Three priorities stand out.
\nFirst, protect what exists<\/p>\n
European smelters face structural disadvantages. Energy can account for up to 60% of production costs, yet prices are set globally and cannot be passed through. At the same time, inconsistent grid tariffs and compensation mechanisms distort competition within Europe itself. Reforming grid tariffs, extending compensation for indirect ETS costs, and adopting a coherent approach to energy support are essential to prevent further closures.<\/p>\n
Second, create a viable business case for critical minerals<\/p>\n
Smelters can supply materials such as germanium and antimony, but doing so requires additional processing investment. At Nyrstar, adding germanium recovery capability would cost around \u20ac100 million per site \u2014 modest relative to its strategic value. Yet volatile prices and cheaper subsidised supply undermine commercial viability. Targeted tools \u2014 long-term offtake agreements, price floors, and public co-investment \u2014 are needed to unlock these projects.<\/p>\n
Third, invest to modernise and fully utilise existing assets<\/p>\n
Smelters can also support the energy system. Electrified plants can adjust production to balance intermittent \u2013 and growing – renewable supply. But this flexibility requires investment and market frameworks that reward, rather than penalise, it. With the right support, smelters can strengthen both industrial resilience and energy system stability.<\/p>\n
Other nations, notably the United States, are deploying capital and policy support to rebuild capacity that has already been lost. Europe, however, still has the assets, skills and opportunity to lead \u2014 not only in securing domestic supply, but in providing processing capacity for allied economies. But time is limited. Smelters do not simply restart once closed: equipment degrades, workforces disperse, and expertise is lost.<\/p>\n
Europe must move quickly to secure these strategic assets before they are irreversibly lost.<\/p>\n