🌱 How much funding is there?
The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) has considerably expanded its funding of critical minerals projects over the past few years. Since January 2021, the DOE’s Office of Fossil Energy and Carbon Management (FECM) has spent $171m on “supporting critical minerals exploration, production, and processing, particularly in traditional mining and energy-producing regions”. Through the “Critical Material Innovation, Efficiency, and Alternatives” initiative, the DOE will now provide up to $150m in additional funding to critical mineral projects. The initiative is being funded by the U.S. Bipartisan Infrastructure Law.
🌱 What is being funded?
The DOE has announced that it will be giving out $5.5m in funding for six initial projects. This funding is being given out to develop alternative energy technologies, which are “focused on advancing sustainable and cost-effective processes to produce and refine critical minerals and materials domestically”. In this initial round, the DOE is funding projects by CorePower Magnetics, Giner Inc., Ohio University, Semplastics, the University of Tennessee, and Worcester Polytechnic.
🌱 What are the funded projects about?
The project by CorePower Magnetics will “develop and prototype a high-performance electric motor that eliminates the need for rare earth elements”. It will evaluate the performance and production readiness of different permanent magnet technologies that do not require rare earth elements. The project by Giner Inc. aims “to develop lower-cost rechargeable batteries for electric vehicles, using domestically available materials such as manganese, iron, titanium, and magnesium, reducing dependence on critical elements like copper and nickel”. The project at Ohio University aims to make “coal-derived hard carbon anodes for a next-generation sodium-ion battery, offering a lower-cost alternative to lithium-ion batteries that require critical minerals sourced primarily from outside the US”. The project by Semplastics explores “low-cost coal feedstocks” with the aim “to develop an alternative anode active material that can serve as a graphite substitute in lithium-ion batteries, improving the domestic availability of key components for grid storage batteries”. The project at the University of Tennessee looks to create “a rechargeable alkaline-manganese dioxide battery, focusing on environmentally friendly electrolytes and US-sourced materials as an alternative to lithium-ion technology”. The project at Worcester Polytechnic is looking into finding “a process to convert pure or mixed nickel-lean polycrystal cathode materials into nickel-rich single crystal cathode materials for advanced battery applications”.
🌱 What are the geopolitical objectives?
Overall, the hope of the DOE is to use “domestic resources to meet th[e] demand and strengthen energy security”. Through its funding, the DOE hopes to create “a more robust supply chain for critical minerals”. Currently, the U.S. imports over 50% of the critical minerals and more than 95% of the rare earth elements it needs from abroad. At least 12 critical minerals used in the U.S. are exclusively imported from abroad. Through the DOE’s funding, the U.S. is looking to counter its large dependency by “investing in alternative products that will be developed using more abundant and accessible materials”. Through this, the DOE hopes to be able to “reduc[e] [the] import dependency while lowering costs, increasing US competitiveness, and enhancing […] national security”.
🌱 What are the environmental and social objectives?
The DOE hopes to “strengthe[n] domestic supply chains while generating jobs and supporting communities historically reliant on mining and energy production”. It also hopes to reduce the environmental impacts of critical mineral mining and sourcing, “while supporting the US transition to a net-zero emissions economy”.
Read more about DOE’s funding here: