There has been meaningful momentum toward the energy transition, but a number of forces are creating uncertainty. They include shifting geopolitics, policy uncertainty in many countries, the macroeconomic environment, and rising energy demand from the adoption of artificial intelligence tools, to name a few.
But even in the face of these near-term uncertainties, it is important not to lose sight of the core—long-term—challenge at the heart of the transition. The energy transition is a physical transformation on a massive scale. Billions of parts associated with today’s highly complex, interconnected, and optimized system of energy production and consumption would need to be transformed—substituting high-emissions technologies that rely on fossil fuels with a new generation of low-emissions options—with an aspiration to do so in just decades. This will require tackling, as our 2024 report put it, the “hard stuff”—grappling with the physical challenges associated with the development and deployment of high-performing low-emissions technologies and the associated infrastructure and supply chains they need in order to operate.1“The hard stuff: Navigating the physical realities of the energy transition,” McKinsey Global Institute, August 14, 2024.
Overall, more will need to be done to deal with the physical challenges associated with the large scale-up of low-emissions technologies. So what are those challenges and how should stakeholders navigate them? To support decision-making, our analysis published in 2024 is what we believe is the first comprehensive stock take of those physical challenges.6“The hard stuff: Navigating the physical realities of the energy transition,” McKinsey Global Institute, August 14, 2024.
Acknowledgments
Mekala Krishnan is an MGI partner in Boston. Chris Bradley is a McKinsey senior partner and an MGI director in Sydney. Humayun Tai is a McKinsey senior partner and coleader of McKinsey’s Global Energy & Materials Practice in New York. Tiago Devesa is an MGI senior fellow in Lisbon.
This article was edited by MGI executive editor Janet Bush with data visualizations by Juan M. Velasco.
We thank Sven Smit, a McKinsey senior partner and MGI chairman in Amsterdam, and Daniel Pacthod, a McKinsey senior partner in New York, who were coauthors on the full report on which this article draws. In that report, a group of McKinsey colleagues coauthored chapters dedicated to the seven domains of the energy system: for power, Jesse Noffsinger, a McKinsey partner in Seattle, and Diego Hernandez Diaz, a McKinsey partner in Geneva; for mobility, Timo Möller, a McKinsey partner in Cologne and coleader of the McKinsey Center for Future Mobility; for industry, Michel Van Hoey, a McKinsey senior partner in Luxembourg; Christian Hoffmann, a McKinsey partner in Düsseldorf; Ken Somers, a McKinsey partner in Brussels; and Adam Youngman, a McKinsey senior asset leader in Los Angeles; for buildings, Daniel Cramer, a McKinsey senior asset leader in Amsterdam; for raw materials, Michel Foucart, a McKinsey associate partner in Brussels; Michel Van Hoey; and Patricia Bingoto, a McKinsey senior expert in Zurich; for hydrogen and other energy carriers, Rory Clune, a McKinsey senior partner in Boston; and for carbon and energy reductions, Clint Wood, a McKinsey partner in Houston, and Santhosh Shankar, a McKinsey US-based expert (alumnus).
The research team was led by Masud Ally, Francisco Galtieri, Kasmet Niyongabo, and Luc Oster-Pecqueur, and comprised Kemi Ajala, Sanjana Are, Maya Berlinger (alumnus), Andrea Boza Zanatta, Susan Cheboror (alumnus), Patrick Chen, Suhayl Chettih, Thibault Courqueux, Anurag Dash (alumnus), John Grabda, Marco Groth, Marcin Hajlasz, Muriel Jacques, Myer Johnson-Potter (alumnus), Pauline Leeuwenburg, Michiel Nivard, Pierre Salvador, Anna Schneider, Giulio Scopacasa, Girish Selvaraj (alumnus), Casey Timmons, Tse Uwejamomere, Geert Vergoossen, Marnix Verhoeven (alumnus), and David Wu (alumnus). For a complete list of contributors, see our full report.
In MGI’s operations team, we would like to thank Rachel Robinson and Rishabh Chaturvedi. For his help with digital production, we thank David Batcheck; and for their communications expertise, Nienke Beuwer and Rebeca Robboy. Thanks also go to Diane Rice in McKinsey’s design team.
In this article, we draw on that research to highlight ten key insights that are relevant to the core components of the transition—to the power sector, which is at the heart of the transition; to the three major end-use sectors, namely mobility (road vehicles and other forms of transportation to move people and things), industry (which manufactures a broad range of materials and goods like steel and cement), and buildings (facilities that consume energy for lighting, heating, and more); and, finally, to the three enablers of the energy-system transformation, namely raw materials (particularly the critical minerals needed for many low-emissions technologies like batteries and electrolyzers), new energy carriers (such as hydrogen and biofuels), and carbon capture and energy reduction approaches to manage any remaining emissions.
1. Today’s energy system is high-performing but also has flaws
Today’s energy system has five highly beneficial properties that help it deliver high performance (Exhibit 1).
For instance, it can move energy relatively easily to where it is needed because current fuels are both energy-dense and easily transportable. Just one average tanker carrying liquefied natural gas can power more than 40,000 homes in the United States for an entire year.1Liquefied natural gas: Understanding the basic facts, US Department of Energy, 2005.
And fossil fuels are a capable source of high-temperature heat in the production of industrial materials, while their chemical flexibility enables them to be used not only as sources of energy, but also as feedstocks—for example, they provide molecules on which plastics are based.
The energy transition would therefore require replicating the benefits and performance of the current system while addressing its downsides.
The good news is that in parts of the energy system, low-emissions technologies already often match or even exceed that performance. For instance, batteries can provide quicker dispatchability than even gas-fired peaking plants, and nuclear plants often have higher capacity factors than gas plants. And many clean technologies are rapidly improving their performance.
A series of four exhibits assess the properties of current and potential energy technologies, ranging from beneficial properties to those needing improvements. The first exhibit focuses on two beneficial properties: energy density and transportability. The first chart shows the volumetric energy density (megajoules per liter) of various energy sources. Diesel, bituminous coal, and liquefied natural gas produce higher emissions and have a high energy density. Biodiesels have low emissions and high energy density. The second chart illustrates gravimetric energy density (MJ per kg). H2 (gaseous and liquid) stands out with low emissions and high energy density. The last chart depicts transportability (megawatt hours moved per dollar of transport cost over 1,000 miles). Oil (pipeline) has the highest transportability but has high emissions. Low-emissions technologies such as high-voltage direct current, H2, or ammonia have very low transportability.
End of image description.
Image description:
The second exhibit in the series focuses on another beneficial property, dispatchability. The first of two charts shows the average capacity factor across geographies, measured in percentage of time generating energy. Among low-emissions technologies, solar and onshore wind show the lowest dispatchability, and geothermal and nuclear show the highest. Gas plants, which are a high-emission technology, are in the upper range of dispatchability. The second chart ranks energy technologies by the speed of power ramp-up, measured by percent increase in total generation capacity per minute. Two low-emissions technologies, hydropower and particularly li-ion batteries, stand out with much higher speed of power ramp-up than any other technology.>
End of image description.
Image description:
The third exhibit in the series focuses on two more beneficial properties: the capacity to generate high heat, and chemical flexibility. In the first, heat pumps fare poorly. Coal and natural gas, both with high emissions, rank high, but two low-emissions technologies, biomass (fuel) and H2 reach the highest temperatures. Electric technologies such as boilers, resistance heaters, and electric air furnaces, range from very low to very high temperatures. Regarding chemical flexibility, the exhibit shows that fossil fuels are used as feedstocks for industrial processes to produce thousands of materials such as steel, plastics and chemicals, ammonia, and fuels. But low-emissions feedstock such as H2, bio feedstock, and recycled outputs can also be used.>
End of image description.
Image description:
The fourth and last exhibit in the series focuses on a neutral property (energy efficiency) and one needing improvements (low-emissions generation). In energy efficiency, a chart ranks technologies by percentage of useful work from final energy for road mobility. Internal combustion engines fare low (only 15–30 percent of the energy in gasoline is converted into useful energy by a car. Battery electric vehicles rank much higher (between 80 and 90 percent). In terms of energy for heating hydrogen and natural gas boiler are inefficient, while heat pumps can rank very high. In terms of emissions, gas and coal generate the least power per unit of emissions, followed by hydro, solar, wind, and nuclear.
End of image description.
2. Only about 10 percent of low-emissions technologies needed by 2050 to meet global commitments have been deployed
A Gantt chart shows the 2022 deployment of low-emissions technologies as a share of their needed 2050 deployment in each of 7 domains, or sectors. The 2050 deployment needs are based on the McKinsey 2023 Achieved Commitment Scenario. In this scenario, most countries reach their net-zero commitments by or before 2050. In the power sector, low-emissions installed capacity is at 8–12 percent of its needed 2050 deployment. In the mobility sector, deployment has reached 3 percent of its needed deployment for electric vehicles (EV) stock and 15 percent of its needed deployment for EV sales. The industry sector has reached 0–10% of its needed deployment for low-emissions production of steel and cement. The buildings sector has reached 5–7 percent of its needed deployment for heat pump stock and 9–12 percent of its needed deployment for heat pump sales. The raw materials sector has reached 10–35 percent of its needed deployment for the supply of critical minerals. The hydrogen and energy carriers sector has reached less than 1 percent of its needed deployment for the production of low-emissions hydrogen. Finally, the carbon and energy reduction sector has reached less than 1 percent of its needed deployment for CO2 capture by point-source facilities.
Overall, the chart shows deployment of key decarbonization approaches is at an early stage in most domains.
End of image description.
3. A metamorphosis of the power system has to be at the heart of the transition
Transforming the power system is fundamental to the entire energy transition because abating emissions in the huge energy-consuming sectors—mobility, industry, and buildings—would entail sweeping electrification, according to most transition scenarios.
The power system will need to not only grow, but do so even while reducing its own emissions. Under the McKinsey 2023 Achieved Commitments scenario, the global power system would need to quintuple in size (generation capacity installed) between now and 2050 as end-use sectors electrify. At the same time, the share of power generated from low-emissions sources would need to more than double to greater than 90 percent.1Global energy perspective 2023, McKinsey, October 2023.
These shifts have profound implications for how the power system will need to be set up and function. Take Germany as an example to illustrate this (Exhibit 3).
Under the McKinsey 2023 Achieved Commitments scenario, to meet its climate commitments, Germany may need to double the amount of power it generates, and the share of power generated by variable renewable energy (VRE) sources like solar and wind may need to as much as triple.
The power system would then need to metamorphose into one that is three times larger in terms of installed generation capacity in this scenario, and have lower overall utilization.
This is partly because a renewables-powered system requires flexible assets that can provide standby power when there is no sun or wind—assets like thermal backup power plants (such as gas or hydrogen peakers), storage, and more interconnections with other power markets.
So even as output from renewables grows, the size of the thermal system may remain flat, rather than shrink.
Utilization of the thermal system would drop as it becomes a source of backup instead of constant power or baseload.
But the necessary transformation of the power system goes beyond its change in utilization profile. Because variable renewable assets can sometimes be smaller, farther away from where power is needed, and more distributed, the size of the grid’s transmission and distribution lines would need to grow. The International Energy Agency, for instance, projects that the volume of transmission and distribution lines would need to almost triple globally, or grow by more than 3 percent per year, under a 2050 Net Zero Emissions scenario.1Energy technology perspectives 2023, International Energy Agency, January 2023; Electricity grids and secure energy transitions, International Energy Agency, October 2023.
Exhibit 3
Image description:
The exhibit shows a series of six charts illustrating changes in the German power system from 2000–50, based on McKinsey's 2023 Achieved Commitments scenario. Overall, the exhibit shows that systems heavy in variable renewable energy (VRE), such as the German, require more capacity to provide flexibility. The first chart is a stacked area chart showing total generation in gigawatt-hours (GWh). It displays a significant increase from approximately 600 GWh in 2000 to over 1,000 GWh in 2050. Total generation generation is projected to increase by 85 percent from 2020–50, with nearly all growth provided by VRE.
End of image description.
Image description:
The second chart in the series is a line chart with an index (2000=100) on the y-axis, depicting total capacity and total generation. Total capacity increases significantly more than total generation, showing a projected threefold increase in capacity compared to generation from 2020–50.
End of image description.
Image description:
The third chart in the series, also a stacked area chart, shows flexible capacity in gigawatts (GW) comprising interconnections, thermal flex, and ftorage. Similar to the second chart, flexible capacity also shows a three-fold increase from 2020–50.
End of image description.
Image description:
The fourth chart in the series is also a stacked area chart. It displays total thermal capacity in GW. It shows a decrease from about 100 GW in 2000 to about 60 GW in 2050, with hydrogen or other low-emission fuels making up an increasing portion of this capacity. Even though thermal sources of energy change over time, total thermal capacity is projected to remain about the same from 2020–50, providing flexibility to the system.
End of image description.
Image description:
The fifth chart is a line chart showing capacity factor (%) for total thermal and VRE. This chart highlights a decrease of 27 percentage points in the capacity factor for thermal from 2020–50. The lower utilization rates lead to an expansion of the grid, as shown in the next chart.
End of image description.
Image description:
The sixth chart in the series is a line chart illustrating transmission grid length in thousands of kilometers. It shows a substantial increase of 1.8 times from 2020–50.
End of image description.
4. Electrifying heat will require managing higher demand peaks
The need for heat is currently largely met by burning fossil fuels—for example, in gas boilers. Fossil fuels could be replaced by using electric options. Heat pumps are highly efficient heating technologies and the main option being explored in most markets.
But sweeping electrification of heating in buildings will only add another layer of demand to the power system. Demand for electricity would spike—sharply—during the coldest hours of the coldest days of the year when many people rush to turn the heating on at the same time. In the United States, for instance, peak demand would shift from the summer, when many buildings use air conditioning, to the winter as heat pumps spread.2Michael Waite and Vijay Modi, “Electricity load implications of space heating decarbonization pathways,” Joule, volume 4, issue 2, 2020.
A map diagram shows projected peak electricity demand in a scenario where all building heat in the United States is electrified, as compared to current peak demand. The diagram displays projected peak demand by state, as well as at the national level and in two specific regions. The map illustrates that the impact of such an electrification scenario would be uneven across the United States, with some areas experiencing a much larger increase in peak demand than others. The diagram shows that peak electricity demand in a 100 percent electrified heat scenario could be 3.2 times higher in ISO-NE (a region that serves Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, and Vermont) than it is currently. The national total peak demand in this scenario would be 1.7 times higher than it is currently. Meanwhile, in the ERCOT region (Texas), peak demand would be about the same as it currently is. Each state is assigned a different color based on the multiplier of peak electricity demand in the 100 percent electrified heat scenario compared to current demand. For example, the state of Massachusetts has a multiplier of 4.0, meaning that its peak demand would be four times greater if all heating was electrified. The state of Texas has a multiplier of 1.0, indicating that peak electricity demand would not increase in this scenario.
End of image description.
5. For EVs to deliver on their potential, grids would need to be cleaner
The deployment of passenger BEVs is increasing, but the extent to which they save on CO2 in comparison with vehicles powered by internal combustion engines (ICEs) varies. Although passenger BEVs can have lower running emissions per kilometer than ICEs, they have higher emissions when they are being manufactured. As a result, how much is saved depends on how clean the grid that powers them is (Exhibit 5).
Of course, grids are decarbonizing, and if India’s grid were to decarbonize in line with McKinsey’s 2023 Achieved Commitments scenario, a midsize BEV purchased today in India could achieve lifetime carbon savings of as much as 15 percent against even a top-performing ICE. Continuing to improve on grid emissions intensity is therefore a critical factor in reducing overall emissions from a transition to BEVs.
Exhibit 5
Image description:
The dot plot compares the carbon breakeven point, in kilometers, and lifetime emissions savings of battery electric vehicles (BEVs) against internal combustion engine (ICE) vehicles, across different regions with different grid emission intensities: the United States, the European Union, China, India, and a global average. China and India are shown in two scenarios each: one with constant emissions intensity as of 2022, and one with average emissions intensity 2022–35 in line with stated climate commitments. The regions are also are also compared to a 100 percent green grid.
The chart shows that the carbon breakeven point, the distance at which the lifetime emissions of a BEV are lower than that of an ICE vehicle, varies considerably across regions, depending on the grid's emissions intensity, which is measured in grams of carbon dioxide equivalent per kilowatt-hour (gCO2-e/kWh). For example, in the European Union, a BEV could reach breakeven between 20,000 and 40,000 km.
The plot also displays lifetime emissions saved at 200,000 km, in percentage. Following the previous example, a BEV would emit ~45–65 percent less CO2-e over its lifetime than an average ICE. Overall, the plot indicates a carbon breakeven point and the lifetime emissions savings are higher for regions with lower grid emissions intensities, which highlights the importance of decarbonizing electricity grids to maximize the environmental benefits of BEVs.
End of image description.
6. Production of the big four industrial materials needs very high temperatures—and is harder to electrify and decarbonize
Decarbonizing a range of other industries, such as food production and paper manufacturing, is not as difficult, because 90 percent of the heat they need is low or medium temperature.
Across industries (including the big four), where low- or medium-temperatures are needed, efficient and widespread heating technologies are available. They include, for instance, electrification through high-efficiency industrial heat pumps, waste-heat recovery (for example, for parts of the ammonia production process), and use of nuclear or geothermal-generated heat. And for areas where heat energy is being used not to raise temperatures, but to produce steam that is in turn used to perform mechanical tasks, electric drives could be used instead.
To address areas that need high heat for thermal applications, some electric-based low-emissions technologies can play a role. Some progress is being made. In steelmaking, for instance, electric arc furnaces deliver very high temperatures and are a mature technology. In cement and plastics, electrification projects have started, including the use of new rotodynamic heaters to provide sufficiently high temperatures in the calcination of cement, or electro-cracking for plastics.
But deployment of these approaches remains fairly limited, and many are still nascent. Scaling them would also require massive asset reconfigurations. This is because the form of heat transfer often needs to change. Other heat sources, such as alternative fuels like biofuels, could produce high-temperature heat and often would require less retrofitting, but there may be difficulties securing reliable inputs.
While these challenges are hard to overcome, this transformation could also bring about new opportunities. Electrification can often be cost-effective. Electrifying industrial processes can also open up new forms of flexible demand, for example, when used with thermal energy storage.
Exhibit 6
Image description:
The Marimekko chart breaks down global final energy consumption by industrial sector, and shows the share by temperature required for each sector. The sectors are listed vertically on the left side of the chart. Iron and steel, and chemicals are the industrial sectors with the highest global energy consumption, with 21 and 19 exajoules, respectively, in 2022. Cement (15 exajoules) follows them. Along the horizontal axis, each sector is shown by a stacked bar. The different colors show how much energy is needed for different temperature ranges: high temperature (>500°C), medium temperature (100–500°C), low temperature (<100°C), and cooling. Iron and steel use the largest share of high-temperature energy, at 83 percent. This is followed by cement (82 percent) nonferrous metals, including aluminum (70 percent), and chemicals (35 percent). The remaining industries use significantly less high-temperature energy. For example, only 6 percent of the energy used by manufacturing industries requires high temperatures. The chart demonstrates the significant role of high-temperature energy in big industrial materials, particularly iron and steel, chemicals, cement, and nonferrous metals.
End of image description.
7. New low-emissions technologies need to be viable when windows for turning over assets present themselves
Steelmakers seeking to decarbonize face some difficult decisions and fine judgments about timing. Most steel today is produced using the blast furnace-basic oxygen furnace process. This process uses coking coal to split the oxygen from iron oxide in iron ore to convert it into pig iron, before converting that pig iron into steel. Between now and 2030, about 60 percent of the world’s blast furnaces are due to be relined—their interior linings replaced or refurbished (Exhibit 7). Such relining typically takes place once every ten to 20 years.3Valentin Vogl, Olle Olsson, and Björn Nykvist, “Phasing out the blast furnace to meet global climate targets,” Joule, volume 5, issue 10, 2021. This is a significantly capital-intensive process, and the choices that steelmakers make are critical for the transition. During this window, they could go ahead with relining or replace blast furnaces with low-emissions alternatives.
The challenge is that some of the key alternative approaches being explored, such as hydrogen-based direct reduction coupled with electric arc furnaces, are not commercially scaled and not cost-competitive. Moreover, implementing these alternatives requires up-front capital investments and the right capabilities to install them. Unless those alternatives become available and viable, and make sense cost-wise, there is a danger that the relining window will close and high-emissions assets are locked in for more years.
Exhibit 7
Image description:
A bar chart displays the cumulative global blast furnace production capacity requiring relining by year. The chart shows that approximately 60 percent of global production capacity will require relining before 2030. The capacity needing relining increases steadily from approximately 0.15 billion tons of steel in 2022 to over 1.5 billion tons by 2038 and beyond. The bars are color-coded, with blue representing capacity needing relining before 2030, and dark gray representing capacity requiring relining after 2030.
End of image description.
8. Capturing carbon has high potential but is challenging in some use cases
One option to reduce the emissions of high-emissions assets that still have long, useful lives is, rather than prematurely retiring them, to retrofit them to include carbon capture, utilization, and storage (CCUS) technologies.
CCUS has been around for decades but is largely used where CO2 streams are very concentrated—and the CO2 is therefore easier to capture—as is the case in natural gas processing or ethanol production.
However, most emissions currently come with CO2 in relatively low concentrations, for instance in cement production and natural gas power plants. Capturing the CO2 is more difficult and less efficient in these cases. For CCUS to play to its full potential, it would need to reach these new, harder processes. Using CCUS in such processes could be three to four times more costly than it is in current use cases (Exhibit 8). This is because more energy and equipment would be required, and new technologies would be needed to capture CO2 effectively at low concentrations. Improving the performance and reducing the cost associated with capture technologies is critical to reaching these harder, low-concentration use cases.1“The world needs to capture, use, and store gigatons of CO2: Where and how?,” McKinsey, April 2023; and “Scaling the CCUS industry to achieve net-zero emissions,” McKinsey, October 2022. And, of course, once captured, the CO2 would need to be transported and used or stored. Expanded storage capacity would be required. Improving the commercial feasibility of new use cases for captured CO2 would also help, for instance, the production of synthetic fuels.
Exhibit 8
Image description:
A bar chart breaks down the share of US energy system emissions across various processes with different CO2 concentrations. The processes are categorized by CO2 concentration: high, intermediate, low, and diffuse. The share of US emissions for each category is shown as a percentage on the right side of the chart. The highest share of US emissions, over 50 percent, comes from processes with diffuse CO2 concentrations. These include processes such as mobility and buildings. The next largest share, about 35 percent, comes from processes with low CO2 concentrations, which include power generation from coal, petrochemicals, biomass, and natural gas. Intermediate CO2 concentration processes, which include iron and steel, cement, hydrogen with low purity, pulp and paper, contribute less than 10 percent to US emissions. And processes with high CO2 concentrations, including gas processing, ethanol, ammonia, and hydrogen with high purity, make up less than 5 percent of US emissions. The bottom of the chart shows a second bar chart plotting the capture costs, in dollars per ton of CO2, for the same processes. The capture costs are higher for processes with lower CO2 concentrations, highlighting the difficulty and expense of carbon capture, utilization, and storage (CCUS) at lower concentrations.
End of image description.
9. Hydrogen could also play an important role, but its distinctive features need to be balanced against efficiency challenges
Like CCUS, hydrogen has many distinctive features and potentially has a large role to play across the energy system as a complement to electrification. Hydrogen’s physical properties could make it a flexible tool in decarbonization efforts. It can be used as a feedstock in many industrial processes, including the manufacture of steel and chemicals, or as a source of high-temperature heat required by some processes. Hydrogen can also be an effective energy carrier. It has high (gravimetric) energy density (per unit of weight), which could be important for long-range transportation or long-duration energy storage.
To make broader use of hydrogen a reality, energy losses would need to be minimized. Options would include innovation of new electrolyzer models and new configurations of production and transportation. For instance, it may be more effective to transport intermediate products made from hydrogen such as hot-briquetted iron rather than the hydrogen itself. And, more broadly, it is important to consider the strategic use of hydrogen. Hydrogen could be considered, in particular, in cases where its beneficial properties are most evident and where other low-emissions alternatives are less feasible.
Exhibit 9
Image description:
A range chart compares the end-to-end energy efficiency of hydrogen with direct electrification technologies across three different sectors: mobility, industry, and power. The chart shows that hydrogen is generally less efficient than direct electrification, but it has specific properties that make it suitable for certain applications. In the mobility sector, the end-to-end energy efficiency of hydrogen fuel cell vehicles (FCEVs) is up to 4 times lower than battery electric vehicles (BEVs). In the industry sector, hydrogen boilers have a maximum energy efficiency that is up to 8 times lower than that of heat pumps. In the power sector, hydrogen power-to-gas technology has a round-trip energy efficiency that is up to 3 times lower than that of Li-ion batteries. Despite these lower efficiencies, hydrogen has a higher gravimetric energy density than electrification, which makes it a better option for applications where storage space or weight is a constraint.
End of image description.
10. Low-emissions technologies would require critical mineral extraction and refining capacity to be scaled substantially
Many low-emissions technologies rely on critical minerals, from lithium for batteries to rare earths for wind turbines and electric vehicles.1The net-zero materials transition: Implications for global supply chains, McKinsey, July 2023. For the energy transition to advance at pace, and more clean technologies to be deployed, demand for and supply of critical minerals would need to increase substantially, particularly in the period to 2030 under McKinsey’s 2023 Achieved Commitments scenario. Demand for nickel could double, for dysprosium and terbium, quadruple, and for lithium, increase sevenfold (Exhibit 10).
There are sufficient reserves to meet expected demand, but additional supply often takes many years—sometimes more than a decade—to come on line.2Material and resource requirements for the energy transition, Energy Transitions Commission, July 2023. Current projections of supply based on announced projects would not be sufficient to meet the demand needs of the transition, particularly in the period to 2030. Meeting increasing demand is even more complex when the source and processing of a mineral are geographically concentrated in a limited number of economies. Many of the critical minerals required for the energy transition, including cobalt, lithium, natural graphite, nickel, and rare-earth elements, rely on the three largest supplying economies for more than 50 percent of their extraction—and over 80 percent in some cases.3Global critical minerals outlook 2024, International Energy Agency, May 2024; Global Materials Perspective 2024, McKinsey, September 2024. Refining is even more concentrated.
Some approaches could enable faster supply ramp-up. New extraction technologies, surveying approaches, and modular construction are accelerating lead times. Of course, there is another option: reducing demand for these much-sought-after minerals. There could be more recycling to extract and reuse them. And they could be avoided altogether. For instance, rare-earth-free motors could scale from less than 10 percent of total supply to making up the majority of new supply by 2030.4The net-zero materials transition: Implications for global supply chains, McKinsey, July 2023.
Exhibit 10
Image description:
A table shows a breakdown of the demand increase for various critical minerals by 2030 compared to 2022. It’s based on the McKinsey 2023 Achieved Commitment Scenario, in which most countries reach their net-zero commitments by or before 2050. The table also shows the supply-demand balance in the base case and high case. It uses three categories: high imbalance, medium imbalance, and no or low imbalance. In minerals used for batteries, the demand for lithium will increase by seven times by 2030. The demand for cobalt and nickel will increase by two times by 2030. In minerals used for permanent magnets, demand for dysprosium and terbium is expected to increase four times, while demand for neodymium and praseodymium is expected to increase by 2.5 times. Lastly, demand for copper (used in electricity and infrastructure) is expected to increase by 1.5 times. For lithium and copper, the demand-supply balance is predicted to show a medium imbalance in the base scenario. For dysprosium and terbium, the demand-supply balance is predicted to show a high imbalance in both scenarios. For neodymium and praseodymium, the demand-supply balance is predicted to show a medium imbalance in both scenarios. The rest of the scenarios for the different minerals show no or low supply-demand imbalance.
End of image description.
Tackling the energy transition would entail a complex physical transformation
This article highlights ten physical realities of the energy transition. They are part of a highly complex physical transformation that would need to be undertaken to deliver success. In our August 2024 report, we identified 25 physical challenges across the energy system that would need to be overcome for the transition to succeed (Exhibit 11).
Some of the 25 are harder to address than others. We categorized the 25 physical challenges into three levels of difficulty based on technological performance gaps, interdependencies with different challenges, and scaling needs. Nearly half—12 of the 25—are what we describe as Level 3 challenges. These are challenges that are particularly hard to tackle. Yet abating about half of energy-related CO2 emissions depends on addressing them.
To explore all 25 challenges and what it would take to tackle them, see our full report.
Exhibit 11
Image description:
An hexagon chart presents 25 physical challenges that must be addressed for a successful energy transition, categorized by domain. The challenges are grouped into three levels, according to the level of difficulty of addressing them. Level 1 challenges require deploying established technologies that face the least physical hurdles. Level 2 challenges require deploying known technologies to accelerate and scale them. Level 3 challenges occur when technological performance gaps meet demanding use cases and the transformation is just beginning.
The challenges are arranged in a honeycomb pattern. The first domain is the power sector, with six challenges: managing renewables' variability (level 3), scaling emerging power systems (level 3) flexing power demand (level 2), Securing land for renewables (level 2), connecting through grid expansion (level 2), and navigating nuclear and other clean energy (level 2).
End-Use sectors include three domains: mobility, industry, and buildings. Mobility challenges include driving BEVs beyond breakeven (level 1), going the distance on BEV range (level 1), loading up electric trucks (level 3), charging up EVs (level 2), and refueling aviation and shipping (level 3) The challenges in the industry domain are furnacing low-emissions steel (level 3), cementing change for construction (level 3), heating other industries (level 3), synthesizing low-emissions ammonia (level 3), cracking the challenge of plastics (level 3), synthesizing low-emissions ammonia (level 3). And heating other industries (level 2). Challenges in the buildings domain include facing the cold with heat pumps (level 1), and bracing for winter peaks (level 2). The last three domains are categorized as enablers. They are: raw materials, H2, and other energy carriers, and carbon and energy reduction. Raw materials include one challenge: unearthing critical minerals (level 2). H2 and other energy carriers include harnessing hydrogen (level 3), scaling hydrogen infrastructure (level 3), and managing the biofuels footprint (level 2). Carbon and energy reduction challenges are expanding energy efficiency (level 2), capturing point-source carbon (level 3), and capturing atmospheric carbon (level 3).
End of image description.
Mekala Krishnan is an MGI partner in Boston. Chris Bradley is a McKinsey senior partner and an MGI director in Sydney. Humayun Tai is a McKinsey senior partner and coleader of McKinsey’s Global Energy & Materials Practice in New York. Tiago Devesa is an MGI senior fellow in Lisbon.
This article was edited by MGI executive editor Janet Bush with data visualizations by Juan M. Velasco.