Register For Our Mailing List

Register to receive our free weekly newsletter including editorials.

Home / 583

How to find big winners in the energy transition

The received wisdom that investors should “take a long-term view” is as well-worn as it is simplistic. Because while the long run certainly matters, when it comes to investing in transition materials there’s also a strong case to make for a bit of constructive myopia. By that we mean keeping a very close eye on the near term – staying on top of both commodity market fundamentals and those of the producers in each market – and not being so focused on a good growth story that it leads to expensive decisions. Demand is important but the ability of new supply to meet that demand is often neglected and is just as important – if not more so.

Graphite is a good example. The mineral has a tremendous long-term clean energy story thanks to its role in the batteries that power electric vehicles. But if you’d invested in a graphite producer a year ago you would have lost money.

Timing clearly matters, and there’s a balancing act to perform between short- and long-term dynamics. Commodities are a bottleneck in the clean energy transition. From copper to agriculture, decarbonisation-driven demand is hitting supply networks that aren’t always set up to meet it. That triggers a response. As supply of, say, copper struggles to keep up with demand, there’s an increased incentive to swap to other materials, to supply more scrap copper, and to use the metal more efficiently.

What incentivises all these behaviours is a higher copper price, and there’s an obvious way to profit from that if you can spot the bottlenecks as they emerge.

But that’s only part of the story. The more a commodity’s supply is capital constrained – as opposed to resource constrained – the greater the ability to respond quickly to surging demand by boosting supply, and so the less likely those bottlenecks will persist. Take lithium, where a huge shortage in the early part of this decade was followed by a big run-up in price. Lithium, however, is in fact relatively abundant. So, predominantly Chinese producers responded to the higher price and ramped up supply, driving the price back down again, to a level we think is too low to support the investment economics of Western producers – which, in turn, is laying the ground for the next up-cycle.

Take a broad view

Graphite and lithium highlight why commodity choice matters. At least half the work our team does is top-down, identifying which commodity markets look most promising near-term. We try to take a broad view and consider potential ripple effects. Copper, for example, is widely considered a transition material, but fewer investors take the same view of aluminium. Yet the International Energy Agency has reported that a third of projected growth in copper demand arising from expanding electricity grids could be met by aluminium.

The supply chain for renewable diesel and sustainable aviation fuel shows some similar dynamics. Low carbon feedstocks, such as fats and used cooking oil, have a structural advantage under the Inflation Reduction Act in the US and we think these feedstocks will remain scarce. What was once a waste product will, we think, be increasingly valuable over time. The oil used to fry your chips in McDonald’s one day will potentially be flying you on your summer holidays.

Ammonia too is a commodity we think has an interesting future. The current ammonia market centres around its use as a fertiliser. But it can also be used as a fuel, including for shipping, a sector that faces almighty challenges in its attempts to reduce emissions. As a compound of nitrogen and hydrogen, ammonia is useful for the transportation of green fuel (cheaper and safer than moving pure hydrogen around) and could be used to reduce emissions in a number of high-carbon industries. These use cases potentially give ammonia a big role in the clean energy transition that could double the commodity’s overall market over the next 10 to 15 years.

Commodity prices: reliably unreliable

Of course, all the analysis in the world won’t guarantee getting the commodity story right every time. These are, after all, famously volatile markets and a focus on the top down doesn’t mean you can neglect the micro. You need a margin for error.

This is where company analysis comes in, including a consideration of sustainability. A focus on low-cost makes sense because what you want is a stock that can sit tight when its sector is under pressure and still generate cash at the bottom of the cycle. It means you can be confident that its share count is likely to be the same when things pick up because it hasn’t needed to issue new shares to raise capital. It’s about finding that happy medium between growth and free cash flow producing assets.

A word on political (and geopolitical) risk

That brings us to a topic that’s hard to avoid when investing in producers of transition materials: political risk. Our somewhat idiosyncratic view on the subject is that we would rather make cash flows through the cycle from high-quality assets in more risky spots than guarantee low-risk sub-par returns in so-called ‘safer’ regions. Because political risk is not static. Chile, for example, has in the last few years gone from being a low-risk jurisdiction to briefly being a high-risk one, and back again. And in 2022, Australian authorities in supposedly safe Queensland saw no issue with imposing a very punitive royalty on mining companies’ metallurgical coal revenues.

Political risk is unavoidable and is something we have to manage. It helps to start with solid cash flows from a low-cost asset and then manage that risk, rather than needing the commodity to do you some big favours.

Geopolitical risk, on the other hand, has a direct bearing on commodity cycles and future price formation. While China has a moderate endowment of critical minerals that will play a big role in the energy transition, it dominates processing. Moreover, at a time when Western companies have pulled back from allocating capital, Chinese state-owned enterprises have forged ahead with mining investments all over the world. Nickel, for example, is largely produced in Indonesia but a significant part of that production is Chinese-owned and almost all of the growth projects have Chinese partners.

The upshot is that Chinese investment in critical mineral production is keeping a lid on prices, which in turn makes it difficult for Western producers to invest at these levels. If certain countries want China-free supply chains of critical minerals, it will require the incentive of higher prices for producers. In practice, this is likely to mean some commodities having an international price that is higher than the Chinese price, as has happened to a degree in polysilicon.

This sort of dual pricing will need to become more widespread if Western producers are to feel confident that they can make profitable investments in growing the supply of transition-critical commodities. There is a clear strategic angle to this, and we’re watching closely how governments might try to incentivise producers.

Top-down and bottom-up: both matter

Investing in the energy transition is a long-term play, one that requires expertise in commodity markets and the companies that operate in them. In practice, that means not just making bets on which commodities will win big ‘eventually’. Because to benefit from the long-term macro trends, it’s essential to stay on top of the micro details and understand each producer’s business, as it is today.

 

Oliver Hextall is a Portfolio Manager of the Fidelity Global Demographics Fund. Fidelity International is  a sponsor of Firstlinks. The views are his own. This document is issued by FIL Responsible Entity (Australia) Limited ABN 33 148 059 009, AFSL 409340 (‘Fidelity Australia’), a member of the FIL Limited group of companies commonly known as Fidelity International. This document is intended as general information only. You should consider the relevant Product Disclosure Statement available on our website www.fidelity.com.au.

Read the full report and relevant disclaimers here.

For more articles and papers from Fidelity, please click here.

© 2024 FIL Responsible Entity (Australia) Limited. Fidelity, Fidelity International and the Fidelity International logo and F symbol are trademarks of FIL Limited.

 

6 Comments
Daryl
October 29, 2024

And we ignore Uranium, how interesting. At your peril in my humble opinion. Maybe I have a longer horizon.

Claude Walker
October 25, 2024

I prefer my long term investment in Energy One (ASX: EOL) shares as a way of getting exposure to a potential (and historical) big winner from the energy transition than trying to get commodities right. I think in the long term a disproportionate share of the biggest winners from the transition will be monetising some kind of intellectual property, rather than mining a raw ingredient.

john
October 24, 2024

I just realised though and of course that charts 2a and 2b don't include fuel such as coal or gas.

Dudley
October 26, 2024

"charts 2a and 2b don't include fuel such as coal or gas":

... which are free-in-the ground energy storages.
The graphs may not include materials for artificial energy storage.

'Steel and aluminium not included':
Electrically, aluminium conductors 1.5 times the cross-section area can substitute for copper.
https://www.shapesbyhydro.com/en/material-properties/how-we-can-substitute-aluminium-for-copper-in-the-green-transition/

john
October 24, 2024

Wow. I see a big issue with renewables. Those charts 2a and 2b indicate to me that renewables require up to 7 times the raw materials that coal requires. Or am I wrong there ?
Chart 4b is worrying also.

Ben
October 26, 2024

My 2c as a working materials engineer with some experience with around gas and coal-fired power plants, this makes intuitive sense. Noting the units are kg of these elements per MW. It's reasonably well known that for example wind turbines don't produce the most power per turbine. I don't have an analysis to work off, but can guess that a decent chunk of the total weight is the wind turbine's generator (think magnetic materials and copper).
According to Wikipedia, the world's largest single wind turbine can pump out ~18MW.
A run of the mill industrial gas turbine might produce say 40MW. Grid power plants could be using 400, 500, even 600MW turbines. Sure the generator will be bigger, but maybe not 20-30x heavier. More output per kg copper, hence the trend in graph 2b.
Power plants would be designed to make use of as much steel as they can because it's a cheap and effective alloy in most of the plant. Where things get really hot, one can squeeze more value out of a steel base by adding the right abouts of chromium, cobalt nickel and moly. More generally gives better performance, but at higher cost. Note the graph excludes steel. Interestingly enough, Fidelity's graph indicates Cr, Co, Ni and Mo in coal plants, but not in gas plants. Copper would be common to both - best I can think of are the big electrical generators connected to turbines, plus transformers, cables, etc.

 

Leave a Comment:

RELATED ARTICLES

America's green transition is taking a beating

Is the Paris Agreement on climate change dead?

Australia is out of step on nuclear power

banner

Most viewed in recent weeks

Australian house prices close in on world record

Sydney is set to become the world’s most expensive city for housing over the next 12 months, a new report shows. Our other major cities aren’t far behind unless there are major changes to improve housing affordability.

The case for the $3 million super tax

The Government's proposed tax has copped a lot of flack though I think it's a reasonable approach to improve the long-term sustainability of superannuation and the retirement income system. Here’s why.

Tariffs are a smokescreen to Trump's real endgame

Behind market volatility and tariff threats lies a deeper strategy. Trump’s real goal isn’t trade reform but managing America's massive debts, preserving bond market confidence, and preparing for potential QE.

The super tax and the defined benefits scandal

Australia's superannuation inequities date back to poor decisions made by Parliament two decades ago. If super for the wealthy needs resetting, so too does the defined benefits schemes for our public servants.

Meg on SMSFs: Withdrawing assets ahead of the $3m super tax

The super tax has caused an almighty scuffle, but for SMSFs impacted by the proposed tax, a big question remains: what should they do now? Here are ideas for those wanting to withdraw money from their SMSF.

Getting rich vs staying rich

Strategies to get rich versus stay rich are markedly different. Here is a look at the five main ways to get rich, including through work, business, investing and luck, as well as those that preserve wealth.

Latest Updates

SMSF strategies

Meg on SMSFs: Withdrawing assets ahead of the $3m super tax

The super tax has caused an almighty scuffle, but for SMSFs impacted by the proposed tax, a big question remains: what should they do now? Here are ideas for those wanting to withdraw money from their SMSF.

Superannuation

The huge cost of super tax concessions

The current net annual cost of superannuation tax subsidies is around $40 billion, growing to more than $110 billion by 2060. These subsidies have always been bad policy, representing a waste of taxpayers' money.

Planning

How to avoid inheritance fights

Inspired by the papal conclave, this explores how families can avoid post-death drama through honest conversations, better planning, and trial runs - so there are no surprises when it really matters.

Superannuation

Super contribution splitting

Super contribution splitting allows couples to divide before-tax contributions to super between spouses, maximizing savings. It’s not for everyone, but in the right circumstances, it can be a smart strategy worth exploring.

Economy

Trump vs Powell: Who will blink first?

The US economy faces an unprecedented clash in leadership styles, but the President and Fed Chair could both take a lesson from the other. Not least because the fiscal and monetary authorities need to work together.

Gold

Credit cuts, rising risks, and the case for gold

Shares trade at steep valuations despite higher risks of a recession. Amid doubts that a 60/40 portfolio can still provide enough protection through times of market stress, gold's record shines bright.

Investment strategies

Buffett acolyte warns passive investors of mediocre future returns

While Chris Bloomstan doesn't have the track record of his hero, it's impressive nonetheless. And he's recently warned that today has uncanny resemblances to the 1990s tech bubble and US returns are likely to be disappointing.

Sponsors

Alliances

© 2025 Morningstar, Inc. All rights reserved.

Disclaimer
The data, research and opinions provided here are for information purposes; are not an offer to buy or sell a security; and are not warranted to be correct, complete or accurate. Morningstar, its affiliates, and third-party content providers are not responsible for any investment decisions, damages or losses resulting from, or related to, the data and analyses or their use. To the extent any content is general advice, it has been prepared for clients of Morningstar Australasia Pty Ltd (ABN: 95 090 665 544, AFSL: 240892), without reference to your financial objectives, situation or needs. For more information refer to our Financial Services Guide. You should consider the advice in light of these matters and if applicable, the relevant Product Disclosure Statement before making any decision to invest. Past performance does not necessarily indicate a financial product’s future performance. To obtain advice tailored to your situation, contact a professional financial adviser. Articles are current as at date of publication.
This website contains information and opinions provided by third parties. Inclusion of this information does not necessarily represent Morningstar’s positions, strategies or opinions and should not be considered an endorsement by Morningstar.