“This mine could represent a quarter of world production”, according to François Gemenne

Every Saturday, we decipher climate issues with François Gemenne, professor at HEC, president of the Scientific Council of the Foundation for Nature and Man and member of the IPCC.

The Imerys company plans to open a very large lithium mine in Échassières, in Allier: 30 hectares of industrial site, galleries 400 meters underground, not to mention the freight loading, waste processing, etc. A project which will consume a lot of electricity and a lot of water: 600,000 cubic meters per year which will be taken from the neighboring river, the Sioule. The National Commission for Public Debate began public meetings on the subject on March 11 and opponents of the project are mobilizing to make their objections, which are numerous, heard.

franceinfo: We understand that this raises certain questions, right? If I were a local resident, I would also wonder…

François Gemenne: And me too, of course. But the stakes are commensurate with the size of the project: it would be the first opening of a mine in France in 50 years.

“This involves producing 34,000 tonnes of lithium hydroxide each year, enough to equip 700,000 electric cars each year for at least 25 years.”

François Gemenne

franceinfo

In 2022, around 130,000 tonnes of lithium will be produced worldwide. The Échassières mine could potentially represent a quarter of global lithium production. What is clear is that this would put France on the map in the geopolitics of rare earths and critical minerals. For the moment, for lithium, this map is reduced to a few countries, since three countries share most of the world’s production: Australia, with 47% of production; Chile, with 30%, and China, with 15%.

And the reserves in these countries are running out, we read everywhere that we will not have enough lithium for the transition. Is that why we have to go look for it in France?

It is necessary to relativize. Of course, the need for lithium is expected to continue to increase over the coming years, but global reserves are very abundant.

“Proven lithium reserves in the world were 26 million tonnes in 2022. And this is a figure which is still well below the estimated reserves, which are around 100 million tonnes.”

François Gemenne

franceinfo

And half of these reserves are located in the salt plains of Bolivia, Chile and Argentina. So this still allows us to see things coming, especially since we can reasonably expect that we will be better and better at recycling electric batteries, since 80% of the world’s demand for lithium is for batteries.

But why go look for lithium in France, if there are huge reserves elsewhere?

Firstly, because it would make it possible to produce locally a material which is absolutely essential for the transition, with all the advantages that it provides, but also because it would make it possible to reduce damage to the environment. The salt plains of South America, where half of the world’s lithium reserves are located, are absolutely extraordinary natural sites, for example, which would obviously be devastated by mining activity. The promoters of the Échassières mine argue that extraction would be carried out under better conditions in France, by minimizing ecological damage and recycling the water used, for example.

But can a mine really be ecological?

Clearly no. Even with all the precautions in the world, mining activity harms the local environment, it is obvious.

“The case of the Échassières mine clearly illustrates the double contradiction of the transition. The first is that everyone wants lithium batteries, but no one wants lithium to be extracted near them.”

François Gemenne

franceinfo

Everyone wants renewable energy, but no one wants a wind turbine in their landscape, etc. Can we, morally, be content to mine the materials of the transition elsewhere, in environmental conditions that we do not control, while we have some of these materials in our soil? Because I’m not even talking to you about the conditions for extracting other materials, cobalt in particular…

And what is the second contradiction?

The second contradiction lies between the imperatives of the energy transition and the preservation of biodiversity. Sometimes we live in a kind of illusion that everything is connected. What would be good for the climate would necessarily be good for biodiversity and natural resources, and vice versa.

“The reality is that certain projects which are useful for protecting the climate harm biodiversity. The Échassières mine is a good example.”

François Gemenne

franceinfo

But we can also cite dams, or the Lyon-Turin tunnel… There will be more and more of them, which will generate tensions between environmentalists, and for which we will have to decide carefully. Because the transition has an environmental cost. Anytime you have to provide energy or transport people, there’s an environmental cost no matter what you do. Even if this cost is infinitely smaller than the cost associated with fossil fuels. So either we assume this cost, trying to reduce it as much as possible, or we do nothing at all. The alternative is there.