Don’t just secure critical minerals supply. Look for substitutes. - The Strategist | ASPI's analysis and commentary site

ASPI's Strategist has published analysis arguing that Australia should pursue both supply-chain security for critical minerals and investment in substitute materials and technologies that reduce reliance on them. The piece frames mineral substitution as a complement to, not replacement for, supply diversification, noting that substitutes can lower vulnerability to supply shocks and reduce dependence on specific sourcing regions.

Where this fits

This directly bears on the materials and sovereignty pressure points of renewable energy. A grid built on solar panels, lithium batteries, and inverters locks Australia into supply chains for cobalt, lithium, rare earths, and processed silicon that are dominated by China. Substitution research could theoretically ease that lock-in, but only if substitutes are developed, scaled, and deployed faster than the grid transition proceeds. The current pace of substitution work lags the pace of renewable deployment, meaning near-term grid build-out will deepen China dependence regardless.

What it means

Australia is committed to a renewable-heavy electricity system without secure control of the materials that system requires. Pursuing substitutes is sensible policy, but it is also an admission that the current transition path has a critical vulnerability: we are building a decarbonised grid on materials we cannot secure independently. A firm, energy-dense generation source like nuclear requires far less material per unit of stable output and no reliance on battery chemistry or panel supply chains. It is already a substitute for the materials problem, and it is banned. Until substitution science closes the mineral-supply gap, which may take years, Australia's grid transition will rest on strategic dependence.