One of the most common criticisms levelled at the clean energy transition is that it requires vast quantities of minerals.

The claim often goes something like this:

“Renewables aren’t really green. Look at all the mining needed for solar panels, wind turbines and batteries.”

It’s a reasonable question. Mining has environmental impacts and we should discuss them honestly.

But there is a problem.

Most comparisons are made between materials used to build infrastructure and fuels that are burned and replaced every year. That is like comparing the steel used to build a car with the petrol it consumes over its entire life. To make a fair comparison, we need to compare energy systems on a common basis.

In this article we’ll compare fossil fuels, renewables and nuclear power by asking a simple question:

How much material must be extracted from the Earth to deliver the same amount of useful energy?

The answer may surprise you.

---

A fair comparison

The world’s fossil fuel system currently provides around 518 exajoules (EJ) of energy each year from coal, oil and gas. This is approximately 144 trillion kWh of raw energy. Let’s switch to Gigawatt hours, it’s easier, so 144 million GWh.

However, the Energy Institute has highlighted a crucial point:

About two-thirds of global energy supply is ultimately wasted as heat.

Internal combustion engines, gas boilers, thermal power stations and industrial processes all lose substantial amounts of energy before useful work is delivered.

Allowing for these losses, today’s fossil fuel system delivers approximately:

48 million GWh of useful energy per year

That will be our benchmark.

---

Fossil fuels: the burn-once system

The world’s energy system currently extracts roughly:

15 billion tonnes of coal, oil and gas every year

Those fuels are transported, processed and burned. The result is approximately:

• 48 million GWh of useful energy
• around 37.8 billion tonnes of CO₂ emissions annually from the energy system

And then the process starts again.

Every year.

The defining feature of fossil fuels is that extraction never stops. You are mining non-renewable fuel.

---

Renewables: infrastructure, not fuel

Renewables work differently.

Solar panels, wind turbines, batteries and electrical networks require significant materials to build. But once installed, they continue producing energy for decades. Using the assumptions explored in our earlier analysis, delivering the same useful energy as the fossil fuel system over a 25-year period requires approximately:

60 million tonnes of transition materials

This includes the materials needed for generation and associated infrastructure in our normalised model.

The climate impact is dramatically lower. Lifecycle assessments reviewed by the US National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) indicate median emissions of:

• approximately 13 g CO₂e/kWh for wind
• approximately 43 g CO₂e/kWh for solar PV

For our normalised energy comparison this translates to 0.6–2.1 billion tonnes CO₂e compared with nearly 38 billion tonnes for fossil fuels. To provide the same useful energy:

• Fossil fuels: 15 billion tonnes extracted
• Renewables: 60 million tonnes extracted

That means:

Fossil fuels require roughly 250 times more extraction than renewables.

And the fossil fuels must be extracted again next year.

---

What about nuclear?

Nuclear power has a very different profile. Its lifecycle carbon emissions are extremely low and broadly comparable to wind power. NREL cites a median value of approximately 13 g CO₂e/kWh.

To provide the same useful energy as our fossil benchmark, current nuclear technologies would require approximately 1.2 million tonnes of uranium. However, uranium is only a tiny fraction of the ore that must be processed. The World Nuclear Association notes that many operating uranium mines work with ores around 0.1% uranium, although grades vary significantly between deposits.  Using that representative 0.1% ore grade gives:

~1.2 billion tonnes of uranium ore processed

The resulting lifecycle emissions are about:

0.62 billion tonnes CO₂e

Again, dramatically lower than fossil fuels.

Fossil Fuels
• Material extracted: 15 billion tonnes
• Emissions: 37.8 billion tonnes CO₂
• Fuel is burned once and must be replaced every year
Renewables
• Material extracted: 60 million tonnes
• Emissions: 0.6–2.1 billion tonnes CO₂e
• Materials become infrastructure that operates for decades
Nuclear
• Material extracted: 1.2 billion tonnes of uranium ore processed
•Emissions: 0.62 billion tonnes CO₂e
• Includes long-term management of spent nuclear fuel

*Assuming 0.1% uranium ore grade.

The nuclear result is highly sensitive to ore quality. Higher-grade deposits would reduce the mining requirement substantially.

---

Let’s just stop burning stuff

“How much mining would be required if we actually replaced fossil fuels?”

Let’s estimate that. Earlier we concluded that the annual growth in renewable generation represented roughly 0.89 million GWh of additional generation each year. If we attempted a hypothetical crash programme to build enough renewable capacity in a single year to replace the entire useful energy output currently provided by fossil fuels then we would need around:

1.5 billion tonnes of transition materials

That sounds enormous, until you compare it with the status quo. In fact, a one-off renewable build programme would require about one-tenth of a single year’s fossil fuel extraction. Afterward that infrastructure would continue operating for decades.

Transitioning to renewable infrastructure requires one-tenth of a single year’s fossil fuel extraction

By contrast, fossil fuels require the full 15 billion tonnes to be extracted again next year.

And again the year after.

And again the year after that.

---

An extraordinary perspective

The Energy Transitions Commission estimates that delivering the entire global energy transition between 2022 and 2050 could require around: 6.5 billion tonnes of end-use materials across nearly three decades. That’s more than our rough estimate, and certainly more reliable, but still a small fraction of annual fossil fuel. Roughly 95% of this would be steel, aluminium and copper rather than scarce exotic minerals.

That cumulative material demand is less than the mass of coal extracted globally in a single year today.

Think about that for a moment.

Decades of building:

• solar farms
• wind farms
• electricity grids
• battery storage
• electric vehicles

requires less material than one year of current coal extraction.

The mined material demand to build enough renewables to replace fossil fuels is less than the mass of coal extracted globally in a single year today.

That does not mean mining impacts should be ignored. It does mean we should compare like with like.

---

The bottom line

Every energy technology requires resources. There is no such thing as impact-free energy, but the numbers tell a very clear story. For equivalent useful energy:

• Fossil fuels have the highest mining requirement and the highest emissions.
• Nuclear has low emissions but requires long-term management of radioactive waste.
• Renewables have the lowest extraction requirement in our comparison and very low lifecycle emissions.

The common claim that renewable energy requires “too much mining” usually presents only half of the picture. The other half is the mining we already do today, every single year, to feed a fossil fuel system that extracts billions of tonnes, emits tens of billions of tonnes of CO₂ and then starts again from scratch the following morning.

The question is not whether we mine. The question is:

Would we rather mine fuel forever, or mine infrastructure that keeps working for decades?

---

Sources

• Energy Institute Statistical Review of World Energy (2026)
• International Energy Agency (IEA) energy-related emissions reporting
• NREL lifecycle emissions harmonisation studies
• World Nuclear Association uranium demand and mining data
• Energy Transitions Commission, Material and Resource Requirements for the Energy Transition 342