Transitioning to clean energy and away from fossil fuels by 2060 would reduce trade risks and improve energy security for most nations, a new study has found.
Rare earth minerals like lithium, copper, nickel and cobalt are “prized materials” for corporations and countries rushing to secure supplies for clean energy systems. The most concentrated natural reserves of these minerals are found in the Global South, “shuffling the geopolitics of energy and global trade,” a press release from Stanford University said.
“Most people are focused on the new stuff that could be a problem, and not really considering the security benefits of moving away from fossil fuels,” said Steve Davis, senior author of the study and an Earth system science professor with the Stanford Doerr School of Sustainability, in the press release. “For most countries in a net-zero emissions system in the future, trading off the reduced dependence on imported fossil fuels and increased dependence on these new materials is actually a win for energy security.”
The researchers found that, even in countries like the United States — home to some of the biggest fossil fuel reserves in the world, but just a small amount of critical minerals — decarbonization could increase energy security, particularly if the nation cultivates new trading partners.
“Secure access to energy services is a prerequisite to economic productivity and a chief strategic concern of national governments, yet it is unclear how the trade in fuels and critical materials in scenarios with net-zero emissions relates to energy security risks,” the authors of the findings wrote. “Here we find that overall trade risks decrease in most countries (70%) in net-zero scenarios due to reduced reliance on imported fossil fuels.”
[embedded content]
Since 2020, more petroleum products and crude oil have been exported from the U.S. than have been imported. However, the country continues to import millions of barrels of oil per day, mostly from Mexico, Canada, Iraq, Saudi Arabia and Colombia.
“Generating electricity with solar and wind will require more imports than using abundant gas and coal resources in the U.S., but reduced dependence on foreign oil will be a big advantage as transportation is electrified,” Davis explained.
A minority of oil-rich countries like Saudi Arabia and Russia would experience a decline in energy security in net-zero scenarios, even if they expanded their trade networks.
The researchers analyzed potential new vulnerabilities for each country under decarbonization versus those associated with continuing to rely on fossil fuels.
Lead author of the study Jing Cheng, a postdoctoral researcher in Davis’ Sustainable Solutions Lab at Stanford, constructed a database of nations with reserves of oil and gas, coal, biofuels, uranium and any of 16 critical materials used in clean energy technologies, as well as their trade flows.
The research team calculated the amount of these resources that would be necessary to meet the energy demand of each of 236 nations in 1,092 scenarios for achieving net-zero carbon emissions worldwide by 2060.
“Modeled by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, or IPCC, the scenarios span a broad range of possible changes to the energy mix across the globe and within individual countries. Some are more dependent on nuclear energy, for example, while others incorporate more solar or wind power,” the press release said.
The team estimated the risk level for each country’s electricity and transportation sectors, as well as their overall energy system, using a new “trade risk index.”
They found that if all of the countries maintained their current networks, energy security trade risks would fall by an average of 19 percent in net-zero scenarios. If nations expanded their trade networks to include all resource owners, trade risks would be cut in half.
“Reducing the need for imported virgin materials – whether by making technologies last longer, ramping up recycling, or developing less material-intensive designs – is another way for mineral-poor countries to minimize trade risks while eliminating fossil fuels. According to the study, trade risks fall on average by 17% – and by more than 50% for the U.S. – with a quadrupling of today’s meager recycling rates for critical minerals such as lithium, nickel, and indium,” the press release said.
The authors of the findings found that a U.S. energy mix consisting of roughly 70 to 75 percent renewable energy sources like wind, solar and biomass; 10 percent nuclear energy; and 15 to 20 percent fossil fuels would minimize trade risks in all modeled scenarios for achieving net-zero by 2060, though other mixes offered different advantages such as less air pollution or lower costs.
The U.S. currently relies on fossil fuels for approximately 83 percent of its energy, with renewables and nuclear energy providing the remainder.
Davis said the important thing is not to rely primarily on one energy source.
“If you’re importing a large fraction of what you need, that’s a vulnerability. If it’s all from a single other party, there’s a lot of risk that some natural disaster or geopolitical conflict could disrupt that supply,” Davis said. “You want to diversify imports among as many sources as you can.”
In terms of security, diversification does have its limits. The results of the study indicated that continuing to keep fossil fuels as an option generally drags down countries’ energy security.
“It is ultimately encouraging that most countries’ trade risks decrease in net-zero scenarios,” the authors concluded, “and that the greatest improvements often occur in the countries which most drastically reduce their reliance on fossil fuels.”
The study, “Trade risks to energy security in net-zero emissions energy scenarios,” was published in the journal Nature Climate Change.
[embedded content]
