Slashdot Mirror

Nope. Germany is expected to import more coal in 2019: http://www.mining.com/web/germ...

Reality is different from the delusional German fanboys.

They are just replacing it by importing it from other countries: http://www.mining.com/web/germ...

Germany is a complete joke.

Yeah we all know about Germans and "agreements". They haven't been hitting their Co2 emission reduction targets and have been increasing their coal imports: http://www.mining.com/web/germ...

Much like Germany's "clean diesel" claims, it is all a lie.

Yeah, right. One thing I have noticed about Europeans in general: they are delusional. They think they are "green". Meanwhile they lie about diesel emissions and Germany is INCREASING their coal imports. http://www.mining.com/web/germ...

You guys see everyone else as the problem. Stupid Americans right? Yet we are the #2 country in renewable energy generation. Stupid Germans.

Exactly. It is a NEW plant. Plus they are importing more coal every year: http://www.mining.com/web/germ...

Germany is importing huge amounts of coal, and is poised to import even more this year: http://www.mining.com/web/germ...

Germany is a mess.

Germany imports 45 million tons of coal a year, expected to rise in 2019: http://www.mining.com/web/germ...

They are burning theirs and importing more and more. You guys are embarrassing yourselves.

Satellite imagery reveals that many coal-fired power projects that were halted by the Chinese government have quietly restarted.

...

Analysis by CoalSwarm estimates that 46.7 gigawatts of new and restarted coal-fired power construction is visible based on satellite imagery supplied by Planet Labs. The coal-fired power plants are either generating power or will soon be operational. If all the plants reach completion they would increase China’s coal-fired power capacity by 4 per cent.

So, what happened?
Well, their economy is coming back, and CHina was lying about having their AE producing too much power. They are adding coal-based energy to deal with economy improving as well as moving to electric cars.
Sadly, we are going to see trolls here defending CHina on this, claiming that they are owed it. Of course, one of them claims that CHina is not a communist nation. Yeah.

No, china is NOT adding 1600 new coal plants. It is over 700 of the 1600 TOTAL that they are adding.
Apparently, Japan and Europe continue to sell coal plants to other nations as well. America no longer does. Nor have we built any in something like 10 years.

http://www.mining.com/chinese-...

No. China NEVER did a moratorium on new coal plants. Not even close. They stopped about 100 new plants that were planned, out of more than 500-600.

Chine continues to build 700 new coal plants, with 300 or so in other nations.

Citing data gleaned from the world's biggest developers of coal-fired power plants, Urgewald found that of all the new coal generation expected to go online over the next decade, Chinese companies will build nearly half of it. Specifically, that means 700 new coal plants, with most to be built in China, and about a fifth outside the country, according to figures provided by Urgewald and reported by the New York Times:

Humanity is about to have major issues all because politicians are afraid to do what is needed.

Since when is less than 12 months old, old, while you continue to push 6-12 y.o. data?
Andrew Topf | Oct. 8, 2017, 4:35 PM |

Quit lying.
U have ALWAYS been a liar. And I suspect that it the case for everything that you do.

Overall, 1,600 coal plants are planned or under construction in 62 countries, said Urgewald, which uses data from the Global Coal Plant Tracker portal. The new plants would expand the world's coal-fired power capacity by 43 per cent.

43%, with CHina accounting for close to 1/2 of all new power plants being built. Oh, and America is building NONE OF THEM, though to be fair, Europe is also build a number of these in other nations.
This says it all.

The fleet of new coal plants would make it virtually impossible to meet the goals set in the Paris climate accord. Electricity generated from fossil fuels such as coal is the biggest single contributor globally to the rise in carbon emissions, which scientists agree is causing the earth's temperatures to rise.

It is time for you to tell your bosses to quit destroying this planet. America built coal plants when we did NOT know. Now that we know, we are NOT building them,but instead shutting them down.
Be a man, grow a pair and start being against coal and that fact that your nation is primarly responsible for the destruction of mankind.

CHina's growth continues due to building of new coal plants. In spite of your BS posting, here we speak about last year where CHina increased coal use by 5% (and that is from Chinese gov): But China’s National Development and Reform Commission released detailed data this week showing that the country’s electricity consumption jumped 6.6 percent last year. Wind and solar energy grew quickly, but not nearly enough to meet the extra demand. Electricity generation from the burning of fossil fuels, almost entirely coal, rose 5.2 percent in China last year.
Wait until CHina REALLY starts moving towards EVs. That is going to drive their CO2 way up. As to the future, CHina IS doing 700 new coal plants, with more 350 in CHina alone. The rest are around the globe, but still pushed, financed, and built by CHina.

Shows what a constant liar you are, either as porky or as red tide.

Good. Lets go with common sense and facts.
Here we see your favorite of emissions per capita
Your nation jumps from 1.97 in 1990 to 7.45 in 2016. IOW, you increased 400%. EU-28 is was at 9 in 1990 and went down to 6.75 in 2016. EU-28 decreased ~ 25%.
America was ~20 in 1990, and went down to 15.5 in 2016. IOW, America decreased 25%.
Last year, CHina went up again, while EU stayed flat and America dropped.

When you speak of rich nations, I think that you have to include not just AMerica, but EU-28, Canada, Austrlia, and to be fair, CHina. BUT, CHina continues to grow their co2 emissions and now exceeds EU's per capita. In the next 5 years, there is a great chance that AMerica and CHina will have about the same per capita, which is NOT a good thing. We will probably cross at around 12.

CHina's growth continues due to building of new coal plants. In spite of your BS posting, here we speak about last year where CHina increased coal use by 5% (and that is from Chinese gov): But China’s National Development and Reform Commission released detailed data this week showing that the country’s electricity consumption jumped 6.6 percent last year. Wind and solar energy grew quickly, but not nearly enough to meet the extra demand. Electricity generation from the burning of fossil fuels, almost entirely coal, rose 5.2 percent in China last year.
Wait until CHina REALLY starts moving towards EVs. That is going to drive their CO2 way up.
As to the future, CHina IS doing 700 new coal plants, with more 350 in CHina alone. The rest are around the globe, but still pushed, financed, and built by CHina.

COmmon sense and these facts PROVE that CHina is on the WRONG COURSE. China is increasing CO2 in their own nation as well as others.
In addition, most of the west continues on the RIGHT course. America and most of the west has stopped building new coal plants. Germany, continues to stay with Asia and build out new ones, but will probably be forced to drop those.
Common sense and facts says STOP BUILDING NEW COAL PLANTS. In addition, it says to quit defending it.

We lose porker esp since you lie to others. China is back to growing coal

no, it is NOT being consumed by ppl. ppl do not eat coal asshole.
coal is burned for electricity, which provides for your buildings, your companies, your cars, your everything. WHy? Because you refuse to put in clean AE, and instead invest more into coal.
If your nation would just stop building out coal, and would instead focus solely on AE, nukes, etc. then you would clean up.
But, no, even knowing that your emissions are the WORST (14+% just for the #1 company; holy SHIT),
you continue to build out coal in CHina and around the world.
Even now, you will continue to lie about everything and ignore facts. But, I guess that is what you are paid to do.

A big issue is this: Coal has been steadily automating its mining systems. In 1950 underground mining was at the rate of 0.68 tons per man hour and surface mining was at the rate of 1.9 tons/manhour. By 2011 underground mining was at the rate of 2.76 tons/man hour and surface mining was at 8.8 tons/man hour. There were productivity peaks in 2003 of 4.04 and 10.75 tons/man hour.

Pretty much this. It is nothing short of amazing how quickly a few men can tear a mountain apart to extract the coal in it. I had a lot of relatives that worked in coal back in the day. Now, not one. Even jobs you would think were safe have been eliminated by just making the machines bigger. Like this http://www.mining.com/belaz-la...

A mere 450 tonne payload, twin turbo diesels, and 65 Km/Hr speed. These trucks can be filled by the likes of "Big Muskie" (no longer in service) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... which could do 220 cubic yards per scoop. We can build 'em as big as you want - in fact bigger than most mines will ever need

The only way that the Trumpian/Miner coal jobs wet dream will ever materialize is by returning to the good old days of this: https://i.pinimg.com/736x/af/2... , this, https://c8.alamy.com/comp/DAHJ... and this https://upload.wikimedia.org/w...

Gains in employment will be obtained by using mules in the mines, making the use of steam drills and jumbos and road headers illegal, just human and mule power, picks and shovels.

Otherwise, as you point out, coal mining is pretty darn automated. This is yet another "jerbs, Jerbs, JERBS! event, where people who might not think out the whole situation are promised jerbs, and are pursuaded to vote for people who have no intention of making jobs for them, or perhaps aren't thinking either.

The math is simply not there.

Yes, pity for you that he is right. China LOVES to trumpet when it does something "good" in one little corner, but ignores all the "bad" it does everywhere else. Living there for 6 years, you get used to seeing how Beijing will use a singular, small initiative to claim it is doing something - and continue to not apply that initiative in 95% of the country.

For example, China claims that air pollution is getting much better. But independent measurements show a drastic difference. Go to Ningbo in the summer. Wonder why the official temperature is never over 44, even though your calibrated thermometer shows 46 or 47? Because if the official temperature is 45 or higher, then factories must have air conditioning installed. So thus, the official temperature never is above 44 - even if outside it is well above that.

They already are mostly automated. Also the haul trucks now come in fully autonomous versions as well.

Coal jobs: http://www.mining.com/new-met-...

US Mining sees first profits in years: http://www.cnsnews.com/news/ar...

Yup: Trump’s energy policy to focus on boosting fracking, reviving coal sector

Replying to myself with one caveat: there are lots of tiny diamonds in asteroids, formed mostly by pressure in collisions involving carbonaceous objects. Different animals, but still "diamonds" in the crystallographic sense.

DumbFace

The difference this time around is that Carboniferous period fungi were unable to break down lignin. Lignin adds rigidity to plant cell walls and was what plants needed to grow into tall trees with the capacity to bind trillions of tonnes of carbon into wood. For about 50 millions years, all the tree trunks that fell over from storms, disease, old age, insects, earthquakes, dinosours knocking them over, what have you, did not rot completely. Much of their carbon was sequestered underground and compressed into coal. The Caboniferous period ended as Fungi evolved the means to digest lignin and ended the massive carbon sequestration.

http://www.mining.com/coal-sto...

So yeah, plant growth will spike, but don't expect that to mean much for reducing global C02 levels.

How would that work exactly? It wouldn't work for home delivery. It wouldn't work for commerical delivery where the same truck goes to multiple customers, or any sort of route sales for that matter

From the post you were replying to:

In the "we'll unload this for you" [category], other types of automation will be employed, so that's perhaps a couple or three years down the road, so to speak, but nonetheless, inevitable.

Just learn to do work that is of value to society.

That response is so clueless I won't dignify it with a direct comment.

The (anti-gun) left sure does think a lot of itself. If society divides into one group that does work of value to society, and one group that doesn't, which group do you imagine will have the power?

WTF are you taking about now? I am pro-constitution, and the constitution says "right to keep and carry", and as far as I'm concerned, barring use of, and success in employing, article 5, arms, kept and carried, are 100% legitimate. I own firearms (and several other types of arms) and consider anti-gun sentiment, quite aside from constitutional issues, to be completely misdirected. People commit crimes because they want to. If they use an object, it's not the object's fault. If they can't get one object to accomplish their goals, they will use another. And yes, absolutely, criminals will have weapons, and law-abiding citizens would not, in an environment where calling for law enforcement might (and I do mean might) get you a response in minutes, in a situation where every second counts, you could die, your family could die, etc. Anti-gun people are being both stupid and shortsighted. NONE of which changes the fact that they are extremely numerous and would just as soon see you completely defenseless and anyone who disagrees with them muzzled, pun intended.

Also, none of which changes the fact that the Republicans have absolutely nothing of value to offer in terms of a candidate at this point in time, or that the Republican party has fractured into a drooling bunch of Trumpettes, a collection of theocrat-worshiping fools, and a remainder of more-or-less run of the mill party plankers (most of whom are absolutely appalled at the very presence of Trump and Cruz in the primaries.) Libertarians (both cases) are such a minority that even without being actually reviled, they are basically irrelevant. I would know: a lot of my views lean strongly (small-L) libertarian. None of which makes me think that other individuals aren't just as worthy of being kept healthy and sheltered as I am, no matter if they agree with me or not, BTW.

Because Russia invading a sovereign country is perfectly acceptable because they weren't doing what Russia wanted them to do. Of course, pointing to another country doing something kind of the same excuses what Russia is doing, it is all perfectly acceptable to annex the territory of another country.

Great Powers do it all the time. I don't expect it to change. But I do aim to point out the hypocrisy and/or naivete of anyone who thinks the US's foreign policy has altruistic motives or that the "Other Guys" are inherently evil.

Yeah, screw those other countries, China has a huge population, so they should just be able to steal territory that they have no valid claim to.

Might makes right. Just ask any sovereign nation that's been subject to a US invasion. As an aside, note that no nuclear-armed state has suffered a regime change at US hands. And yet Americans are surprised when antagonists pursue nuclear arms? As for "stealing territory they have no valid claim to"....the validity of their claim stems from their ability to enforce their will. Hence the fortification of their man-made islands. Also note that the US has progressed to a uniquely insidious alternative to directly "stealing" territory: the Petrodollar system. But it requires constant enforcement by the US, and controlling/manipulating central banks, financial institutions, and the exchange of oil are all aspects of this enforcement.

2000: Saddam was planning to switch sales of Iraqi oil from dollars to Euros. Within 3 years he was deposed.
2009: Gaddafi was doing his best to reconcile with the West. Unfortunately for him, he also planned a gold-and-oil-backed Libyan currency. He was dead within 3 years of shaking Obama's hand. And the "rebels" sure were quick to set up a Central Bank (less than 2 months into the civil war).
2012: Iran was planning to sell oil in exchange for gold. Despite having them bracketed with bases in both Afghanistan and Iraq, the US military was in no position to invade. So Iran instead found themselves promptly disconnected from global financial institutions: http://www.reuters.com/article...
2014: Ukraine has a revolution....and suddenly all the gold is missing from their central bank. Now they are stuck with fiat currency and IMF obligations. http://www.zerohedge.com/news/... Meanwhile, Russia and China are buying up gold like crazy ( http://www.mining.com/china-ru... ), and started their own alternative-IMF (the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank). Both have stated intentions to end the US's hegemonic influence. These are two nuclear-armed Great Powers that are closing the conventional military gap, and despite shaky economies, having been consistently moving to eliminate US dollar influence across their entire sphere of influence. Which, IMO, will eventually be a good thing for everyone, including the average (productive) American citizen.

Oh, let us ignore all the people Assad was murdering, and that a large percentage of the population wants him out of office.

If you have a problem with murderous heads of state that are unpopular, perhaps you should look a little closer to home before trying to solve other people's problems? https://theintercept.com/drone...

Lets just prop up that dictator because he is our friend and is nice to us.

Yes, the Russian relationship with Assad closely parallels the relationship the United States has with Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States. Ya know, the guys who are busy bombing the shit out of Yemen? These are also the same people who are VERY close ideologically to ISIS and al Qaeda....who we've spent the past 15 yea

The forges was a reference to the failed Great Leap Forward. China has been shutting coal mines. http://www.mining.com/china-to... and recently announced a moratorium on new mine approvals.

Yeah yeah, the usual "demonize China" narrative.

One problem with that: it just ain't true.

China is doing its bit. Time to find someone else to blame, if you want to continue doing nothing.

It's not global data but there's a graph here showing the trend since international coal markets are linked fairly tightly:
http://www.mining.com/us-coal-...
Expect a bit more of a drop when the 2015 data is added, but 2013-4 tells the story alone.

Also Figure 1 on that link you gave shows the dropoff in terms of planning less that demands coal than in the previous year, even if it is greater than 2004. A graph of new wind capacity, solar and probably even nuclear with China's new reactors would probably have a similar shape - the big bulge was due to rapid expansion that was not limited to coal fired plants.
If demand for coal was increasing it is unlikely that the price would be falling as much as it is:
http://www.infomine.com/investment/metal-prices/coal/all/

Hey, check this out. 50 dead, 50 wounded.

Tool of choice: Knives.

We Must Ban All Knives!

Nobody recycles batteries for the lithium. A small amount get recycled for cobalt That will change as the price of lithium rises, of course as that happens we are back to economics..

And yet, the total batteries are being recycled as we speak here in America.
Here is more.

Which is why we don't have enough to supply our need.

Sadly, again, you have no real knowledge of science, or what is going on. You took something from several years ago, which is predicated on PROVED RESERVOIRS that want to be acknowledged. Yet, it is wrong.
Now, go look up Simbol Mining Corp. Simbol is going to feed Tesla, which is working on a factory that will MORE THAN DOUBLE CURRENT LITHIUM ION PRODUCTION. Now, that is just 1 company that will be providing all this.
In addition, for the future Here is more.
You just have to read a bit, rather than as little as possible. In addition, stay up on your science.

Finally, as to being cheap/economical, it is regularly about scale, not about process. Bolivia and Chile are pushed by Europe to be dirty, but, Tesla will be looking for more than what Bolivia, Chile, China, and Australia put out together, THIS YEAR. And considering that it will come from America (and Canada), that will increase the scale. Finally, as Tesla gears up, Simbol's will also expand outwards to other geothermal units.

I'm not sure where you get that coal kills millions under 'normal opererations', but I do know that coal mining kills on the order of thousands per year, almost all of which is in China.

Quoting the whole of the 20th century for US coal mining deaths is misleading. To quote MSHA, "Total deaths in all types of U.S. mining, which had averaged 1,500 or more per year during earlier decades, decreased on average during the 1990s to under 100 per year, and reached historic lows of 35 total deaths in 2009 and 2012. "[1]

This wasn't by chance; regulators, companies, and miners made safety a high priority and their efforts have been successful in greatly reducing the fatality rate.

Safety is improving in China, too, with CPC claims 2014 saw the death rate dropped below 1,000 for the first time since the 1980s.[2]

Note that Uranium mining was hazerdous in the past, too, but safety efforts there have reduced the health risks. [3]

[1] http://www.msha.gov/MSHAINFO/F...
[2] http://www.mining.com/china-cl...
[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

be cost effective to extract uranium from seawater,

Two things about that. #1 It is horribly expensive at over 15 to 30x the cost of current uranium. #2 The extraction process requires absurd amounts of oil based 'net' to extract the atoms of uranium.

Nuclear is already an expensive method of electricity production. Saying that this method of extraction is 'cost effective' is highly misleading. in 2010 Uranium prices spiked, the ocean extraction process would still have been over 7 times more expensive, not to mention there are only prototypes and estimates of cost at this point. Some of the estimates have put the cost of extraction at well over 100x current uranium cost.

The most advanced materials, which can be reused several times, can draw between three and four milligrams of uranium per gram of plastic each time theyâ(TM)re used, says Costas Tsouris, a researcher at Oak Ridge National Laboratory who is working on that system.

http://www.technologyreview.co...

Uranium obtained using the traditional process today would cost between $1,000 and $2,000 per kilogramâ"about 10 to 20 times the current market price, says Schneider. (The price of uranium did rise to around $300 per kilogram as recently as 2007, however.) The new process could cut that cost significantly.

Current price is around $31 per pound ($68 a kilo).
http://www.mining.com/chart-ur...

A sharp spike in uranium prices in 2007 had many people scared in terms of the sustainability of the nuclear industry, [at $100 per lb]

So if the nuclear industry is unsustainable with mined uranium then it is completely unsustainable with ocean extracted uranium, which realistically costs around 20 times as much.

How's that nuclear waste problem coming along? Perhaps the mafia can help.

Just make sure that nuclear waste doesn't leak. Oops.
Radiation leaks force transfer of nuclear waste from New ...
Nuclear waste leaking at Hanford site in Washington, again ...
After $40 Billion , America's Biggest Nuclear Dump Is Still ...
Radiation leak at nuclear waste dump raises questions ...
Ocean disposal of radioactive waste - Wikipedia, the free ...
Thousands of radioactive waste barrels rusting ...
Japan Times: Now 400 tons a day of toxic water is estimated ...

Because nuclear accidents stopped happening after Chernobyl right? Nope. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N...

But hey, todays new breed of super-human won't make the same mistakes as those past

Is lithium mining expanding fast enough to feed this factory when it comes online?

Yes, but the Musktards around here are too invested to talk about the ugly parts, and they have lots of mod points to end it if you do.

Between the Lithium, Cobalt, Nickle and Graphite there will be plenty of fresh new dead zones appearing around the world, all conveniently far away from anyplace with an environmental regulation.

OMG you ignorant fuck. Tesla batteries are made of wonderful shit like Nickel. A fire in such a plant could loft heinous amounts of contaminates which would promptly precipitate out in the vicinity downwind of the plant.

Do you want cancer with that battery?
January 19, 2014

Recently, the Environmental Protection Agency and the U.S. Department of Energy undertook a study to look at the environmental impact of lithium-ion batteries for EVs. The study showed that batteries that use cathodes with nickel and cobalt, as well as solvent-based electrode processing, have the highest potential for environmental impacts, including resource depletion, global warming, ecological toxicity, and human health. The largest contributing processes include those associated with the production, processing, and use of cobalt and nickel metal compounds, which may cause adverse respiratory, pulmonary, and neurological effects in those exposed.

This is what CA is throwing it's precious regs under the bus for; it's politically correct industrial golden boy.

You know what the worst part of all this happy horseshit is? At the end of the day all we're really doing is off-shoring our impact. The elements that Tesla is going to need to feed this "giga" factory are going to come from Africa and Asia, far beyond the reach of EPA, DOE, OHSA, NLRB and the rest of the gang;

Tesla’s Gigafactory: Needs 6 new graphite mines, but where will cobalt be sourced?

Nickel refining is particularly heinous. It's worse for the environment than copper mining and refining. Downwind of a third world nickel mine or refinery is a dead zone. That's why we won't tolerate it near ourselves anymore.

And yeah, doesn't this story just put the lie right to the Left when they argue how environmentalism and economy aren't in conflict. And what happened to Tesla here? Playing one state off against another for regulatory wavers? Tsk tsk.

All these regs and legislated morality have a price. It really does. I'm sorry about that. A magic fairy wand would be nice, but we don't have one. Get that through your la-la land head and grow up a little.

Yes, but also this is a meaningless move by Germany in the real sense of the world, because it is still not demanding that all of its gold is returned by the USA immediately.

Of-course the German central bank authorities decided a couple of weeks back that it is better to pretend that the USA still has German gold and not raise any noise than to make it clear that its gold is gone. Germany requested the USA Fed to return its gold about 2 years ago, USA came out saying that it will return half of the gold within 7 year period but in 2 years only returned 1/100th of what it was supposed to, actually the numbers can be found here. In any case if Germany truly wanted to make a statement it would insist on the return of its gold, with the correct serial numbers on the bars and everything.

If Germany simply wanted to get the gold back it also has a choice of selling the gold in the market and getting dollars back, which the Fed could easily provide by creating them out of thin air as it always does, so that then Germany could buy the gold back in the market (of-course fewer tons could be bought since the prices would go up, but at least it wouldn't be a total loss as it is now). Any of this would be better than a useless symbolic gesture.

It surprised me to be honest - here is the page I saw, and it's 1967, not 1969.This article backs up the data and discusses the gold supply in general - it does seem as though most people assume that gold mining is much less prevalent than it actually is.

Idiot. Without export there will be no import. Who is going to sell you petrol

The US produces more oil than Iran

Or iPad

Can easily be manufactured in the US. It will just be a bit more expensive

Or precious metals?

Discovery channel has at least 5 different series of "Gold Rush Alaska" etc...

Or steel?

You're kidding, right?

Or lithium for you convertible's batteries?

http://www.mining.com/web/new-wyoming-lithium-deposit-could-meet-all-u-s-demand/

As others stated, the mines are running out in about 30 years. This is very far in the future for American culture, which also shows in this discussion. But for China this is soon.
And they are closing the illegal mines now too: http://www.mining.com/china-cracks-down-on-illegal-rare-earth-mines-in-guangdong-province/
Well, saving the rare earths for later is probably most important to them. It is about long-term profit. China does not care about the very short-term profits as you guys are assuming. An your grandparent poster was right that this is not good to them in the mid-term, since other countries are building up competition. And as far as I remember someone stated in an earlier discussion about this topic that Chinese are helping to build up that competition in California?

I'd have to agree, somebody else will step in to fill the void, but as somebody else in this discussion mentioned, that's not going to happen overnight, but rather over a period of years. The problem... the runner up is Russia and they don't have much love for the states either: http://www.mining.com/russian-getting-back-into-rare-earth-game/

The mine owners may be forced to sell then mine to someone with enought foresight to know that the prices won't stay low forever.

And that will be the Chinese, as they're the only one able to concentrate enough money (through state-owned companies) to buy up the mines.

Just a few examples.

Libertarian, busted you are.

Risk = Reward. If the Chinese can buy up all the mines in the world to corner the market on NEW materials, then they deserve the monopoly... wait, monopolies are illegal in this and many other countries. I wonder how that will play out.

But again, like people have said, even if all the mines are not producing, that will mean a HUGE market for recycled materials, increased research into alternatives and alternative supply chains.

So, yeah, China could bank if they could buy out the world's mines, buy out the future potential mines, outbid all other investors for those last few mines, prevent alternative sources from being found, and finally, prevent alternative materials from being discovered... yeah, then they could corner the market and reap huge rewards. However, that's a very VERY risky venture that, let's face it, won't pay out.

Sure, others have tried and some do quite well at it. DeBeers, for example, have a controlling chunk of the diamond market. However, the more they raise prices, the more alternative sources of diamonds are discovered. OPEC controls oil prices, but every time they cut production, more sources of oil are found.

There are laws of economics. The free market is based on those laws. Governments can bend the market one way or the other, but the laws may not be broken. When governments try to bend it too far one way or the other, a thriving black market will take over, which runs on... you guessed it... FREE MARKET principles.

I'm not recommending a free market. It's unavoidable. You may not break the laws of economics no more than you may break the laws of physics. You may try to manipulate them one way or the other and may even make a bit of progress, but in the end, the laws of supply and demand will win out. The trick is to not fight it. Know how the laws work and you can predict the future to make sure you are on the winning end every single time.

(yes, there are times when government intervention is required, like regulating natural monopolies such as utilities and insulin providers, but less is almost always better. Subsidies are almost never a good idea and if it really looks like China is about to corner the market on critical materials, then the US government can always declare the area around the mine a "national park" like ANWR to prevent anyone from owning it. Then the government would actually lease the rights to mine there.)

And that will be the Chinese, as they're the only one able to concentrate enough money (through state-owned companies) to buy up the mines.

No. Actually, US private sector is much larger than the Chinese government. The US private sector is larger than the US government. For that matter, US banks have more money than the Chinese government.

Sorry, but government only takes a percentage of GDP. That means that GDP is larger than government as long as tax rates are under 50%. All liquid money ends up in banks. Yeah, you may have put it in the stock market, but the company you invested in put it in the bank. If they spent it, whoever they spent it on put it in the bank.... all money goes through the banks. The banks in the second largest economy in the world can easily outbid the government of the third largest economy in the world (EU is first according to Wikipedia).

By the way, the US economy is still 2-3 times larger than the Chinese.

The mine owners may be forced to sell then mine to someone with enought foresight to know that the prices won't stay low forever.

And that will be the Chinese, as they're the only one able to concentrate enough money (through state-owned companies) to buy up the mines.

Just a few examples.

Libertarian, busted you are.

The solution to the water energy problem is more energy, because energy can be used to get water. This, however, lowers the Life Cycle Output of the energy system. LCO or LCA is the expected usable energy out, divided by the expected usable energy used to create and run a system. So if a system produces 10 watts for every watt it takes to build, run, and dispose of it, then its LCA is 10. The 20th century got by on a miracle: namely petroleum has a high LCA, and its its own storage mechanism. Gasoline has great power to weight storage capacities with internal combustion. And internal combustion engines can be built of very cheap metals. There are many quandaries in replacing hydro-carbon energy, and the water energy trade off that the piece mentions is one of them, but it is one of scale. Once there is a large enough renewable base, then the low LCA that getting the water to run it has, is not a problem. It is at the beginning, when the return is eaten through by the water problem, because there are competing uses for water that have much higher economic returns in the short run, such as airconditioning and agriculture. None of these uses want to pay much higher rates for water so that people not yet born can have the advantages.

Where the article falls down is pressing an agenda, and making sloppy equivalences. The first is equating capital requirements with expendable requirements: we don't burn the rare earths we use in kinetic energy extraction – that is water, wind, and geothermal – and in fact, rare earths, are not, as a percentage of the earth's crust, all that rare. For example, wikipedia has this chart. It shows that all of the Lanthanide rare earths, plus scandium and yttrium, are more common than either gold or silver, many are more common than tin, and some more common than lead. The problem with them is that they tend to be found near the Actinide rare earths, particularly Thorium. If you have seen a press for "Thorium reactors" it is because exploitation of rare earths leads to Thorium by product, and reactors which burn it would be fantastically profitable, for the people who sell the rare earths. In reality, they have the same problems, only more so, of actively cooled salt reactors. Namely, they work until they blow up. The Chinese dump their Thorium in a holding lack, which, should it break, would contaminate large areas of land and volumes of water.

Side note: how is it that a browser's spell check doesn't know Actinide?

But for all of that, rare earths are not burned, the way for example Lithuium is not burned in a battery and can be recycled. These are recyclable, which is different from consumable. Hence moving from consumption of hydrocarbons, which really are burned, to using rare earths in capital energy, is a positive step, and while the author of the paper implies that there would be rare earth shortages, the reality is that this is not the case, and substitutes in the form of ceramics and active magnets (See Rare Earth Prices Plunge as Manufacturers turn to substitutes