The energy transition significantly impacts key metal markets through various shocks. Using supply, demand, and price data for key metals such as aluminum, copper, cobalt, and nickel in China from 2018 to 2025, this paper employs the TVP-SVAR-SV and GARCH models to categorize energy transition shocks into demand, supply, risk, technology, and policy. It systematically examines their dynamic effects on the metal market. The results show that: (1) Cobalt prices respond most strongly to demand shocks (peak 0.52); (2) Supply disruptions cause cobalt prices to reach extremes of 2.56 worldwide; (3) Geopolitical risks increase volatility to 0.853; (4) Technological shocks have a significant short-term impact on cobalt prices, while nickel prices tend to rise gradually over the long term; and (5) Indonesia's nickel export ban leads to a short-term nickel price change of 0.105. The study recommends enhancing supply chain resilience, promoting technological innovation, and strengthening international cooperation to manage market fluctuations.
McNultyBAJowittSM. Byproduct critical metal supply and demand and implications for the energy transition: a case study of tellurium supply and CdTe PV demand. Renew Sustain Energy Rev2022; 168: 112838.
2.
ShojaeiniaS. Metal market analysis: an empirical model for copper supply and demand in US market. Miner Econ2023; 36: 509–517.
3.
XuLGuoZ. Effect of regulation on the increasing price of metals and minerals to meet the challenges in clean energy transitions: a case study of China. Sustainability2022; 14: 764.
4.
HanSZhenghaoMMeilinL, et al.Global supply sustainability assessment of critical metals for clean energy technology. Resour Policy2023; 85: 103994.
5.
DaiW. Structural shocks in the global copper market: evidence from an SVAR model and China's macroeconomic influence. Open Econ Rev2025; 36: 1–18.
6.
PozybillR. Material Supply Risks for the Energy Transition: A Quantitative Analysis of Resources, Production Concentration and Geopolitical Risks. 2022.
7.
SchischkeAPapenfußPBremM, et al.Sustainable energy transition and its demand for scarce resources: insights into the German energiewende through a new risk assessment framework. Renew Sustain Energy Rev2023; 176: 113190.
8.
CalderonJLBazilianMSovacoolB, et al.Reviewing the material and metal security of low-carbon energy transitions. Renew Sustain Energy Rev2020; 124: 109789.
9.
XieQJiangYJiaN, et al.Asymmetric impact of oil structural shocks on non-ferrous metals supply chains: a groundbreaking multidimensional quantile-on-quantile regression. -on-quantile regression. Int Rev Financ Anal2024; 96: 103607–103607.
10.
YuanPLiDFengK, et al.Assessing the supply risks of critical metals in China's low-carbon energy transition. Glob Environ Change2024; 86: 102825.
11.
DanieleVAndreaBMatteoM. A weekly structural VAR model of the US crude oil market. Energy Economics2023; 121: 106656.
12.
ReboredoJCUgoliniA. The impact of uncertainty shocks on energy transition metal prices. Resour Policy2024; 95: 105161.
13.
CooperMReynoldsSBennettN, et al.An investigation into the economic adjustments in metal markets throughout the transition to renewable energy. 2024.
14.
JiaLXuRWuJ, et al.Impacts of geopolitical risk and economic policy uncertainty on metal futures price volatility: evidence from China. Resour Policy2023; 87: 104328.
15.
FanY. Determinants analysis of grain price under financialization. Macroecon Financ Emerg Market Econ2023; 16: 17–31.
16.
AkthamMHusseinAMohammadA. Oil structural shocks, bank-level characteristics, and systemic risk: evidence from dual banking systems. Econ Syst2022; 46: 101038.
17.
KaufmanNBarronARKrawczykW, et al.A near-term to net zero alternative to the social cost of carbon for setting carbon prices. Nat Clim Change2020; 10: 1010–1014.
18.
HeAXueQZhaoR, et al.Renewable energy technological innovation, market forces, and carbon emission efficiency. Sci Total Environ2021; 796: 148908.
19.
MånbergerAJohanssonB. The geopolitics of metals and metalloids used for the renewable energy transition. Energy Strategy Rev2019; 26: 100394.
20.
ArnautJL. The importance of uranium prices and structural shocks: some implications for Greenland. Energy Policy2022; 161: 112757.
21.
KempenerRAssoumouEChiodiA, et al.A global renewable energy roadmap: comparing energy systems models with IRENA's REMAP 2030 project. Inf Energy Clim Policies Using Energy Syst Models Insights Scenario Anal Increas Evidence Base2015; 30: 43–67.
22.
RötzerNSchmidtM. Historical, current, and future energy demand from global copper production and its impact on climate change. Resources2020; 9: 44.
23.
GrujicicMBellWPanduranganB, et al.Computational investigation of structured shocks in al/SiC-particulate metal-matrix composites. Multidiscip Model Mater Struct2011; 7: 469–497.
24.
ShenJHuangS. Structural impacts of international copper price volatility on China's industrial economy - based on MSVAR and TVP-SVAR-SV models. Resour Science2022; 44: 994–1008.
25.
MånbergerAStenqvistB. Global metal flows in the renewable energy transition: exploring the effects of substitutes, technological mix and development. Energy Policy2018; 119: 226–241.
26.
AliUGuoQKartalMT, et al.The impact of renewable and non-renewable energy consumption on carbon emission intensity in China: fresh evidence from novel dynamic ARDL simulations. J Environ Manag2022; 320: 115782.
27.
SongYZhangZZhangY, et al.Technological innovation and supply of critical metals: a perspective of industrial chains. Resour Policy2022; 79: 103144.
28.
ZhangQWeiR. Carbon reduction attention and financial market stress: a network spillover analysis based on quantile VAR modeling. J Environ Manag2024; 356: 120640.
