted to studying the energy consumption of mining and refining as a function of the decline in ore quality [24]. Developed models [25], feasible solutions for sustainable resource management [26], and estimates of the energy intensity of critical minerals [27] prove that a drop in ore grade causes a significant increase in the energy intensity of critical minerals, which can create irresolvable problems in obtaining them in larger quantities. Current practices appear to be unsustainable, which would render our renewable devices non-renewable and could force us to divert our developments and technologies towards the use of abundant minerals. A viable solution for critical minerals could be [28] one where they are not sold, but rented or leased, with strict conditions regarding recycling.

5 Countries that supply mineral raw materials – current practices

Significantly increased quantities of critical minerals create the need to open numerous new mines. The EU economy requires critical raw materials for strategic sectors such as renewable energy, digital, aerospace, and defense. The Critical Raw Materials Act [29] (CRM Act) was created to ensure EU countries’ access to a sustainable supply of minerals. Mining activities aligned with strict environmental protection standards are still costly [30,31]. Therefore, the European Union comprehends the need to exploit mineral resources in countries over which it can exert influence, including countries seeking to become members of the Union. A comprehensive map of major EU suppliers of critical materials along with their level of governance is given in Figure 3.

Figure 3

Major EU suppliers of critical minerals and their level of governance. The map is obtained from https://rmis.jrc.ec.europa.eu/eu-critical-raw-materials.

Recent legislation in Serbia creates the possibility of opening more than 40 mines, mostly in areas with a vibrant rural population, profitable agriculture, and strategic water reserves. It is of interest to study the willingness and interest of the countries from which the mineral raw materials are sourced to agree to the opening of new mines. If there is resistance to mining, it may gradually subside or it may become stronger over time and threaten the security of mineral supplies. One way to make such an assessment is to look at past experiences.

5.2 The situation in Serbia (Bor and Majdanpek)

An example of the dire consequences of traditional mining is evident in eastern Serbia, in the towns of Bor and Majdanpek, where copper production began in 1903. Mining and smelting basin Bor (RTB) is the only producer of copper and precious metals (gold and silver) in Serbia. It produces cathode copper and high-quality precious metals. As of December 2018, operations are in the hands of a Chinese investor, who has opened a new underground mine Čukaru Peki and tripled production, and announces a further increase of up to 5 times compared to the initial. Increased production led to disastrous environmental and human rights violations, unprecedented levels of environmental pollution, and a significant increase in morbidity and mortality from non-infectious diseases.

The operations are accompanied by excessive emissions of toxic substances up to 40 times above the limit values. At the same time, the income of the host country is insignificant. Based on the market value of copper (currently 9188 EUR/t) and known quantities of copper obtained from Bor and Majdanpek mines on an annual basis (close to 240,000 t), the gross income from the sale of copper amounts to 2205 million EUR. Available data for 2021 show that Serbia received only 13,6 million euros in mining rent [10]. Due to the unavailability of reliable data, it is difficult to determine the exact total revenues of Serbia from RTB, which include direct and indirect taxes and allocations on other grounds, but the total revenues are estimated to be between 50 and 60 million EUR, i.e. 2.72% of the market value of copper obtained. If the calculation base also included the value of gold, other precious metals, and valuable minerals that the investor exports from Serbia in the form of concentrates, then the share of Serbia’s income in the value of the minerals obtained would be significantly lower than 2.72%.

The Chinese investor exports a significant part of the ore concentrate that is further processed outside of Serbia, so the total amount of precious metals and valuable minerals is not known, at least not to the general public. According to statements by leading officials made on several occasions on national TV channels (RTS, Radio Television of Serbia), Serbia has the possibility to buy gold mined on its own territory with a discount of 3% compared to the market price.

It is becoming increasingly common for smelters to process arsenic-rich concentrate. According to report 1411-24 dated May 15, 2024, made in the laboratories of the Institute of Mining and Metallurgy in Bor, the concentration of cadmium in PM₁₀ particles exceeded the limit value 35 times, while the corresponding concentration of arsenic exceeded the limit value 23 times. Relevant (and alarming) data on the average annual concentrations of cadmium and arsenic can be found in the article [52]. The corresponding impact on the environment are shown in Figure 4.

Figure 4

Copper mining and processing in Bor and Majdanpek is carried out without land rehabilitation and reclamation, with pollution of watercourses to the extent that the Bor River is dead in every respect (a), and with the consent of the authorities that the investor carries out work with permanent pollution that exceeds the limits by several dozen times. (b) Abandoned open pit mine. The images are obtained from the private collection of Prof. Velizar Stankovic.

In 2022, about 4,000 records of oncology patients were counted in the health center in the city of Bor. The local doctors’ claims have not been officially confirmed by the Serbian government, but they are fully consistent with data on the number of new patients registered in Bor each year, as reported by Dr. Milan Jovanovic Batut, Serbia’s National Institute of Public Health. Data on the number of patients in 2023 and 2024 are not readily available, while the government-controlled media diminish the problem and state that the total number of oncology patients in Bor is five times smaller than it actually is. Despite the alarming levels of pollution, the operations in Bor do not stop, under the pretext that jobs would be lost. About 6,000 Serbian citizens and a significantly larger number of Chinese citizens, estimated at 22,000, currently work in Bor. The arrival of Chinese investors led to the closing of jobs in smaller companies and subcontractors that employed Serbian citizens and provided specialized services to the RTB complex.

Certain mines are partly supplied with technical water from the city’s water supply system, where they have priority, so that the population remains without water during the summer months. In addition to, there is clear evidence of enormous pollution of natural spring water in the foothills of Majdanpek’s hill, where the flotation lake is located [53]. There are also plans to build a new reservoir on the Crni Timok River and completely submerge and destroy the existing groundwater source “Bogovina” which provides high-quality potable water.

Moreover, a few years ago, a Chinese investor moved the Kriveljska River from its natural bed and directed it into a tunnel dug under the mountain. A detailed and well-founded study of the impact of mine waters on the Borska, Kriveljska and, consequently, Timok rivers is presented in [54] and [55].

Since a part of the Chinese workers come to work in Serbia under penalty, there is also a Chinese law enforcement group in Bor that controls parts of the territory. The Chinese workforce often comes to Serbia without the necessary qualifications, with the intention of obtaining basic training and learning from mistakes.

According to officially available population census data from 2011 and 2022, the number of Serbian citizens in Bor has decreased by 20% in 11 years, while according to predictions for the year 2050, it will be further halved. Despite the departure of Chinese citizens who complete their training at RTB, the number of Chinese citizens who live in Bor is constantly increasing. The overall picture of Bor and Majdanpek is changing in a very unfavorable way. Apart from the modification of natural landscape and environment, almost all economic activities except mining and mining-associated activities have been suspended. The remaining population is shrinking, and living without perspective and hope. There is also a lack of ability and will for the citizens of Bor to recognize, articulate, and defend their vital interests. Instead of being the subjects of social dynamics, they are reduced to mere objects and therefore victims. The population that remains passive in the face of mining practices such as those carried out in Bor is in line with the interests of investors and it meets the interests of the current Serbian autocratic government. Although in Europe, images from Bor and Majdanpek correspond in many ways to scenes from Congo, Morocco, or Papua New Guinea. This is an alarming sign that if Europe ignores the damage its extractive sector is causing in Africa, it will soon turn these practices against itself and its own citizens.

Most examples of mining in third-world countries imply a scenario similar to the experience in Bor. Big mining companies take the concentrate or minerals (Cu, Au, Ag, Pt, and rare earths) out of the country, leaving negligible income for the local population and the state. Traditional mining with landfills is used, which leads to devastating pollution of land, water, and air, destroys biocenoses, leads to serious diseases in the population, and leaves no room for a productive life of any kind other than mining. As a consequence, strong and negative reactions from the local population are frequent, threatening the security of global mineral supply.

6 Financial, environmental, social, and political implications of the Jadar project

The efforts of EU countries to reduce their dependence on imports of critical minerals were particularly articulated in 2024, with the adoption of the EU “Critical Raw Materials Act,” Regulation (EU) 2024/1252 of the European Parliament and of the Council [29]. Announcements that old mines could be reactivated and new ones opened in EU countries have met with considerable public resistance. In an attempt to reduce its dependence on minerals imported from China, the idea of relying on the opening of new mines in Serbia was raised. The following study of the Jadar project goes beyond a narrowly professional discussion, but nevertheless contains information and conclusions of importance for the main goals and messages of this article. In what follows, a brief discussion will ensue on (i) Newly adopted Serbian laws that favour mining companies at the expense of the interests of the population, (ii) Financial effects of jadarite mineral mining, (iii) Environmental risks of the Jadar project, (iv) Views, plans and attitudes of investors, (v) Threat to water supply, (vi) EU policy so far, followed by (vii) Adverse impacts of project Jadar on relations between Serbia and the EU. Jadar Valley is shown in Figure 5.

Figure 5

Jadar Valley: One of the rare examples where agricultural production enables the flourishing of a traditional village, schools filled to capacity, and a large number of young people who plan to stay in the village. The area shown lies on an aquifer system of crucial importance for the Republic of Serbia. (Foto – private collection of Dr Dragana Đorđević).

6.1 Laws favouring mineral exploitation

Over the past years, the laws of the Republic of Serbia have been changed to suit the international mining companies very well, but which does not suit the citizens of Serbia. In the context of the basic messages of this work, it is of interest to study the circumstances under which the Jadar project is being prepared. According to the current law on mining and geological research [56], national institutions are prevented from engaging in mineral research. This is only possible for them by order of the Government of Serbia, and since the law came into force, no such order has been issued even once. Mineral research and exploration are available to private companies, which are owned or controlled by international mining companies. The legal provisions of the same law grant the priority right of exploitation to companies that conduct research and find minerals, without the obligation of calling an international tender in order to obtain the most favourable offer. Since the current practice grants exploration rights exclusively to international mining companies, only they can obtain exploitation rights. Furthermore, these are exclusive rights, so no one can compete by offering more favourable terms. In short, Serbian laws have been changed so that the exploitation of mineral resources is entirely in the hands of foreign corporations or their subsidiaries, which have no competition. A discussion of the motives and interests of those responsible for introducing this law is beyond the scope of this article. The law was based on the corresponding legislation of Congo and Mongolia, which contains elements inappropriate for the EU, but its adoption was not opposed by EU representatives in charge of Serbia’s accession process.

There is a clearly expressed interest of international mining companies to, among other interests, exploit borates and nickel in Serbia. An excessive amount of boron in the soil prevents the growth of plants [57], while an excessive amount of nickel makes the water unsuitable for drinking. At the beginning of the twenty-first century, Serbia had regulations that limit the maximum amount of boron in the soil, which could oblige mining companies to apply modern mining technologies without landfills and without the risk of unwanted release of toxic water. However, the newly adopted regulation [58] excludes boron from the list of soil pollutants and abolishes all previous restrictions, so that investors are enabled to exploit boron and borates without fear of exceeding the limit values of soil pollution. Similarly, increased nickel concentrations in water will no longer be used to determine the chemical status of water [59], which could remove any need for big mining companies in Serbia to invest in equipment that would prevent or limit nickel pollution of water. In short, conditions have been created in Serbia for mining companies to work in a traditional way, with tailings and waste dumps, and with the release of toxic contents into the environment, without bearing any consequences, which is already happening in eastern Serbia, in Bor and Majdanpek. The image of Jadar Valley is given in Figure 6.

Figure 6

The photo was taken in the Jadar Valley, near exploratory wells where toxic groundwaters reach the surface. Due to the significant concentration of boron and other toxic content, the living world near the well is affected beyond repair and exterminated. (Foto - private collection of Dr Dragana Đorđević).

6.2 Financial effects of jadarite mining

This section will summarize the available information on the financial effects of the Jadar project. The conclusions that can be drawn are not favorable. Data related to the financial effects of the planned operations in the Jadar Valley are controversial, while all credible indicators indicate that the project could generate returns for investors, but would generate negligible gains for Serbian citizens, while causing unacceptable damage and permanently endangering their fundamental interests. Serbian laws and government actions related to priority exploitation rights are questionable; while data on the potential financial effects of the Jadar project from various sources differ widely. EU officials offer vague and unconvincing assurances, while credible experts point out that the EU’s intention to source critical minerals from Serbia is simply to shift environmental damage elsewhere, outside the EU. The bases for the aforementioned claims are provided within this chapter, separated by appropriate subheadings.

6.2.1 The priority right to exploit jadarite

Major investors who have arrived in western Serbia have expressed their intention to exploit boron. In the Jadar valley, deposits of the mineral jadarite have been identified, which, in addition to boron, also contains lithium. Although high concentrations of lithium and boron in the Jadar Valley were first discovered by Serbian scientists [60] in 1999, the state missed the opportunity to become the sole owner of exploitation rights. The mineral Jadarite was formally characterized in 2007 [61]. In the outcome, the priority right to exploit jadarite was not given to national institutions and companies.

6.2.2 The ruling regime’s claims

Leading Serbian politicians and promoters of the Jadar project claim that Serbia’s GDP will be increased by 10–12 billion euro [62], that lithium will primarily be used for the long-promised production of BEV in Serbia, that 20,000 new jobs will be created, and that exploitation will take place in accordance with the green agenda and with the “highest standards of life protection environment.” Serbian political leaders also stated that Serbian lithium reserves reach 10% of the global lithium reserves, although they actually represent only about 1% of global reserves [63].

6.2.3 Experts working on behalf of investor

Experts working on behalf of investors [64] claim that Serbia’s GDP will increase by 695 million instead of 10–12 billion (as the Government claims). Around 3,500 workers will be employed during the construction of the mine and plant, while 1,300 workers will be employed during the decades-long exploitation, instead of 20,000 (as Government claims). Only 40 million EUR will be collected annually in royalties when the incentive period expires, implying in this way unconfirmed information that Serbia will provide incentives to international mining companies.

6.2.4 Independent economic experts

A group of independent Serbian economic experts [65], including the former governor of the National Bank and renowned university professors, argue that the Jadar project is not economically justified and should be stopped. They state that Serbia would have negligible net income from that project on all grounds: 17,4 million euro per year, which represents 2,6 euro per capita. According to independent experts [66], endangered income from agricultural activities is estimated at 81,96 million euro per year, and it exceeds, by far, the potential effective revenues from mining activities. Under favourable conditions, raspberries from Western Serbia contribute to exports of more than 400 million euro a year. The subjective reluctance of potential buyers to opt for raspberries from the mining region can reduce sales and prices if the Jadar project is launched. Experts noted [65] that techniques of diminishing Serbia’s net income include unfounded indirect subsidies to companies linked to investors, transfers of assets and taxable flows to the tax jurisdiction of other countries, and purchase of goods, services, and often questionable consultancies almost exclusively from foreign suppliers. These are some of the reasons why mining in Serbia, on behalf of big international companies, generates insignificant revenues that do not benefit Serbia, something that can already be seen in Bor and Majdanpek and is predicted by independent experts [65] for Jadar. Moreover, foreign investors operating through a Serbia-based limited liability subsidiary give them the opportunity to earn income but avoid liability for damages, the cost of remediation and reclamation of contaminated land, and the cost of decommissioning. The damage caused in the Jadar Valley is illustrated in Figure 7.

Figure 7

In an effort to repair the damage shown in Figure 6, contaminated soil near the exploratory wells was removed and improperly disposed of next to a nearby pond. The water in the otherwise vibrant pond soon showed visible signs of serious contamination. (Foto – private collection of dr Dragana Đorđević).

6.2.5 Announcements, guarantees, and claims of EU representatives

Leading European representatives express the need to obtain raw materials from Serbia, thus denying claims by Serbian politicians that lithium will be used for EV manufacturing in Serbia. They also confirm that the EU is trying to obtain minerals from Serbia in order to free itself from dependence on minerals from China [67]. While EU politicians work on coercing Serbia into lithium mining, Prof. Claudia Kemfert [30,31], a German energy economist, confirms that EU countries have high environmental protection standards, which do not have to be respected in countries outside the European Union. This makes mining in the EU too expensive and introduces the tacit policy of sourcing critical minerals elsewhere. Her statements contradict the Serbian authorities’ claims that project Jadar will be carried out to the highest standards, they confirm that mining lithium in Serbia is problematic and that the potential environmental damage can be serious. Lithium mining can contaminate groundwater with heavy metals and pollute drinking water. It is confirmed [30,31] that Serbian environmental protection organizations have long rightly pointed out that the potential investors’ record of complying with environmental standards is not encouraging and that Germany’s intentions to obtain critical minerals in Serbia are simply shifting the potential environmental damage elsewhere.

6.3 Environmental risks of the Jadar project

Đorđević et al. [66] research contains fact-supported analyses that confirm the existence of an unacceptable eco‑chemical risk of jadarite mining and lithium extraction due to questionable technology solutions, and because of the specific terrain unsuitable for mining activities. The mentioned work was subjected to strict peer review, usually for reputable scientific publications. In addition, the article has resisted serious efforts to deny the facts presented and to have the article retracted. After double-checking, the published claims should be given the importance of scientifically confirmed facts. In the research Đorđević et al. [66] argue that the Jadar project threatens the water supply of 2.5 million people, it would occupy a territory where 20,000 people live, among which several thousands of farmers would lose their jobs. They state that, despite the proposed announced new technology, the company has been unable to meet legal limit values for boron in soil and water [68]. Unfortunately for the citizens of Serbia, the regulation [68] from 1994 was recently withdrawn, and according to the new one, the maximum content of boron in the soil is not registered at all, so it is possible to exploit jadarite and destroy large areas of land without violating the current Serbian regulation. Flooding in the Jadar Valley is illustrated in Figure 8.

Figure 8

The Jadar Valley is frequently exposed to flooding, which makes the idea of building landfills containing significant amounts of boron unacceptable due to the imminent risk of large-scale soil contamination. (Foto - private collection of Dr Dragana Đorđević).

Along with the data on the share of water-soluble boron and overall boron quantities toxic to the soil, it has been pointed out in research of Đorđević et al. [66] that the Jadar project would lead to degradation of the soil and desertification. In addition to toxins in the planned tailing dumps and landfills, toxic waters in the orebody zone bring boron, arsenic, and lithium to the surface. Đorđević et al. [66] indicate that the planned mine at Jadar, similar to nineteenth-century mines, will have tailings and waste dumps and landfills, and will discharge water into the environment. At the same time, modern technologies already in effect include zero liquid discharge solutions [69]. It is also possible to reinject water into geological layers of the ore body and deep aquifer layers containing mineralized or toxic waters, slightly away from the mine, or otherwise below the sealing layer [70]. Đorđević et al. [66] point to the already visible negative effects of land destruction around existing wells, and emphasize the mobility of boron, the high proportion of water-soluble boron, and the significant, visible effects of devastation on the surrounding land (Figure 6). Their conclusion is that the optimal solution for the Jadar project is its cancellation.

7 Discussion and recommendations

Efforts to suppress global warming, to curb the use of fossil fuels, to reach zero net CO₂ emissions and to achieve climate neutrality, have been based on devices such as batteries, electric cars, solar power plants, wind farms, and grid energy storage. Manufacturing the above-mentioned devices requires very large quantities of critical minerals, which are scarcely present in the lithosphere. Their extraction requires considerable amounts of energy and fossil fuels. Recycling is often problematic, while cheap mining and processing pose considerable risks to the environment and the living world, particularly in countries sacrificed to become suppliers of raw materials. The current Green Agenda would require quantities of rare earths, graphite, silver, and cobalt exceeding their annual production by 38, 61, 40 and 81 times, respectively. The required quantities of silver and cobalt are 1,724 and 1,711 times greater than the corresponding estimated global reserves. The above arguments do not support the sustainability of the plans, primarily because the necessary devices and systems cannot be produced in the required quantities.

In this extremely complex situation that requires respect for the laws of physics rather than following cognitive shortcuts that lead to quick profits, the steps taken by the EU are quite unexpected. While the current green agenda is under threat from the centrist and nationalist right, an article [90] in a new EU plan reveals Brussels’ inclination to deregulate and thus meet the needs of big investors, rather than decarbonize and meet the long-term interests of the EU citizens. Instead of reducing excessive production, raising the goals of climate and energy justice, making the necessary adjustments for the sustainability of capitalism, and reducing the injustices of colonialism to a sustainable level that will not create conflicts, key decisions in Brussels are still made based on the profit thirst of large companies with significant influence from non-European powers.

Under these circumstances, the European green agenda and much of the current climate legislation are accelerating the infrastructural colonization of rural areas and deepening neoliberal control over the energy sector [91]. In practice, the energy transition is far from renewable, as it requires ever-increasing material and energy inputs. A viable alternative is to moderate growth to contain the ecological and climate disaster. Any further push for the green agenda risks fueling a new wave of mineral hunger [92], driven by the growing demand for mineral resources. Sustainability goals and efforts are often undermined by the profit motive of mining corporations, which remain firmly tied to permanent growth. Coupled with overly ambitious green goals, these developments could exacerbate, rather than resolve, ecological crises. Furthermore, it is also necessary to address global imbalances and decentralize industrial power concentrated in a few countries [93]. Changes are needed quickly. However, the required change is meeting resistance. Key steps must be taken by these countries, which must accept some short-term losses in order to achieve long-term objectives. The final outcome depends on the effectiveness of the scientific community and democratic processes, through which it is possible to direct the holders of executive power to suppress immediate profit motives and short-term goals for the sake of the long-term interests of the global population.

In the long term, the development and design of mass-produced devices and systems should be directed towards using minerals that are present in the geological structures and deposits at more than 0.1%, including silicon, aluminium, iron, calcium, magnesium, sodium, potassium, titanium, manganese, and phosphorus. Until then, it is important to keep in mind that the devices we currently use are not renewable due to the lack of minerals. They should therefore be designed to facilitate energy-efficient recycling, in order to reduce the extraction and processing of critical minerals.

For the sake of a secure and sustainable supply of minerals from third-world countries, it is necessary to end the current practice of cheap mining with tailings dumps, waste landfills, and massive environmental destruction. The ability of international mining companies to spot and exploit the corruption capacity of local authorities and to temporarily affect public opinion through media campaigns provides short-term results, but is not sustainable in the long term.

One of the key goals is to break China’s dominance in the supply of critical minerals. To this end, it is necessary to study the reasons for China’s growing influence in third-world countries that possess key minerals. The unrest in Congo and the civil war in Papua New Guinea have brought uncertainty in the supply of minerals, created problems on a global scale, and created a crisis of confidence in leading mining companies. To contain China and preserve the EU’s reputation and trust in third-world countries, the EU would have to preserve its reputation as a beacon of democracy, human rights, and environmental protection. China’s influence grows significantly in all cases where ephemeral and petty interests encourage the EU to provide support to autocratic regimes outside the Union. The EU’s reputation and influence decline in favor of China even in cases where competing political options within the Union are suppressed by undemocratic methods. There have also been adverse effects from recent attempts to amend the EU Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive to shift the focus from environmental protection, climate action, and workers’ rights to competitiveness, which could reintroduce unacceptable anti-environmental attitudes and even tolerance of child and forced labor. It is of uttermost importance to contain and prevent such steps. Otherwise, this will create ample space for Chinese capital and further increase its dominance in the field of critical minerals.

To achieve long-term sustainability and regain the economic power of Europe on a global scale, it is necessary to offer fair conditions to the population of mining colonies. While traditional, environmentally unacceptable mining generates higher profits, it is not sustainable because it draws mineral suppliers into places where they expose the environment, wildlife and people to large-scale devastation that can be seen in Congo, Morocco, and the Serbian towns of Bor and Majdanpek. For the sake of long-term sustainable mineral supply, the project Jadar and all similar projects involving waste dumps, landfills, and mine water discharge into surface recipients should be forbidden. To achieve such a goal, it is necessary to assist the local population in targeted countries and to protect them from the harmful alliance of autocratic authorities and big companies.

In order to achieve a fair distribution of benefits and coherent environmental protection in line with EU standards, it is necessary to promote transparent and multilaterally controlled agreements between countries supplying raw materials and countries where minerals are used to manufacture final products. In countries aspiring to join the EU, existing dumps, landfills, and waters must be remediated and recultivated first. Furthermore, all projects with an environmental impact similar to that of the Jadar project should be banned, and all preparations for the construction of new non-European mines for the extraction of critical minerals must be suspended until the state of soil, water and air pollution in the host countries improves and is brought to the levels respected in Austria, Norway, and Luxembourg.

8 Conclusions

The main objective of this article is to use scientifically based considerations to identify the key issues of the title topic, to assess this complex and multidisciplinary subject, and to draw feasible conclusions and recommendations. The manuscript covers heterogeneous aspects, which lead to the following key insights.

Technological development should be directed towards solutions that rely primarily on minerals that are abundant in the lithosphere. Among the priorities in the design of devices and systems, it is necessary to include the possibility of recycling minerals with as little energy consumption as possible. For the purposes of long-term planning, it should be recognized that the value of raw materials, products, and services expressed in money cannot be measured only in money, but it is also necessary to take into account the associated energy consumption. In order to reliably and safely supply developed industrial countries with necessary minerals from the rest of the world, it is necessary to apply technologies, a degree of environmental protection and the share of the local population in the profits in the countries that provide minerals that would have to be applied if the exploitation were carried out in a developed country that uses minerals. According to previous experience and available estimates, deviation from the above recommendations creates significant uncertainty and serious problems.