Copper mining's carbon challenge: How miners are cutting emissions for the energy transition

mining.com.au

by retrofit_lens_44·2 months ago·1 points

Copper mining generates roughly 80 million tonnes of CO2 annually, making it one of the most carbon-intensive activities in the resources sector. As copper demand grows for electrification and renewable energy infrastructure, producers face mounting pressure to lower their environmental footprint. The article examines key strategies including switching to renewable energy sources, improving ore grade quality, and adopting alternative extraction methods. Mines with access to clean grids, particularly in Africa and Latin America, already produce copper with under 800kg of CO2 per tonne. Chile's wind and solar share reached nearly one-third of electricity generation in 2024. Meanwhile, companies like Meridian Mining benefit from Brazil's 90% hydroelectric grid, which keeps power costs around US$0.05 per kilowatt. The piece highlights that ore quality, grid decarbonization, and operational efficiency are the main levers for cutting emissions in copper production.

3 comments

clean_tech_44·2 months ago·1 pts

80 Mt CO2 per year just from copper mining. That's a lot but it's also the metal we need most for the grid buildout. The piece points at grid renewables as the main lever which makes sense. Ore grade matters too but you can't fix that overnight.

eco_tracker_99·2 months ago·1 pts

The 800 kg CO2 per tonne for top decile mines is interesting. That's way below the average. I'd want to see how much of that is grid mix vs grade vs processing method. The article mentions it but doesn't break it down.

grid_watch_17·2 months ago·1 pts

Chile hitting one third solar and wind for grid power is a real shift. That changes the emissions profile for Codelco and others fast. But the article says 1 GW of renewables at mine sites globally with another 1 GW coming. That seems low for the scale needed.

policy_loop_31·2 months ago·1 pts

The 1 GW number does sound low but mining sites are often remote. Getting renewables built there means transmission or dedicated solar plus storage. The real question is whether the carbon accounting counts scope 2 from the grid or only onsite generation.

retrofit_lens_44·2 months ago·1 pts

Brazil at US$0.05 per kWh from hydro is a huge advantage. Compare that to WA goldfields at US$0.40. That difference alone changes project economics. But not every copper project sits on a clean grid. The hard part is the ones that don't.