Thinking in Models: The Critical Mineral Imperative in India’s Energy Transition

This article is part of our ‘Thinking in Models’ series, which reflects on insights from NITI Aayog’s Scenarios Towards Viksit Bharat and Net Zero modelling reports. Earlier blogs in the series highlighted the value of integrated modelling for India’s development and decarbonisation pathways, while pointing to gaps such as land constraints and the missing links among finance, growth, and decarbonisation. This blog builds on those discussions by examining another key dimension of the transition: the critical minerals needed to support India’s clean energy future.

Amid escalating geopolitical tensions, India faces heightened and layered vulnerabilities in its energy security. As the country accelerates its clean energy transition, Clean Energy Transition minerals (CETMs) have emerged as a new strategic currency—much like oil that continues to exert immense pressure as a competing current demand—particularly given India’s heavy reliance on imports. Thirty such critical raw minerals (CRMs) identified by India, including copper, graphite, lithium, cobalt, nickel, silicon, and rare earth elements, are essential for manufacturing the technologies underpinning this transition. Recognising these emerging dependencies, NITI Aayog’s recent report, Scenarios Towards Viksit Bharat and Net Zero – Critical Mineral Assessment: Demand and Supply, examines India’s future mineral requirements by comparing the current policy scenario (CPS) with the more ambitious net-zero scenario (NZS), providing a framework for planning this transition while accounting for associated risks.

The comparative cumulative mineral demand under NZS is projected to reach approximately 169 million tonnes (Mt), 51% higher than CPS’s projected 112 Mt. In particular, copper (66 Mt) and graphite (46.4 Mt) are projected to record the highest cumulative demand under NZS, followed by silicon (19 Mt), nickel (11 Mt), lithium (5.4 Mt), cobalt (1.4 Mt), and vanadium (0.7 Mt). Notably, two-thirds of this demand is expected to materialise after 2050, underscoring the backloaded nature of India’s CETM transition. This temporal distribution highlights the urgency of early planning to secure supply chains and indigenise critical systems.

However, by restricting demand assessment primarily to the clean energy transition, the report risks underestimating the scale and diversity of India’s future CRM requirements. For example, graphite is vital for clean energy but is also used in defence and aerospace applications due to its strength and light weight. Similarly, phosphorus is essential for Lithium Iron Phosphate batteries and the fertiliser industry. These cross-sectoral uses highlight the need for a systems perspective—one that considers material flows across the entire supply chain, from mining and refining to manufacturing and end-use across multiple sectors.

The report points out that recycling could meet all of India’s cobalt demand by 2040 and supply up to a quarter of lithium and graphite demand by 2047. However, recycling alone cannot fully bridge the supply gap. While India possesses mature processing technologies for certain minerals, significant gaps remain for niche materials such as rare earth elements, highlighting the need for a multifaceted strategy that integrates domestic exploration, international partnerships, and circular economy practices.

Although recycling is rightly identified as a key pillar, the analysis remains largely techno-centric rather than fully system-dynamic. While the model does try to estimate when products will reach the end of their life, the broader framework still treats recycled material as proportionally available through fixed processing and recovery rates. For instance, electric vehicle batteries are assumed to be recycled or used in second-life applications once they reach end-of-life, but in reality, their availability depends on stock build-up over time and may not align with near-term storage demand. This creates timing mismatches that the model does not fully capture, potentially leading to an overestimation of the amount of recycled material available at any given point.

Similarly, the report qualitatively mentions policies requiring producers to handle products after they are no longer usable, but these are not endogenised in NITI’s model. Additionally, the informal sector is not accounted for. Collection and processing rates are largely assumed rather than driven by how actors respond to prices, enforcement, or compliance costs—for instance, shifting waste to informal channels when incentives are misaligned. These behaviours directly shape how much material is actually recovered. In addition, the methodology used to analyse end-of-life span estimates does not address legacy waste. Given that legacy waste represents a significant stream of materials, excluding it risks underestimating the actual volume of resources available for recycling.

Expanding the scope beyond single sectors for CRMs is a useful step. The existing model captures what can be recycled in principle but not when, by whom, or under what constraints these flows materialise. Taking this analysis further to enhance its usefulness for policy planning would entail accounting for real-world frictions, such as delays in material availability and behavioural responses to incentives. This would help overcome the risk of overestimating how smoothly circular systems will function.

The NITI Aayog report represents a timely and significant contribution to understanding India’s critical mineral requirements. Building on this methodological foundation, future models need to move beyond linear projections to better capture supply chain complexities, sectoral interdependencies, demand-side dynamics, and infrastructure needs. Through such an integrated approach, India can more effectively chart a secure, resilient, and sustainable pathway towards the vision of Viksit Bharat and a low-carbon transition.

Blog 1

Blog 2

Blog 3