Critical Minerals and Materials for Selected Energy Technologies
Congressional research reportMar 5, 2025
Ask Donna
What actually matters in this document.
Text
Critical Minerals and Materials for Selected
Energy Technologies
Updated March 5, 2025
Congressional Research Service
https://crsreports.congress.gov
R48149
SUMMARY
Critical Minerals and Materials for Selected
Energy Technologies
R48149
March 5, 2025
Emma Kaboli
Analyst in Energy Policy
Partly in response to rising global temperatures, some domestic and international policymakers
have pursued alternative energy sources as a substitute for or supplement to fossil fuel energy
sources. Reasons for investing in a range of energy generation technologies may include a desire
to reduce carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas emissions, resource instability and fluctuating
fuel prices, and expanding capacity to meet increased energy demand, including for new
technologies such as artificial intelligence data centers. Some of these technologies include solar photovoltaic energy, wind
energy, grid-scale storage batteries, and electric vehicles (EVs).
The increase in demand for new technologies corresponds with an increase in demand for the raw materials and resources
required for their construction and maintenance. The growing demand for critical minerals and materials—especially in light
of the possibility of adversarial countries being in the supply chain—has been of interest to policymakers. The infrastructure
and technology advancements necessary to build and maintain extensive wind and solar developments, including the largescale battery storage expected to accompany it, likely require greater use of critical minerals and materials. Wind and solar
provisions have been included in major energy legislation enacted in recent years, including tax incentives and funding for
infrastructure improvements and research and development. For EVs, increased consumer demand and recent legislation
incentivizing EV adoption has increased the demand for the critical mineral and material components required for their
construction, in particular the minerals required to formulate the large batteries that power them. The United States depends
on imports for a wide array of these critical minerals and materials.
Congress has considered critical minerals in recent energy and infrastructure bills. Enacted legislation in the 116th and 117th
Congresses—including the Energy Act of 2020 (P.L. 116-260, Division Z), the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA;
P.L. 117-58), P.L. 117-167 (known as the CHIPS and Science Act), and the law commonly referred to as the Inflation
Reduction Act (IRA; P.L. 117-169)—has touched on addressing critical minerals supply security. The 119th Congress might
consider topics such as promoting stable supply chains, onshoring domestic production, funding research and development,
and creating new alternatives to rare or expensive materials.
Recent congressional interest in critical minerals and materials has focused on potential policy interventions across the supply
chain. These include reforming domestic mining laws, incentivizing research and development of critical mineral recycling
and alternatives, forming critical mineral task forces, expanding international partnerships and investment in mineral
resources, and related strategies.
Congressional Research Service
Critical Minerals and Materials for Selected Energy Technologies
Contents
Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 1
Agency Roles in Critical Minerals and Materials ..................................................................... 2
U.S. Geological Survey and Critical Minerals .................................................................... 3
Department of Energy and Critical Materials ..................................................................... 4
Critical Mineral and Material Supply .............................................................................................. 7
International Supply .................................................................................................................. 7
China ................................................................................................................................... 8
Domestic Supply ..................................................................................................................... 10
Critical Mineral and Material Demand .......................................................................................... 12
Solar Photovoltaic (PV) Energy .............................................................................................. 13
Wind Energy............................................................................................................................ 15
Batteries .................................................................................................................................. 16
Electric Vehicle Batteries .................................................................................................. 17
Grid-Scale Energy Storage................................................................................................ 19
Issues for Congress ........................................................................................................................ 20
Figures
Figure 1. Critical Minerals Supply Chain and Considerations ........................................................ 2
Figure 2. U.S. Department of Energy Short- and Medium-Term Material Criticality
Matrix ........................................................................................................................................... 6
Figure 3. Critical Materials Production Across Selected Energy Technologies .............................. 9
Figure 4. United States Critical Minerals Locations ......................................................................11
Figure 5. Share of Renewable Electricity Generation by Technology, 2000-2028 ....................... 13
Figure 6. Key Components of Lithium-Ion Batteries .................................................................... 18
Contacts
Author Information........................................................................................................................ 21
Congressional Research Service
Critical Minerals and Materials for Selected Energy Technologies
Introduction
Interest in critical minerals,1 rare earth elements (REEs),2 and critical materials has long been an
area of concern to Congress. Domestic mining laws, such as the General Mining Act of 1872,
have been in place for more than a century. In recent decades, much minerals and mining
production has moved abroad due to many factors, including the higher costs of domestic
production and environmental concerns. While demand for critical minerals crosses sectors of the
U.S. economy, including health care, consumer electronics, and defense, particular interest in
recent years has been paid to the critical minerals seen as necessary for a transition to lowercarbon energy sources, which is currently being pursued by certain policymakers in the United
States and around the world.
Inputs for concrete and steel are the foundation of this country’s physical infrastructure. Copper,
steel, and aluminum are key components of the U.S. electrical grid. Should countries transition to
new energy technologies such as solar photovoltaic (PV), wind turbines, and electric vehicles
(EVs), other minerals such as lithium and cobalt may face heightened demand. These minerals
face supply chain risks at many points, from original sourcing and extraction, through the
processing and components stages, to end-use technology.3 (See Figure 1.) Possible avenues for
recycling exist along the supply chain.
Legislation such as the Energy Act of 2020 (P.L. 116-260, Division Z), the Infrastructure
Investment and Jobs Act (P.L. 117-58), P.L. 117-167 (known as the CHIPS and Science Act), and
the law commonly referred to as the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 (IRA; P.L. 117-169) has
provided support to develop the infrastructure and technology associated with development of
additional energy sources and uses. Together, these acts address the supply chains of these
minerals and the end-use demand technologies that use them. New infrastructure development
likely relies on a consistent, secure, and stable supply chain of these minerals and material inputs.
Manufacturing facilities, highway updates and electric vehicle charging stations, solar panel
installation, and wind farms were either authorized or provided with appropriations in these acts.
Both proposed and enacted legislation have also addressed aspects of critical minerals policy,
such as increasing onshore production of minerals, reducing price volatility in the critical
minerals market, and expanding opportunities for research and development (R&D) and new job
creation.
1 Minerals, as defined in federal statute, refers to non-fuel minerals, mineral products and materials, and metals. Fuel
minerals (or mineral fuels) include oil, gas, oil shale, coal, and uranium (Mining and Mineral Policy Act of 1970, 30
U.S.C. §21(a)).
2 Rare earth elements include scandium, yttrium, and the 15 elements in the lanthanide series. The lanthanides range
from atomic number 57 (lanthanum) to 71 (lutetium). U.S. Geological Survey, “Rare Earths Statistics and
Information,” https://www.usgs.gov/centers/national-minerals-information-center/rare-earths-statistics-andinformation; Bradley S. Van Gosen et al., Rare-Earth Elements, U.S. Geological Survey, December 19, 2017,
https://doi.org/10.3133/pp1802O; and Bradley S. Van Gosen, Philip L. Verplanck, and Poul Emsbo, Rare Earth
Element Mineral Deposits in the United States, U.S. Geological Survey, Circular 1454, Version 1.1, April 2019,
https://doi.org/10.3133/cir1454.
3 Supply chain risks may include (1) geologic—whether the resource exists in nature, (2) technical—whether the
resource can be extracted and processed, (3) environmental and social—whether the resource can be extracted and
processed in an environmentally and socially acceptable way, (4) political—whether governments influence resource
availability through policies and actions, and (5) economic—whether the resource can be extracted and processed at a
cost that users are willing to pay. National Research Council, Minerals, Critical Minerals, and the U.S. Economy
(Washington, DC: National Academies Press, 2008), pp. 6, 8, and 36, https://doi.org/10.17226/12034.
Congressional Research Service
1
Critical Minerals and Materials for Selected Energy Technologies
Figure 1. Critical Minerals Supply Chain and Considerations
Source: U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), Critical Materials Strategy, December 2010.
This report focuses on the key critical minerals and materials for four types of energy transition
technologies: solar photovoltaics, wind turbines, electric vehicle batteries, and large-scale energy
storage batteries. Some critical minerals and materials of interest for these technologies,
according to the Department of Energy (DOE), are aluminum, cobalt, copper, electrical steel,
fluorine, gallium, graphite (carbon), lithium, magnesium, nickel, platinum, silicon, silicon
carbide, and certain rare earth elements.
Agency Roles in Critical Minerals and Materials
The Energy Act of 2020 codified updated definitions of “critical minerals” and “critical
materials.”4 The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) maintains a list of critical minerals, and the U.S.
Department of Energy maintains a list of critical materials for energy technologies.
A “critical mineral” is defined as
•
any mineral, element, substance, or material designated as critical by the
Secretary of the Interior, acting through the Director of the U.S. Geological
Survey.5
4 30 U.S.C. §1606(a).
5 U.S. Department of Energy, “What Are Critical Materials and Critical Minerals?,” https://www.energy.gov/cmm/
what-are-critical-materials-and-critical-minerals; 30 U.S.C. §1606(a).
Congressional Research Service
2
Critical Minerals and Materials for Selected Energy Technologies
A “critical material” is defined as
•
•
any non-fuel mineral, element, substance, or material that the Secretary of
Energy determines (i) has a high risk of supply chain disruption; and (ii) serves
an essential function in one or more energy technologies, including technologies
that produce, transmit, store, and conserve energy; or
a critical mineral, as defined by the Secretary of the Interior.6
The Critical Minerals List and the Critical Materials List have many commodities in common, but
also distinct differences. This, in part, arises from different agency focus in developing these lists.
The USGS takes an economy-wide, industry-crossing, and historical look at critical mineral
demand. DOE takes a more specific energy focus in its evaluation of current and projected
demand for critical materials.
U.S. Geological Survey and Critical Minerals
The USGS conducts critical minerals resources analysis and research.7 The federal government,
primarily under the USGS, has compiled international and domestic data on mineral resources
and reserves for decades. Since 1900, the USGS has published the annual Mineral Commodity
Summaries report, “the earliest Government publication to furnish estimates covering nonfuel
mineral industry data.”8
The Energy Act of 2020 charged the USGS with developing a list of “critical minerals” in
coordination with the Departments of Defense, Commerce, Agriculture, and Energy and the
Office of the United States Trade Representative.9 The USGS is to update the list at least every
three years in consultation with these agencies. The list is to include minerals that the USGS
determines
(i) are essential to the economic or national security of the United States;
(ii) the supply chain of which is vulnerable to disruptions (including restrictions associated
with foreign political risk, abrupt demand growth, military conflict, violent unrest, anticompetitive or protectionist behaviors, and other risks throughout the supply chain); and
(iii) serve an essential function in the manufacturing of a product (including energy
technology-, defense-, currency-, agriculture-, consumer electronics-, and healthcarerelated applications), the absence of which would have significant consequences for the
economic or national security of the United States.10
The minerals in the 2022 Critical Minerals List are11
aluminum, antimony, arsenic, barite, beryllium, bismuth, cerium, cesium, chromium,
cobalt, dysprosium, erbium, europium, fluorspar, gadolinium, gallium, germanium,
graphite, hafnium, holmium, indium, iridium, lanthanum, lithium, lutetium, magnesium,
manganese, neodymium, nickel, niobium, palladium, platinum, praseodymium, rhodium,
6 30 U.S.C. §1606(a).
7 For more information on the USGS, see CRS Report R48005, Critical Mineral Resources: The U.S. Geological
Survey (USGS) Role in Research and Analysis, by Linda R. Rowan.
8 U.S. Geological Survey, “Mineral Commodity Summaries,” https://www.usgs.gov/centers/national-mineralsinformation-center/mineral-commodity-summaries.
9 30 U.S.C. §1606(c).
10 Ibid.
11 For more information on critical minerals list, see CRS Report R47982, Critical Mineral Resources: National Policy
and Critical Minerals List, by Linda R. Rowan.
Congressional Research Service
3
Critical Minerals and Materials for Selected Energy Technologies
rubidium, ruthenium, samarium, scandium, tantalum, tellurium, terbium, thulium, tin,
titanium, tungsten, vanadium, ytterbium, yttrium, zinc, and zirconium.12
Department of Energy and Critical Materials
In the Energy Act of 2020, Congress directed DOE to compile a list of “critical materials” for
energy technologies. These materials cover more than just minerals, including materials such as
electrical steel that are crucial components of projected energy infrastructure and technology
investments needs. The 2023 Critical Materials Assessment was released as required by the
Energy Act of 2020 and took a global perspective and forward-looking approach to potential
trajectories for material demand based on the market for new technologies. DOE’s assessment
includes analyzing advancements in key technologies, such as EVs and batteries, and outlines
four possible trajectories for material demand based on high or low mineral intensities or
deployment trajectories of energy technologies.
The materials on the 2023 Critical Materials List are
aluminum, cobalt, copper, dysprosium, electrical steel, fluorine, gallium, iridium, lithium,
magnesium, natural graphite, neodymium, nickel, platinum, praseodymium, silicon, silicon
carbide and terbium.13
DOE’s analysis is based on criticality in the short and medium term, with a five-pillared strategic
framework:14
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
diversify and expand supply from primary sources;
develop alternative materials and systems;
enhance material and manufacturing efficiency;
promote a circular economy through recycling, reuse, and remanufacturing; and
use analyses to enable and speed up science discoveries.
DOE’s Critical Materials Assessment (“DOE Assessment”) is an extensive analysis of the
materials necessary for energy technologies, with a focus on technologies they have evaluated
based on their “criticality to global clean energy technology supply chains.”15 It assesses the
supply chains of these materials, the various uses for these materials across the energy sector, and
the market for these materials. According to the DOE Assessment, recent changes to the energy
sector that may impact the market for minerals and materials include the following:16
•
•
an increase in EV adoption, and a corresponding increase in the materials used in
electric vehicles, including lithium-ion batteries, rare earth magnets, electrical
steel, and power electronics;
the global doubling of offshore wind capacity from 27 gigawatts (GW) in 2019 to
56 GW in 2021, also leading to higher demand for rare earth magnets;
12 U.S. Geological Survey, “2022 Final List of Critical Minerals,” 87 Federal Register 10381-10382, February 24,
2022.
13 U.S. Department of Energy, “What Are Critical Materials and Critical Minerals?,” https://www.energy.gov/cmm/
what-are-critical-materials-and-critical-minerals.
14 U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), Critical Materials Assessment, July 2023, p. i, https://www.energy.gov/sites/
default/files/2023-07/doe-critical-material-assessment_07312023.pdf (hereinafter DOE Assessment).
15 U.S. Department of Energy, “U.S. Department of Energy Releases 2023 Critical Materials Assessment to Evaluate
Supply Chain Security for Clean Energy Technologies,” press release, July 31, 2023, https://www.energy.gov/eere/
articles/us-department-energy-releases-2023-critical-materials-assessment-evaluate-supply.
16 DOE Assessment, pp. xi-xiii.
Congressional Research Service
4
Critical Minerals and Materials for Selected Energy Technologies
•
•
•
•
the expansion of stationary storage to meet the energy storage needs of large
wind and solar development;
a projected shift from silicon-based power electronics to silicon carbide and
gallium nitride power electronics;
an increase in grid expansion and modernization, EV infrastructure, and EV
motors that may contribute to a higher demand for the electrical steel needed for
grid construction; and
the continued dominance of crystalline silicon in the solar photovoltaic market.
DOE conducted a “Criticality Assessment” using “updated analyses based on national and global
priorities, technology advancement, and technology adoption trends.”17 This analysis in the DOE
Assessment includes both short-term (2020-2025) and medium-term (2025-2035) projections of
the expected demand for these critical materials (Figure 2). These assessments evaluate the
importance of each material to the energy industry and the likelihood that these minerals will be
subject to supply chain risks. These supply chain risks can come from a wide range of potential
sources, from shifts in the market leading to the shuttering of mining operations, to domestic
policy shifts refocusing on different industries, to tariff changes and geopolitical conflicts. Key
minerals associated with energy transition—such as lithium, nickel, cobalt, graphite, and REEs—
are all highly subject to supply chain risks in the medium term, according to DOE.
DOE works in collaboration with the private sector and research institutions to advance and fund
research and development for critical materials. Programs across the agency provide funding to
critical materials research, including through programs such as the Critical Materials
Collaborative,18 the Critical Materials Accelerator Program, and the Critical Materials Innovation
Hub, and through funding opportunity announcements.19 Much of the funding for these programs
was appropriated in recent large energy and infrastructure legislation, primarily the IRA.20
17 Ibid., p. xiii.
18 U.S. Department of Energy, “What Is the Critical Materials Collaborative?,” https://www.energy.gov/cmm/critical-
materials-collaborative.
19 Office of Chief Financial Officer, Department of Energy FY 2025 Congressional Justification, vol. 2, U.S.
Department of Energy, March 2024, https://www.energy.gov/sites/default/files/2024-03/doe-fy-2025-budget-vol-2v4.pdf.
20 Ibid.
Congressional Research Service
5
Figure 2. U.S. Department of Energy Short- and Medium-Term Material Criticality Matrix
Source: U.S. Department of Energy, Critical Materials Assessment, July 2023 (DOE Assessment), p. xiv, https://www.energy.gov/sites/default/files/2023-07/doe-criticalmaterial-assessment_07312023.pdf.
Notes: According to the DOE Assessment (p. 100), “‘Importance to energy’ and ‘supply risk’ are defined as weighted averages of several factors, each of which receives
a score on a scale of 1 to 4. Short- and medium-term scores for importance to energy are based on a weighted average of two factors, while those for supply risk are
based on a weighted average of five factors. For each factor, key materials are assigned qualitative scores of 1 (least critical) to 4 (most critical).” For more information,
see DOE Assessment, pp. 100-105.
CRS-6
Critical Minerals and Materials for Selected Energy Technologies
Critical Mineral and Material Supply
International Supply
When the earth’s crust formed and shifted billions of years ago, critical minerals were dispersed
across the planet in different concentrations and locations. Now this mineral distribution may
impact modern-day foreign policy. Shifting technology demands for these minerals and materials
can change the balance of power in a region. Some countries may have a monopoly on a critical
mineral, potentially giving them a strategic advantage, drawing targeted investment, and posing
governance challenges. Examples include the Democratic Republic of the Congo, which supplies
68% of the world’s cobalt; South Africa, which supplies 74% of platinum globally; and Indonesia,
which supplies 48% of nickel (Figure 3).21
The mining and processing of critical minerals for manufacturing is an energy-intensive and
highly technical process. It requires space for the mining operation itself, as well as for separation
and refining facilities.22 Mining interests also emphasize that it takes significant time and
financial investment to open and operate a mine and eventually make a profit.23 The process of
locating economically viable reserves of these minerals, obtaining approvals and permits, and
breaking ground can take years. In countries with more stringent environmental protections, such
as the United States, the process may take more time and resources, according to the mining
industry.24 In countries with less stringent mining and permitting regulations, it may take less time
to open a mine, but those countries may face greater environmental consequences from the
mining process.25
Figure 3 illustrates selected critical minerals and materials seen as needed for energy transition,
identifying selected technologies that use them and where they are sourced. This report (and
Figure 3) focuses on the use of these materials in four specific energy technologies: electric
vehicle batteries, stationary storage batteries, solar photovoltaics, and wind turbines. As seen in
the figure, some materials, such as gallium, are used in more than one of these technologies;
others, such as silicon and silicon carbide, are used primarily in just one of these technologies.
Thus, some energy technologies may compete for the same critical materials, while some may
face competition from other industry sectors.
Figure 3 also illustrates where each material is sourced, noting the top five producers of each
material, along with their global share. Some materials are dispersed across multiple countries;
for example, lithium can be sourced in Chile, Argentina, Bolivia, Australia, and China.26 On the
other hand, China controls large market shares of gallium (98%), magnesium (90%), and rare
earth elements (70%). When sourcing of a critical material depends heavily on a single country,
21 U.S. Geological Survey, Mineral Commodity Summaries 2024, January 31, 2024, https://doi.org/10.3133/mcs2024.
22 International Energy Forum, “How to Make Mining More Sustainable,” January 8, 2024, https://www.ief.org/news/
how-to-make-mining-more-sustainable; Adator Stephanie Worlanyo and Li Jiangfeng, “Evaluating the Environmental
and Economic Impact of Mining for Post-mined Land Restoration and Land-Use: A Review,” Journal of
Environmental Management, vol. 279 (February 2021).
23 National Mining Association, Delays in the U.S. Mine Permitting Process Impair and Discourage Mining at Home,
May 2021, https://nma.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/Infographic_SNL_minerals_permitting_5.7_updated.pdf.
24 Ibid.
25 Charlotte Davey, “The Environmental Impacts of Cobalt Mining in Congo,” Earth.org, March 28, 2023,
https://earth.org/cobalt-mining-in-congo/.
26 Samar Ahmad, “The Lithium Triangle: Where Chile, Argentina, and Bolivia Meet,” Harvard International Review,
January 15, 2020, https://hir.harvard.edu/lithium-triangle/.
Congressional Research Service
7
Critical Minerals and Materials for Selected Energy Technologies
particularly if the United States has a complicated relationship with that country, the supply chain
for that material is more vulnerable than when multiple options for sourcing the material exist.
Note that other energy technologies, such as hydrogen and nuclear, may also compete for critical
minerals and materials. These are not discussed in this report or illustrated in Figure 3. Further,
some minerals and materials shown in the figure, such as copper and electrical steel, may be used
in other industries beyond energy. Some may be critical to national security technologies. These
competing interests—and any associated national security concerns—are outside the scope of this
report.
China
China has prioritized its critical minerals and materials policy in recent decades. Some experts
have concluded that China prioritized critical minerals and rare earth elements as early as 1992.27
While China has significant reserves of some minerals and rare earth elements within its
geographic borders, it has also strategically invested through its Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) in
infrastructure and manufacturing capabilities in other nations.28 Minerals mined in other nations
may be imported to China for processing and refining.29 China reportedly refines 68% of nickel,
40% of copper, 59% of lithium, and 73% of cobalt globally.30
Two examples of countries where China’s BRI has invested in critical minerals are the
Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) and Indonesia. Sixty-eight percent of global cobalt is
sourced from the DRC, and Chinese companies own 80% of the DRC’s cobalt production. These
companies then send their cobalt to be processed and refined in China and then distributed across
the globe.31 China also funds mineral development in Indonesia.32 As of 2024, Chinese-owned
producers controlled 82% of Indonesia’s battery nickel output.33 Investments such as these have
led China to control a substantive share of the global supply chains for these critical minerals.
27 Mark Burton, “Why the Fight for ‘Critical Minerals’ Is Heating Up,” Bloomberg, November 20, 2023,
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-11-20/critical-minerals-china-s-dominance-as-supplier-is-a-problemfor-the-west.
28 CRS In Focus IF11735, China’s “One Belt, One Road” Initiative: Economic Issues, by Karen M. Sutter, Andres B.
Schwarzenberg, and Michael D. Sutherland.
29 Rodrigo Castillo and Caitlin Purdy, China’s Role in Supplying Critical Minerals for the Global Energy Transition:
What Could the Future Hold?, Brookings Institution, Leveraging Transparency to Reduce Corruption project, July
2022, p. 6, https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2022/08/LTRC_ChinaSupplyChain.pdf.
30 J. Yeomans and F. Harter, “Who Owns the Earth? The Scramble for Minerals Turns Critical,” The Times, May 1,
2022, https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/who-ownsthe-earth-the-scramble-for-minerals-turnscritical-jbglsgm02.
Copper shares correspond to estimates in International Energy Agency, The Role of Critical Minerals in Clean Energy
Transitions, May 2021, https://www.iea.org/reports/the-role-of-critical-minerals-in-clean-energy-transitions.
31 U.S. Congress, Congressional-Executive Commission on China, From Cobalt to Cars: How China Exploits Child
and Forced Labor in the Congo, hearing, 118th Cong., 1st sess., November 14, 2023, https://www.cecc.gov/events/
hearings/from-cobalt-to-cars-how-china-exploits-child-and-forced-labor-in-the-congo#:~:text=
80%25%20of%20the%20DRC's%20cobalt,battery%20makers%20around%20the%20world.
32 Brian Harding and Kayly Ober, Indonesia’s Nickel Bounty Sows Discord, Enables Chinese Control, U.S. Institute of
Peace, Washington, DC, March 21, 2024, https://www.usip.org/publications/2024/03/indonesias-nickel-bounty-sowsdiscord-enables-chinese-control.
33 Benchmark Minerals, Infographic: China’s Influence over Indonesian Nickel, January 25, 2024,
https://source.benchmarkminerals.com/article/infographic-chinas-influence-over-indonesian-nickel.
Congressional Research Service
8
Critical Minerals and Materials for Selected Energy Technologies
Figure 3. Critical Materials Production Across Selected Energy Technologies
Source: CRS using data from U.S. Geological Survey, Mineral Commodity Summaries 2023, January 31, 2023,
https://doi.org/10.3133/mcs2023 and U.S. Department of Energy, Critical Materials Assessment, July 2023,
https://www.energy.gov/sites/default/files/2023-07/doe-critical-material-assessment_07312023.pdf.
Notes: Production percentages are rounded and reflect 2022 production data. Production is in percent share of
total produced for each material and is not an equivalent amount across materials. Graphite refers to natural
graphite. REE = rare earth elements. The Department of Energy (DOE) has identified four REEs as critical
materials: dysprosium (Dy), neodymium (Nd), praseodymium (Pr), and terbium (Tb). Nickel production
attributed to France occurs in New Caledonia. UAE = United Arab Emirates. DRC = Democratic Republic of the
Congo. For a comprehensive list of DOE’s critical materials, see the section “Department of Energy and Critical
Materials” above in this report.
Congressional Research Service
9
Critical Minerals and Materials for Selected Energy Technologies
Domestic Supply
The United States has minimal onshore critical mineral mining and manufacturing capability. The
United States imports the vast majority of critical minerals used across sectors, including for
energy technologies. The United States is reliant on imports for over 50% of consumption for 43
(of 50) critical minerals, and it has no domestic production for 14 of these.34 Manufacturing and
deployment of key energy technologies are susceptible to supply chain volatility from fluctuating
prices, country export tariff policy changes, competing demand from other nations and industries,
or other potential challenges.
The U.S. mining industry is governed by a series of three major mining laws: the General Mining
Act of 1872, the Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, and the Materials Act of 1947.35 Most of the
critical minerals seen as necessary for energy transition fall under the jurisdiction of the General
Mining Act of 1872.
The United States has some resources of key minerals (Figure 4); production of these minerals
has not been widely developed for varied reasons. Mines such as the Jervois cobalt mine36 in
Idaho have broken ground and set up infrastructure, but have struggled to become commercially
viable and maintain operations given market conditions.37 Lithium resource development in
Maine has reportedly faced opposition from local stakeholders.38
34 U.S. Department of Energy, “Developing a Domestic Supply of Critical Minerals and Materials,” February 6, 2024,
https://www.energy.gov/fecm/articles/developing-domestic-supply-critical-minerals-and-materials.
35 The Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 separates “leasable minerals” such as natural gas, petroleum, and other
hydrocarbons from the purview of the General Mining Act of 1872, while the Materials Act further specifies a set of
separate regulations for materials such as sand and gravel. While some minerals may fall under the Mineral Leasing
Act of 1920, the majority of critical minerals for the energy transition are regulated by the original General Mining Act
of 1872.
36 Jervois Idaho Cobalt Operations, “Overview,” https://jervoisidahocobalt.com/idaho-cobalt-operations/.
37 Stacey Vanek Smith and Eric Whitney, “Cobalt Is in Demand, So Why Did America’s Only Cobalt Mine Close?,”
National Public Radio, December 14, 2023.
38 Alana Semuels and Kate Cough, “Gem Hunters Found the Lithium America Needs. Maine Won’t Let Them Dig It
Up,” Time, July 17, 2023, https://time.com/6294818/lithium-mining-us-maine/.
Congressional Research Service
10
Critical Minerals and Materials for Selected Energy Technologies
Figure 4. United States Critical Minerals Locations
Source: U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), “United States Critical Minerals Locations,” 2017, https://www.usgs.gov/
media/images/united-states-critical-minerals-locations.
Notes: This graphic uses data from 2017, which predates the Energy Act of 2020 and the current U.S.
Geological Survey’s 2022 Critical Minerals List. Some of the minerals discussed in this report are represented in
this graphic.
Some stakeholders view the domestic mining industry as a source of damage to the environment
and to the communities these mines are located in; others see mining as a source of employment
and economic opportunities. The 1872 Mining Act does not itself contain specific environmental
protection provisions regarding the mining of hardrock minerals on federal lands. Mines on
federal lands must comply with other relevant federal statutes such as the National Environmental
Policy Act (NEPA), the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act, and the Endangered Species Act.
New mining processes may have reduced environmental impact in comparison with historical
technologies, while improvements in mitigation and recovery procedures may reduce the longterm impact of mining on the environment and communities.39
39 Tsisilile Igogo, America’s Strategy to Secure the Supply Chain for a Robust Clean Energy Transition, U.S.
Department of Energy Response to Executive Order 14017, “America’s Supply Chains,” February 24, 2022, p. ix,
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
11
Critical Minerals and Materials for Selected Energy Technologies
The General Mining Act of 1872 and the Modern Critical Minerals Industry
The General Mining Act of 1872 (Mining Act) formed the bedrock of U.S. mining policy
during westward expansion in the 19th century, and the law remains in effect to this day.
Among other provisions, it allows parties to explore for and mine hardrock minerals—such as
gold, silver, copper, iron, and lead—on federal lands without specific authorization from the
federal government. Upon discovery of a deposit of designated materials, parties may then file
a claim with the government and begin the process for approval and permitting of production.
The mining industry in the United States has changed since its inception, with the scale of
modern operations potentially much larger than those of the 1800s. With these changes, new
laws have been enacted to address subsets of mining and extraction on federal lands, including
coal, oil, and gas extraction; gravel and sand materials sales; and reclamation of lands used for
energy extraction. The core provisions of the Mining Act—which have remained generally
unchanged since its enactment more than 150 years ago—continue to guide hardrock mineral
exploration and production on federal lands.
The Mining Act established the “claim and patent” system. Under this system, certain federal
lands are opened to the public and eligible parties are permitted to stake a “claim” for tracts of
land in areas owned and controlled by the federal government upon discovery of a deposit of
designated minerals. This process is also called “location.” The Bureau of Land Management
recognizes a few different types of claims that can be located on land under its purview. These
include lode claims (claims on mineral lodes or deposits with well-defined boundaries) and
placer claims (claims on mineral deposits that do not qualify as lode claims).40
Changes in the market for critical minerals and materials have increased interest in domestic
minerals and mining development. One reason for this increased interest is higher demand for
materials that are used in lower-carbon energy sources and technologies.41 Some but not all of
the critical minerals and materials seen as needed for an energy transition have domestic
deposits that reportedly can be produced economically. Congressional interest in developing
domestic mineral mining and processing or sourcing from allied or friendly nations has grown
in part in response to these technological applications. Hardrock minerals such as lithium,
cobalt, graphite, nickel, and manganese are all mineral inputs deemed “critical” for energy
technologies by the U.S. Geological Survey or the Department of Energy.
Critical Mineral and Material Demand
Critical minerals are in demand for use in energy technologies and in other industries across the
economy. The increase in demand for new technologies corresponds with an increase in demand
for the raw materials and resources required for their construction and maintenance. Estimates
conducted by organizations such as the International Energy Agency (IEA) forecast an increase in
all renewable electricity technologies, including solar photovoltaic and wind energy sources
(Figure 5). The IEA projects that by 2028 solar photovoltaic will account for 12.6% of global
https://www.energy.gov/sites/default/files/2022-02/
America%E2%80%99s%20Strategy%20to%20Secure%20the%20Supply%20Chain%20for%20a%20Robust%20Clean
%20Energy%20Transition%20FINAL.docx_0.pdf.
40 43 C.F.R. §§3832.20–3832.22.
41 DOE Assessment, p. 76.
Congressional Research Service
12
Critical Minerals and Materials for Selected Energy Technologies
electricity generation; wind will account for 12.1%;42 and all renewable electricity sources
combined will account for 41.6% of global electricity generation.43
Figure 5. Share of Renewable Electricity Generation by Technology, 2000-2028
Source: International Energy Agency (IEA), Share of Renewable Electricity Generation by Technology, 2000-2028,
December 18, 2023, https://www.iea.org/data-and-statistics/charts/share-of-renewable-electricity-generation-bytechnology-2000-2028, and IEA, Glossary, https://www.iea.org/glossary.
Note: All renewables = bioenergy, geothermal, hydropower, solar energy, wind energy, and ocean energy;
Variable renewables = wind energy, solar energy, run-of-river hydropower, and ocean energy.
Solar Photovoltaic (PV) Energy
Solar photovoltaic (PV) electricity generation is one of the leading global renewable electricity
generation technologies, and is expected to grow in the coming years (Figure 5).44 In 2022,
nearly 1,300 terawatt-hours (TWh) of global energy were generated by solar power,45 and,
according to the IEA, “Solar PV accounted for 4.5% of total global electricity generation, and it
remains the third largest renewable electricity technology behind hydropower and wind.”46 Solar
42 International Energy Agency, “Share of Renewable Electricity Generation by Technology, 2000-2028,” last updated
December 18, 2023, https://www.iea.org/data-and-statistics/charts/share-of-renewable-electricity-generation-bytechnology-2000-2028.
43 International Energy Agency, Renewables 2023, January 2024, https://www.iea.org/reports/renewables-2023.
44 Solar photovoltaics convert absorbed energy from sunlight into electricity. For more information on solar energy, see
CRS Report R46196, Solar Energy: Frequently Asked Questions, coordinated by Ashley J. Lawson.
45 International Energy Agency, “Solar PV Power Generation in the Net Zero Scenario, 2015-2030,” last updated July
10, 2023, https://www.iea.org/data-and-statistics/charts/solar-pv-power-generation-in-the-net-zero-scenario-2015-2030.
46 International Energy Agency, “Renewables: Solar PV,” last updated July 11, 2023, https://www.iea.org/energy(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
13
Critical Minerals and Materials for Selected Energy Technologies
panels were first developed in the 19th century.47 Further research and development, such as the
innovation of semiconducting materials, has increased the efficiency of solar energy conversion.
Solar panels are increasingly used across the United States. In 2023, U.S. utility-scale solar
electricity generation accounted for around 3.9% of total U.S. electricity generation.48 The leading
technology for current PV panels, crystalline silicon, provides lower production costs and easily
available materials compared with alternative materials, making it the industry standard. As of
2021, 88% of the PV market was crystalline silicon, followed by thin-film PV at 9% and others at
3%. The minerals needed for solar panels, primarily crystalline silicon, are not scarce. According
to the USGS, global reserves of silicon are ample relative to current demand.49 According to the
IEA, global demand for silicon for solar panels may grow to between 675,000 metric tons and
810,000 metric tons by 2040, based on different projection scenarios.50
China is the primary producer of silicon, and it produces silicon at a low cost. Although low-cost
silicon has contributed to both the affordability and scalability of solar PV, it has also led to
heightened competition for resources with countries of particular concern, such as China. This
competition has affected domestic U.S.-based silicon solar cell manufacturers.51 According to the
USGS, the United States had an estimated 310,000 metric tons of silicon mine production in
2022.52 By comparison, China had an estimated 6 million metric tons of annual silicon production
in 2022.
Other technologies use resources such as copper, indium, gallium, and tellurium. These
technologies make up a relatively small market share of the current solar PV industry, but
changes to the market for solar PV may see decreased use of crystalline silicon and an increase of
alternative thin-film PV compositions.
The critical minerals needed for solar panels include those involved in associated components.
Inverters are power electronics components that convert the direct current (DC) generated by
solar panels into alternating current (AC) needed for transmission and electric grid use.53 Siliconbased inverters made up 76% of the inverters in 2022, followed by silicon carbide at 23.6% and
gallium nitride at 0.4%.54 Although these newer technologies may offer increased efficiency, the
low cost, widespread infrastructure, and record of performance of crystalline silicon may indicate
that silicon-based technologies will continue to lead the solar industry.
system/renewables/solar-pv; International Energy Agency, Renewables 2023, January 2024, https://www.iea.org/
reports/renewables-2023.
47 Elizabeth Chu and D. Lawrence Tarazano, “A Brief History of Solar Panels,” Smithsonian Magazine,
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/sponsored/brief-history-solar-panels-180972006/.
48 U.S. Energy Information Administration, “Frequently Asked Questions: What Is U.S. Electricity Generation by
Energy Source?,” last updated February 29, 2024, https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=427&t=3.
49 U.S. Geological Survey, Mineral Commodity Summaries 2023, January 31, 2023, https://doi.org/10.3133/mcs2023.
50 International Energy Agency, “Demand for Silicon from Solar PV by Scenario, 2020-2040,” last updated May 5,
2021, https://www.iea.org/data-and-statistics/charts/demand-for-silicon-from-solar-pv-by-scenario-2020-2040.
51 U.S. Department of State, “Countries of Particular Concern, Special Watch List Countries, Entities of Particular
Concern,” last updated December 29, 2023, https://www.state.gov/countries-of-particular-concern-special-watch-listcountries-entities-of-particular-concern/#CountriesofParticularConcern.
52 U.S. Geological Survey, Mineral Commodity Summaries 2023, January 31, 2023, https://doi.org/10.3133/mcs2023.
53 Direct current (DC) electricity refers to the condition in which electric charge flows in one direction. Alternating
current (AC) electricity refers to the condition in which the electric charge reverses direction periodically. Most
electricity in the United States is generated and distributed in AC at a frequency of 60 Hertz (i.e., 60 cycles per second).
54 DOE Assessment, pp. 34-35.
Congressional Research Service
14
Critical Minerals and Materials for Selected Energy Technologies
Wind Energy
Wind turbines generate a growing amount of electricity. In 2022, wind electricity generation
reached more than 2,100 TWh globally, increasing by around 14% over the previous year, and
accounted for 7.3% of global electricity generation.55 Wind turbines require critical minerals and
materials for their construction and maintenance. There are two main types of wind
installations—onshore and offshore—and each has different costs and benefits. Onshore wind
installations tend to require less infrastructure and have a more robust domestic supply chain than
offshore wind installations; this can mean faster deployment, lower capital investment, and lower
cost of maintenance, among other considerations. Offshore wind installations, which in 2022
represented 7% of the total global installed wind capacity, may benefit from faster and more
consistent wind speeds and taller and larger installations, which result in more electricity
generation than onshore wind systems on a per-turbine basis. Offshore wind installations have
faced longer development timelines and more concerns over financing costs and supply chain
constraints than onshore wind.56 Domestically, the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)
projects that U.S. wind power electricity generation will grow from 430 TWh in 2023 to 476
TWh by 2025, an 11% increase.57
According to DOE, “average nameplate capacity per wind turbine reached 3 MW for newly
installed turbines in the U.S. in 2021, and new 15-MW and 16-MW models of offshore wind
turbines are nearing commercial availability.”58 The wiring for turbines uses large quantities of
copper, requiring nearly 10 metric tons of copper per megawatt (MW) of capacity.59 In addition,
offshore turbines require copper for undersea cable wiring to deliver generated electricity
onshore.60
Copper is a critical material as classified by DOE, but not a critical mineral as classified by the
USGS. There has been bipartisan congressional support for adding copper to the critical minerals
list, but USGS analysis determined that, although copper is an essential mineral, mitigating
factors make copper accessible enough that it does not warrant critical mineral classification. In
letters to Senator Kyrsten Sinema and Representative Bob Latta, USGS Director David Applegate
wrote
While copper is clearly an essential mineral commodity, its supply chain vulnerabilities are
mitigated by domestic capacity, trade with reliable partners, and significant secondary
55 International Energy Agency, “Renewables: Wind,” last updated July 11, 2023, https://www.iea.org/energy-system/
renewables/wind; International Energy Agency, “Share of Renewable Electricity Generation by Technology, 20002028,” last updated December 18, 2023, https://www.iea.org/data-and-statistics/charts/share-of-renewable-electricitygeneration-by-technology-2000-2028.
56 For more information on offshore wind issues, see CRS Report R46970, U.S. Offshore Wind Energy Development:
Overview and Issues for the 118th Congress, by Laura B. Comay and Corrie E. Clark.
57 Energy Information Administration, “Solar and Wind to Lead Growth of U.S. Power Generation for the Next Two
Years,” Today in Energy, January 16, 2024, https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=61242.
58 DOE Assessment, p. 36.
59 Ibid.
60 U.S. Department of Energy, Wind Energy: Supply Chain Deep Dive Assessment, U.S. Department of Energy
Response to Executive Order 14017, “America’s Supply Chains,” February 24, 2022, p. 18, https://www.energy.gov/
sites/default/files/2022-02/Wind%20Supply%20Chain%20Report%20-%20Final%202.25.22.pdf. For more
information on offshore wind energy, see CRS Report R46970, U.S. Offshore Wind Energy Development: Overview
and Issues for the 118th Congress, by Laura B. Comay and Corrie E. Clark.
Congressional Research Service
15
Critical Minerals and Materials for Selected Energy Technologies
capacity. As a result, the USGS does not believe that the available information on copper
supply and demand justifies an out-of-cycle addition to the list at this time.61
Two key components of turbines, the generator and transformer, require large quantities and
multiple grades of electrical steel.62 Onshore wind turbines require 1.5 to 5.3 metric tons per MW
capacity, while their offshore counterparts need 2.7 to 3.6 metric tons per MW. These figures
account for all grades of electrical steel.63 Materials such as electrical steel have established
supply chains and manufacturing and recycling infrastructure due to their legacy uses across
industries. However, electrical steel faces its own set of demand challenges.64 Demand for
electrical steel in the wind industry may face competition from other industries that require steel
or specialty steel. In 2023, industry stakeholders warned that demand for electrical steel was
outpacing supply and asked the Biden Administration to “prioritize actions that will create a
sustainable supply.”65 Currently, there is only one domestic producer of both grain- and nongrain-oriented electrical steels.66
Magnets in wind turbines also require critical minerals, primarily rare earth elements (REEs).
Neodymium and praseodymium make up the main components of magnets used in wind turbines.
Direct drive turbines require approximately 0.65 metric tons of permanent magnets per MW
capacity, while hybrid drive turbines require approximately 0.2 metric tons of magnets per MW.67
REEs have limited domestic supply and no large-scale domestic processing.68
Batteries
Batteries—such as those used in EVs and in stationary energy storage—are seen as a key
component of increased wind and solar electricity generation. Although large amounts of
electricity can be generated from wind and solar energy sources, the electricity must either be
used immediately or stored for later use.69 All forms of modern batteries use critical minerals for
their energy storage; minerals used in batteries include lithium, cobalt, manganese, nickel, and
61 Letter from David Applegate, Dir., USGS, to Sen. Kyrsten Sinema, April 13, 2023,
https://subscriber.politicopro.com/eenews/f/eenews/?id=00000188-4953-d998-ab8f-fb5f223b0000; Letter from David
Applegate, Dir., USGS, to Rep. Bob Latta, May 1, 2023, https://subscriber.politicopro.com/eenews/f/eenews/?id=
00000188-4952-d998-ab8f-fb5f8eb00000.
62 Ibid.
63 “Electrical steels are the most-often used materials among all soft magnetic materials. Electrical steel is classified
into two types: non-oriented (NO) electrical steel and grain-oriented (GO) electrical steel. NO steel is widely used in
motors and generators, in which the magnetization direction is rotated in the sheet plane. GO is mainly used as a core
material of transformers, in which the magnetization is unidirectional.” Yasuyuki Hayakawa, “Electrical Steels,”
Encyclopedia of Materials: Metals and Alloys, vol. 2 (Elsevier, 2022).
64 DOE Assessment, pp. 78-79.
65 Letter from Alliance for Automotive Innovation et al. to President Joseph R. Biden, Jr., May 22, 2023,
https://www.electric.coop/wp-content/uploads/2023/05/5-22-23-Electrical-Steel-Summit-POTUS.pdf.
66 Sonal Patel, “U.S. Power Sector Trade Groups Flag Critical Electrical Steel Crunch,” Power, May 25, 2023,
https://www.powermag.com/u-s-power-sector-trade-groups-flag-critical-electrical-steel-crunch/.
67 Ibid., pp. 68-69.
68 The United States has one REE mine, Mountain Pass Mine, which integrated processing of rare earth elements into
its mining facility in 2023; see Mountain Pass Mine, “What Are Rare Earth Elements?,” https://mpmaterials.com/whatwe-do/.
69 In the absence of sufficient energy storage, during times of low electricity demand wind and solar electricity
production may be curtailed to protect the electrical grid. If electricity supply and demand differ by too much, electric
power system components and customer equipment could be damaged, leading to system instability or potential failure.
For more on variable renewable energy and electric reliability, see CRS Report R45764, Maintaining Electric
Reliability with Wind and Solar Sources: Background and Issues for Congress, by Ashley J. Lawson.
Congressional Research Service
16
Critical Minerals and Materials for Selected Energy Technologies
graphite. New research developments have reduced the quantities of critical minerals required to
construct a battery and diversified the types of minerals needed. Nevertheless, the demand for
batteries likely will increase proportionally with demand for increased wind and solar generation,
and the demand for critical minerals will increase with it (Figure 3). In addition, the rise of
electric vehicles has led to increased demand for the critical mineral components that make up the
smaller lithium-ion batteries that are currently the industry standard for EVs.
Electric Vehicle Batteries
Sales of electric vehicles have increased in recent years, both domestically and internationally.
According to the IEA, EV’s share of vehicle sales has more than tripled globally between 2020
and 2022. The share in 2022 was 14%, up from 9% in 2021 and less than 5% in 2020.70 As the
demand for EVs has grown, so has the demand for the mineral and material inputs for their
construction. As of 2024, most EV manufacturing and sales occur outside of the United States,
but domestic interest in EVs—from both consumers and manufacturers—has increased.71
For their construction, EVs require mineral and material components similar to those required for
equivalent internal combustion engine vehicles; however, they diverge for key components.72
Congressional interest has focused on access to or supply of critical minerals required for EV
batteries. Less concern has been focused on EV motors, which generally require small quantities
of rare earth elements.73
Lithium-ion batteries require lithium, cobalt, manganese, nickel, and graphite. Inside the battery,
commonly called a battery pack, is an assembled component generally consisting of packaging
and mounting structures, an electronic and electrical control system, and battery cells. Each cell
contains two electrodes (a cathode and an anode), an electrolyte (a chemical solution that allows
electricity to flow between the electrodes), and a separator (a physical barrier between the
cathode and anode).74 See Figure 6. The relatively high cost of electric vehicles is in part
attributable to the batteries, and the cost of the batteries is closely tied to the price of the minerals
and materials needed for their manufacture. In recent years, however, battery prices have declined
70 International Energy Agency, Global EV Outlook 2023, April 2023, https://www.iea.org/reports/global-ev-outlook-
2023.
71 For more on incentives for electric vehicles (EVs), see CRS Insight IN12003, Inflation Reduction Act of 2022:
Incentives for Clean Transportation, by Melissa N. Diaz.
72 The main physical differences between an EV and an internal combustion engine vehicle (ICEV) lie in the power
train: the major components of an EV power train include a battery, a motor, and ancillary systems, while the major
components of an ICEV power train include liquid fuel storage, combustion chambers (and cooling system),
transmission, and an exhaust system (with emissions controls). For an overview of EVs and the differences between
EVs and ICEVs, see CRS Report R46231, Electric Vehicles: A Primer on Technology and Selected Policy Issues, by
Melissa N. Diaz. For an overview of potential environmental impacts of ICEVs and EVs, see CRS Report R46420,
Environmental Effects of Battery Electric and Internal Combustion Engine Vehicles, by Richard K. Lattanzio and
Corrie E. Clark.
73 The average weight of a neodymium magnet in an EV is a little under three kilograms; neodymium is a rare earth
element and a critical mineral (Eric Onstad, “China Frictions Steer Electric Automakers Away from Rare Earth
Magnets,” Reuters, July 19, 2021). Rare earth elements are a group of elements considered critical by the U.S.
Geological Survey; for more information on rare earth elements, see CRS Report R46618, An Overview of Rare Earth
Elements and Related Issues for Congress.
74 The cathode is the positive battery terminal, and the anode is the negative battery terminal. During battery use,
negatively charged electrons flow from the anode to the cathode; charging the battery reverses this flow and electrons
flow from the cathode to the anode. For more information on lithium-ion batteries and their components, see Argonne
National Laboratory (ANL), “Science 101: Batteries,” https://www.anl.gov/science-101/batteries. For an earlier look at
the domestic EV supply chain, see CRS Report R41709, Battery Manufacturing for Hybrid and Electric Vehicles:
Policy Issues.
Congressional Research Service
17
Critical Minerals and Materials for Selected Energy Technologies
overall. DOE estimated in 2023 that the costs of battery packs had decreased by nearly 90% from
2008 to 2022,75 while analysis by BloombergNEF showed that battery prices reached record lows
at the end of 2023.76
Figure 6. Key Components of Lithium-Ion Batteries
Source: U.S. Department of Energy, Critical Materials Assessment, July 2023, p. 21, https://www.energy.gov/sites/
default/files/2023-07/doe-critical-material-assessment_07312023.pdf.
Notes: Other battery components not shown.
The cathode side of the battery generally contains the more expensive minerals and chemical
formulations. Different mineral formulations provide varying benefits, including longer lifespans,
longer charge cycles, and decreased battery weights. Lithium is the predominant mineral in
current EV batteries, with cobalt, manganese, and nickel making up different ratios of the cathode
formula depending on the type of battery formulation. Each of these minerals is sourced from
different regions and may be subject to varying refining processes. Lithium is found naturally in
both hardrock and brine form, and it is currently produced in Australia (47%), Chile (30%), and
China (15%), among others. Cobalt is primarily mined in the Democratic Republic of the Congo
(68%), with Indonesia (5%) and Australia (3%) following. Indonesia holds 48% of global nickel
production, followed by the Philippines (10%) and New Caledonia (6%). (See Figure 3.77)
Battery electrolytes also require some critical minerals, including lithium salts, but this may vary
across different battery formulations.
75 U.S. Department of Energy, Vehicle Technologies Office, “FOTW #1272: Electric Vehicle Battery Pack Costs in
2022 Are Nearly 90% Lower Than in 2008, According to DOE Estimates,” Transportation Fact of the Week
newsletter, January 9, 2023, https://www.energy.gov/eere/vehicles/articles/fotw-1272-january-9-2023-electric-vehiclebattery-pack-costs-2022-are-nearly.
76 BloombergNEF, “Lithium-Ion Battery Pack Prices Hit Record Low of $139/kWh,” November 26, 2023,
https://about.bnef.com/blog/lithium-ion-battery-pack-prices-hit-record-low-of-139-kwh/.
77 For more detailed analysis of specific battery minerals and chemistries, see CRS Report R47227, Critical Minerals in
Electric Vehicle Batteries.
Congressional Research Service
18
Critical Minerals and Materials for Selected Energy Technologies
Graphite (carbon), a material with a wide range of applications across sectors, is typically used in
the anode side of the battery and comes in two forms: natural and synthetic graphite.78 Natural
graphite is commonly grouped into three commercial commodities or categories: amorphous,
crystalline (flake), and crystalline (lump or chip). Synthetic graphite can be manufactured for use
in any of these commodity groups. Different battery formulations may use different forms or
grades of graphite.79 According to the USGS, no domestic mine production of graphite occurs in
the United States, but five companies are exploring or developing mining projects for graphite.80
In addition, two more spherical graphite plants are under construction, one in Kellyton, Alabama,
and one in Vidalia, Louisiana, with expected production beginning in 2024.81 Alternatives to
graphite may also change the market for battery anode materials. Silicon anode batteries may be a
viable alternative to traditional graphite, but they are susceptible to deforming due to the large
volume change in silicon after repeated charge cycles.82 Research into alternative battery
chemistries and minerals is underway. Funding for research that focuses on alternatives for
scarcer or more expensive minerals and materials has increased in recent years.
The tax credits for EVs enacted in the IRA may make EVs more affordable to consumers, but the
tax credits require that eligible vehicles use critical minerals and materials sourced either
domestically or from trade-partner nations.83 In response to these sourcing requirements, the
Biden Administration pursued critical minerals agreements with trade partners. An example is the
Critical Minerals Agreement signed by the United States and Japan.84 That agreement
memorializes the shared commitment of the United States and Japan with respect to the
critical minerals sector to facilitate trade, promote fair competition and market-oriented
conditions for trade in critical minerals, advance robust labor and environmental standards,
and cooperate in efforts to ensure secure, transparent, sustainable, and equitable critical
minerals supply chains.85
Grid-Scale Energy Storage
As variable renewable energy sources such as wind and solar expand, so too will the need to store
the generated energy. These energy sources generate electricity only while the wind is blowing or
the sun is shining, and the electricity that is generated must be either transmitted for immediate
78 Jinrui Zhang, Chao Liang, and Jennifer B. Dunn, “Graphite Flows in the U.S.: Insights into a Key Ingredient of
Energy Transition,” Environmental Science and Technology, vol. 57, no. 8 (February 15, 2023).
79 Spherical graphite is made by processing flake graphite into round “potato-shaped” orbs and then coating them in
conducive carbon. This process allows for increased rate capability and long-term stability. Laura Gottschalk et al.,
“Spherical Graphite Anodes: Influence of Particle Size Distribution and Multilayer Structuring in Lithium-Ion Battery
Cells,” Batteries, vol. 10, no. 40 (January 23, 2024).
80 U.S. Geological Survey, Mineral Commodity Summaries 2024, January 31, 2024, https://doi.org/10.3133/mcs2024.
81 Ibid.; Sally Helm, “A Graphite Processing Plant in Alabama Could Help the U.S. Rely Less on China,” All Things
Considered, National Public Radio, June 28, 2024, https://www.npr.org/2024/06/28/nx-s1-5018657/a-graphiteprocessing-plant-in-alabama-could-help-the-u-s-rely-less-on-china.
82 Jun Lee et al., “Silicon Anode: A Perspective on Fast Charging Lithium-Ion Battery,” Inorganics, April 24, 2023,
https://doi.org/10.3390/inorganics11050182.
83 For more information on these tax credits, see CRS In Focus IF12600, Clean Vehicle Tax Credits, by Donald J.
Marples and Nicholas E. Buffie.
84 For more information on the U.S.-Japan Critical Minerals Agreement, see CRS In Focus IF12517, U.S.-Japan
Critical Minerals Agreement, by Kyla H. Kitamura.
85 Office of the United States Trade Representative, “United States and Japan Sign Critical Minerals Agreement,” press
release, March 28, 2023, https://ustr.gov/about-us/policy-offices/press-office/press-releases/2023/march/united-statesand-japan-sign-critical-minerals-agreement.
Congressional Research Service
19
Critical Minerals and Materials for Selected Energy Technologies
use or stored. Grid-scale energy storage is one option to balance variable renewable energy
sources, and deployment of grid-scale energy storage—especially batteries—is increasing.86
Grid-scale battery storage installations require both large quantities of minerals and a substantial
geographic footprint. In particular, grid-scale storage’s large size gives it an advantage over EV
battery packs—the weight and size are not as significant a consideration when evaluating
different chemical formulations. With grid-scale storage, because space is of less concern, battery
chemistries other than lithium-ion—which is preferred in EVs due to the technology’s high
energy density—may be considered. While some of the minerals—such as lithium—were
discussed above, other chemistries—such as vanadium redox flow,87 zinc-bromine flow, and
sodium-sulfur batteries—are unique to the stationary storage market.88
Redox flow batteries (RFBs) are seen as suited to stationary storage, as the critical minerals for
energy storage are diluted in a liquid solution.89 RFBs, if developed at scale, could decrease the
amounts of critical minerals needed for energy storage.90 The anolyte and catholyte, which take
the place of typical anodes and cathodes, would use current battery mineral inputs such as lithium
and cobalt, as well as additional inputs such as vanadium (diluted in water) as a mineral resource.
The necessary amounts of expensive minerals such as lithium and cobalt would be reduced
relative to conventional battery technology.91 Projections from DOE indicate that flow battery
market share may grow to 10%–15% if costs fall and the technology matures by 2040.92 There are
other methods of storing energy, including resources such as pumped hydropower, which has the
largest energy storage capacity in the United States but requires specific topography.93
Issues for Congress
Critical minerals and materials continue to be an important part of U.S. manufacturing and
infrastructure and are of interest to Congress. Transitioning the energy sector toward low-carbon
energy sources such as wind and solar energy likely requires large quantities of critical minerals
and materials. Minerals and materials may face increased demand from lithium-ion batteries,
solar panels, wind turbines, and other applications. Mineral and material resources are finite,
distributed unevenly across borders, and may require several steps to mine, refine, and convert
into a final product form. Critical minerals and materials policy for the energy transition is
complex and could require a range of potential strategies to increase domestic production or
recycling, build resilient supply chains, develop and produce new technologies, and strengthen
national security.
86 For background on balancing variable renewable energy sources, see CRS In Focus IF11257, Variable Renewable
Energy: An Introduction, by Ashley J. Lawson.
87 Zebo Huang et al., “Comprehensive Analysis of Critical Issues in All-Vanadium Redox Flow Battery,” ACS
Sustainable Chemical Engineering, vol. 10, no. 24 (June 3, 2022).
88 For more information on this topic, see CRS Report R45980, Electricity Storage: Applications, Issues, and
Technologies.
89 Christian Doetsch and Jens Burfiend, “Vanadium Redox Flow Batteries,” in Storing Energy, 2nd ed., ed. Trevor M.
Letcher (Elsevier, 2022).
90 American Chemical Society, “Are Vanadium Flow Batteries Worth the Hype?,” Reactions science videos, November
15, 2023, https://www.acs.org/pressroom/reactions/library/are-vanadium-flow-batteries-worth-the-hype.html.
91 Ibid.
92 DOE Assessment, p. 64.
93 U.S. Energy Information Administration, “Electricity Explained: Energy Storage for Electricity Generation,” last
updated August 28, 2023, https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/electricity/energy-storage-for-electricitygeneration.php.
Congressional Research Service
20
Critical Minerals and Materials for Selected Energy Technologies
Congress has held hearings on a wide variety of topics related to critical minerals and materials
production, manufacture, R&D, and more. Some examples from the 118th Congress include, but
are not limited to, the following hearings:
•
•
•
•
Hearing to Examine Opportunities to Counter the People’s Republic of China’s
Control of Critical Mineral Supply Chains,94
The Role of Federal Research in Establishing a Robust U.S. Supply Chain of
Critical Minerals and Materials,95
Examining the Methodology and Structure of the U.S. Geological Survey’s
Critical Minerals List,96 and
Securing America’s Critical Materials Supply Chains and Economic
Leadership.97
Author Information
Emma Kaboli
Analyst in Energy Policy
Disclaimer
This document was prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS). CRS serves as nonpartisan
shared staff to congressional committees and Members of Congress. It operates solely at the behest of and
under the direction of Congress. Information in a CRS Report should not be relied upon for purposes other
than public understanding of information that has been provided by CRS to Members of Congress in
connection with CRS’s institutional role. CRS Reports, as a work of the United States Government, are not
subject to copyright protection in the United States. Any CRS Report may be reproduced and distributed in
its entirety without permission from CRS. However, as a CRS Report may include copyrighted images or
material from a third party, you may need to obtain the permission of the copyright holder if you wish to
copy or otherwise use copyrighted material.
94 U.S. Congress, Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, Full Committee Hearing to Examine Opportunities
to Counter the People’s Republic of China’s Control of Critical Mineral Supply Chains, hearings, 118th Cong., 2nd
sess., September 28, 2023. According to the description, “The purpose of this hearing [was] to examine opportunities to
counter the People’s Republic of China’s control of critical mineral supply chains through increased mining and
processing in the United States as well as international engagement and trade.”
95 U.S. Congress, House Science, Space, and Technology Committee, The Role of Federal Research in Establishing a
Robust U.S. Supply Chain of Critical Minerals and Materials, hearings, 118th Cong., 2nd sess., November 30, 2023.
96 U.S. Congress, House Natural Resources Committee, Examining the Methodology and Structure of the U.S.
Geological Survey’s Critical Minerals List, hearings, 118th Cong., 2nd sess., September 13, 2023.
97 U.S. Congress, House Energy and Commerce Committee, Environment, Manufacturing, and Critical Minerals,
Securing America’s Critical Materials Supply Chains and Economic Leadership, hearings, 118th Cong., 2nd sess., June
13, 2024.
Congressional Research Service
R48149 · VERSION 5 · UPDATED
21
This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.