Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 168 (2022) 112838

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews

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

Byproduct critical metal supply and demand and implications for the
energy transition: A case study of tellurium supply and CdTe PV demand
Brian A. McNulty a, *, Simon M. Jowitt a
a
Department of Geoscience, University of Nevada Las Vegas, 4505 Maryland Parkway, Las Vegas, NV 89154-4010, United States

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: The transition towards low-emission energy generation, storage and transport will require metal production
Byproduct critical metals beyond the already historically high production levels the minerals industry is achieving. This is problematic for
Material intensity several reasons, one being the fact that a majority of the metals required for these technologies are considered
Tellurium
critical and are currently supplied as low volume byproducts of other main commodities, such as Cu or Zn. The
CdTe PV
low volume and specialist nature of these byproduct metals means that economic drivers to optimize their re­
covery are absent, causing these important resources to be lost to mine waste. Thin-film cadmium-telluride
(CdTe) photovoltaics continue to be an emerging energy technology alternative to Si-based solar panels. How­
ever, the Cd and Te used to manufacture these panels are almost exclusively sourced as byproducts of either Zn or
Cu. This study presents new Te supply and demand scenarios for CdTe photovoltaics based on a new Te material
intensity value of 15.2 Mg/GW, outlining potential variations in demand as a result of the energy transition. We
also examine how market demand and downstream low-emissions energy generation can be used to drive
improved byproduct critical metal recovery from the Cu sector. This improved recovery of byproduct critical
metals could ultimately lead toward the more responsible use of finite non-renewable resources as well as
providing increased amounts of the raw materials for the power generation infrastructure required by the energy
transition.

1. Introduction
A key challenge facing the energy transition towards zero-CO2 en­
ergy generation, storage, and transport is securing a sustainable supply
of the raw materials necessary for the roll-out of low- and zero-emission
technologies [1]. The development and installation of renewable energy
generation capacity is a key part of this transition and renewable energy
generation capacity is accelerating rapidly on a global level. This is
exemplified by the increase in global installed photovoltaic (PV) power
generation capacity from 6.1 to 707.5 GW (or 25% of global renewable
energy generation capacity [2]) between 2006 and 2020 [3–6]. This
trend is almost certain to continue if not accelerate, with the Interna­
tional Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA) forecasting global PV instal­
lation capacity to reach 14,000 GW by 2050 [7]. This drive to increase
renewable energy generation capacity and develop new solar PV in­
stallations as part of the energy transition will require significant
quantities of raw materials [8], regardless of the specific PV technology
that is employed. Although some of these raw materials, such as steel
and aluminum, have secure supply chains and are not considered crit­
ical, the production of all PV technologies is reliant on the secure supply
of some critical metals [9].
Minor elements used in the manufacturing of PV cells, such as Cd, Ga,
In, Se and Te [10], are almost always produced as byproducts of primary
metal commodities [11] (Fig. 1). In addition, these minor elements do
not occur in significant and localized concentrations in the Earth’s crust
sufficient to overcome the mineralogical barrier [12], meaning that they
do not form economic mineral deposits and are therefore not mined as
main products. This means increasing their production is problematic,
including the fact that the mineral processing and metal extraction of
byproduct critical metals1 is difficult because, unlike main product
metals such as Cu, Ni, Fe or Au, they are present in concentrations in ores
that typically do not support production as sole products. This is
demonstrated by the fact that there are no mines solely focused on the
extraction of elements such as Te, Se or In (among others) anywhere in

Abbreviations: GW, gigawatt; h, hour; Mg, megagram (tonne); m, meter; GWh, gigawatt hour; yr, year; CdTe, cadmium-telluride; PV, photovoltaic; Te, tellurium.
* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: brian.mcnulty@unlv.edu (B.A. McNulty).
1
Note: critical metals include metals, semi-metals, minerals, and materials that are classified as critical.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2022.112838
Received 15 April 2022; Received in revised form 29 July 2022; Accepted 1 August 2022
Available online 12 August 2022
1364-0321/© 2022 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
B.A. McNulty and S.M. Jowitt
the world, with all of these metals being produced at the smelter or
refinery stage of metal production. One solution to the issues over the
security of supply of these byproducts is to optimize their recovery from
current mining-smelting-refining supply chains that already contain
significant but unrecovered amounts of these byproducts [13,14].
However, these byproducts often have small commodity markets
[15–17] that mean they lack the economic drivers that encourage their
recovery. This is exemplified by Co and Cd, both of which are considered
minor metal markets although Co is ~3 times more valuable than Cd
[18]. A result of the above mineral economics is that Co has a diversified
co- and by-product supply chain whereas all Cd production is as a
byproduct of Zn [17,19]. The production of minor, byproduct metals is
also often concentrated in one or two countries, enhancing already
significant potential supply risk and leading to numerous governments
and organizations to classify these metals as critical [20–22].
Tellurium exemplifies the potential supply chain challenges facing
the byproduct critical metals that are vital for the energy sector [23] as
barring two Au–Te mines in southwestern China and a Au–Ag–Te mine
in Sweden [26,27] the majority (~90%) of global production is as a
byproduct of electrolytic Cu refining; 60% of which is sourced from
China [18]. Of the three active non-Cu operations that recover Te, the
Kankberg Au–Ag–Te mine in Sweden is the only operation with code
compliant Te mineral resource and ore reserve estimates and produces
some 40–50 Mg/yr Te which contributes about 2% of the annual mine
revenue [27]. The complexity of the Te supply chain is further com­
pounded by the separation of refined Te processing from the mining of
ores that contain Te. This separation is demonstrated by Japan’s Cu
smelting-refining sector, which produced between 50 and 55 Mg of
byproduct Te in 2019 [18,28] from some 4,787,000 Mg of imported Cu
Fig. 1. A) The wheel of metal companionality for select base and precious metals [17,23] which shows the relationship between main commodities (the central part
of the wheel) and by- or coproduct metals and their percentage of production with select solar PV critical metals highlighted in red. B) Critical metals categorized by
their byproduct, coproduct and main product nature [24,25].
2
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 168 (2022) 112838
concentrates from Chile (46%), Peru (17%), Australia (10%), U.S. (8%),
Canada (7%), Papua New Guinea (5%) and others [29] within a country
that mined zero Te or Cu bearing ores in the same year.
The current market driver for Te demand is the manufacturing of
thin-film cadmium-telluride photovoltaics, or CdTe PV [30]. Although
crystalline silicon technologies account for ~90% of annual solar PV
installations globally [31], the global production of CdTe PV has
increased markedly in the past decade (Fig. 2) as result of its low cost,
ease of manufacturing, and the utilization of an optimal band gap for
light absorption [32]. As an outcome, CdTe PV production has grown to
more than 6 GW/yr [33] even though its share of global annual PV in­
stallations has been variable over time (Fig. 2) and exemplifies the un­
certainty over what power mix will eventuate and the raw materials
required to manufacture low-emissions energy technologies. The PV
sector currently accounts for some 40–60% of global Te consumption
[18,34]. In addition, new battery and nonvolatile computer memory
solutions [35,36] could also increase demand for Te in the near future as
well as decreasing the security of existing supply chains. This, combined
with the fact that current Te supply is proportional to refined Cu pro­
duction [14] has led several studies to indicate that Te supply could limit
the growth of the CdTe PV market [37–40]. However, like many energy
technologies, the Te material intensity of CdTe PV manufacturing has
generally decreased over time from 100 Mg/GW to 63 Mg/GW [41–43].
This means that more CdTe PVs can be manufactured with less Te, a
balance that needs to be considered when modeling future supply and
demand scenarios.
One key aspect to responsible and sustainable natural resource
management is the “smart” sourcing of raw materials. This would
include the recovery of raw materials that are present in significant
B.A. McNulty and S.M. Jowitt
Fig. 2. A) Summary of global Te production and proportion of estimated consumed Te in the manufacturing of CdTe PV shown as Mg/yr Te and GW/yr from CdTe
PV. B) Comparison of global installed PV power capacity to estimated annual power capacity from CdTe PV. See Supp. Info. for data sources.
quantities in current supply chains and associated materials flows [13,
44]. However, much of these potential critical metal supplies are
currently unrealized and as such are lost to mine/metallurgical waste
streams (e.g., Co in pyrite tailings [45]). To model future Te supply and
demand for CdTe PV by 2050 this study outlines a new Te material in­
tensity value in units of Mg/GW PV capacity. We also demonstrate that
the potential for increased Te demand could be met by increasing the
recovery of byproduct Te from the current Cu supply chain. The ap­
proaches outlined in this study have the potential to identify and
quantify new economic and other (e.g., policy and legislative) drivers
needed to prompt byproduct critical metal recovery to supply a portion
of the raw materials required for low-emissions energy generation and
storage solutions. The adaptation of approaches such as those outlined
in this study will improve our knowledge of critical metal supply chains.
This type of knowledge will further form the basis of improvements to
the supply of these critical metals and the sustainability of the minerals
industry by ensuring that the most is made of important but
non-renewable mineral resources.
2. Methods
2.1. Material intensity value
The Te intensity value for CdTe PV presented in this study was
calculated based on the specification of First Solar’s Series 6™ thin-film
CdTe PV panel [46]. The stoichiometric proportion of Te in the
CdTe-layer based on Te and Cd atomic masses is 0.553. The mass of a
CdTe-layer with a volume of 0.000002 m3 and density of 6200 kg/m3 is
0.0124 kg, of which Te comprises 0.0069 kg (EQ1). With a nominal
power output of 450 W per 1 m × 1 m panel, we estimate a Te intensity
value of 15.2 Mg/GW (EQ2).
Mass of Te in CdTe-layer (kg)
mass = l x w x h x ρ0.553 EQ1
where: l = length (m); w = width (m); h = thickness (m); ρ = density of
CdTe (kg/m3)
CdTe PV Te intensity value (Mg/GW)
intensity value (Mg/GW) = m / P EQ2
where: m = mass of Te in CdTe layer (Mg); P = nominal power output of
CdTe PV panel (GW).
3
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 168 (2022) 112838
2.2. CdTe PV power generation potential
In this paper we suggest that the solar power generation potential of
CdTe PV can be expressed in terms of GWh per Mg of Te to provide an
additional driver to enhance byproduct Te recovery. To calculate the
total GWh of power generation potential from 1 Mg Te worth of CdTe PV
the following inputs are required: A = power potential (GW) per 1 Mg
Te; B = CdTe PV panel power output efficiency (%); C = average annual
peak sun hours of the PV array location (h/yr); and D = CdTe PV panel
life span (yr). The power generation potential per 1 Mg of Te can be
calculated using the CdTe PV Te intensity value (EQ2). First Solar re­
ports a year-1 power output efficiency of 98% with an annual decrease
of 0.3% [46]. This is combined with data for Las Vegas and Ely, Nevada,
which have some 2,300 h/yr and 2,150 h/yr of peak sun hours,
respectively [47]. These two locations in the southwestern U.S. were
used because they are ideal for solar power generation and similar en­
vironments exist globally, such as the desert region of Western Australia.
We also used a typical CdTe PV life span of 27 years in our calculations
[9]. Finally we assumed a 75% efficiency of the estimated CdTe PV
power output and annual average peak sun hours to estimate the annual
and accumulated power generation output of 1 Mg of Te of CdTe PV over
a 27-year life span. Details for this analysis are presented in the Supp.
Info.
2.3. CdTe PV market growth scenarios
CdTe PV market growth scenarios include a static model of 16 GW/
yr; simple logistic function models (EQ3) that reach two different CdTe
PV manufacturing rates (K values of 25 GW/yr and 50 GW/yr), and a 5%
growth rate model of the power law regression growth scenario for
global installed PV by 2050 (Supp. Info.).
Simple logistic growth function curves
D(t) = K / 1+e− (β0+β1t)
EQ3
where: D = demand or byproduct recovery in any year (Mg); K =
saturation level or plateau (Mg/yr); t = time (yr); β0 & β1 = fitting
parameters (unit less)
2.4. Tellurium demand and supply scenarios
Tellurium demand scenarios use the above CdTe PV growth models
and a static Te intensity value of 15.2 Mg/GW. Current byproduct Te
recovery from Cu anode slimes is ~40% [39]. Byproduct Te supply
scenarios from the Cu smelting-refining sector were modeled based on a
simple logistic function (K value of 2,300 Mg/yr Te) and use byproduct
B.A. McNulty and S.M. Jowitt
Te recovery rates of 50% and 100%, respectively.
3. Results
As outlined above, this study presents a newly calculated CdTe PV Te
intensity value of 15.2 Mg/GW (Supp. Info.). The impact of the
improved Te intensity value over time is illustrated in Fig. 2A by the
increased separation between the estimated annual consumption of Te
and the CdTe PV annual power capacity output. An extrapolation of this
trend suggests that the amount of Te used to manufacture 1 GW of CdTe
PV panels decreases by about 8% a year, although this may slow over
time as the limits of materials research are approached. The new Te
intensity value of 15.2 Mg/GW can and should be used for future pre­
dictions of mineral and metal demand for the CdTe PV industry to assess
the viability of current and future mining and byproduct extraction to
sustain CdTe PV production.
It is also possible to model Te demand situations for CdTe PV by 2050
using the new Te intensity value presented in this study combined with
several annual CdTe PV growth scenarios (Fig. 3). These growth sce­
narios include a static model of 16 GW/yr (S1) based on scheduled CdTe
PV manufacturing capacity by 2023 [33]; simple logistic function
models that reach manufacturing rates of 25 GW/yr (S2) and 50 GW/yr
(S3); and a 5% CdTe PV sector compared to global PV installations [7]
by 2050 of the power law regression growth scenario (S4; Fig. 3A).
Although as outlined above Te intensity values for CdTe production will
likely decrease in the future, it is uncertain at what rate and, as a result,
the presented demand models use our new static intensity value of 15.2
Mg/GW (Fig. 3B). This analysis indicates that by 2050, annual Te de­
mand for CdTe PV alone could be between ~380 and ~760 Mg/yr
(Table 1), worth an estimated $27 to $53 million USD per annum. This
suggests significant market growth compared to the current Te market
for PV manufacturing of ~100 Mg/yr or $7 million USD per annum
(Fig. 2; $70.00 USD/kg Te). The demand forecasts outlined above
combined with the value of Te needed to meet these demands could be
the economic driver necessary to incite the minerals industry to opti­
mize the recovery of byproduct Te from existing Cu processing circuits.
In addition to the metal value of Te, the low-emissions energy added
value of this byproduct could also be used by government to encourage
its recovery. With the average life span for CdTe PV technology of 27
years [9] we estimate that 1 Mg of Te used to manufacture 0.064 GW of
CdTe PV panels could generate ~2,930 GWh of power over 27 years in
Las Vegas, Nevada or ~2,730 GWh in Ely, Nevada (Fig. 4). This
Fig. 3. A) CdTe PV growth scenarios (S1–S4) for this study. B) Tellurium demand scenarios based on a static CdTe PV Te intensity value of 15.2 Mg/GW. Note that
the shift in Te demand for CdTe PV manufacturing from 2018 to 2019 is a direct result of the improved CdTe PV Te intensity from 63 Mg/GW to 15.2 Mg/GW and not
a decrease in demand for CdTe PV production.
4
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 168 (2022) 112838
Table 1
Summary of annual CdTe PV Te demand scenarios (Mg/yr; rounded to nearest
ten).
Year S1 S2 S3 S4
2030 240 370 630 210
2040 240 380 750 420
2050 240 380 760 720
S1: static model at forecasted 2023 production level of 16 GW/yr.
S2: simple logistic function with growth leveling off at 25 GW/yr.
S3: simple logistic function with growth leveling off at 50 GW/yr.
S4: 5% of power regression model of global PV growth.
approach could have the added affect of cultivating sustainable resource
practices while simultaneously securing supply, providing templates for
similar approaches for other critical metals required for the energy
transition.
4. Discussion
Increasing the power-conversion efficiency of the panel as well as
decreasing the thickness of the CdTe-layer can reduce CdTe PV pro­
duction Te intensity values. This is demonstrated by the fact that labo­
ratory based power-conversion efficiency values for CdTe PV have
increased from 8% to 22.1% over the past ~50 years [38,48,49]. In
addition, decreasing the thickness of the CdTe-layer alone from 6 μm to
1 μm would result in a Te demand change of − 67% [38]. These tech­
nological innovations in CdTe PV manufacturing have led to rapid de­
creases in the Te intensity value from 100 Mg/GW [41] to 15.2 Mg/GW
(this study) over the past decade and illustrate the dynamic challenge in
forecasting future Te demand.
By 2024, First Solar, the world leader in CdTe PV production, is
scheduled to have a manufacturing capacity of 16 GW/yr [50]. This
means that reaching an annual worldwide CdTe PV installation rate of
25 GW/yr in the near future is certainly reasonable and is likely to
require ~380 Mg/yr Te. Reaching 50 GW/yr may be considered the
upper end of the current CdTe PV market, and would require ~760
Mg/yr Te. Importantly, CdTe PV represents some 40–60% of the current
global Te demand; however, additional demand for this commodity
from sectors such as the metallurgical and steel industries is less vari­
able, meaning that the proportion of Te demand (and hence total Te
demand despite decreases in the Te intensity value for CdTe PV pro­
duction) associated with CdTe PV will continue to increase over time
B.A. McNulty and S.M. Jowitt
[18]. Although the above scenarios present a wide range of values, a
conservative assessment of the models presented in this study indicates
that Te demand to meet CdTe PV production of more than double that of
the present day. This demand increase is also likely to affect all of the
byproduct metals associated with the energy transition that are used in
other technologies such as electric vehicles, wind turbines, and other
low- and zero-CO2 energy generation, storage, and transport, consistent
with other predictions [51]. The scenarios outlined above for Te
therefore also highlight the need for assessing future demand (and
associated uncertainty) for all other byproduct critical metals. Our
modeled scenarios also indicate the need to ensure that the byproducts
occurring in existing mining supply chains that are lost to waste are
recovered as much as possible, improving one aspect of sustainability of
the minerals industry.
It is also important to note that the quantification of Te resources and
the identification of new supply streams require data that currently do
not exist within the public sphere because, unlike main commodities
such as Cu, Pb, Zn, Ni, Au, Ag, Pt and Pd, mining operations do not
routinely collect Te and other byproduct critical metal information [21].
All of the main product metals listed in the previous sentence have Te
byproduct potential because they can be geologically related in mineral
deposits in the form of Te-bearing sulfides or as other telluride minerals
5
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 168 (2022) 112838
Fig. 4. A) Peak sun hours map of Nevada showing
the locations of Las Vegas and Ely [47]. A peak sun
hour is defined as an hour of sunlight that reaches an
average of 1000 W/m2 and is a measure of the in­
tensity of sunlight. B) Example of the potential,
low-emissions power generation output from 1 Mg Te
used to manufacture CdTe PV panels. Note this esti­
mate takes into account degradation of the PV unit
over time (dashed lines) and uses annual peak sun
hour values of 2,335 h/yr and 2,178 h/yr for Las
Vegas and Ely Nevada, respectively.
[26]. Although, in some cases, there is strong geological evidence for
byproduct Te potential in a number of different mineral deposit types a
lack of Te deportment data means that a potentially very large amount of
byproduct Te is unrealized and likely lost to waste [52,53].
Unrealized byproduct Te supply is exemplified by the fact that Cu
anode slimes, a byproduct of refining Cu cathode, from just a third of Cu
smelters worldwide contains >770 Mg Te, with this value being pro­
duced year-on-year [14]. This significant potential (especially if
extrapolated to some 2,300 Mg/yr Te potential for the entire Cu
smelting industry) contrasts with the current Te production rate of only
440 Mg in 2020 from byproducts produced by the Cu smelting-refining
industry [18]. The above unrealized Te resources within the Cu supply
chain could meet or even exceed a significant proportion of projected Te
demand for CdTe PV manufacturing (Fig. 5). Here we present three Te
supply scenarios using past global production data [28] and a simple
logistic function with a plateau of 2,300 Mg/yr Te, representing a
theoretical production maximum from the Cu sector alone (Supp. Info.).
Tellurium supply and CdTe PV demand scenario one (SD1; Fig. 5A)
assumes no change in annual Te production produced from Cu
byproducts in 2020, some 440 Mg Te [18]. In contrast, SD2-3
(Fig. 5B–C) assume that 50% (SD2) and 100% (SD3) of the byproduct
Te supply potential in the Cu sector is produced each year at a modeled
B.A. McNulty and S.M. Jowitt Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 168 (2022) 112838

Fig. 5. Tellurium supply and demand scenarios for CdTe PV manufacturing. A) Static Te supply and demand scenario based on current annual byproduct tellurium
supply from the copper sector only (SD1), ~440 Mg/yr. B) Simple logistic function byproduct Te supply and demand scenario that assumes 50% recovery of
byproduct Te potential in the Cu sector (SD2). C) Simple logistic function that assumes 100% recovery of byproduct Te potential in the Cu sector (SD3). Byproduct Te
supply potential from Cu smelting and refining based on historic production data from the British Geological Survey and a simple logistic function where K = 2,300
Mg Te; β0 = 0.14. Note that the red arrows denote predicted supply gap and recovery conditions, see text for discussion.

growth rate from a simple logistic function (Supp. Info.). This analysis
demonstrates a number of possible supply gap conditions based on four
different CdTe PV growth models and a 40% annual Te demand for CdTe
PV manufacturing (Fig. 5). Depending on the CdTe PV growth model,
supply gap conditions are predicted to occur as soon as 2022–2023 or
not until 2027, if no improvement is made to increase byproduct Te
recovery from the Cu sector (Fig. 5A). In contrast, although SD2 also
predicts Te supply gap conditions (years 2022 and 2040), this model
also indicates Te supply recovery conditions will occur at about 2027
and 2037, depending on the CdTe PV growth model (Fig. 5B). This
byproduct Te supply and CdTe PV demand model demonstrates how
incremental improvements in the recovery of Te from Cu byproducts
could theoretically keep pace with or recover and maintain supply for
the predicted Te demand as the CdTe PV market grows. Achieving 100%
recovery of byproduct Te potential from the Cu sector is unlikely due to
metallurgical challenges [54]. However, SD3 illustrates the potential
impact that improving byproduct Te recovery from the Cu sector could
have on securing Te supply (Fig. 5C). This model only predicts one
byproduct Te supply gap condition for the most aggressive CdTe PV
growth model at ~2027 with Te supply recovering by ~2035. All of this
suggests that future Te demand for CdTe PV manufacturing can be met
by improving byproduct Te recovery from the Cu smelting and refining
industry. These models also discount the potential for Te extraction from
other sectors of the minerals industry, with a variety of other deposits
known to host but not produce significant amounts of Te [53,55].
4.1. Pathways towards securing tellurium supply
Recent progress in expanding Cu byproduct Te supply is demon­
strated by Rio Tinto, who recently invested $2.9 million USD to install a
20 Mg/yr byproduct Te recovery circuit at its Kennecott Plant, which
processes Cu–Mo–Au concentrates from the Bingham Canyon mine, USA
[56]. This new Te supply stream will increase global production by ~4%
and is by no means the only example of a Cu mine with potential to
supply byproduct Te [14]. Assuming that the scheduled byproduct Te
production is realized and is used to manufacture CdTe PV, approxi­
mately 585,440 GWh of low-emissions power could be generated over a
36-year period from the scheduled recovery of 200 Mg Te over the next
10 years (Supp. Info.). Blockchain analysis, a materials tracking method
that could potentially increase byproduct critical metal recovery [57],
could also be used to develop critical metal production- and
sustainability-favoring policy such as tax credits to incite the mineral
industry to recover these important byproducts at an initial net zero or
minor loss rather than losing these critical metals to mine/metallurgical
waste.
In addition to unrealized Cu byproduct Te supply, there are several
other base (Ni, Pb, Zn) and precious (Au, Ag, and PGE) metal supply
chains that have potential for recoverable byproduct critical metals.
Previous research based on content proxies calculated from publicly
available chemical and mineralogical data determined that 64 active Au
mines worldwide could contain over 165,000 Mg Te, representing 300
years worth of current global Te production [52]. In addition to Au
mines, tellurides (Te-bearing minerals) are present in many Ni–Cu-PGE
magmatic sulfide deposits such as the Lac des Iles mine, Canada [58] and
Zn–Pb and Zn–Cu rich volcanogenic massive sulfide deposits such as the
Lalor mine, Canada [59] and the Greens Creek mine, USA [60] also have
elevated concentrations of Te. All of these deposits demonstrate that
significant but unrealized byproduct Te supply opportunities that exist
within current base and precious metal supply chains. This finding is
also not just restricted to Te, but is equally applicable to a range of other
byproduct critical metals. These other byproduct critical metals include
elements such as In and Ge, which are both predominantly obtained as
byproducts of Zn production, Re, Se, and Mo, which are often byprod­
ucts of Cu mining, and Bi, Th, and Sb, all of which are frequently pro­
duced as byproducts of Pb mining [17,21,23]. These co-dependencies
are also often associated with low recoveries of these byproduct metals
[17], indicating that significant amounts of these byproduct critical
metals are mined, processed and transported during main metal pro­
duction, but are lost to waste rather than being recovered [14].
There are two main reasons for this unrealized Te and other
byproduct critical metal supply potential. The first of these is that minor
metals do not conform to traditional supply and demand mineral eco­
nomics [15,16,61,62]. These metals often have relatively small, opaque,
and thinly traded markets compared to bulk commodities such as Fe-ore
or base metals such as Cu [16]. These market structures make these
commodities risky and unattractive to mid-tier and major mining

6
B.A. McNulty and S.M. Jowitt
companies. Equally importantly, the opacity of the markets for these
commodities makes quantifying their value somewhat more difficult
than more openly traded metals such as Cu. All of this has led to a
perception that these byproduct metals have low economic values
relative to their main commodity counterparts in a given mineral de­
posit. This absence of a traditional economic driver to promote the re­
covery of byproduct Te (and other byproduct critical metals) combined
with the perceived (but perhaps not actual) difficulties in understanding
byproduct critical metal markets means that most of this material is
ignored and is thus lost to waste across the mining-smelting-refining
supply chains. The potential Te demand scenarios presented in this
study, if realized, could transform the Te market, a situation that could
also be applied to numerous other byproduct critical metals. However,
governments could also expedite this transformation by providing tax
credits to industry that recover byproduct critical metals that are used in
the manufacturing of low-emission energy generation, storage and
transport technologies; akin to carbon credit tax credit legislation [63].
Current resource extraction research is also focused on optimizing
current mining processes and materials to provide value-add opportu­
nities while simultaneously addressing key environmental challenges in
the mining industry. This type of approach requires collaboration among
multiple disciplines and agencies. One instance of this is adding value
from otherwise non-valuable mined materials such as carbon seques­
tration in ultramafic mine tailings [64], a clear example of impactful,
applied research through collaborative studies with industry, govern­
ment and academia. The above research focuses on trapping CO2 in the
form of magnesium carbonate minerals that form as a weathering
product of magnesium silicate minerals often found in tailings produced
from some Ni, Pt and diamond mines [65]. The potential impact from
optimizing this natural reaction is to offset all the CO2 emissions asso­
ciated with the mining of these types of deposits and thus leading to
more sustainable mining practices. Traditional mining for many of the
raw materials needed for low emission energy solutions (e.g, Te, Se, In)
is difficult because unlike Cu or Ni, they are present in sulfide ores at
trace concentrations (<0.01%) that do not produce smelter payable
byproducts and thus are not routinely characterized in ores by the
mining industry [66]. The probable increase in demand for byproduct
critical metals, such as Te, presents a collaborative research opportunity
to improve sustainable mining practices through the optimization of
minor metal recovery from primary metal extraction byproducts. Recent
research has focused on extracting metals from historic tailings [67], but
more research is needed on the extraction of metals from active mine
streams to secure sustainable supply for raw materials vital for the en­
ergy transition.
5. Conclusions
This contribution demonstrates how the recovery of byproducts,
which are vital for low-emissions energy technologies, can lead to more
effective mineral resource management. By prioritizing the recovery of
Cu byproducts, like Te, more raw materials per Mg of mined material
can be recovered. In addition, by integrating raw material intensities
with supply the sustainable downstream value of recovered byproducts
can be quantified. In this case, the low-emissions power generation ca­
pacity over the life of CdTe PV can be related to the amount of Te used in
manufacturing. We estimate that 1 Mg Te used to manufacture CdTe PV
to be installed near Las Vegas, Nevada, USA, would produce some 2,900
GWh of low-emissions power over 27 years. The sustainability value-
add, if considered by governments in the form of tax-credits, in addi­
tion to the raw material value could be used to encourage the minerals
industry to invest in advancing byproduct critical metal recovery. This
could ultimately result in both sustainable natural resource management
and energy generation for the future.
7
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 168 (2022) 112838
Funding
This research did not receive any specific grant from funding
agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.
Author contribution
Conceptualization: SMJ; Methodology: BAM; Investigation: BAM,
SMJ; Writing – original draft: BAM, SMJ; Writing – revised draft: BAM,
SMJ.
Declaration of competing interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
the work reported in this paper.
Data availability
Data will be made available on request.
Acknowledgements
We thank three anonymous reviewers for constructive comments
that improved the quality of our manuscript and Martin Schiemann for
efficient editorial handling.
Appendix A. Supplementary data
Supplementary data to this article can be found online at https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.rser.2022.112838.
References
[1] Lee J, Bazilian M, Sovacool B, Hund K, Jowitt SM, Nguyen TP, et al. Reviewing the
material and metal security of low-carbon energy transitions. Renew Sustain
Energy Rev 2020;124:109789. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2020.109789.
[2] International Energy Agency. Electricity market report – December 2020. 2020:
1–103. [www.iea.org].
[3] International Renewable Energy Agency. Renewable energy capacity statistics
2015, vols. 1–44; 2015, ISBN 978-35-2740-857-3. Report.
[4] International Renewable Energy Agency. Renewable capacity statistics 2017, vols.
1–60; 2017, ISBN 978-92-9260-018-1. Report.
[5] International Renewable Energy Agency. Renewable capacity statistics 2020, vols.
1–66; 2020, ISBN 978-92-9260-239-0. Report.
[6] International Renewable Energy Agency. Renewable capacity statistic 2021, vols.
1–64; 2021, ISBN 978-92-9511-190-5. Report.
[7] International Renewable Energy Agency. World energy transitions outlook 1.5C
pathway, vols. 1–54; 2021, ISBN 978-92-9260-334-2. Report.
[8] Drexhage JR, Arrobas DLP, Hund KL, McCormick MS, Jagabanta N. The growing
role of minerals and metals for a low carbon future. World Bank Group; 2017.
p. 1–112. https://doi.org/10.1596/28312. Report.
[9] Liang Y, Tukker A, Voet E Van Der. Material requirements for low-carbon energy
technologies: a quantitative review. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2022;161:112334.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2022.112334.
[10] Carrara S, Alves Dias P, Plazzotta B, Pavel C. Raw materials demand for wind and
solar PV technologies in the transition towards a decarbonized energy system. Eur
Commiss Rep 2020:1–67. https://doi.org/10.2760/160859.
[11] Jowitt SM, McNulty BA. Battery and energy metals: future drivers of the minerals
industry? SEG Discov 2021;127:11–8. https://doi.org/10.5382/2021-127.fea-01.
[12] Skinner BJ. A second iron age ahead? In: Trudinger PA, Swaine DJ, editors. Studies
in environmental science. Elsevier; 1976. p. 559–74. 10.1016?S0166-1116(018)
71071-9.
[13] Moats M, Alagha L, Awuah-Offei K. Towards resilient and sustainable supply of
critical elements from the copper supply chain: a review. J Clean Prod 2021;307:
1–15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.127207.
[14] McNulty BA, Jowitt SM, Belousov I. The importance of geology in assessing by- and
coproduct metal supply potential: a case study of antimony, bismuth, selenium and
tellurium within the copper production stream. Econ Geol 2022;117:1367–85.
https://doi.org/10.5382/econgeo.4919.
[15] Redlinger M, Eggert R. Volatility of by-product metal and mineral prices. Resour
Pol 2016;47:69–77. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resourpol.2015.12.002.
[16] Sykes JP, Wright JP, Trench A. Discovery, supply and demand: from metals of
antiquity to critical metals. B Appl Earth Sci 2016;125:3–20. https://doi.org/
10.1080/03717453.2015.1122274.
B.A. McNulty and S.M. Jowitt
[17] Nassar NT, Graedel TE, Harper EM. By-product metals are technologically essential
but have problematic supply. Sci Adv 2015;1:1–10. https://doi.org/10.1126/
sciadv.1400180.
[18] U.S. Geological Survey. Mineral commodity summaries, 2021; 2021. p. 1–204.
https://doi.org/10.3133/mcs2021.
[19] van den Brink S, Kleijn R, Sprecher B, Tukker A. Identifying supply risks by
mapping the cobalt supply chain. Resour Conserv Recycl 2020;156:104743.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2020.104743.
[20] Mudd G, Werner T, Weng Z, Yellishetty M, Yaun Y, McAlpine S, et al. Critical
minerals in Australia: a review of opportunities and research needs. Geosci Austral
Rep 2018;51:1–58. https://doi.org/10.11636/Record.2018.051.
[21] McNulty BA, Jowitt SM. Barriers to and uncertainties in understanding and
quantifying global critical mineral and element supply. iScience 2021;24:102809.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.isci.2021.102809.
[22] Hayes SM, McCullough EA. Critical minerals: a review of elemental trends in
comprehensive criticality studies. Resour Pol 2018;59:192–9. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.resourpol.2018.06.015.
[23] Jowitt SM, Mudd GM, Werner TT, Weng Z, Barkoff DW, McCaffrey D. The critical
metals: an overview and opportunities and concerns for the future. SEG Spec. Publ.
no. 21 Soc Econom Geol 2018:25–38. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.isci.2021.102809.
[24] Huston D. Critical minerals in ores: towards an understanding of critical mineral
abundances in mineral deposits. 2021. www.youtube.com/watch?
app=desktop&v=7btJ3rGc29Q; 2021.
[25] Department of Interior and U.S. Geological Survey. Final list of critical minerals.
Fed Regist 2022;87:10381–2. https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2022-02-
24/pdf/2022-04027.pdf. 2022.
[26] Goldfarb RJ, Berger BR, George MW. Seal II RR. Tellurium. In: Chapter of Schulz R
KJ, DeYoung Jr JH, Seal II RR, Bradley DC, editors. Critical mineral resources of
the United States - economic and environmental geology and prospects for future
supply; 2017. R1–27. https://doi.org/10.3133/pp/1802R. U.S. Geological Survey
Professional Paper 1802.
[27] Voigt B, Bradley J. Boliden summary report resources and reserves 2020 Kankberg
– Åkulla Östra. Indus Rep 2020:1–63. https://www.boliden.com/globalassets
/operations/exploration/mineral-resources-and-mineral-reserves-pdf/2020/reso
urces-and-reserves-kankberg-2020-12-31.pdf.
[28] British Geological Survey. World mineral statistics data. 2021. https://www2.bgs.
ac.uk/mineralsuk/statistics/wms.cfc?method=searchWMS. accessed January 20,
2001.
[29] World Integrated Trade Solutions. Copper ores and concentrates imports by
country in 2019. Webpage 2022. https://wits.worldbank.org/trade/comtrade/en/
country/ALL/year/2019/tradeflow/Imports/partner/WLD/product/260300.
[30] Copley M. First Solar’s growth plans hinge on opaque market for tellurium. S&P
Glob Mark Intell; 2021. https://www.spglobal.com/marketintelligence/en
/news-insights/latest-news-headlines/first-solar-s-growth-plans-hinge-on-opa
que-market-for-tellurium-68010925.
[31] Fraunhofer institute for solar energy systems. Photovoltaics report. Freiburg 2022;
1–52. https://www.ise.fraunhofer.de/en/publications/studies/photovoltaics-re
port.html.
[32] Romeo A, Artegiani E. CdTe-based thin film solar cells: past, present and future.
Energies 2021;14:1–24. https://doi.org/10.3390/en14061684.
[33] First Solar. Annual Report 2020. 2021. p. 1–158. Industry report.
[34] Nassar NT, Kim H, Frenzel M, Moats MS, Hayes SM. Global tellurium supply
potential from electrolytic copper refining. Resour Conserv Recycl 2022;184:
106434. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2022.106434.
[35] McCutcheon B. First Tellurium (CSE:FTEL) extends Lithium-ion battery life by 400
per cent. 2022. Mark Her.
[36] Calarco R, Arciprete F. Keep it simple and switch to pure tellurium. Science 2021;
374:1321–2. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.abm7316.
[37] Andersson BA, Azar C, Holmberg J, Karlsson S. Material constraints for thin-film
solar cells. Energy 1998;23:407–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0360-5442(97)
00102-3.
[38] Bustamante ML, Gaustad G. Challenges in assessment of clean energy supply-
chains based on byproduct minerals: a case study of tellurium use in thin film
photovoltaics. Appl Energy 2014;123:397–414. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
apenergy.2014.01.065.
[39] Fthenakis V, Athias C, Blumenthal A, Kulur A, Magliozzo J, Ng D. Sustainability
evaluation of CdTe PV: an update. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2020;123:109776.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2020.109776.
[40] Fthenakis V, Wang W, Kim HC. Life cycle inventory analysis of the production of
metals used in photovoltaics. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2009;13:493–517.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2007.11.012.
[41] Zweibel K. The impact of tellurium supply on cadmium telluride photovoltaics.
Science 2010;328:699–701. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.ll89690.
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 168 (2022) 112838
[42] Marwede M, Reller A. Future recycling flows of tellurium from cadmium telluride
photovoltaic waste. Resour Conserv Recycl 2012;69:35–49. https://doi.org/
10.1126/science.ll89690.
[43] Redlinger M, Eggert R, Woodhouse M. Evaluating the availability of gallium,
indium, and tellurium from recycled photovoltaic modules. Sol Energy Mater Sol
Cells 2015;138:58–71. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.solmat.2015.02.027.
[44] Werner TT, Mudd GM, Jowitt SM. The world’s by-product and critical metal
resources part III: a global assessment of indium. Ore Geol Rev 2017;86:939–56.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oregeorev.2017.01.015.
[45] Parbhakar-Fox A, Glen J, Raimondo B. A geometallurgical approach to tailings
management: an example from the savage river fe-ore mine, western Tasmania.
Minerals 2018;8:1–23. https://doi.org/10.3390/MIN8100454.
[46] First Solar. First Solar Series 6TM advanced thin film solar technology datasheet.
Indus Rep 2020;1–3.
[47] Unboundsolar sun hours map: How many sun hours do you get?. https://unboun
dsolar.com/solar-information/sun-hours-us-map; 2022.
[48] Enzenroth RA, Barth KL, Sampath WS, Manivannan V. Performance of in-line
manufactured CdTe thin film photovoltaic devices. J Sol Energy Eng 2007;129:
327–30. https://doi.org/10.1115/1.2742393.
[49] Solar Energy Technologies Office. Cadmium telluride. Webpage; 2021. htt
ps://www.energy.gov/eere/solar/cadmium-telluride.
[50] First Solar. First Solar intends to expand global manufacturing footprint with new
3.3 GW facility in India. Globe Newswire; 2021. https://investor.firstsolar.com/ne
ws/press-release-details/2021/First-Solar-Intends-to-Expand-Global-Manufacturin
g-Footprint-with-New-3.3-GW-Facility-in-India/default.aspx.
[51] Hund K, La Porta D, Fabregas TP, Laing T, Drexhage J. Minerals for climate action:
the mineral intensity of the clean energy transition. World Bank Group Report;
2020. p. 1–110. http://pubdocs.worldbank.org/en/961711588875536384/Miner
als-for-Climate-Action-The-Mineral-Intensity-of-the-Clean-Energy-Transition.pdf.
[52] McNulty BA, Jowitt SM. Gold-telluride ore deposits: tellurium mineral economics,
resource assessment, and potential value add. In: Society of economic geology 100
conference. Whistler; 2021.
[53] McNulty BA, Jowitt SM. Exploration for byproduct critical element resources:
proxy development using a LA–ICP–MS database. Front Earth Sci 2022;10:1–10.
https://doi.org/10.3389/feart.2022.892941.
[54] Bäckström J. Copper, nickel and tellurium yields during leaching of anode slime.
MSc Thesis. Luleå University of Technology; 2010. p. 1–105.
[55] Keith M, Smith DJ, Jenkin GRT, Holwell DA, Dye MD. A review of Te and Se
systematics in hydrothermal pyrite from precious metal deposits: insights into ore-
forming processes. Ore Geol Rev 2018;96:269–82. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
oregeorev.2017.07.023.
[56] Tinto Rio. Rio Tinto to build new tellurium plant at Kennecott mine. 2021. http
s://riotintokennecott.com/coppercurrents/rio-tinto-to-build-new-tellurium-plant
-at-kennecott-mine/.
[57] Nofer M, Gomber P, Hinz O, Schiereck D. Blockchain. Bus Inf Syst Eng 2017;59:
183–7. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12599-017-0467-3.
[58] Buss B, Roney C, Peck D, Decharte D, Marrs G, Canosa J, et al. NI 43-101 Technical
Report: feasibility study incorporating the life of mine plan for Lac des Iles Mine.
Indus Rep 2017;1–925.
[59] Duff S. Ore types of the auriferous Lalor VMS deposit, Snow Lake, Manitoba:
implications for genesis and post depositional processes. MSc Thesis. University of
Ottawa; 2016. p. 1–133.
[60] Granitto M, Emsbo P, Hofstra AH, Orkild-Norton AR, Bennett MM, Azain JS, et al.
Global geochemical database for critical minerals in archived mine samples. U.S.
Geological Survey data release; 2020. https://doi.org/10.5066/P9Z3XL65.
[61] Slade M. Market structure, marketing method, and price instability. Q J Econ 1991;
106:1309–40.
[62] Humphreys D. Pricing and trading in metals and minerals. In: SME mining
engineering handbook. Society of Mining, Metallurgy, and Exploration; 2011.
p. 49–64.
[63] Jowitt SM. US and Canadian critical metals and minerals policymaking;
implications for supply chain strengthening through joint action plans in Mining
Law: opportunities and Challenges in the 21st Century. 1 to 2–18. Westminster,
CO, USA: Rocky Mountain Mineral Law Foundation; 2021. p. 2.
[64] Keating C. Tailings to the rescue. CIM Mag; 2018. https://magazine.cim.org/en/en
vironment/tailings-to-the-rescue-en/.
[65] Harrison AL, Power IM, Dipple GM. Accelerated carbonation of brucite in mine
tailings for carbon sequestration. Environ Sci Technol 2013;47:126–34. https://
doi.org/10.1021/es3012854.
[66] Jowitt SM, McNulty BA. Mineral resources and reserves: their estimation, use, and
abuse. SEG Discov 2021;125:27–36. https://doi.org/10.5382/Geo-and-Mining-11.
[67] Whitworth AJ, Forbes E, Verster I, Jokovic V, Awatey B, Parbhakar-Fox A. Review
on advances in mineral processing technologies suitable for critical metal recovery
from mining and processing wastes. Clean Eng Technol 2022;7:100451. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.clet.2022.100451.