From Minerals to Megawatts 2025

Supply chains disjointed by tiers, territories and timelines2 Multi-tiered and geographically dispersed value chains grow differently, creating complex interdependencies and testing coordination and system resilience. EVs dominate battery-metal consumption, the grid takes up the bulk of metals like copper and aluminium, and data centres need high-purity inputs for chips and power electronics. Together, they set the tone for global minerals trade and processing priorities. The three value chains share a common structure that begins with mineral extraction and extends through multiple processing and manufacturing stages to final assembly and operation. Each tier involves different stakeholders, from miners and chemical processors to component makers, original equipment manufacturers (OEMs), engineering, procurement and construction companies (EPCs) and utilities, often operating across distant geographies, which adds to the overall complexity and interdependence. This complexity, amplified by the distance between tiers, creates both awareness and visibility gaps – making it difficult for stakeholders to anticipate where capacity will be needed or how timelines align, underscoring the importance of early coordination and planning for resilience. Consultations across upstream and downstream participants confirmed that they don’t communicate frequently. Many of the downstream players consulted said they do not yet track minerals risks as continuity risks and almost all pointed to the “distance” between tiers as a barrier to coordination. Across value chains, capacity additions follow similar patterns but on very different timelines. –Mining projects in some jurisdictions require 10-20 years from discovery to production, reflecting permitting, infrastructure and financing hurdles.9 –Refining facilities take three to eight years10 to develop, depending on permitting requirements, construction complexity and customer qualification. –Manufacturing and end-product facilities can be commissioned within one to five years, reflecting shorter construction cycles and fewer regulatory constraints. These disparities matter most when new capacity is urgently needed, as downstream segments can scale far faster than upstream supply can adjust – impacting the underlying demand drivers for materials. These indicative lead times are common across EVs, data centres and ET&D, but each value chain exhibits specific bottlenecks and timing gaps that will be discussed in the following subsections. The vulnerability doesn’t arise from linear queues, it arises when a specific enabler – permits, technology and supplier qualification, component capacity or interconnections – lags behind demand. There is also a strategic planning horizon mismatch – miners plan for 10- to 15-year cycles while downstream players typically look two to five years ahead. Misaligned development timelines create a structural challenge for supply resilience. When upstream investment slows or permitting slips – or when a mine sanctioned on yesterday’s outlook comes online after technology, specifications or siting have shifted – projects face higher costs, re-sourcing/retooling or idle capacity that cascades downstream. Such timing mismatches amplify costs and delays across value chains. Anticipating these timing gaps and planning capacity early is essential to keep supply and demand aligned as electrification and digitalization accelerate. The following sections examine how these dynamics manifest across EV, data centres and grid value chains – each revealing distinct pressures, geographic realities and opportunities for resilience. From Minerals to Megawatts: Building Resilience for EVs, Data Centres and Power Grids 13