Former U.S. Rep. John Larson once remarked, “Globalization is not a monolithic force but an evolving set of consequences — some good, some bad and some unintended.” Nowhere is this more evident than in the global initiatives aimed at transitioning to clean energy.

This transition brings its own set of consequences, many of which are yet to be fully understood. However, we can anticipate certain implications, particularly concerning the global supply of minerals.

Increasing Copper Demand in Clean Energy Transitions

Energy transitions throughout history have come with a need for new materials. Today, with the increasing pursuit of clean energy sources such as wind, solar and battery technologies, the demand for minerals, particularly metals, has surged. Among these metals, one stands out: copper. Its natural properties — conductivity, ductility, efficiency and recyclability — allow it to be used across a myriad of clean energy applications, rendering it the critical material for a clean energy transition. 

However, the scale of copper demand for generating energy from solar and wind surpasses that required for fossil fuels by a staggering sixfold, notes the Copper Development Association (https://bit.ly/3VpdBno). This unprecedented demand trajectory foretells a significant challenge: copper deficits are projected to exceed 9 million metric tons by 2035 (https://bit.ly/3X4bu9W), with estimates suggesting the need to produce as much copper in the next 25 years as has been produced in the last 5,000 years (https://bit.ly/3Vu1SD9).

Challenges in Sourcing Copper

Exacerbating the challenge of sourcing this vital metal is the intricate web of political and regulatory hurdles inherent to the mining process. For instance, the proposed NewRange copper-nickel mine in northeastern Minnesota has been embroiled in a convoluted approval process for nearly two decades. Environmental concerns, indigenous rights and community opposition are only a few factors contributing to the protracted delay, reports Heatmap News (https://bit.ly/3Kr5lgq). 

Moreover, the debate surrounding the mine highlights a broader dilemma: the trade-off between economic benefits and environmental sustainability. While copper is indispensable for clean energy, the potential environmental impact of mining operations raises significant ethical and ecological questions. 

Here are a few more examples highlighting the complex challenges and controversies associated with mining projects worldwide, ranging from environmental degradation and social conflicts to regulatory disputes and legal battles:

1. Pebble Mine, Alaska, United States. The proposed Pebble Mine, located in the Bristol Bay region of Alaska, has faced significant controversy due to its potential environmental impact on one of the world’s most productive salmon fisheries. Concerns over habitat destruction, water pollution and threats to indigenous communities have led to widespread opposition and legal battles.

2. Oyu Tolgoi Copper-Gold Mine, Mongolia. The Oyu Tolgoi mine, one of the world’s largest copper-gold deposits, has been subject to disputes between the Mongolian government and the mining company Rio Tinto. Issues surrounding revenue sharing, environmental protection and community benefits have led to delays and tensions between stakeholders.

3. Carmichael Coal Mine, Queensland, Australia. The proposed Carmichael Coal Mine, led by the Indian company Adani, has faced opposition from environmental groups and indigenous communities concerned about the project’s impact on the Great Barrier Reef, water resources and climate change. Legal challenges and public protests have delayed the project’s development.

4. Ok Tedi Mine, Papua New Guinea. The Ok Tedi mine, operated by a consortium of mining companies, has been the center of controversy due to its environmental and social impacts on the surrounding communities and ecosystems. The mine’s operations have led to deforestation, river pollution and disruptions to indigenous livelihoods, resulting in lawsuits and calls for remediation.

This regulatory quagmire underscores the inherent complexity of balancing resource extraction with environmental conservation efforts, a challenge that will only intensify as global demand for copper continues to rise.

Implications for Plumbing Engineers

The ramifications of this heightened demand for copper extend beyond the energy sector, posing implications for plumbing engineers. Particularly, the choice of piping materials in our projects warrants attention. There is no debate: copper pipe and tubing reign supreme as the preferred material for domestic and hydronic piping systems in commercial construction. 

However, projected copper deficits amplify our vulnerability to market fluctuations, impacting prices and availability of these materials. As the clean energy transition drives increased demand for copper, our projects will face heightened susceptibility to market dynamics. This translates to expected price hikes and prolonged lead times for copper piping materials. 

As deficits escalate and concerns over price and availability intensify, the construction industry will seek alternative materials. 

Considerations for Alternative Materials

In addition to the looming price and availability concerns, there are other reasons plumbing engineers should consider specifying alternative materials to copper:

• Cost savings. In recent years, construction inflation has seen a significant increase, with nonresidential construction inflation rates hitting 12% in 2022, the highest since 1980-1981, reports Construction Analytics (https://bit.ly/4aMKkrs). This trend necessitates constant evaluation of options for cost savings by architectural/engineering/construction teams. 

In these cases, labor and material savings represent simple yet effective ways to control costs. However, copper pipe and tubing present challenges in installation time and price stability.

• Installation. Depending on the joining method, copper can take up to three times longer to install than many plastic piping systems.

• Theft. Copper theft, exceeding $1 billion annually, adds to the instability in copper prices, notes Sheriff magazine (https://bit.ly/3R94Ifl). Construction sites are particularly vulnerable to copper theft, resulting in significant financial losses and project delays. 

• Corrosion. The leading cause of metal pipe failure underscores the importance of selecting durable and corrosion-resistant materials for piping systems.

Moving Toward Plastic Piping Systems

As the burgeoning demand for copper intensifies and we confront all the costs associated with such materials, it becomes essential to consider alternatives. Plastics, in particular, are poised to emerge as a viable substitute for copper piping systems in the face of this disruption.

When evaluating plastic alternatives, it is crucial to consider factors such as the transported fluid, peak operating temperature and working pressure. Plastic piping materials certified to NSF 61 and NSF 14 standards are deemed safe for potable water distribution. However, it is important to note that not all plastics are suitable for potable water distribution, and each material requires careful consideration based on its unique properties and applications.

Below are key considerations when choosing a plastic piping system:

• Application and performance criteria. Not all plastics are the same. Each has unique properties which make them ideal for some applications, while disastrous in others. Understand how the system will be used and do your homework to select the right material for the right application.

• Design and installation. The biggest issue with plastic piping systems is that engineers and contractors treat plastic piping like they do copper. Plastic piping has different properties, pressure, temperature, compatibility, expansion, etc. Designing and installing a plastic piping system as you would copper will inevitably lead to a piping failure.

• Specifications. Specify around the material you designed for. Do not simply list all the potential materials and allow the contractor to choose from them. Copper is not plastic, and not all plastics are the same. If your project is destined to use plastic piping, then start with a single plastic piping material meeting the application and performance requirements of your project. 

When a project is designed in copper and changed to plastic during value engineering, cost savings are reduced, but the potential of failures increases.

• Installers. Require anyone handling and installing plastic piping systems to be trained and qualified via the ASME B31.3 bonders qualification standard. 

• Manufacturers. Choose manufacturers with the history, expertise, quality and support necessary to deliver long-lasting, high-performing systems.

Prediction and Call to Action

If the United States aggressively pursues a transition to clean energy, in my opinion, plastic piping systems are poised to replace copper pipe and tubing as the dominant material for potable water distribution in commercial construction within the next 10 to 15 years. This prediction necessitates a proactive approach from industry stakeholders. 

Ultimately, decisions regarding piping materials should be based on comprehensive assessments of factors, including market dynamics, regulatory changes, performance criteria and suitability for specific applications. Additionally, consulting with industry experts and staying abreast of emerging trends and innovations is essential for making informed decisions in this evolving landscape.

In anticipation of these shifts, plumbing engineers should undertake two proactive measures:

1. Education on alternative piping materials. It is imperative for us to familiarize ourselves with alternative piping materials, particularly plastics. Expanding our knowledge of plastics is required to recognize the distinct characteristics of these alternative materials. Finding the right material for the right application is key to the long-term success of plastics for potable water distribution.

2. Development of best practices. As the landscape evolves, we can develop best practices aligned with the changing dynamics. We can leverage our technical expertise to influence how the construction industry navigates disruptions during the transition to clean energy, positioning plumbing engineers as leaders in this domain.

As we navigate the transition to clean energy and confront the challenges posed by the increasing demand for copper, plumbing engineers must adapt and innovate. By staying informed, embracing alternative materials and developing best practices, we can position ourselves as leaders in the construction industry, driving sustainable and resilient solutions for the future.

Greg Swafford, CPD, GPD, ASSE 12080, principal at Smith Seckman Reid, is a seasoned veteran in plumbing engineering and manufacturing, boasting more than 25 years of hands-on experience. His diverse background provides a unique lens through which to view industry dynamics, offering valuable insights into plumbing design and product launch strategies in an ever-evolving market landscape.