Slashdot Mirror

That's a bad analogy, because, unlike taxi medallions, diamonds aren't artificially scarce. Diamonds are expensive because diamond mining is expensive, not because there's a government cartel that limits the supply of diamonds. This makes it entirely different to government-imposed taxi-medallion shortages.

(In case anyone's wondering: De Beers is not a monopoly.)

Sure:

http://www.irpa.net/irpa9/cdrom/VOL.1/V1_46.PDF

http://www.techmetalsresearch.com/2011/03/the-issue-of-residual-thorium-uranium-from-rare-earth-ore-processing/

http://www.smartplanet.com/blog/intelligent-energy/why-safe-nuclear-will-rely-on-rare-earth-minerals/

http://e360.yale.edu/feature/boom_in_mining_rare_earths_poses_mounting_toxic_risks/2614/

http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxprofiles/tp147-c4.pdf

http://www.resourceinvestor.com/2011/06/29/the-future-of-thorium-as-nuclear-fuel

http://web.mit.edu/12.000/www/m2016/finalwebsite/problems/disposal.html

http://web.mit.edu/12.000/www/m2016/finalwebsite/problems/disposal.html

Those are the known reserves in current mines.

Wow.

First, EsbenMoseHansen links to the Wikipedia article on Neodymium saying the numbers in the article show that we don't have to worry about a scarcity of Neodymium. I work through the numbers from the article and explain that if we want to seriously ramp up production of goods that use Neodymium then the numbers in the article indicate that we will run out of it soon.

Then you come along and claim that the numbers in the article are wrong so we still don't have to worry. The article said:

reserves of neodymium are estimated at about 8 million tonnes

and you claim that "estimated reserves" actually means "known reserves in current mines" and you estimate that the reserves are much much greater than what the Wikipedia article says but you give no evidence that this is so.

When it comes down to believing the Wikipedia versus believing some guy on Slashdot who provides no evidence, I will believe the Wikipedia. But it is kind of funny that first we are told not to worry because of the numbers in the article. Then when I show that the numbers actually give us cause to worry, you tell us not to worry because the numbers in the article are wrong.

If you have any evidence that the estimate of reserves from the Wikipedia is wrong, please post a link to it. Citing the overall abundance doesn't count unless you also give a reasonable estimate of what percentage of the total amount can actually be mined. For example this article which is the first hit for Google(reserves of neodymium) explains the problem with your reasoning:

it is not true that, for example, you can simply sift through a cubic yard of dirt from anywhere and extract lead and twice as much neodymium as lead. Mining is limited to places where natural processes such as the movement of molten material from the earth’s mantle to the surface - such as volcanic action - has brought with it dissolved minerals, concentrated by the fact that they are soluble in the molten magma whereas those elements that are less soluble stay behind or drop out far below the surface where they are inaccessible.

That article also says that even if China doubles its neodymium production by 2014, it will just match their domestic demand so there will be a global shortage. All REE experts I can find on the Web (including Jack Lifton who claims to be the leading authority on REEs) are greatly concerned about a worldwide shortage but I guess I should just ignore their warnings on the say-so of a couple of guys from Slashdot.

I'm open to the idea that it is a giant scam or all the experts I've found are wrong but unless you can provide some solid evidence, I will trust the experts.

Uranium prices have risen about 10-fold in the last 4 years, already up $41 or 57% since the end of December

Well, if you are curious, here is a link about how renewables fit on the chart in Germany: http://www.planetark.com/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid /40568/story.htm. Yes that is 11.8% of the electric power supply. Renewables are cheaper and better. You just have to do them at scale, and doing them at scale is much easier than for nuclear power.

You may also be interested in this link: http://www.resourceinvestor.com/pebble.asp?relid=2 7013. Again, it is hard to see getting a new nuclear reactor even approved in a decade, but renewables are set to surpase nuclear power in about 18 years.

This is also where the smart money is: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/14/technology/14val ley.html.

So, while there are some who have not thought this through very well, who look to nuclear power as an answer to global warming, there is little likelihood that nuclear power can contribute anything of significance to that effort and would really only waste time and money. Look to France for good math, good wine and good friends, but watch Germany for engineering trends. Wait, germans make good friends too though it is spooky how many hits I get from there on my blog. Hey, good physics, good beer, you know the stuff.... You're just wrong about ULIRGs....

Earlier this month, the People's Bank of China said it is looking to diversify its $1 trillion reserves across currencies and asset classes. And just last week, Treasury Secretary Henry M. Paulson Jr., former Goldman Sachs chairman, enlisted Bernanke to join an unusual delegation of cabinet members to China next month showing increased concern over China's economic policies.

if they found another dolphin with similar characteristics and make them breed, and the same with their offspring, and again and again, you could force them to "evolve"? Gosh, we humans are pretty demented

Well yeah, of course. Just look at what we've done with wolves and all the bizarre breeds of dogs that we evolved them into.

Or better yet, just look at this end product of humans deliberately evolving wolves over the last 15,000 years. Warning: NSFL!
(not safe for lunchtime)

-

First off, all of the predictions that we see in the article are from Colin Campbell. He's a geologist who represents the fringe of the "peak oil" movement, and founded the association for the study of peak oil and gas. The guy has trouble being right. In addition to being continually proven wrong about the discovery of large new oil fields (which keep turning up -- not to mention old fields unexpectedly finding new life) and the rates at which existing fields will produce, every few years he pushes back his predicted peak. First it was 1995. It's all the way back to 2007 now. Aaany day now, Colin!

Care to cite any sources for this? It's easy to argue with unfounded assertions. I'm not familiar with Colin Campbell, but he's just one of many people working on peak oil, including British Petroleum, the US DOE, and even T-Boone Pickens. Peak oil is real. Predictions for the year of peak production vary from 2006 to 2040 (see above links), but regardless, it will happen in our lifetime, according to the experts in the industry. The 1995-2007 discrepancy from one single person you discuss is not significant. In fact, some people are saying that it has happened this year already. Perhaps you should stop trying to be cute and research your facts.

The more expensive oil gets, the slower world economic growth occurs, which drastically reduces demand. At the same time, the more expensive oil gets, vast new reserves come online. At current oil prices, Saudi Arabia doesn't have the world's largest reserves: Venezuela does. Venezuela's reserves were once dwarfed by Saudi Arabia's because they're more expensive to produce from. With high prices, a vast amount of Venezuelan oil comes online.

Congratulations, you understand a bit of peak theory. Yes, this is all included. In peak oil theory, when peak oil is reached half of the world's retrievable oil still remains. Peak oil theory states that this half will be much more expensive to extract, which you corroborate here. Of course there are more undiscovered reserves, but the point is that the rate of production will continue to go down, because less and less is discovered per year. Instead of thinking in terms of money (which can be created and destroyed), think in terms of energy (which can't). Once it takes more energy to extract one barrel of oil than the oil provides, the oil becomes useless as an energy source.

But it doesn't stop there. Current prices are high enough to make Canadian tar sands profitable. Shell is leading the way here, and is majorly scaling up their operations. If you count the tar sands, Canada goes up into the world leader position. But hey, why stop there? Coal liquifaction is borderline profitable at current prices. The US has hundreds of years of coal to mine; even if we start converting it to oil, it's a massive energy influx. And do we really even need to get into oil shale, methane hydrates, ethanol (esp. from cellulose), biodiesel, waste polymerization, and vehicles driven by electricity or hydrogen (which, effectively, can be powered by the grid, which means that any potential power source will work).

See above comment. All of the sources you mention here are much more expensive and take more energy to extract.

Yes, prices will rise. So? We've gotten a free ride on ubercheap oil for too long. At current prices, however, countless technologies are either freshly viable or near-viable for energy production -- both for producing petroleum, and for producing petroleum alternatives. If prices rise further, it makes them all the prettier for investors. This peak