Slashdot Mirror
China and Japan Covet the Same Rare-Earth Metals
An anonymous reader writes with this excerpt from The Australian: "Japan's increasingly frantic efforts to lead the world in green technology have put it on a collision course with the ambitions of China and dragged both government and industry into the murky realm of large-scale mineral smuggling."
At least it's breeding competition to do something good for once. This is the kind of stuff governments should be doing.
"I have never let my schooling interfere with my education." --Mark Twain
A rare-earth metal so rare that it doesn't even have a name without RTFA.
The US used to have a currency backed by the barrel of oil. $20 bought a barrel. Or so the tin-foil-hat-wearing gold-bugs say.
Now that oil has more or less peaked, perhaps renewable resources will take off. Maybe China will get to print the world currency.
Now I'm more sure than ever that by the end of this century, China will take America's place as the world power. We're billions in debt to them, and now they've got the next green energy source?
I, for one, welcome out new communist overlords.
until they run out of Vespene gas.
If only Japan coveted lead, they could come to some arrangement.
Thank you, Edward Snowden.
"Arguments from authority are worthless." —Carl Sagan
have very little relationship to each other. OP simply doesn't say what TFA does. Who was it did the OP again?
are only rare on Earth. Time to start asteroid mining.
Like buying gold in WoW?
Rare-earths aren't only in China. China is simply making rare-earths available cheaper than it would be for countries to mine them themselves.
News flash: Japan imports nearly everything.
it's time to start checking under your beds for communists kids.
If you mod me down, I will become more powerful than you can imagine....
Lithium (presumably for lithium-ion electric car batteries) is not a rare-earth metal. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rare_earth_element
Which element(s) are we fussing about? Why are they useful for green tech?
Lanthanum: very useful for green tech. Hydrogen fuel cell-related.
Hydrogen sponge alloys can contain lanthanum. These alloys are capable of storing up to 400 times their own volume of hydrogen gas in a reversible adsorption process. Heat energy is released
Cerium: maybe useful for green tech. Maybe motor magnets.
Cerium is used in alloys that are used to make permanent magnets.
Praseodymium: maybe marginally useful for green tech. Lightweight cars.
As an alloying agent with magnesium to create high-strength metals that are used in aircraft engines
Neodymium: very useful for green tech. Strong motor magnets.
Neodymium magnets are the strongest permanent magnets known.
Promethium: probably not useful for green tech.
Light sources.
Samarium: probably not useful for green tech.
Headphone magnets.
Alloys.
Europium: probably not useful for green tech.
Red color in CRTs.
Gadolinium: probably not useful for green tech.
Garnets.
CDs.
MRIs.
Terbium: marginally useful for green tech.
Solid state devices.
Alloys that respond strongly to a magnetic field. Sensor, actuator applications.
"Green" phosphors. Ha.
Dysprosium: very useful for green tech. Strong motor magnets.
* Neodymium-iron-boron magnets can have up to 6% of the neodymium substituted with dysprosium[15] to raise the coercivity for demanding applications such as drive motors for hybrid electric vehicles.
* This substitution would require up to 100 grams of dysprosium per hybrid car produced.
* Based on Toyota's projected 2 million units per year, the use of dysprosium in applications such as this would quickly exhaust the available supply of the metal. The dysprosium substitution may also be useful in other applications, as it improves the corrosion resistance of the magnets
* Currently, most dysprosium is being obtained from the ion-adsorption clay ores of southern China.
Holium: maybe useful for green tech.
Very strong magnets.
Cubic zirconia.
Lasers.
Erbium: useful for green tech, but probably not in the article's context, which was automotive.
Nuclear control rods.
Cubic zirconia.
Lasers.
Cryocoolers.
Thulium: scarce; probably not useful for green tech.
Superconductors.
Microwave equipment.
X-ray devices, in a nuclear reactor.
Ytterbium: useful for green tech, but probably not in the article's context, which was automotive.
Convert infrared light to electricity in solar cells.
X-ray source. Steel dopant.
Optics, lasers.
Lutetium: scarce; useful for green tech, but probably not in the article's context, which was automotive.
Catalyst in process of making OLEDs (organic light-emitting diodes).
It turns out China (and to some extend Australia) are rich in these ores that contain lanthanum, neodymium, terbium, and dysprosium:
* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bastnasite
* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monazite
Other ores:
* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xenotime
* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fergusonite
* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gadolinite
* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euxenite
* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polycrase
* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blomstrandine
The Australian News article is probably worrying over China controlling bastnasite and monazite, which notably have neodymium and dysprosium, which are used for magnets, which go in motors, which go in electric cars, which is a green tech. A car is pictured in the article.
Working the lanthanum angle wrt fuel cells seems less likely.
Also, an AC on /. that read Wikipedia is not a reliable source :)
Rare? If that's the case, then at least we know it is NOT Pb. There's plenty of that stuff to go around, apparently.
Fact: Everything I say is fiction.
What really stood out to me in TFA:
there are now a lot of [green] technologies that can't work without rare earths, and China is currently in effective control of the global supply.
So I am thinking to myself: 1) The U.S. is amassing trillions and debt, much of it held by the Chinese, and 2) The Chinese own the key elements required by certain Green technology - which the U.S. government is pushing toward.
Did I just catch a glimpse of the slow arc of the decline of the U.S.? Is the U.S. grabbing its own ankles, or what!?
Mine is Good
my upsidasium!
OTOH, it might just float away.
From what I understand from the article, China only holds 95% of the supply because they are able to provide the metals for cheaper. If these Chinese companies took advantage of their "monopoly position" by raising prices significantly, then other countries/companies would simply mine their own rare earth metals. Right now, there's simply no economic incentive to increase the mining capacity.
Also, an AC on /. that read Wikipedia is not a reliable source :)
That's given, but thanks nonetheless.
I am the lawn!
Coming next: "Japanese and Chinese production of Harvesters up 500%"
Hack your mind out of its sandbox.
[citation needed]
Interestingly enough, there is a major chinese financial stake in both major Aussie rare earths companies trying to develop Australian located deposits. ARU and LYC respectively. In LYC's case its a controlling interest. Haven't looked in depth into ARU as I don't hold.
The issue has seemed to be too far beneath the radar for the govt to get involved unlike say OzMinerals (where the federal govt moved to restrict how much stake the incoming Chinese companies were allowed to buy and specifically excluded their biggest resource, Prominent Hills, which is gold + copper).
disclaimer: I hold LYC, aussie citizen, ethnically chinese ;)
Talk about tempests in teapots....
Previously: "Linux... Toward the Sunrise..." Now: "Linux... Toward the-- No, now, part of Every Sunrise"
Now Wall Street has something else to speculate on.
Unless you're implying China is going to assassinate foreign industrialists, you're apparently confused. Most of the known reserves of rare earth metals aren't in China - the problem, for Japan, is that China has negotiated exclusive trading rights with several developing countries over their stocks of rare earth metals. So the local governments may even be in on this 'black market' - the problem is that if they openly sell directly to Japanese companies, China will bring suit against them in the WTO.
Have you been touched by his noodly appendage?
Although what I'm about to say will surely anger Obama's new cyber czar, i feel i've got to give him the middle finger and post what i have to say anyway.
But first I should point out that I admire and respect Chinese culture. I'm not a china-hater.
That being said, I was warning people about China's attempt to control rare-reath metals back in 2005, but no one listened. I told people how Deng Xiaoping once said, "The middle-east has oil, China has rare earths" people laughed at me with haughty contempt. Now it's all coming true, just as I predicted. Just like I saw the current economic collapse we're in coming 2 years ago. Just like I'm predicting galloping inflation in a few years like we had in the late 70's. (just wait and and see) God, I hate being right all the time, but I guess it's the price you pay when you're a street-wise super genius.
The most important fact in international relations for all the world except America and Europe is that one naughty word, Race. Race is the rule that rallies the nations. It doesn't matter that Americans and Europeans are multi-culti. Chinese don't give a shit. "All for the race, nothing for the rest." is their way of looking at it. All you would-be Kissingers, if you want a key to understand world politics and economics, there it is. I know it's not very nice, but like I said all that pc bullsh!t does not make a fucc to anyone in the world but American hippies and public-school retards.
The reason China wants to control rare-earth metals is the same reason there is a two-tier pricing system for gweilos in China and every other country laowai like many of you visit. Think about it, if you're a gweilo, why do you always get charged much more for the same product than Chinese when you visit there? Why do you think gaijin can only rent apartments in Tokyo at twice the going-rate as "ware ware Nihonjin" (we Japanese). Why do you think, during the Iran hostage crisis in 1979, that the Persian hostage-takers released ALL the black hostages after the first week and held only the white ones for the rest of the year? Why do you think Chinese politicians don't use the word "America" in their writings and dialogues, instead they refer to us as "the hegemon"? Why do you think Indian tech companies even here in America only hire only other Indians except for a few token whites, yet get by with it even though we have discrimination laws? Why do you think that all the best OEM hardware and semiconductors off the assembly line in China are only used in products destined for the mainland or Taiwan/Japan, while the products that barely pass quality control are dumped in a container and shipped to America? (#1 reason Americans believe Made-in-China=defective. That's cos the crap we get is what's been scraped off the plant floor and shipped to Malaysia for assembly by companies like Motorola or HP before finally being sent here in the form of crappy consumer products)
They way they see things, it's their race against yours. It's the Boxer Rebellion pt 2. They want revenge for "The Century of Humiliation" even though you or I weren't even alive during that time and have probably never even heard of the Opium War. It's all in their textbooks. I'm sure some idiots will say I AM the racist for pointing out what they don't want to hear, but I guess I could say don't hate the player hate the game. Just don't read into my words and try to say "Well, I know a lot Chinese and they're the nicest people I ever met and blah blah..." because I already agree with you. I would just say remember one thing, most of the Chinese you meet here are the ones who have come to America after hearing nothing but good things about it, or who have problems living in their own society for whatever reason, so they are biased toward liking this country. You should know they're the minority back at the maniland.
There's a few books that everyone should read if they ever find themself asking "what the hell is going on" with China today.
Unrestricted Warfare
--the definitive b
If the parent actually said something of doubtable factual accuracy, then it would be at least a little appropriate.
If someone disagrees, then it's doubtable. As to whether it's factual:
Are you expecting everyone to footnote their opinions with "1. My Brain. A couple minutes ago."?
At least on Wikipedia, you're not supposed to post original research, including original syntheses. You can post opinions if you cite a reliable source stating that someone else holds that opinion.
But of course, Slashdot is not Wikipedia. Is this what you were trying to get at?
scientology...
Is it really flamebait when the post is so absurd that no one can take it as anything other than a joke?
I've got this GREAT idea to end world hunger!
Oh fun... what irony.
So we will go from being dependent on foreign oil to being dependent on foreign rare-earth metals? So much for alternative energy setting us free from political messes over energy?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Best_Page_in_the_Universe
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maddox_(writer)
Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
BACKGROUND: From 1930's until 1945 Imperial Japan and Nazi-Germany were engaged in a militaristic expansion of their Lebensraum (lit. german expression meaning "living space for their own ethnicity") while attempting to grab foreign countries' natural resources to feed their industries (including the important military-industrial complex). This was in fact a "modern" replay of age-old imperialism and something that the most recent dominant empires, such as Britain, Russia and China had been at until then.
After WWII, (Soviet) Russia emerged as the greatest beneficiary in terms of imperial territory, while the recently democratized Britain had to begin surrendering the sovereignty of most of their empire's territory back to their native peoples.
Meanwhile the secretive and reclusive Chinese empire of Middle Kingdom, with its age-old imperial view of its neighbouring countries (of non-Chinese and non-sinicized peoples) as mere vassal states, was being taken over by Mao's communist dictatorship which uniquely combined the Marxist doctrines (like internationalism) with its own Han-Chinese chauvism (racial and cultural superiority akin to Nazi ideology).
Thus after the 1949 takeover of China by Mao the Soviet-backed "people's liberation" communist army was quickly sent to "liberate" and annex the vast territories of China's historical western neighbours, Mongols, Tibetans and Uighurs. Manchus in the north had at that point mostly been demographically assimilated already, despite Manchuria's widely recognized declaration of independence in 1932.
The sparsely populated and non-Chinese Central-Asian nations of Tibetans, Mongols and Uighurs, however, were soon put under systematic colonial exploitation, including the sinister policy of settling massive numbers of uprooted Chinese settlers into the occupied territories in order to consolidate de facto Chinese imperial rule there for eternity.
TODAY: The territories of Tibetans, turkic Uighurs and (South) Mongols (as Northern Mongolia regained its independence from Soviet Union in 1991) have been integrated into the centrally-planned industrial system of the (formerly communist) nazional-socialist Chinese empire by the virtue of their massive exploitable natural resources such as oil, gas, water and vast deposits of precious and industrial minerals of all kinds. Native people are still an annoyance to be dealt with, mainly through policies of Han-chauvinist propaganda and systematic sinicization enforced through strict military control.
Here is one example article detailing China's ongoing industrial exploitation of the occupied territories. While this particular article doesn't refer to rare earth metals specifically, both South Mongolia and Tibet are being mined for them.
China mines Tibet's rich resources
Should invading one's peaceful neighbours be opposed, or rewarded with trade deals?
Check back tomorrow for all the details as this exclusive story unfolds.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
If "Going Green" in a big way will require a bunch of metals that are of finite availability and more scarce than oil, then how long can this mining be sustained before the price of these "Green" solutions is so high that it makes more sense to return to oil ?
This entire situation appears to me as a mad resource rush due to the earth becoming less sustainable to humans after years of unbridled-growth and mass consumption. This "doing more with less" mind-set is fine until a great number of first-world countries start to feel the backlash of starvation or forced to institute policies like birth restrictions.
I just hope that at the very moment the masses start to realize that we've strip mined this rock we're on of all resources and need to look for another home, that we're technologically advanced enough, and have enough resources left to be able to blast off and move elsewhere.
Gold has little intrinsic worth
There is no such thing as intrinsic worth, at all, for anything, including food. There are only desirable properties, and the desire for those properties changes on a second by second basis for each individual and their circumstance. If I own a dozen palaces, then the "intrinsic value" of an additional hovel for shelter is close to zero for me.
Gold is scarce; it is difficult to counterfeit and difficult to mine.
Gold doesn't oxidize or otherwise degrade.
Gold is easily divisible.
Gold is easily moved and hidden.
Gold is shiny and pleasing in jewelry.
Gold has a high price per unit weight.
Gold is easily exchanged for other currencies.
Gold has a 3,000 year history as a currency in it's own right.
Deleted
If someone disagrees, then it's doubtable. As to whether it's factual:
That's true, but not very relevant. Whether a statement needs a citation does not depend on whether or not it is doubtable (or doubted), per se. Rather, it depends on whether the *factual accuracy* of the statement is doubtable. What I took from AC's post is that a statement judged on factual merit requires a citation if the veracity is doubtable, but a statement of opinion does not.
The factual premises on which the opinion is founded may need citations, but not the original statement of opinion.
I just wanted to point out that this is the 2nd time you've misspelled "extent" in one of your posts. "and to some extend Australia," it should be "to some extent." Thought it was just a typo first time. Funny how us AC's get to know each other despite any true means to do so.
BTW, great info grab. This post is up there on your "informative" list.
The factual premises on which the opinion is founded may need citations
So I took [citation needed] on an opinion to mean that one needs to present more factual premises and cite them. If this was incorrect, what should DreamsAreOkToo have written as a pithy way of saying "Please present the factual premises on which you base your opinion"?
citation = Wikipedia.
Scarcity is the mother of all horror flicks
If it's using up an extremely finite resource -- how "green" is it, really??
I'd say -- not at all, and that any "greenery" is a temporary illusion.
~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
My sister's work has offices in China. It's become clear to them (and the Chinese will tell you this to your face, if you ask) that China's REAL motivation with all this new "capitalism" is in sucking all the wealth out of the West.
Which goes right along with what you said. (Interesting post, BTW.)
~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
Somebody tell those dudes stealing manhole covers they are barking up the wrong tree.
What of those sneaky Germans lying in wait for the asians to eat each other up, before moving in and picking up the pieces.
I say the USA should compete for these minerals, so we don't have a monopoly developing.
It's not like the Chinese are the only one without a debt...oh wait...
I've been told the Chinese are willing to open up the discussions about Tiananmen if the USA will release the Abu Ghraib pictures.
Brief and witty is good. Brief and ambiguous is bad. Should probably have just used more words, rather than try to be witty. You can't just ask someone to explain all their premises. State the premise you have a problem with, and then *maybe* you can use "citation needed."
I personally don't even know what he wants clarification on. Does he want someone to explain...
- what good deeds will will come of this (after all, how do we know that mining these minerals does not cause more environmental harm)?
- how specific government activities increase these 'beneficial' activities?
- how inflating the price of component is supposed to increase the availability of 'green' technology?
I dunno. Which one is it? Who knows.
Tantalum capacitors are used in a wide range of electronic products
due to:
High Volumetric efficiency
Excellent power dissipation ability
High reliability
Wide operating temperature
Better frequency characteristics than aluminum electrolytics
It is easily argued that Tantalum caps can be found about half of the
electronic products on the market today.
Not sure where the Cellphone exclusive idea came from, but it is like
saying that plastics are the only thing that is made from crude oil.