Journal of Cleaner Production 32 (2012) 32e44

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Journal of Cleaner Production

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jclepro

Renewable energy in the minerals industry: a review of global potential

B.C. McLellan a, *, G.D. Corder b, D.P. Giurco c, K.N. Ishihara a
a
Graduate School of Energy Science, Kyoto University, Yoshida-honmachi, Sakyo-ku, Kyoto 606-8501, Japan
b
University of Queensland, Sustainable Minerals Institute, Centre for Social Responsibility in Mining, St Lucia, QLD 4072, Australia
c
Institute for Sustainable Futures, University of Technology Sydney, Ultimo, NSW 2007, Australia

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: This paper examines the major minerals producing countries and the potential that local energy mix and
Received 28 September 2011 renewable energy resources have for lowering the impact of the industry, with respect to carbon dioxide
Received in revised form emissions. Furthermore, it seeks to estimate the potential for new technologies, energy efficiency and
7 March 2012
demand-side measures to reduce emissions. Of total carbon dioxide emissions, 71% arise from fossil fuels
Accepted 10 March 2012
Available online 23 March 2012
used in thermal applications and 29% from indirect electricity generation. We find the highest theoretical
potential for reduction of emissions from thermal applications is from the increased use of renewable
biofuels and charcoal instead of fossil fuels (up to 46% of total industry net emissions), while conversion
Keywords:
Minerals
of various applications to use renewable hydrogen may reduce emissions by 28%. Electricity generation
Mining emissions could be “substantially reduced” by switching to electricity generation from cleaner sources,
Greenhouse gas with hydropower a key potential contributor (reduction of 22% of total industry emissions). Solar thermal
Renewable energy and electrical production may only be capable of 2e7% reduction in the industry’s emissions.
Energy Ó 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction mitigating GHG emissions. Whilst there is already in the literature

Growth in population, affluence and associated consumption
over the past century, coupled with increasing trends of urbani-
sation and electrification (among other factors), have led to an
increase in the global demand for materials (Krausmann et al.,
2009) which is anticipated to continue over the coming century
(Krausmann et al., 2008). Moreover, the production of materials e
especially bulk minerals and construction materials e is a major
contributor to global energy usage and corresponding greenhouse
gas (GHG) emissions (Allwood et al., 2010; IEA, 2010a; UNSTATS,
2010). In the specific case of minerals, it is also expected that ore
grades will continue to decline and that, as a consequence, the use
of standard minerals processing routes will require higher energy
inputs and therefore higher costs and emissions (Mudd, 2007, 2010;
Mason et al., 2011).
Consequently, a global perspective on the current energy use and
GHG emissions arising from minerals production is required. The
aim of this study is to analyse the industry baseline for energy use
and identify where the potential lies for improving energy efficiency
and utilising renewable energy sources. From this we aim to identify
key sectoral renewable energy routes and their potential for
* Corresponding author. Tel.: þ81 75 753 9173; fax: þ81 75 753 4775.
E-mail addresses: b-mclellan@energy.kyoto-u.ac.jp, b.mclellan@yahoo.com.au
(B.C. McLellan).
some work on energy use for specific commodities and technologies
(e.g. (Norgate and Haque, 2010; Worrell et al., 2001a, 2001b)) and
renewable energy in mining has been based discussed in relation to
specific countries (e.g. Australia (Corder et al., 2011)), specific tech-
nologies such as wind (Sarder, 2010), or the influence of future global
scenarios on renewable energy uptake by mining (Memary et al.,
2011), there has yet to be a quantitative, top-down, global analysis
of renewable potential in mining and minerals processing.
The production of steel and cement have been the focus of much
attention in regards to greenhouse gas production, due to their
predominant contribution to industrial emissions (Krausmann
et al., 2009; Allwood et al., 2010; Worrell et al., 2009). Energy
efficiency through improved technology and process integration,
and fuel switching have been the key elements in the efforts to
reduce the greenhouse gas impacts of cement and steel production
(Worrell et al., 2009). In the case of cement, there has been
a specific focus on the use of alternate feedstocks, including the
waste fly ash and slags from power production and minerals pro-
cessing (McLellan et al., 2011). Some cases of industrial ecology or
regional synergies between the minerals industry and other
industries or the residential sector have also been examined as an
opportunity to reduce overall environmental impacts and energy
usage (Keikkala et al., 2007; van Beers et al., 2007).
Some sectors, such as the aluminium industry which is heavily
dependent on electricity in the smelting process, have globally

0959-6526/$ e see front matter Ó 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2012.03.016
 B.C. McLellan et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 32 (2012) 32e44
been moving new greenfields operations to countries where they
can take advantage of cheap and secure energy supply. In particular,
some countries that have large renewable energy supplies have
seen a significant increase in market share (e.g. Iceland, Norway
and Canada). However, there is a limitation to how much industrial
processing can be moved to such countries. Furthermore, for
mining (as opposed to smelting) there is a physical limitation tying
the mining and primary processing stages to the geographical
location in which the ore is found.
Emissions from transportation are also important. For bulk
transportation, emissions are related to the mass and distance of
transportation. The larger the geographical separation between the
point of production and the processing site, the more non-valuable
components contribute to the life cycle emissions of the product (Li
et al., 2011). The current emissions from transportation of bulk
minerals are estimated to be between 2 and 9% of the life cycle
emissions of key minerals, but the elimination of the transportation
of ores and concentrates (by onsite processing) could reduce this (Li
et al., 2011). By contrast, global emissions from iron ore mining are
roughly <1% of the global emissions from steel making (Norgate
and Haque, 2010).
This study investigates the potential for reducing greenhouse
gas emissions in the minerals industry using synergistic opportu-
nities with the development of renewable energy. The approach
taken is to estimate the energy usage and emissions attributable to
the minerals industry in the major producing countries, followed
by an assessment of the potential in those countries for renewable
energy usage to supplement the needs of mining and minerals
processing. If the demand for minerals increases as forecast,
renewable energy utilisation, energy efficiency and other initiatives
would be essential to moving towards a carbon neutral minerals
industry.
Globally, the minerals industry accounts for 15% of total elec-
tricity usage, 11% of total final energy consumption and 38% of
industrial final energy consumption (IEA, 2010b). Including the
conversion of coal to coke and use in blast furnaces, as well as direct
usage, the industry uses 19% of coal and coal products and 5% of all
gas and 2% of all oil supplied globally (IEA, 2010b). The large scale of
this draw on natural energy resources as well as other impacts to
society and environment have been key drivers in the push for
sustainable minerals and mining which has received significant
attention over the past decade (Hilson and Murck, 2000; McLellan
et al., 2009; Azapagic, 2004; Giurco and Cooper, 2012). This has
been exemplified by reported energy efficiency initiatives in the
mining and minerals industry that utilise proven technologies such
as waste heat re-use, capture and re-use of coal seam methane and
a program of innovations to reduce energy and carbon dioxide
emissions (Guerin, 2006). In addition, industry bodies such as the
International Council on Mining and Metals have through their 10
principles framework promoted initiatives to improve energy effi-
ciency and reduce greenhouse gas emissions across the industry
(ICMM, 2010). The current paper highlights one key element of
sustainability (energy) but an examination of other aspects would
also promote a broader picture of the potential for sustainable
development in this industry.
2. Methodology
The ultimate aim of this study is to estimate the current usage of
energy and production of greenhouse gas emissions of the minerals
industry globally, and to examine the potential for the emissions to
be mitigated through the substitution of renewable or low net
carbon energy.
To achieve this aim, the study was undertaken in the following
stages:
33
1. Estimation of energy usage attributable to the minerals
industry using a top-down sectoral estimation based on
International Energy Agency (IEA) data
2. Order-of-magnitude verification of the estimation from (1.) by
a bottom-up estimation of the energy usage in the production
cycles of major minerals
3. Estimation of greenhouse gas emissions (GHG) from the energy
used
4. Estimation of the potential requirement for renewable energy
resources, and identification of the magnitude of potential
substitution and key barriers to for the countries that are major
producers of the major metals and minerals
5. Analysis to identify any limitations or synergies for renewable
energy in the industry, and enablers and barriers to uptake.
Data on the production of major minerals was obtained from the
United States Geological Survey (USGS) (USGS, 2010) and cross-
checked with the British Geological Survey (BGS) (BGS, 2010)
using the basis year of 2008. Data on energy usage in the minerals
industry (top-down perspective in Stage 1) was obtained from the
IEA (IEA, 2010b). Fig. 1 shows the global level industrial energy
usage, highlighting the minerals-related energy usage, broken
down by energy source. Fig. 1(a) indicates the total energy usage by
energy source, while (b) shows the corresponding percentage
contribution e highlighting that the minerals industry is a major
user of energy in industry e especially fossil fuels. Fig. 1(c) shows
the same information grouped by sector (rather than energy
source) and the relative percentage representation in Fig. 1(d).
Table 1 gives a brief description of the sub-sectors as used in the IEA
statistics, with reference to the relevant division under the Inter-
national Standard Industrial Classification of all economic activities
(ISIC) (United Nations, 2008).
The data are not provided at a lower level of aggregation, so
caution needs to be taken in applying assumptions and interpreting
the results. Particularly important to note are the exclusion of coal
mining and the inclusion of quarrying in “mining and quarrying”
and the inclusion of cement in “non-metallic minerals”. The
exclusion of coal mining means that a significant consumer of
energy and producer of greenhouse gas emissions is not included in
mining and quarrying, but as shown in Fig. 1(c), this sector is not
particularly large compared with the processing sectors. The
inclusion of cement, as the largest volume non-metallic mineral
product is important, but it must also be noted that the emissions
related to cement are not only due to the energy use, but also the
chemical release of CO2 in the calcining process. (This chemical
component is not included in this analysis due to the focus on
energy.)
3. Results
It is apparent from Fig. 1(b) that the iron and steel and non-
metallic minerals sectors dominate the energy usage attributable
to the minerals industry e especially the direct usage of fossil fuels.
Non-ferrous minerals have the highest percentage of electricity
usage, but still trail iron and steel slightly in absolute terms. Mining
and quarrying utilises around half as much energy globally as the
processing of non-ferrous metals, or 6% of the total minerals
industry (IEA, 2010b). Tables 2and 3 give the data on global
production of non-ferrous metals and non-metallic minerals
products respectively, while world crude steel production for 2008
was 1330 Mt (USGS, 2010). Applying emissions factors for fuel
combustion (DCC, 2010) and electricity consumption (IEA, 2010a)
to the energy use data by sector for each country, the emissions
from the industry, the specific emissions and energy usage per
tonne of production are given in Table 4. The energy ratios can be
 34
B.C. McLellan et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 32 (2012) 32e44
Fig. 1. Final energy consumption (FEC) by global industry showing contribution of minerals sub-sectors (Note: FEC here does not include coal inputs to coke ovens or blast furnaces, which are accounted for under primary energy).
 B.C. McLellan et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 32 (2012) 32e44 35

Table 1 Table 3
Industrial sector definitions as used by the IEA. Global non-metallic mineral production (2008).

Designation General inclusions Significant exclusions Non-metallic minerals Production 2008 (kt) % of total
Industry (See sub-sectors) Energy used for (offsite) Asbestos 2090 0.1%
Iron and steel Manufacture of basic iron transport by industry. Barite 15,646 0.4%
and steel through to casting. Embodied energy of Boron 4346 0.1%
[ISIC Rev. 4 Group 241 and consumables. Fluorspar 14,042 0.4%
Class 2431] Graphite 1120 0.03%
Non-ferrous [ISIC Rev. 4 Group 242 and Gypsum 158,780 4.0%
metals Class 2432] Kyanite 470 0.01%
Non-metallic Glass, ceramic, cement, clay, Lime 295,960 7.5%
minerals refractory products, etc. Magnesite 5426 0.1%
[ISIC Rev. 4 Division 23] Phosphate 161,060 4.1%
Mining and Mining (excluding fuels) and Coal mining. Potash 44,753 1.1%
quarrying quarrying. Titanium mineral concentrates 12,388 0.3%
[ISIC Rev. 4 Divisions 07 and Clays 51,280 1.3%
08 and Group 099] Feldspar 21,900 0.6%
Non-minerals Sum of all remaining industry Pumice 19,300 0.5%
industry Soda Ash 4600 0.1%
Salt 258,000 6.6%
Cement 2,850,000 72.7%
Total 3,921,161 100.0%
converted to primary energy ratios, using estimated efficiency rates
for conversion of fuel to electricity (35% and 50% as shown in
Table 5). (Primary energy is the amount of energy directly used as
fuel plus the fuel energy used to generate electricity e as opposed for non-ferrous metals are difficult to compare because of the wide
to final energy usage which includes the direct energy use in terms variety of minerals included.
of fuel plus the electrical energy provided to the user). The calcu- As a further important element of the analysis, Tables 6and 7
lated values (in Table 5) compare well with other published values show the contribution of each mineral sector and energy source
(Worrell et al., 2001a, 2001b; IAI, 2007), although the energy ratios to the entire minerals industry final energy usage and GHG emis-
sions. These indicate that the largest contribution to both energy
and emissions is from fossil fuel usage however, the contribution of
electricity to emissions is larger than its energy contribution. This
Table 2 higher contribution is mainly due to the use of fossil fuels in elec-
Global non-ferrous metal production (2008). tricity production. As shown in Table 6, renewables and waste heat
Metal Production 2008 (kt) % of total
usage were considered to be zero-GHG-emissions sources of
energy.
Aluminium 39,584 51%
Antimony 197 0.3% Table 8 results from combining the minerals production figures
Arsenic 53 0.1% (USGS, 2010) and the energy usage by the minerals sectors (IEA,
Beryllium <0.2 0.0% 2010b), and shows the breakdown of production figures for the
Bismuth 8 0.0% key minerals products. In particular, it highlights that the 5 highest
Cadmium 20 0.0%
Chromium 34 0.0%
production non-metallic minerals and non-ferrous metals
Cobalt 76 0.1% contribute the vast majority (95%) of tonnage for their respective
Copper 15,427 20% sectors. In addition, the top 10 producing countries for each of the
Germanium <0.2 0.0% sectors produce a combined total of more than 70% of each of these
Gold 2 0.0%
minerals, with the top 20 countries producing approximately 80%
Indium <0.6 0.0%
Lead 3840 5% or more of the minerals products in each sector. This trend flows on
Lithium 25 0.0% to the energy usage and carbon dioxide emissions figures, with
Magnesium metal 672 0.9% more than 80% and 90% of emissions produced by the top 10 and 20
Manganese 1130 1.5% countries respectively. Based on the figures in Table 8 e with special
Mercury 1 0.0%
Molybdenum 218 0.3%
note that it was not possible to obtain data from some non-
Nickel 1574 1.9% reporting energy nations such as Iran e that consideration of the
Niobium 63 0.1% top 5 minerals and the top 20 countries should ensure coverage of
Platinum Group Metals <0.6 0.0% approximately three quarters of all mineral production and 85% of
Rare earths 124 0.2%
energy and emissions.
Rhenium <0.2 0.0%
Selenium 2 0.0%
Silver 21 0.0% 4. Discussion
Strontium 496 0.6%
Tantalum 1 0.0%
Tellurium <0.2 0.0%
The potential for reduction of carbon dioxide emissions in the
Thallium <0.2 0.0% minerals industry has a number of components which are dis-
Thorium <0.2 0.0% cussed in this section. The key strategies are energy efficiency and
Tin 299 0.4% decarbonisation of energy. Before discussing potential strategies, it
Titanium Sponge Metal 155 0.2%
is important to raise some general comments on technologies to
Tungsten 56 0.1%
Vanadium 56 0.1% improve energy efficiency and reduce GHG emissions.
Yttrium 9 0.0% Energy efficiency initiatives, equipment and technologies will
Zinc 11,598 15% vary substantially between different commodities and at different
Zirconium and Hafnium 1282 1.7% steps in the value chain. Employing mass mining methods
Total 73,054 100%
compared with more conventional drill and blast methods, using
36 B.C. McLellan et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 32 (2012) 32e44

Table 4
Summary of production, energy usage and carbon emissions from minerals industry.

Sector Production (Mt) Energy usagea CO2 emissionsb Energy ratio Carbon ratiob
(PJ) (Mt CO2) (GJ/t production) (t CO2/t production)
Iron and steel 1330 25,043 2551 18.8 1.92
Non-ferrous metals 73 4638 508 60.1 6.58
Non-metallic minerals 3921 13,155 1120 3.4 0.29
Mining and quarryingc 20,000e40,000 2651 241 0.07e0.13 0.006e0.012
a
Final energy consumption. (In the case of iron and steel, this includes coal used in blast furnaces and coke ovens.)
b
CO2 emissions and carbon ratio are based only on the combustion of fuel. This is particularly significant in the case of non-metallic minerals, in which cement production
dominates. (Non-energy CO2 emissions from cement production are estimated at 1500 Mt CO2).
c
There is high uncertainty around the production figures for mining and quarrying. Estimates of aggregate production vastly outweigh the production of other products
however these figures are difficult to verify due to poor global reporting of production.

Table 5 a useful graphical method of identifying the most appropriate

Primary energy ratios for given electric conversion efficiencies (h) typical of gas method. We can interpret Fig. 2 by considering the following
combined cycle (50%) and coal (35%).
guidelines on where to focus effort from a global perspective:
Sector Primary energy ratio (GJ/t)

h ¼ 50%
Iron and steel 20.8
Non-ferrous metals 95.5
Non-metallic minerals 3.7
Mining and quarrying 0.2
high pressure grinding rolls instead of conventional grinding semi-
autogenous mills and ball mills or installing efficient pumps are
examples that are being currently implemented in mining and
mineral processing operations. Other examples of currently feasible
or emerging technologies include dry granulation of blast furnace
slag, drained cathodes in aluminium smelting, use of fly ash in
cement production and geo-polymer binders based on alumino-
silicate waste materials (Lund et al., 2008). Several of these
approaches, like others, are technically feasible but often are not
implemented as the economics, the additional capital costs versus
operating cost savings, are not currently favourable.
Likewise, numerous electricity generating feasible technologies
such as solar, wind, hydroelectric and nuclear have lower green-
house gas emissions compared with the more conventional coal,
diesel or gas technologies. There are also technologies still in the
development phase, such as charcoal from biomass for steel
production and a range of low-grade heat recovery technologies
(Lund et al., 2008), which could significantly contribute to lowering
the industry carbon footprint. However, similar to energy efficiency
technologies, without the appropriate incentives, such as the
necessary regulatory schemes, these technologies have difficulty in
being adopted. While this is an important factor this paper is not
aimed at analysing the policies and regulatory aspects that could
lead to improving energy efficiency and reducing the carbon foot-
print of the minerals industry. Instead, the focus for the remainder
of the Discussion is on strategies and possible technology
approaches that could deliver lower carbon dioxide emissions
across the industry from a global perspective.
If we wish to know what general approaches could be used to
target particular countries and industrial sectors, Fig. 2 offers
h ¼ 35% 1. If, % Energy > % Production then energy efficiency is an impor-
23.0 tant strategy, because the majority of the rest of the world’s
127.0 production uses less energy per unit (see Discussion below for
4.0 significant limitations in non-ferrous metals).
0.2 2. If, % Emissions > % Energy then decarbonising the fuel mix is
important, because the rest of the world’s production uses
lower carbon energy.
Graphically, the higher performing countries are those which
show a decrease in height of the bars from left to right, while the
opposite trend indicates the poorest performing countries. While
this holds true as an overall trend, on the specific country basis, the
particular mix of minerals and the impact of secondary metal
processing must also be considered. For example, with particular
focus on guideline 1, minerals such as aluminium and nickel have
high energy requirements for processing, whereas zinc and lead
have much lower processing energy (Norgate et al., 2007). Due to
the lack of separation of the energy data on the global scale, it is not
possible to show the energy usage by country and metal. Further-
more, and particularly of importance in aluminium and steel e due
to the large tonnage and process impact e the recycling of metal
scrap can affect the technology mix applicable and the energy
usage per tonne of product. This mix is available for many countries
for steel (OECD, 2010), but not for other sectors. In regards to non-
ferrous metals, the energy usage is highly dependent on the metal
mix, so caution should be used in applying guideline 1. However, for
iron and steel and non-metallic minerals it may be assumed to be
a reasonably fair first estimate.
These broad strategies are considered sector by sector and
country by country in Table 9. It should be highlighted that these
strategies only direct the reduction of emissions towards the global
average, while the specific technologies, renewable energy and
other measures that could contribute to a much lower carbon
footprint from the minerals industry are discussed later in this
section. China, the largest contributor to all minerals production,
performs poorly on both efficiency and carbon ratio, and thus offers

Table 6 Table 7
Contribution to total greenhouse gas emissions by sector and energy product. Contribution to total final energy consumption by sector and energy product.

Sector Electricity Fossil fuel Combustible waste, Percentage Sector Electricity Fossil fuel Combustible Heat Percentage
usage usage renewables of total usage usage waste and of total
and heat renewables
Iron and steel 11% 46% 0% 58% Iron and steel 7% 46% 0.5% 1.1% 55%
Non-ferrous metals 9% 3% 0% 12% Non-ferrous metals 6% 4% 0% 0.2% 10%
Non-metallic minerals 6% 20% 0% 25% Non-metallic minerals 4% 24% 0.7% 0.3% 29%
Mining and quarrying 3% 2% 0% 5% Mining and quarrying 2% 3% 0% 0.2% 6%
Percentage of Total 29% 71% 0% 100% Percentage of Total 19% 78% 1% 2% 100%
 B.C. McLellan et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 32 (2012) 32e44 37

Table 8
Contribution of top 10 countries and top 5 materials to global minerals production, energy and emissions.

Sub-sector of minerals industry

Iron and Non-ferrous metals (NFM) Non-metallic minerals (NMM)

steel
Al Cu Ni Zn Pb Top 5 All Cement Gypsum Lime Phosphate Salt Top 5 All
NFM NFM NMM NMM
Percentage of industry sector e production 100% 54% 21% 2% 16% 5% 94% 100% 73% 4% 8% 4% 7% 95% 100%
Top 10 countries (% of specified material 78% 78% 83% 90% 83% 90% 74% 74% 71% 75% 85% 91% 75% 70% 69%
production)
Top 20 countries (% of specified material 89% 89% 87% 97% 83% 92% 84% 84% 79% 90% 91% 95% 85% 79% 78%
production)
Category “other” (% of specified material 3% 7% 13% 3% 17% 8% 10% 9% 13% 8% 9% 5% 15% 12% 12%
production)
Percentage of industry sector e energy usage 100% 100% 100%
Top 10 countries (% of energy usage) 84% 81% 79%
Top 20 countries (% of energy usage) 92% 90% 91%
Category “other” (% of energy usage) 2% 3% 2%
Percentage of industry sector e emissions 100% 100% 100%
Top 10 countries (% of CO2 emissions) 85% 87% 82%
Top 20 countries (% of CO2 emissions) 93% 94% 92%
Category “other” (% of CO2 emissions) 2% 2% 2%

significant potential for future carbon reductions. In light of the
limitations of guideline 1 discussed above, a few examples from
Table 9 are useful illustrations. Brazil, Germany and Russia all have
very high proportions of aluminium and nickel in their mix of
produced metals. Thus they may reasonably be expected to have
a higher energy per tonne of non-ferrous metals. However, the
United States of America has just below the global average of these
two key metals in their mix e indicating that inefficiency in their
production is probably real. Moreover, Australia has a much lower
component of nickel and aluminium smelting than the world
average (38% of non-ferrous metal production compared to 51%
globally) e indicating again that inefficiency is most likely a real
opportunity.
Hereafter, we discuss how renewable energy technologies could
be used in the minerals industry, with some estimation of the
overall potential for application and subsequent reduction in
emissions. The major challenge of decarbonising minerals pro-
cessing is the significant amount of energy supplying high
temperature thermal energy rather than electricity. Even for elec-
tricity, usage of solar panels, with some highly conservative
assumptions (10e15% panel efficiency, 1e3 MJ/m2 daily insolation,
installation of 300% annual required capacity), might require
between 5 and 15% of all mined land (assuming an average 10 ha/kt
annual metal or mineral production as based on Australian figures
(ABARES, 2010; ACLUMP, 2009)) to be covered with panels in order
to provide the required electricity for the entire minerals industry.
Further discussion of renewable electricity potential for the
minerals industry follows below, however electricity represents
only 29% of the overall emissions of the industry’s energy-based
emissions. So the key concern is how to substitute the carbon-
based fuels that dominate e especially for the production of iron
and steel and cement (bulk of non-metallic minerals). These
industries have been addressed from the perspective of technology
efficiency improvements and product substitution elsewhere
(Worrell et al., 2001a; Worrell et al., 2001b; Worrell et al., 2009;
McLellan et al., 2011; de Beer et al., 1998; Johansson and
Söderström, 2011; Oggioni et al., 2011) and such analyses do not
form part of this paper.
4.1. Electrical energy
Although only one fifth of the energy usage and one third of the
total minerals industry emissions, electricity is the key focus of the
majority of renewable energy technologies, and thus requires
serious consideration. As shown in Table 10, the contribution of
electricity in the non-ferrous metals industry is particularly high. If
non-carbon electricity sources could be used to provide electricity
for iron and steel and non-ferrous metals production, both would
reduce their specific carbon dioxide emissions to approximately
1.5 t CO2/t. While still being far from carbon neutral, this would be
a considerable marketing advantage for aluminium and other non-
ferrous metals which are being pushed as substitutes for steel e
especially in transportation applications in which their light weight
also offers potential for further operational emissions reductions.
In the non-metallic minerals, zero-carbon energy would reduce
the energy-based emissions of CO2 to an even lower level however,
the key emissions challenges of cement lie in the chemical emis-
sions that are associated with limestone calcining e which are
higher than the energy emissions.
Electrolytic processing of minerals has some potential to
increase adoption of renewable energy. For example, approxi-
mately 90% of global zinc production is estimated to be via the
electrolytic route (Norgate and Rankin, 2002), with approximately
85% of the final energy consumption as electricity. The substitution
of this electricity for renewables in Australia and China in particular
could reduce a significant proportion of the emissions from zinc
production. The ability to utilise renewable electricity could actu-
ally improve the emissions from production e a trend that could be
utilised to counteract the ongoing decline in grade of ores (lower
grade ores tend to be those that are processed by hydrometallurgy
and therefore currently have higher emissions per tonne).
However, the additional embodied energy and emissions in the
increased usage of reagents and other consumables associated with
this shift in technology may lead to a significant increase in offsite
emissions that could offset some of the gains from renewable
energy usage. This would be an issue worth investigating in future,
but is not within the scope of the current work.
One key consideration of the usage of renewable electricity in
the minerals industry is reliability and stability of supply. Under
current operational paradigms and with existing technology, fluc-
tuations in power from electrical sources would be unacceptable.
Additional gas-power or intermittent steps such as pumped-hydro
storage could potentially mitigate this risk. Alternatively,
geothermal and hydropower sources, which can supply constant
electrical output day and night could be preferred. Hydrogen has
also been widely considered as a useful energy carrier for the
38 B.C. McLellan et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 32 (2012) 32e44

Fig. 2. Percentage contribution to global production, energy and emissions of the top 20 producing countries for each mineral sector.
 B.C. McLellan et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 32 (2012) 32e44 39

Table 9 current thermal energy usage, coal and coal products contribute
Broad strategies identified for energy-based CO2 emissions reduction from selected 74% of the energy consumed in the minerals industry (coal and coke
major producing countries.a
in the steel sector are 51% of the total industry).
Sector Key strategies for specified countries Fundamentally, of the renewable sources of energy, heat is
Energy efficiency Decarbonisation produced from biomass, solar and geothermal only. Geothermal
Iron and steel China, India energy is typically at the lower end of the temperature require-
Brazil; Russia; Ukraine Japan; Korea ments for industrial processing e although it could be used for
Non-ferrous metals Australia; China electricity production, the raising of low-grade steam will not be
Brazil; Germany Russia; United States
sufficient for most thermal requirements in the minerals industry.
Non-metallic minerals China; Japan; Spain
Brazil; Italy; Russia United States; India
Concentrating solar energy can typically raise the temperature of
a
a transfer fluid up to around 350  C (Hu et al., 2010) and can thus be
Selected strategies are based on Fig. 2 and the guidelines described in the text.
utilised for some of the lower temperature materials e e.g. gypsum
Generally, Energy efficiency is prescribed for countries with higher than global
average energy use per tonne of product in a sector, while decarbonisation is for (300 w 350  C) and salt (>100  C). Solar boosting of processes to
countries with higher than global average emissions per unit of energy. alleviate a fraction of the fossil fuel load could also be used. Addi-
tionally, concentrating solar towers could be used for low
throughput materials processing at very high temperatures, but
storage and transmission of renewable energy (Abbott, 2010) and to currently would be unable to provide the required combination of
smooth fluctuations from intermittent renewable electricity sour- temperature and throughput. One example is a solar thermal route
ces such as wind power (Sherif et al., 2005; Carton and Olabi, 2010). to syngas and zinc that has been described (Werder and Steinfeld,
Hydrogen could be a useful energy storage mechanism, but the 2000) to displace the electrolytic route to zinc however, this still
efficiency losses and the competition for water that may occur in requires high temperature heat in the conventional roasting
the remote, dry areas of some of the key minerals producing production of ZnO as a precursor, and therefore is not significantly
nations e such as Chile and Australia e may not enable widespread beneficial in comparison with electrolytic processes using renew-
usage. Other forms of energy storage that may have particular able electricity.
synergies with renewable energy and mining include compressed Thermal energy usage in calcining of lime, cement and alumina,
air (often stored in underground caverns) (Saidur et al., 2010) and roasting of zinc, and smelting of nickel, copper is typically high
pumped-hydro storage which could be a value-add to mine temperature. Lower temperature heat for the Bayer process in
dewatering. alumina production may be able to be substituted with solar or
Some technologies may also be unsuited to the conditions that boosted geothermal, but this is not a major contributor to energy
surround mine sites in particular e photovoltaic cells for example, consumption. Of perhaps most interest in the non-ferrous metals is
may not perform well under dusty mine site conditions. Wind the potential for hydrometallurgy as a substitute for pyrometal-
power in many countries is also not particularly strong in inland lurgy, and the potential to then utilise renewable electricity to
areas (WEC, 2010) apart from mountainous regions. If the pro- a greater extent. Nickel, copper and zinc all have alternative
cessing of minerals is located further from the mine or renewable hydrometallurgical routes to production, although in some cases
energy sites located elsewhere, these problems could likely be the ore characteristics may be unfavourable.
avoided e potentially at the expense of higher costs, higher emis- In iron and steel, charcoal from renewable biomass has been
sions from transport and loss of the convenient use of mining land. posited as a potential replacement fuel. It is estimated that up to
Ultimately, renewable energy has a very site-specific element to its 20% charcoal can readily be substituted for coke (Norgate and
development. Langberg, 2009), and perhaps all of the injected coal (maybe 40%
of total energy) can be substituted (Gielen and Moriguchi, 2002).
4.2. Thermal energy Ultimately, this means that perhaps up to 60% of the fuel energy
requirement for steel making may be substituted by charcoal e as
The thermal energy usage from fossil fuels in the production of long as there is enough charcoal produced, and therefore enough
steel and non-metallic minerals combined contributes to 70% of land area for biomass plantations. From assessments elsewhere, it
energy consumption and 66% of emissions (Tables 6and 7), and is would appear that there is sufficient biomass potential at minimum
thus of high importance. In the non-metallic minerals, significantly to supply the entire minerals industry, or at maximum to supply the
cement production, there is unlikely to be a limitation on the industry approximately 15e30 times over (Hoogwijk et al., 2003). If
substitution of fossil fuels with other sources of heat e as long as we compare the amount of land required under conservative
the required temperatures can be achieved. However, in the assumptions (at 10 t biomass/t charcoal; 10 t biomass/ha; 300 kg
production of steel using current large scale blast furnace tech- charcoal/t steel) with the amount of mined land worldwide, the
nology, it has been found to be difficult to entirely substitute for required land would be around 400 Mha, or approximately 1e2
non-coke fuels (Gielen and Moriguchi, 2002; Norgate and times the mined land. A significant contribution at least could
Langberg, 2009) (these authors give an excellent detailed analysis come from the remediation of post-mined land (Bungart and Hüttl,
and for more detail the reader is directed to these papers). Of the 2001). However, current production of charcoal is limited and if
only current wood waste was considered, only roughly 10% of the
global need from the steel industry could be provided (WEC, 2010).
Table 10 Biofuels at present are only low carbon emissions energy, rather
Contribution of electricity to minerals industry energy usage and emissions by sub- than carbon neutral, with estimates that up to approximately 85%
sector.
mitigation of emissions is possible by substituting current fuels
World data Total Energy as CO2 CO2 from with biofuels (Cuevas-Cubria, 2009). Competition for land and
energy GJ/t electricity % t CO2/t electricity % water with food production, and competition for biofuel products
of total of total
with other industries may make their use practically less feasible,
Iron and Steel 18.8 13% 1.9 20% but this is not considered in detail in this work.
Non-ferrous metals 60 61% 7 78%
Non-metallic minerals 3.3 12% 0.3 22%
Another way that emissions could be reduced is by a substitu-
tion of coal and oil products with natural gas. Assuming this to be
40 B.C. McLellan et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 32 (2012) 32e44

technically feasible, this would offer potential reductions of 32% of
current minerals industry emissions, but would require an addi-
tional 18% of the world’s gas production (a total of 23% of produc-
tion). Moreover, this is utilising a non-renewable resource.
Hydrogen has been examined elsewhere as a source of energy
for the minerals industry in Australia (McLellan, 2009). The
potential for utilising hydrogen for thermal energy substitution was
considered to be likely for mitigating oil and gas usage, but not for
metallurgical coal applications using current technology. On the
global scale hydrogen could be a useful energy substitute in the
minerals industry e especially for driving mechanical equipment.
The benefit of its application with renewable energy sources
producing the hydrogen e via electrolysis or from biomass e could
be reinforced through its benefit as an energy storage medium
(although hydrogen itself must be stored). The ability to produce it
from various local sources of energy is an advantage that may suit
remote applications such as mines.
The use of hydrogen in direct-contact combustion situations for
high temperature metallurgical applications should be considered
as a possibility. However, in conjunction with the thermal contri-
bution, the implications of hydrogen-metal chemical interactions
must be considered. For instance, hydrogen embrittlement of steel
is a serious concern for its transportation in pipelines. Design of
processes for its use in steel production would be required to
ensure that no weakening of steel would occur. Furthermore,
nickel, iron, manganese and magnesium are among the key metals
utilised as storage materials for hydrogen (although high temper-
atures tend to release the hydrogen from these compounds). If
appropriate processes utilising hydrogen as the heat source and
reductant are developed, the emissions from the thermal energy
component of minerals production could be mitigated.
4.3. Transportation
Some of the major mineral ore producing countries do not
process the ore to metal domestically, but export it. For some
countries, the emissions from the transportation of this ore can be
highly significant in terms of minerals industry emissions (Li et al.,
2011). The onsite or domestic processing of this ore could
contribute to reduction of CO2 emissions from transportation itself
and, if there is a domestic mix of lower carbon fuel and electricity
than the importing nations, there can be reduction in the pro-
cessing emissions. Estimates for these two emissions reduction
sources are made below.
Calculations using the production data for iron ore, steel,
bauxite, alumina and aluminium (USGS, 2010; OECD, 2010), and the
energy mix of countries involved in their production (IEA, 2010b),
as well as transport distance estimates (Fearn Research, 2005), can
be used to estimate the impact of onsite processing of minerals that
are currently shipped offshore (McLellan, 2011). If the exports of
iron ore were to be stopped, and instead the ore processed to steel
onsite, the savings in terms of emissions from transportation and

Table 11
Summary of electricity usage in the top 20 minerals producing countries and renewable electricity potential (Note: * indicates that data has not been reported; electrical energy
usage only shown (and only included in Total) for sectors in which the country is in the top 20 producers e others marked with x).

Country Minerals industry electricity usage (PJ/yr) (IEA, 2010b) Grid CO2 emissions Hydropower potential Ranking on Ranking
(IEA, 2010b) capacity (WEC, 2010) electricity on total
emissions electricity
Iron and Non-ferrous Non-metallic Total (g CO2-eq/kWh) PJ/yr Sufficiency (%)
reduction usage in
steel metals minerals
potential minerals
(Ang et al.,
2011)
Australia x 177 15 193 883 108 56% 5 8
Belgium 23 x x 23 249 e e 23
Brazil 99 141 30 269 89 2945 >100% 5
Canada 38 209 8 255 181 1930 >100% 6
Chile x e* e* e* 412 349 e
China 1330 904 706 2940 745 6311 >100% 1 1
France 44 x 41 85 83 252 >100% 14
Germany 102 62 46 211 441 72 34% 7
Iceland x 42 x 42 1 144 >100% 20
India e* e* e* e* 968 1591 e 3
Indonesia x e* e* e* 726 144 e 9
Iran e* x e* e* 582 180 e 10
Italy 78 x 50 128 398 173 >100% 11
Japan 227 x 82 309 436 490 >100% 4
Kazakhstan x 34 x 34 439 104 >100% 8 22
Korea 159 x x 159 459 68 43% 9
Mexico 30 3 21 54 440 119 >100% 17
Morocco x x 9 9 718 18 >100% 25
Norway x 83 x 83 5 742 >100% 15
Peru x e* x e* 225 936 e
Poland 24 11 15 50 653 25 51% 7 18
Russia 220 359 71 651 326 3067 >100% 4 3
Saudi Arabia x x 2 2 754 e e 26
South Africa 16 58 x 74 835 18 24% 6 16
Spain 63 41 46 150 326 133 89% 10
Turkey 58 x 32 90 495 504 >100% 13
Ukraine 105 x x 105 386 61 59% 12
United Kingdom 18 x 28 45 487 50 >100% 19
USA 287 293 152 732 535 1354 >100% 2 2
Venezuela x 41 x 41 203 360 >100% 21
Zambia x 14 x 14 3 72 500% 24
Other 135 45 x 180 516 e 0%
World 3372 2841 1548 7761 516 57,438 740%
 B.C. McLellan et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 32 (2012) 32e44 41

from change in fuel mix for processing are estimated to be equiv-
alent to 6% and 8% of iron and steel emissions respectively. If
bauxite were processed to aluminium in its country of origin, the
global processing emissions would likely increase in the order of
14% of the non-ferrous metals emissions from the change in energy
mixes, which would counteract the 20% of transportation emissions
that would be eliminated (2% of the non-ferrous metals emissions).
Altogether, the emissions change from this shift in processing for
steel and aluminium would result in an increase of the equivalent of
10% of current minerals industry emissions. For the production of
aluminium, the benefits would be more if aluminium smelting was
undertaken with renewable energy at just about any location in the
world (McLellan, 2011).
4.4. Renewable potential examined
The potential of renewable energy has been examined by many
authors, with some notable recent studies concluding that
renewable energy could be used to power all global needs e at least
in terms of the overall balance (Abbott, 2010; Delucchi and
Jacobson, 2011; Jacobson and Delucchi, 2011).
Table 11 shows the reported usage of electricity in the minerals
industry for the top producing nations, and the potential for new
hydropower capacity from the World Energy Council’s 2010 Survey
of Energy Resources (WEC, 2010) (economic potential in most
cases e technical potential if no economic potential given). In
comparison to minerals electricity demand, hydropower potential
is seen to be more than sufficient in many cases. Hydropower is
already widely used in aluminium smelting and is a relatively
cheap and constant form of renewable energy if the location is
appropriate. The table also shows that all of the top ten countries
with potential for reducing emissions from their electricity grid, as
ranked by other authors (Ang et al., 2011), are major mineral
producers.
Comparing the emissions rates per kWh of electricity supplied,
we can see that a number of countries have good renewable energy
potential or already have very low emissions rates e for example,
Brazil, Iceland and Norway due to their renewable energy and
France due to the high nuclear energy usage. These countries’
potential for expansion of use of renewables in minerals processing
may be less important than the possibility of expanding the pro-
cessing of minerals in these countries e that is, where possible and
where the potential of reduced emissions can be verified over the
life cycle, transportation of intermediate mineral products to these
countries may be an important step in reducing global carbon
dioxide emissions from metal production.
Table 12 focuses on the thermal energy usage in the minerals
industry’s top 20 producing nations for each sub-sector. The
potential for waste wood biomass conversion to charcoal and the
appropriateness of solar thermal applications was compiled to
examine these two key thermal energy substitutes. In major
minerals producing countries it was estimated that over 2000 PJ of
biomass fuel from wood waste and forestry production was avail-
able (WEC, 2010). This is roughly 11% of the requirement for the
iron and steel sector, meaning there would be a significant shortfall
unless production was ramped up or wood from other uses was

Table 12
Summary of thermal energy usage in the top 20 minerals producing countries and renewable energy potential (Note: * indicates that data has not been reported; thermal
energy usage only shown (and only included in Total) for sectors in which the country is in the top 20 producers).

Country Minerals industry thermal energy usage (PJ/yr) (IEA, 2010b) Charcoal capacity: wood waste Appropriateness Ranking on
(wood cropping) (WEC, 2010) for solar thermal total thermal
(WEC, 2010) energy usage
Iron and Non-ferrous Non-metallic Total Mt/yr Sufficiency (%)
in minerals
steel metals minerals
Australia x 225 95 320 2.5 11% Good-excellent 14
Belgium 112 x x 112 Not appropriate 21
Brazil 658 107 298 1063 0.36 (9) 0.4% (10%) Reasonable 6
Canada 183 37 7 227 3.6 8% Not appropriate 17
Chile x e* x e* Reasonable
China 10,266 680 5491 16,437 Reasonable 1
France 234 x 132 366 0.6 (1.6) 1% (4%) Not appropriate 12
Germany 549 36 235 820 Not appropriate 8
Iceland x 0 x 0 Not appropriate
India 1219 23 403 1646 Good 4
Indonesia x 8 219 227 Reasonable 18
Iran 30 x x 30 Excellent 24
Italy 224 x 284 508 Reasonable 10
Japan 1333 x 266 1599 0.04 0.01% Not appropriate 5
Kazakhstan x 16 x 16 0.0002 0.00% Reasonable 25
Korea 595 x x 595 0.01 0.00% Not appropriate 9
Mexico 212 8 169 389 14.5 3% Good-excellent 11
Morocco x x 30 30 Good 23
Norway x 4 x 4 Not appropriate 26
Peru x e* x e* 1.1 3% Reasonable
Poland 136 17 97 251 7.5 3% Not appropriate 16
Russia 1812 0 599 2411 4.3 0.2% Not appropriate 2
Saudi Arabia x x e* e* Excellent
South Africa 190 x x 190 11.2 4% Excellent 20
Spain 99 12 224 336 Good 13
Turkey 161 x 55 217 Good 19
Ukraine 836 x x 836 0.7 0.1% Not appropriate 7
United Kingdom 187 x 72 259 1.4 0.3% Not appropriate 15
USA 939 262 1011 2211 46.4 1.7% Reasonable 3
Venezuela x 32 x 32 2.5 Not appropriate 22
Zambia x 2 x 2 Good 27
Other 368 84 265 717 e e e
World 21,672 1797 11,558 35,027 e 11% e e
42 B.C. McLellan et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 32 (2012) 32e44

Table 13
Summary of renewable energy technologies, enablers and barriers for implementation in the minerals industry.

Energy strategy Potential for mitigation Enablers Barriers

of emissions (% of thermal
or electricity based emissions)
Thermal energy (71% of total minerals industry emissions)
Solar thermal Low (3 w 7%) Remote locations and large areas available Low throughput;
in countries where solar thermal is suitable Need for overnight shut down or fuel-boosting
Geothermal Low e Low temperature applications only
Biomass e charcoal Good (w65%) Utilisation of waste product; Land area for cropped biomass;
and biofuels Agricultural synergies or improved economics Availability and competition for food and water;
Suitability in technology e e.g. charcoal in steel
production
Hydrogen Moderate (w40%) Wide variety of renewable energy sources can be used; Water usage e scarcity in some mineral regions;
Can transform electrical energy into thermal e useful Minimal existing infrastructure;
for the renewable case in minerals Potential problems in processing;
Current cheapest routes to hydrogen are via fossil fuels
Electrical energy (29% of total minerals industry emissions)
Solar Low (w8%) Remote locations and large areas available in Dust interference in mining locations;
countries where solar thermal is suitable Instability needing back-up smoothing capacity or;
Wind Moderate Currently the largest expanding renewable source High wind power mostly coastal or in mountainous
regions e may not match the mine locations, but
perhaps the processing locations
Hydropower Good (w75%) Source of stable electricity supply; Environmental impacts of mining and hydropower
Minerals producing countries still have combined may be a project-killer
large hydropower capacity;
Some potential synergies of mine dewatering
and pumped-hydro storage of energy

directed to the manufacture of charcoal. Assuming that solar 5. Conclusions

thermal energy could be used to substitute for all thermal energy in
those countries where a “good” or “excellent” rating was applied,
the global potential would be equivalent to around 9% of the
minerals industry’s thermal energy usage. Apart from the issue of
throughput, the potential of solar energy may well be limited by the
ability to store thermal energy. High temperature applications
would not be able to store thermal energy for use overnight, in
which case the operation would either have to shut down or
substitute solar energy with standard fuel combustion (probably
the more likely case). In the case where fuel was utilised, this would
reduce the renewable proportion of the energy use to at best 30% e
or around 3% of the minerals industry’s thermal energy needs.
Disregarding any potential process problems with hydrogen, it
is feasible to assume that approximately 80e100% of all thermal
energy could be mitigated by hydrogen in the non-ferrous metals
sector, and perhaps 100% of coal in the non-metallic minerals and
mining, as well as all oil and gas across all sectors.
In Table 13 we examine some of the enablers and barriers for key
renewable energy sources in the minerals industry, along with
a broad estimate of potential. The potential has been estimated
from the information presented earlier on the technological and
locational potential of the selected renewables. From the table it is
apparent that there are some strong enablers and barriers for most
of the technologies. Biofuels and hydrogen present the best
opportunities for the thermal energy provision, while hydropower
and wind are the most attractive in electricity production.
One final but important note for discussion is that the non-
energy emissions of CO2 can be highly significant e especially in
the case of cement production. The chemical release of CO2 in
calcinations of limestone in the production of cement produces
approximately 0.53 t CO2/t cement (DCC, 2010). This correlates to
around 1500 Mt CO2 pa globally e more than the energy emissions
of the non-metallic minerals industry as a whole. A switch to
renewable energy would not mitigate this emission source e which
is one of the key reasons why cement alternatives and substitution
of supplementary cementitious materials are so important
(McLellan et al., 2011; O’Brien et al., 2009).
The contribution of the minerals industry is more than one third
of global industrial final energy usage e and with the inclusion of
coke oven and blast furnace energy consumption it is greater than
all other industry put together. Furthermore, the increasing
demand for minerals products makes it apparent that this industry
cannot be overlooked in the consideration of reducing global
carbon dioxide emissions from energy usage.
There are also peculiarities of the industry that give it an
important role in the choice and provision of energy services. In
particular, for remote locations where most mines are located,
a mining/energy combination can be useful in many situations. The
benefits of mines using locally-sourced renewable energy (perhaps
on post-mined land) can offer socio-economic benefits and non-
mining industrial growth opportunities for example (Corder et al.,
2012).
The split of energy usage across the minerals industry is 19%
from electricity and the remainder from thermal sources e of
which renewables and heat currently play a minor part (combined
approximately 3%). In terms of emissions, 29% arise from electricity
usage and 71% from fossil fuels.
Contributions to the energy and greenhouse gas emissions from
energy consumption are shown to be highest from iron and steel
(59% of energy, 55% of CO2) and non-metallic minerals (29% of
energy and 25% of CO2). With the additional CO2 emissions
chemically released in the production of cement bringing the CO2
emissions of non-metallic minerals up to a similar level as iron and
steel, this concentration of impacts on these two sectors justifies
the level of research into mitigation of these emissions. Mining and
quarrying and non-ferrous metal production contribute only 5e6%
and 10e12% of energy and emissions respectively. Furthermore, the
concentration of production in a number of countries (most notably
China, with the largest share in all categories) leads to the top 10
countries sharing >70% of production and >80% of energy and
emissions, while the top 20 countries share >80% of production and
>90% of energy and emissions. This fairly tight concentration of
production indicates that the potential to influence overall industry
 B.C. McLellan et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 32 (2012) 32e44
impacts through changing practice in a small number of countries
is quite high.
Substitution of the thermal energy component is a key element
that has a number of limitations e most significant of which are
the high temperature of heat provided, the high throughput
required, constant operation and technological or process
constraints. The potential for using biofuels as substitutes for oil
and gas is relatively unhindered however, in the case of charcoal
substitution for coke in the steel sector, a maximum of 60% is seen
as the limit due to current blast furnace technology. Hydrogen is
a useful energy carrier that can be used to transform electrical
energy in thermal energy, but its applicability in the steel and
non-ferrous metals sectors may be limited by its impact on final
product quality. Solar thermal is possibly only a low potential
option due to the unsuitability of many minerals producing
countries, the part-time operational requirements and the low
throughput.
Electricity usage is perhaps theoretically easier to substitute
with renewable energy sources. The hydropower potential of major
minerals producing nations may be one particularly promising
route to reducing emissions from electricity in the minerals
industry and providing the necessary stable electricity supply.
Wind power also has potential e although it may not be of greatest
benefit in locations where mines occur, but perhaps more favour-
able for areas where metals are processed.
References
ABARES, 2010. Australian Commodity Statistics. Australian Bureau of Agricultural
and Resource Economics and Sciences, Canberra.
Abbott, D., 2010. Keeping the energy debate clean: how do we supply the World’s
energy needs? Proceedings of the IEEE 98 (1), 42e66.
ACLUMP, 2009. Australian Land Use. Australian Government - Australian Collabo-
rative Land Use Mapping Programme, Canberra.
Allwood, J.M., Cullen, J.M., Milford, R.L., 2010. Options for achieving a 50% cut in
industrial carbon emissions by 2050. Environmental Science & Technology 44
(6), 1888e1894.
Ang, B.W., Zhou, P., Tay, L.P., 2011. Potential for reducing global carbon emissions
from electricity production e a benchmarking analysis. Energy Policy 39 (5),
2482e2489.
Azapagic, A., 2004. Developing a framework for sustainable development indicators
for the mining and minerals industry. Journal of Cleaner Production 12 (6),
639e662.
BGS, 2010. World Mineral Production 2004e2008. British Geological Survey, Key-
worth, Nottingham.
Bungart, R., Hüttl, R.F., 2001. Production of biomass for energy in post-mining
landscapes and nutrient dynamics. Biomass and Bioenergy 20 (3), 181e187.
Carton, J.G., Olabi, A.G., 2010. Wind/hydrogen hybrid systems: opportunity for
Ireland’s wind resource to provide consistent sustainable energy supply. Energy
35 (12), 4536e4544.
Corder, G.D., Giurco, D., McLellan, B.C., 2011. Exploring the case for alternative
energy technologies in the minerals industry. The AusIMM Bulletin: Journal of
the Australasian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy 4 (August), 47e48.
Corder, G.D., McLellan, B.C., Bangerter, P.J., van Beers, D., Green, S.R., 2012. Engi-
neering-in sustainability through the application of SUSOPÒ. Chemical Engi-
neering Research and Design 90 (1), 98e109.
Cuevas-Cubria, C., 2009. Assessing the environmental externalities from biofuels in
Australia. In: 53rd Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society
Conference. AARES, Cairns, Australia, p. Paper No. 47624.
DCC, 2010. National Greenhouse Accounts (NGA) Factors. Department of Climate
Change, Australian Government, Canberra.
de Beer, J., Worrell, E., Blok, K., 1998. Future technologies for energy-efficient iron
and steel making. Annual Review of Energy and the Environment 23 (1),
123e205.
Delucchi, M.A., Jacobson, M.Z., 2011. Providing all global energy with wind, water,
and solar power, Part II: reliability, system and transmission costs, and policies.
Energy Policy 39 (3), 1170e1190.
Fearn Research, 2005. Fearnley’s Annual Review 2004. FearnResearch, Oslo,
Norway, p. 92.
Gielen, D., Moriguchi, Y., 2002. CO2 in the iron and steel industry: an analysis of
Japanese emission reduction potentials. Energy Policy 30 (10), 849e863.
Giurco, D., Cooper, C., 2012. Mining and sustainability: asking the right questions.
Minerals Engineering.
Guerin, T.F., 2006. A survey of sustainable development initiatives in the Australian
mining and minerals industry. Minerals & Energy - Raw Materials Report 20
(3e4), 11e44.
43
Hilson, G., Murck, B., 2000. Sustainable development in the mining industry: clar-
ifying the corporate perspective. Resources Policy 26, 227e238.
Hoogwijk, M., Faaij, A., van den Broek, R., Berndes, G., Gielen, D., Turkenburg, W.,
2003. Exploration of the ranges of the global potential of biomass for energy.
Biomass and Bioenergy 25 (2), 119e133.
Hu, E., Yang, Y., Nishimura, A., Yilmaz, F., Kouzani, A., 2010. Solar thermal aided
power generation. Applied Energy 87 (9), 2881e2885.
IAI, 2007. Life Cycle Assessment of Aluminium: Inventory Data for the Primary
Aluminium Industry. International Aluminium Institute.
ICMM. 2010. Sustainable Development Framework. In: ICMM, (Ed.),. London:
International Council on Mining and Metals.
IEA, 2010a. CO2 Emissions from Fuel Combustion. International Energy Agency,
Paris, France, p. 512.
IEA, 2010b. Energy Balances of Non-OECD Countries. International Energy Agency,
Paris, France.
Jacobson, M.Z., Delucchi, M.A., 2011. Providing all global energy with wind, water,
and solar power, Part I: technologies, energy resources, quantities and areas of
infrastructure, and materials. Energy Policy 39 (3), 1154e1169.
Johansson, M.T., Söderström, M., 2011. Options for the Swedish steel industry e
Energy efficiency measures and fuel conversion. Energy 36 (1), 191e198.
Keikkala, G., Kask, A., Dahl, J., Malyshev, V., Kotomkin, V., 2007. Estimation of the
potential for reduced greenhouse gas emission in North-East Russia:
a comparison of energy use in mining, mineral processing and residential
heating in Kiruna and Kirovsk-Apatity. Energy Policy 35 (3), 1452e1463.
Krausmann, F., Fischer-Kowalski, M., Schandl, H., Eisenmenger, N., 2008. The global
sociometabolic transition. Journal of Industrial Ecology 12 (5e6), 637e656.
Krausmann, F., Gingrich, S., Eisenmenger, N., Erb, K.-H., Haberl, H., Fischer-
Kowalski, M., 2009. Growth in global materials use, GDP and population during
the 20th century. Ecological Economics 68 (10), 2696e2705.
Li, Y., Corder, G.D., McLellan, B.C., 2011. Transport in the minerals industry e
contributions to greenhouse gas emissions and potential for mitigation.
Minerals Engineering 24 (13), 1430e1439.
Lund, C., Higgins, M., Jahanshahi, S., Norgate, T.E., 2008. Energy Use and Greenhouse
Gas Emissions Issues Facing the Minerals Processing Industry. Co-operative
Research Centre for Sustainable Resource Processing, Perth.
Mason, L., Prior, T., Mudd, G., Giurco, D., 2011. Availability, addiction and alterna-
tives: three criteria for assessing the impact of peak minerals on society. Journal
of Cleaner Production 19 (9e10), 958e966.
McLellan, B.C., 2009. Potential opportunities and impacts of a hydrogen economy
for the Australian minerals industry. International Journal of Hydrogen Energy
34 (9), 3571e3577.
McLellan, B.C., 2011. Optimizing location of bulk metallic minerals processing based
on greenhouse gas avoidance. Minerals 1 (1), 144e156.
McLellan, B.C., Corder, G.D., Giurco, D., Green, S., 2009. Incorporating sustainable
development in the design of mineral processing operations e review and
analysis of current approaches. Journal of Cleaner Production 17 (16),
1414e1425.
McLellan, B.C., Williams, R.P., Lay, J., van Riessen, A., Corder, G.D., 2011. Costs and
carbon emissions for geopolymer pastes in comparison to ordinary portland
cement. Journal of Cleaner Production 19 (9e10), 1080e1090.
Memary, R., Giurco, D., Prior, T., Mason, L., Mudd, G., Peterseim, J., 2011. Clean
energy and mining e future synergies. In: Second International Future Mining
Conference 2011. The Australasian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy, Sydney,
pp. 217e226.
Mudd, G.M., 2007. The Sustainability of Mining in Australia: Key Production Trends
and Their Environmental Implications. Department of Civil Engineering, Mon-
ash University and Mineral Policy Institute, Melbourne.
Mudd, G.M., 2010. The Environmental sustainability of mining in Australia: key
mega-trends and looming constraints. Resources Policy 35 (2), 98e115.
Norgate, T., Haque, N., 2010. Energy and greenhouse gas impacts of mining and
mineral processing operations. Journal of Cleaner Production 18 (3),
266e274.
Norgate, T., Langberg, D., 2009. Environmental and economic aspects of charcoal
use in steel making. ISIJ International 49 (4), 587e595.
Norgate, T., Rankin, W., 2002. An environmental assessment of lead and zinc
production processes. In: Green Processing Conference. The Australiasian
Institute of Mining and Metallurgy, Cairns, Australia, pp. 177e184.
Norgate, T.E., Jahanshahi, S., Rankin, W.J., 2007. Assessing the environmental impact
of metal production processes. Journal of Cleaner Production 15 (8e9),
838e848.
OECD. 2010. The Iron and Steel Industry in 2009. December 2009. (Ed.),. Directorate
for Science, Technology and Industry, OECD.
Oggioni, G., Riccardi, R., Toninelli, R., 2011. Eco-efficiency of the world cement
industry: a data envelopment analysis. Energy Policy 39 (5), 2842e2854.
O’Brien, K., Ménaché, J., O’Moore, L., 2009. Impact of fly ash content and fly ash
transportation distance on embodied greenhouse gas emissions and water
consumption in concrete. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment.
Saidur, R., Rahim, N.A., Hasanuzzaman, M., 2010. A review on compressed-air
energy use and energy savings. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews
14 (4), 1135e1153.
Sarder, M., 2010. Remote mines e the case for wind power. The AusIMM Bulletin:
Journal of the Australasian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy 1 (February),
28e29.
Sherif, S.A., Barbir, F., Veziroglu, T.N., 2005. Wind energy and the hydrogen econ-
omyereview of the technology. Solar Energy 78 (5), 647e660.
44 B.C. McLellan et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 32 (2012) 32e44
United Nations, 2008. International Standard Industrial Classification of All
Economic Activities (ISIC). Rev. 4. United Nations, New York.
UNSTATS, 2010. Greenhouse Gas Emissions by Sector (Absolute Values). United
Nations Statistical Division, New York.
USGS, 2010. Mineral Commodity Summaries 2010. United States Geological Survey,
Washington.
van Beers, D., Corder, G.D., Bossilkov, A., van Berkel, R., 2007. Regional synergies in
the Australian minerals industry: case-studies and enabling tools. Minerals
Engineering 20, 830e841.
WEC, 2010. Survey of World Energy Resources. World Energy Council, London, UK,
p. 608.
Werder, M., Steinfeld, A., 2000. Life cycle assessment of the conventional and solar
thermal production of zinc and synthesis gas. Energy 25 (5), 395e409.
Worrell, E., Price, L., Martin, N., 2001a. Energy efficiency and carbon dioxide
emissions reduction opportunities in the US iron and steel sector. Energy 26 (5),
513e536.
Worrell, E., Price, L., Martin, N., Hendriks, C., Meida, L.O., 2001b. Carbon dioxide
emissions from the global cement industry. Annual Review of Energy and the
Environment 26 (1), 303e329.
Worrell, E., Bernstein, L., Roy, J., Price, L., Harnisch, J., 2009. Industrial
energy efficiency and climate change mitigation. Energy Efficiency 2 (2),
109e123.