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."

Comments

Great!

[viyh]

At least it's breeding competition to do something good for once. This is the kind of stuff governments should be doing.

Re:Great!

[Daniel Dvorkin]

Except the Chinese government is trying to control the market and shut down competition, and the Japanese government is ... doing something, presumably, but what isn't exactly clear from TFA. They could try to promote competition, but unsurprisingly, it doesn't sound like they're doing it.

Re:Great!

[viyh]

Agreed, but in any case, this is better than no attention being paid to it at all. The problems will get worked out in the long run because, after all, "green technology" is needed to solve world-wide problems. We are all in this together.

Re:Great!

[Kirijini]

Nope. Japan and China are "competing" for different things, presumably only one of which most westerners will support.

China is trying to own the supplies/means of production for rare earth metals. Apparently they own most of the existing supply/production, and are moving to own supplies and/or the mining companies that produce the supplies elsewhere in the world.

Japanese auto manufacturers are giant consumers of rare earth metals, presumably to make batteries for their hybrids, and so Japan is competing for a larger supply to consume.

The BAD thing here (to most westerners) is that China is locking down the market for rare earth metals, which are apparently important for many renewable energy technologies. This is bad because western countries are being very aggressive about renewable energy, but China can either frustrate those efforts or make them really expensive.

The GOOD thing here (to most westerners) is that there is apparently a huge black market for these materials, which means that China can't control its own producers very well. This could lead to market reform in China - the market may be freed up as Chinese producers, seeking more profits, fight the political actors in China who favor export quotas. Freer Chinese markets = less power of the Chinese government on world trade.

Re:Great!

[Jurily]

Japanese auto manufacturers are giant consumers of rare earth metals, presumably to make batteries for their hybrids, and so Japan is competing for a larger supply to consume.

Japan is a puny island with a huge industry. They're competing for resources. This isn't news since 1930.

Re:Great!

[Anonymous Coward]

You can't just subsititute "citation needed" for "I disgree with you."

If the parent actually said something of doubtable factual accuracy, then it would be at least a little appropriate. He's just stating that he thinks this situation may be helped by competitive forces.
Are you expecting everyone to footnote their opinions with "1. My Brain. A couple minutes ago."?

Re:Great!

[TooMuchToDo]

Japan is a puny island with a huge industry.

Geography isn't always the best power indicator. Japan may be small, but they have a great deal of control in the world economy. China won't let them at rare earth metals? They'll find a way to use metals that *are* available to them, or to get the metals they need.

Re:Great!

[Jurily]

Geography isn't always the best power indicator. Japan may be small, but they have a great deal of control in the world economy.

We are talking about Japan, after all. You know, the ones who already invaded China once, and the ones who needed nuclear bombs to surrender.

Re:Great!

[SlashWombat]

I imagine its not for batteries, but for permanent magnets. The strongest permanent magnets all rely on "rare earths", most of which come from china, as the article implies.

Re:Great!

[Dravik]

.

The GOOD thing here (to most westerners) is that there is apparently a huge black market for these materials, which means that China can't control its own producers very well. This could lead to market reform in China - the market may be freed up as Chinese producers, seeking more profits, fight the political actors in China who favor export quotas. Freer Chinese markets = less power of the Chinese government on world trade.

You just might be surprised at how fast the producers fall in line with the Chinese government after one or two are executed.

Re:Great!

[DreamsAreOkToo]

My point wasn't that I disagreed with him, but that he's posting an opinion like it's fact.

At least it's breeding competition to do something good for once.

That's opinion twisted to sound like fact. If he read the article, (or even understood the summary) he'd realize that there's two things going on. 1) China's government is trying to lock up rare earth metals so that they can profit off of it politically. Since these are used in green technologies, this is bad environmentally. 2) This isn't really affecting the market, because there's a huge black market for the stuff. As shown by drugs, Prohibition, embargoes... black markets usually breed a lot of crime.

1) "Ginya Adachi, from the Japanese Rare Earth Association, said that China's dominance of rare earths would serve the developed world with a rude shock about global trade: Japan, America and Europe must now realise that some markets are not real, but political."
2) The Mafia during Prohibition

Re:Great!

[MaskedSlacker]

Try 1868. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meiji_Restoration

Re:Great!

[gzunk]

I'm sorry, but as a native English speaker I had no problems reading the sentence and understanding that it was a point of view. It doesn't even look like a fact.

Or maybe I should rephrase that as:

I think I'm sorry, but as I believe I'm a native English speaker I didn't perceive that I had any problems in understanding that it might have been a point of view. In my view, it didn't look like a fact. :-)

Re:Great!

[TubeSteak]

1) China's government is trying to lock up rare earth metals so that they can profit off of it politically. Since these are used in green technologies, this is bad environmentally.

China is going to profit off of it economically.
They have been pursuing a decades long mineral aquisition policy. And they're beating the USA.
Capitalism just can't compete with (Chinese) government financed companies.
Who in their right mind wouldn't want to do everything in their power to monopolize a limited natural resource?

You don't even really know that it's bad for the the environment... yet.
If it makes sense, someone will break the monopoly. More on this later.

2) This isn't really affecting the market, because there's a huge black market for the stuff. As shown by drugs, Prohibition, embargoes... black markets usually breed a lot of crime.

I'm not sure you make sense.
"not really affecting the market" and "huge black market" are contradictory.
Not to mention that black markets are by definition illegal; claiming that they breed crime is tautological.

1) "Ginya Adachi, from the Japanese Rare Earth Association, said that China's dominance of rare earths would serve the developed world with a rude shock about global trade: Japan, America and Europe must now realise that some markets are not real, but political."

Pure hyperbole. China's lock on rare earth metals isn't recent news. They've had it for >20 years.
And there are dozens of markets whose prices are set because of political considerations.
If I wanted to be pedantic, I could argue that every tariff and subsidy qualifies.

Last but not least, that article was shit.
It leaves out tons of back story and doesn't even mention why people are talking about this again.
1. An Australian group called "Lynas" couldn't get the funding to build a refinery in Malaysia or develop a new mine in Australia until they sold 51% of their ownership to China for 500 Million.
2. A Chinese invesment company just bought 25% of a major Australian rare earth mining corp

Looks like this strategic resource isn't all that strategic since nobody is willing to fork over the cash to build refineries outside of China, without Chinese cash.
Maybe Canada will since they're pretty much the only player left.

Re:Great!

[TubeSteak]

Last but not least, that article was shit.
It leaves out tons of back story and doesn't even mention why people are talking about this again.
1. An Australian group called "Lynas" couldn't get the funding to build a refinery in Malaysia or develop a new mine in Australia until they sold 51% of their ownership to China for 500 Million.

I don't usually quote myself, but I was reading more and this is just rich:
Goldman Sachs is the company that pulled financing from Lynas' processing plant.
An American investment firm allowed the Chinese to take over the world's largest rare earth mineral processing plant. ::epic facepalm::

Re:Great!

[hairyfeet]

He is probably thinking the same way that I am, that having two superpowers trying to top each other for control of a mined resource that is often found in third world countries is going to end up with a lot of poisoned strip mined land that will be uninhabitable when they are through. After all, the history of mining in poorer regions is not exactly a success story, just look at all the damage in places like West Virginia.

Re:Great!

[NFN_NLN]

Gallium for LEDs
Germanium for optics
Indium for LCDs
Rhodium for ???
Tantalum for Cellphones ....

These are the rare earth metals manufacturers are after, and they're running out.

http://cache.gawker.com/assets/images/gizmodo/2009/04/26051202.jpg

Re:Great!

[Nekomusume]

Not to mention that black markets are by definition illegal; claiming that they breed crime is tautological.

No, it's not. A tautology is a statement like "Bachelors are unmarried men". It's trivial because it's a definition.

"Black markets breed crime" would only be a tautology if the definition of black market was the breeding of crime.

It's not a tautology to say that one crime leads to more crimes. Which is the point - a black market leads to further crime to support the market. Murder as dispute resolution for example.

Re:Great!

[Fuzzums]

hear hear! :)

Re:Great!

[TooMuchToDo]

That was pretty much my point to OP.

Re:Great!

[wealthychef]

So how is it green technology when the resources needed to develop it are so scarce that the major players are already arguing over them? Isn't that by definition not sustainable?

Re:Great!

[kestasjk]

I'm not an anti-nuke wacko, but I had heard that the resignation had been a forced move anyway, though when the bombs dropped it was siezed upon as a way to surrender with dignity. Corrent me if I'm wrong

Re:Great!

[afidel]

There were two camps competing within the power structure, the civilian one which was basically resigned to surrender and a hardline contingent within the military that wanted to fight to the last man. The bomb was the final push that forced most of the military contingent to realize they were fighting a futile battle.

WOW!

[__aaclcg7560]

A rare-earth metal so rare that it doesn't even have a name without RTFA.

Re:WOW!

[__aaclcg7560]

My bad. 1) Metals not metal. 2) Still no name for these rare-earth metals even with RTFA.

Re:WOW!

[DreamsAreOkToo]

2) Still no name for these rare-earth metals even with RTFA.

Wikipedia for the win.

Re:WOW!

[Davemania]

Rare earth metal is a name for a class of elements http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rare_earth_element

Re:WOW!

[c_forq]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rare_earth_metal

Re:WOW!

[Kavorkian_scarf]

I have been looking for what the mineral could be. I would think the main would be BastnÃsite(http://www.galleries.com/minerals/carbonat/bastnasi/bastnasi.htm), followed by Beryllium or Zircon.

Re:WOW!

[SlashWombat]

If the Chinese have their way, it will all be named unobtanium.

Re:WOW!

[KDR_11k]

They're looking for Adamantine.

Re:WOW!

[MaskedSlacker]

No, but he might respond with the "Year Births" page that Wikipedia has for ever year. Such as: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:1968_births

And you might learn how to scroll: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rare_earth_metals#Technological_applications

Rare earth elements are incorporated into many modern technological devices, including superconductors, miniaturized magnets, electronic polishers, refining catalysts and hybrid car components.[4] Rare earth ions are used as the active ions in luminescent materials used in optoelectronics applications, most notably the Nd:YAG laser. Phosphors with rare earth dopants are also widely used in cathode ray tube technology such as television sets

If you've never played with neodymium magnets you should turn in your geek card.

Re:WOW!

[tim_darklighter]

They're looking for Adamantine.

That's a general and/or fictional substance. Did you mean:

a) Adamantium: Wolverine's metallic skeletal covering (fictional)

b) Adamantite: A metal found in the Outlands in World of Warcraft. (fictional)

c) Adamantane: A big hydrocarbon known for its interesting diamond-like structure. (real)

Re:WOW!

[KDR_11k]

No, I mean the metal that attracts demons in Dwarf Fortress.

Iridium RMB anyone?

[wisty]

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.

Re:Iridium RMB anyone?

[TapeCutter]

All currency is backed by trust, even gold/oil. Gold has little intrinsic worth and oil's intrinsic value is that is can be burnt to do usefull work, with any currency you are simply trusting that your fellow man will see it as a token that can be swapped for something with intrinsic value such as food, shelter, oil, etc. China is the modern equivalent of the Medici family, they may well end up printing the default currency one day but that will be because the huge government deficits around the globe are largely funded by China's massive trade surplus. They have not yet threatened to derail the gravy train but Hu has stated several times that he will only continue to fund deficits in the west while it's "economically sustainable" to do so.

Re:Iridium RMB anyone?

[stonewallred]

Now what would happen if America and by extension the EU, told China to fuck off and die. That we were not paying them crap of what we owed them? And that the WTO, and other legal resources could not make us? I wonder because it seems like a pretty good plan IMNSHO.

Re:Iridium RMB anyone?

[MaskedSlacker]

Aside from the moral issue of literally stealing the life's savings of millions of chinese peasants? I mean, I know non-white people aren't important, but even that seems a little harsh. That funding from china comes from their trade surplus, which means they have been lending us their savings.

As for what would happen to us, well... http://www.amazon.com/Liberation-Adventures-Collapse-United-America/dp/0765320460

Re:Iridium RMB anyone?

[Antique Geekmeister]

Ohh, gold has significant intrinsic worth: its use for industry and effectiveness as a very malleable, highly conductive noble metal that can be handled in nearly monomolecular layers make it very effective for all sorts of industrial uses. But yes, its use and manipulations for decoration and economic market uses are quite out of scale with its industrial use.

This wasn't always the case: The invention of steel, the assembly line, and the invention of bank notes all distorted the value of easily worked, stable metals. And gold was very useful as a verifiable form of portable wealth, less reliant on the trust in a remote agency than banknotes or on a particular government.

Re:Iridium RMB anyone?

[meringuoid]

Now what would happen if America and by extension the EU, told China to fuck off and die. That we were not paying them crap of what we owed them?

Well, then good luck borrowing money from anybody ever again, after a default on that scale.

Re:Iridium RMB anyone?

[khallow]

Aside from the moral issue of literally stealing the life's savings of millions of chinese peasants?

No, this money comes from the Chinese government not Chinese citizens. Sure at one point, Chinese peasants might have had some of this money, but it isn't theirs any more.

Having said that, defaulting on hundreds of billions or trillions of debt ultimately won't help the US's reputation or financial condition. It'd just be another nail in the coffin. Chinese could always sell its debt to another party (like Japan or the UK) in order to damage the US further. Will the US continue its default when the UK owns the debt? That would also generate massive inflation in the US dollar since a considerable portion of dollar-valued assets lost most or all of their value. And I'm ignoring the WTO-style retaliations. While the US can ignore them, seizure of assets, tariffs, trade embargoes, etc are going to hurt the US.

Finally, I'm not that concerned about the Chinese government strategy. They aren't that good. A near monopoly on rare earths, for example, only makes sense if a) you have the power to enforce the monopoly and b) rare earths become important enough strategically to warrant the effort of creating the monopoly. My view is that China's current inability to enforce these contracts is only the tip of the iceberg. We still have yet to consider whether the contracts have been made in good faith. For example, if a contract has been made with a corrupt government (eg, Burma), then there's a good chance that the contract isn't enforceable without considerably more military power than China will have for decades.

Similarly, China's purchase of massive amounts of US debt just doesn't make that much sense. Even if one is correct in the assumption that the US will pay off its debts, it's still pretty obvious that the US government is engaging in near-suicidal levels of spending and entitlement. My view is that China does so only to support its export industries. I believe that to be a inferior strategy in the long run as well since they lose the benefit of imports from even cheaper places.

My view is that the US could, if it were to keep to sensible levels of government spending, maintain trade deficits indefinitely. There is tremendous wealth creation going on in the US (even during recessions). In good years, only part of this wealth is used to buy imported goods and services. China, by eschewing the benefits of imports, is weakening its economy and depriving its citizens of wealth.

Re:Iridium RMB anyone?

[TapeCutter]

Hitler already tried that. Apart from starting another world war, you will have demonstrated to everyone (including your allies) you are not to be trusted and your currency will end up in the toilet.

Re:Iridium RMB anyone?

[TapeCutter]

I didn't mean it was completely useless, what I was trying to say is that you can't eat it. I agree Issac Newton's "gold standard" was a brilliant step forward in economics, he understood that gold was usefull as a token because it's hard to come by and because everyone has trust in the idea that it will always be hard to come by and can be swapped for food, etc. However it's value collapses when it occasionally becomes easier to obtain, take a look at what occured across Europe when Spain doubled the available gold supply in a very short space of time by looting the Myan empire. All that gold didn't make Europe twice as rich, it simply made gold half as valuable basically wiping out 50% of peoples existing savings.

With so called "fait currency" governments can have absolute control over the supply and thus control infalation (something they can't do with gold, silver, etc), the down side is governments sometimes collapse, when that happens the currency becomes fancy toilet paper (ie: it wipes out 100% of peoples savings, eg:Zimbabwe). The smart thing to do is treat currency itself as a kind of commodity and turn the fluctuating value of it's various forms into personal profit, not that I know how to do that but those who do are extremely wealthy.

Re:Iridium RMB anyone?

[TapeCutter]

Flamebait? My comment is basically the same point as the insightfull post dircetly above, was it because I pointed out the historical fact that telling ones creditors to go fuck themselves didn't end well for Hitler?

Re:Iridium RMB anyone?

[gtall]

The term is 'fiat currency'.

Re:Iridium RMB anyone?

[Reziac]

IF we were to default on that debt -- what country would be stupid enough to buy it from China?? Other countries have even less ability to coerce us into paying.

[I do think we are fast approaching a point where we'll either have to default and nationalize, or become a vassal state.]

Re:Iridium RMB anyone?

[Reziac]

Which doesn't seem to have stopped the U.S. from making loans to countries that historically have been in default more often than not. (Sometimes I think in pursuit of being seen as the benevolent worldfather, we've become just plain stupid.)

And maybe we'd be better off if we weren't spending 2 out of every 3 future dollars on interest to service our debts. Learning to live within our means, the hard way if need be, might ultimately be a Good Thing.

Re:Iridium RMB anyone?

[Zak3056]

Similarly, China's purchase of massive amounts of US debt just doesn't make that much sense. Even if one is correct in the assumption that the US will pay off its debts, it's still pretty obvious that the US government is engaging in near-suicidal levels of spending and entitlement. My view is that China does so only to support its export industries. I believe that to be a inferior strategy in the long run as well since they lose the benefit of imports from even cheaper places.

I think it's 1) to support the export market, as you note, 2) what else are they going to do with all of those dollars? They could spend them, but on what? and 3) it's probably worth it to them to have the US by the balls, because they have the ability to effectively destroy the dollar, and by extension, the US economy.

Re:Iridium RMB anyone?

[quanticle]

it's probably worth it to them to have the US by the balls, because they have the ability to effectively destroy the dollar, and by extension, the US economy.

I disagree. I think that China has traded a whole lot of valuable goods for a whole lot of paper that could be made worthless by the government with very few consequences. You see, while default would create a massive spike in the interest rate charged for government bonds (and associated securities), I don't think that would affect the corporate stock or bond markets that much. The interest rate for corporate bonds is set against the interest rate for the safest government. Though that government is currently the USA, it does not necessarily have to be so.

So, while a default on the part of the government of the USA would wreak havoc on the short term, it would not upset matters too much in the long-run. The major players in the financial markets would select another economy to use as their benchmark (the EU, perhaps), and contracts would be redenominated in the new reserve currency. Yes, the American consumer would lose their ability to borrow at artificially low rates (thanks to the dollar being the world's reserve currency), but arguably, that is a privilege that wasn't worth having in the first place (look at the housing bubble, for instance).

Finally, we have to remember that China isn't the only foreign government that holds our debt. Japan, the UK, various EU nations, etc. all have major stakes as well. And, if we can't persuade the Chinese to go easy on our debt, then perhaps they could. After all, if the Chinese government pressed the US government into default, everybody would be hurt.

So, far from "having us by the balls", it seems that the only thing the Chinese have purchased with their massive trade surplus is a false sense of security.

Re:Iridium RMB anyone?

[quanticle]

Erm, no. Your comment is pretty much a complete misreading of historical events.

First of all, it wasn't Hitler that told the governments of the world to, in essence, "Fuck off." That job was done by the Weimar Republic, who massively devalued the German Mark by printing massive amounts of it to pay their debts under the Treaty of Versailles. Unfortunately, this, in turn, created massive hyperinflation that destroyed the credibility of the mainstream political figures with the German people. It was that which enabled Hitler, who had been a fringe player until then, to break into national politics on a major scale.

The "Fuck you," you're thinking of is Hitler's blatant disregard for the arms limitations that were imposed on Germany (also in the Treaty of Versailles). While this further flouting marked the end of that treaty as a viable piece of international legislation, it had already been largely eviscerated by previous German governments.

Re:Iridium RMB anyone?

[TapeCutter]

"That job was done by the Weimar Republic"

I stand corrected, I thought it was Hitler who printed the money when he first came to power.

Re:Iridium RMB anyone?

[alexo]

They have long looked upon the US mainland with envious eyes.

... and slowly and surely drew their plans against us.

Shame...

[cffrost]

If only Japan coveted lead, they could come to some arrangement.

Re:Shame...

[Arancaytar]

... And if things go downhill from here, we may expect some uranium in our cereals all over the world, even if we didn't covet that at all.

OP and TFA

[Jane Q. Public]

have very little relationship to each other. OP simply doesn't say what TFA does. Who was it did the OP again?

rare-earths

[confused one]

are only rare on Earth. Time to start asteroid mining.

Re:rare-earths

[rumith]

are only rare on Earth.

Citation, please?

Time to start asteroid mining.

You do understand, of course, the astronomic (pun intended) price of the resources mined in the asteroid belt?

Re:rare-earths

[noundi]

You do understand, of course, the astronomic (pun intended) price of the resources mined in the asteroid belt?

You know what?

Re:rare-earths

[Sycraft-fu]

They really aren't that rare. The naming is a historical relic. While they aren't common like, say, silicon, many other elements that aren't "rare earth" aren't either.

Re:rare-earths

[cyberthanasis12]

Does China have an endless supply of rare earths? What happens when the mines are depleted?

Whether we like it or not, conquer of space will be necessary in the not too distant future.

Re:rare-earths

[MaskedSlacker]

You must be new to the internets.

Re:rare-earths

[drinkypoo]

Sorry, if you don't think Maddox is funny, your funny bone must be broken. (Pun intended.)

Re:rare-earths

[confused one]

are only rare on Earth. Citation, please?

Actually, it was all said tongue in cheek. Having gotten that out of the way... As someone else pointed out, they're only considered "rare-earths" for historical reasons. I believe some of the platinum groups are less abundant; but, equally necessary to support our technology. In either case, the relative abundance of elements on Earth should be relatively similar throughout the inner solar system, with some tendancy for sorting by mass as the original cloud condensed to form the Sun and planets.

You do understand, of course, the astronomic (pun intended) price of the resources mined in the asteroid belt?

It's very high. Most of the cost is in launching the equipment and supplies needed. Then there's manpower and support. Consider NEO 433 Eros, a relatively easy target to which we have sent a robotic probe. It has a metal content which, by one estimate, is worth $20 Trillion (US) at current market prices. The technology and marketplace might not support a mining expedition to Eros right now; but, it's conceivable that in the near future a business case could be made for such an effort. Now consider that 433 Eros is only 3% metal content. Another example with higher metal content is 4660 Nereus. There are hundreds more which have orbits that bring them near Earth.

Re:rare-earths

[Reziac]

"Consider NEO 433 Eros, a relatively easy target to which we have sent a robotic probe. It has a metal content which, by one estimate, is worth $20 Trillion (US) at current market prices."

Sounds like a way to pay off the national debt -- is there one close enough and small enough that we could send up a couple of robotic engines and drag the thing into a more convenient orbit? I'm wondering whst the cost vs benefits would be, given only current tech. Maybe a trillion spent, but $20T gained??

Re:rare-earths

[confused one]

Well, that's sort of my point. We don't (currently) have the technology available to pull that much mass back to Earth orbit. For that matter, we can't get to the Moon and back with what we've got available right now. In the next two or three decades we will have the building blocks needed for small scale operations (a pilot plant, if you will). Clearly there's the possiblity of profit, if you can make the massive initial outlay. You can then use the initial mining operations to boot-strap the 2nd generation by providing the raw materials and supporting infrastructure needed, therefore reducing cost and increasing returns.

Soon, soon my pretty.

Re:rare-earths

[confused one]

To answer the question that I glossed over before... We don't have the engines technology right now which could do the job. According to NASA, as of May 25 2009, there are 6185 Near Earth Asteroids, 779 of which are over 1km in diameter, (quick math: 5406 are under 1km); so, we have a few candidates to choose from.

Re:rare-earths

[vrmlguy]

are only rare on Earth.

Citation, please?

Here's one: http://www.tricitiesnet.com/donsastronomy/mining.html

And here's about 165,000 more: http://www.google.com/search?q=space+asteroids+rare+earth+metals

Re:rare-earths

[flandar]

But adding $20 Trillion in resources won't actually create $20 Trillion in value. It will instead just crash the price of the items it is competing with. Our world only needs $50-$100 Billion worth of that resource yearly. If you try to suddenly unload 200 years of inventory, you'll just destroy the market. Prices will drop and the final result will be that you capture 100% of the $50-$100 Billion that the marking was already planning on spending. Numbers like $20 Trillion or inflated. Its like saying I have a super tanker full of crack worth $100 Trillion street value. There is no way you'll ever see any of that money.

Re:rare-earths

[Reziac]

That may be... but if we're the only nation that has it in surplus, then WE are in a position to dictate the market, to our own benefit -- and it's about time we started looking after ourselves, because no one else is going to do it.

Dumping it all at once for a one-shot profit would be stupid. Nope, you dole it out at a competitive price, and fund the country for years to come. No need to go all Walmart about it.

Re:rare-earths

[noundi]

If you don't know Maddox you aren't allowed to have an opinion about anything, sorry this one can't be bent. Until you've done your homework you may sit down and have a cup of tea, no speaking though.

Re:rare-earths

[bhiestand]

Dumping it all at once for a one-shot profit would be stupid. Nope, you dole it out at a competitive price, and fund the country for years to come.

Unfortunately, $50-100 Billion is barely enough to support a dozen senators' pet projects, and not nearly enough to fund our country. It would, however, be enough to make serious improvements.

All of that really doesn't matter, though. "Rare earth" isn't a misnomer - we've not got much of these metals, and we're going to need to get more outside of Earth eventually.

Re:rare-earths

[Reziac]

It never hurts to be the one who owns the surplus supplies of something other people have an increasing need for... yeah, it may not fund the country today, but it might tomorrow, as demand increases and supply dwindles.

Thus it behooves us to be first on the scene as asteroid miners, so we don't wind up as one of those beggar states. :)

"large-scale mineral smuggling"?

[Norsefire]

Like buying gold in WoW?

Why is this news?

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

 

the 1950's called

[timmarhy]

it's time to start checking under your beds for communists kids.

China's bastnasite and monazite supply for magnets

[Anonymous Coward]

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 :)

Lead?

[RudeIota]

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.

NOW China really has the US by the balls

[The_Quinn]

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!?

Re:NOW China really has the US by the balls

[timmarhy]

All you people that think china has america by the balls have it back to front.

China is SHITTING itself that america might not be able to pay back all those debts, they recently became nervous about this and it's seen in them asking for reassurance that their investments are safe. After all america still has a military that could easily repell any hostile advances, so exactly what recourse do you think china is going to have if america really starts to pack it in? the USA will just tell china to wait for it's money like a good boy.

really it's in china's best interests to play nice with america as it's their number one customer, without them china's rise is finished as their own domestic demand can't support the double digit growth they have been enjoying (as seen in their 8% figure)

Re:NOW China really has the US by the balls

[jmv]

the USA will just tell china to wait for it's money like a good boy.

Just tell *any* country/institution that you won't pay your debt and you're in for a financial collapse because then nobody else will lend you anything.

really it's in china's best interests to play nice with america as it's their number one customer, without them china's rise is finished as their own domestic demand can't support the double digit growth they have been enjoying (as seen in their 8% figure)

It's not because China depends on the US that it hasn't got the US by the balls. It's probably *because* they depend so much on the US that they want to make sure to hold all this US dept and be able to exert some control.

Re:NOW China really has the US by the balls

[afidel]

Troll, really? When was the last time the Chinese waged a war of aggression? When was the last time the Chinese called for an end to the western way of life? Salafi jihadist Arab's have done both quite a bit of late.

Re:NOW China really has the US by the balls

[jmv]

Just consider the case where China would say "we will not lend any more money and we will not renew any of the current loans (i.e. we want our money back as soon as the agreement allows it)". That would create very serious problems for the US. Of course, at the moment it's not in China's best interests either because the US is a good customer, but that could change. It also means it's now in the US' best interests to be a good customer.

Re:NOW China really has the US by the balls

[bhiestand]

Just consider the case where China would say "we will not lend any more money and we will not renew any of the current loans (i.e. we want our money back as soon as the agreement allows it)". That would create very serious problems for the US. Of course, at the moment it's not in China's best interests either because the US is a good customer, but that could change. It also means it's now in the US' best interests to be a good customer.

Congratulations, you just exposed the entire western world's secret plan to avoid a war with China and turn them into trading partners instead.

Re:NOW China really has the US by the balls

[bhiestand]

When was the last time the Chinese waged a war of aggression?

2009, considering they're still occupying a certain country and suppressing its people. Or you could include their direct support of a state sponsor of terror, to include very probably assisting them in developing a nuclear weapons and ballistic missile program.

When was the last time the Chinese called for an end to the western way of life? Salafi jihadist Arab's have done both quite a bit of late.

America has fundamental Christians who want to end the Salafi way of life. Moderate Arabs are no worse than moderate Christians because neither group literally interprets bronze-age mythology as the end-all be-all to morality. Fundamentalists in nearly every religion want to end the "American" way of life because the American way of life includes freedom of religion and a separation between church and state.

What's the big deal?

[dimension6]

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.

Re:What's the big deal?

[TubeSteak]

From what I understand from the article, China only holds 95% of the supply because they are able to provide the metals for cheaper.

It's a poor article.
China holds 97% of the output, mostly because they own the processing plants.
China only has ~50% of the global supply, but has bought control of even more.

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.

It isn't about mining, it is about refining.
Almost all roads lead to Chinese processing plants.

** Cue Command and Conquer music "Act on instinct"

[zr-rifle]

Coming next: "Japanese and Chinese production of Harvesters up 500%"

Re:China's bastnasite and monazite supply for magn

[iamdrscience]

Wikipedia is not a reliable source

[citation needed]

Re:China's bastnasite and monazite supply for magn

[wintermute000]

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 ;)

cha cha cha

[davidsyes]

Talk about tempests in teapots....

The supplies aren't in China

[Chmcginn]

You just might be surprised at how fast the producers fall in line with the Chinese government after one or two are executed.

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.

Re:The supplies aren't in China

[Dravik]

Ahh, I stand corrected. I got the impression from the article that China had huge domestic deposits.

Re:The supplies aren't in China

[MaskedSlacker]

They do, but there's still more outside of China than inside.

Original research

[tepples]

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?

Re:Original research

[sillybilly]

Even on Wikipedia you're posting an opinion. An opinion of what citations are appropriate, and if you do it right, in other people's opinion, by "self professed expert's" opinion, then it's left there. It's like the collective body of human knowledge has to fit in everyone's head, in similar ways, as a coherent whole, and my thoughts reflect your thoughts reflect Pete's thoughts over there so we're on the same page. Even experts have to join in into this collective understanding of things, and unless they can formulate their opinion in ways that are graspable by others, their work is useless. Once their work is graspable by others, it's hard to say their opinion is different or better, because those who grasped it are equally able to hold the same opinion.

That's one side of the story, because yes, experts do know of the subtleties of a topic, because it's hard to formulate knowledge of very many things into succinct direct factual statements, because there are subtle cases where the opposite of the formulated statement is true. What makes someone an expert is being very aware of the exceptions, of when the factual statement is false. So a simple quotation of a succinct factual statement from published literature is not proper knowledge. The human brain is good at looking at very many different things, and drawing succinct guiding principles from them, to simplify and save thought processes. It's how the human brain functions, by generalizations, by stereotyping, but succinct generalizations are sometimes forced onto a topic where they don't really fit well, and instead a long winded deliberation is more appropriate. Wikipedia articles are often very good at highlighting these subtleties involving a topic, and it's like the experts actually wrote these Wikipedia articles themselves, and simple quoting of experts from a distance by those who don't understand the subtleties is not appropriate. No original research? There is no other proper knowledge but original research or equivalent mirroring of it, the only proper knowledge is full knowledge, and little knowledge is dangerous. There is a fading zone though, a balance, a tradeoff between long windedness of a Wikipedia article, vs. full and proper knowledge, full and proper description of a topic, because an encyclopedia article does have to be somewhat succinct, because the reader comes to it to quickly grasp the major ideas in a topic, and get a good starting base, and then the fine points can be further researched in the expert literature.

By the way there are also cases of crackpots successfully publishing literature in widely acclaimed scientific journals, and a Wikipedia editor who's a "non-expert" might decide to arbitrate and overrule the cited information. Just because something is published literature it does not always mean it is better than the collective agreement of Wikipedia editor's personal, private opinions.

Wikipedia, is full of opinions. Even though it is supposed to contain no original research, you could say that there is no such thing as original research, because almost no original research in general is totally original, but it is derived as a natural flow of ideas from other people's work. Newton said that he might have been able to see farther than others, but that was because he was standing on shoulders of giants. There are very few exceptions, such as Cantor's math of infinites, or Bolyai's axiom of parallels, where people have pitted their minds against a topic for millenia, and a very fresh view is presented, and you could say it's not a natural flow of ideas from what was previously known. But even there you can say that eventually someone else would have come up with the same ideas or something very similar, and it's a natural flow, it just took a while to make the next step, and those successful in making that next step contributed more significantly than usual, and possibly deserve some greater reward (even if it's hard to come up with a proper reward for Cantor or Bolyai, how do you measure the value of such progress in $ terms?) There is no completely individualized human knowledge, we all contribute by chiseling at the whole, adding little tidbits here and there.

Re:Original research

[Goaway]

Nothing except Wikipedia is Wikipedia. Please keep the "citation neededs" on Wikipedia, where they belong, and far away from casual conversation.

Re:Ya Know What?

[MaskedSlacker]

Is it really flamebait when the post is so absurd that no one can take it as anything other than a joke?

Re:Ya Know What?

[Sehnsucht]

I've got this GREAT idea to end world hunger!

Irony

[markdavis]

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?

Re:Irony

[John Hasler]

> So we will go from being dependent on foreign oil to being dependent on foreign
> rare-earth metals?

These metals are found at low concentrations pretty much everywhere. The highest-yielding deposits currently known may be in China but they aren't much better than lower yielding deposits elsewhere. Also, there has not yet been much exploration for them. It is likely that the best deposits have not yet been found.

FYI...

[denzacar]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Best_Page_in_the_Universe
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maddox_(writer)

China's military expansion of Lebensraum

[Anonymous Bullard]

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

The railway link to Tibet now appears to have been part of a broader plan to exploit vast deposits of metals in the disputed region, explains Fortune's Abrahm Lustgarten.

When China opened its controversial new railway to Tibet last July, international critics howled at the prospect that the region's culture and environment would be ravaged in search of resources. China repeated a solemn refrain, its officials insisting that the $4 billion project was aimed not at plundering the disputed territory but at bringing prosperity and economic development to Tibetan society.

So much for that. Now China's Ministry of Land and Resources is disclosing monumental new resource discoveries all across Tibet, and it turns out the findings are the culmination of a secret seven-year, $44 million survey project which preceded the railway construction in the first place.

In 1999 more than 1000 researchers divided into 24 separate regiments and fanned out across the Qinghai-Tibet Plateau, geologically mapping an area the s

Re:China's military expansion of Lebensraum

[vampire_baozi]

Given the weakness and corruption of late Qing dynasty China, they were hardly expanding anywhere. In fact, China endured over a century of humiliation by foreign powers, including Russia, France, Germany, the US, and Japan, as they carved up "spheres of influence" and took Chinese land (Hong Kong by Britain, Jiaotong Peninsula by Germans, Taiwan by Japanese in the 1890s). Japan and Russia fought for control in Manchuria; the Japanese won that war, and had de-facto control of Manchuria until they allowed it to declare "independence", as a Japanese puppet state.
While claims of Chinese *Communist* expansion into Tibet and consolidation of power in Western China is another issue entirely, the idea of Chinese expansion from 1800-1949 is simply propagandist bullshit. Through the Opium Wars, Taiping Rebellion and other civil strife, to the Nationalist/Communist Civil War, China couldn't control its own territory, much less expand.
We were carving China up, hence calling it the "sick man of the East". Claiming pre-1945 China was expanding or looking for "Lebensraum" is simply rediculous.
Claiming post-Communist China has imperial ambitions is another argument entirely, and perhaps one worth discussing. But trying to use "Manchukuo" as an example, or saying the China was a dominant empire (it was an empire in decline, corrupt and feeble) discredits much of the rest of your argument. "The secret and reclusive Middle Kingdom"? It was the Republic of China at that point, and currently involved in both civil war and trying to repel invasion from the Japanese.

For the rest, Modern Chinese leaders do not view their industrial usage of the territories as expansion, but as using territories that rightfully belong to them, just like the US drilling for oil in Alaska (which we purchased from Russia in the mid 1800s).
Using adjectives like âoesinister policy" and "consolidate de facto Chinese rule for an eternity" does not help your case, either. Makes you sound paranoid at best. I am not even Chinese; but the historical inaccuracies and misrepresentations in your post would make anyone weep.

Re:China's military expansion of Lebensraum

[Anonymous Bullard]

Dear vampire baozi, nowhere did I refer to "Chinese expansion from 1800-1949" which you label as propagandist bullshit.

Yet, since you bring it up, even the unpopular ("foreign") Manchu dynasty of Qing and the subsequent short-lived Republic, despite dealing with foreign imperial colonies on the coast (and later the Japanese in the north-east), imposed (or attempted to do so militarily but were defeated like in Tibet, until the PLA in 1950) Chinese colonial rule in the above-mentioned neighbouring people's territories despite their independence struggles. Look up the details, they're widely available outside China. Some are of course mentioned as "rebellions" to be put out by the brave Chinese patriots...

Also consider that the majority of the so-called Han-Chinese, supposedly an ethnic group making up 1.2 billion of the 1.3+ billion population, are actually ethnically distinct from the original Hans hailing north of the Yangtze (although due to the military campaigns and later population movements the southern "sinicized Hans" have noticeable paternal "Han" DNA).

What the genetic studies, brushed under the carpet by the CCP, essentially mean is that 1) the so-called Han-Chinese aren't in fact a single ethnic group as claimed by the regime, and 2) most of the "Han" population (i.e. their ancestors) were actually invaded and annexed into the Chinese empire (which later adopted the Han concept from the 2000-year old dynasty of that name) and so throughly assimilated that practically nothing cultural and very little linguistic evidence of their indigenous past remains.

Since we were talking about empires, that is akin to the Roman empire wiping out all competing cultures until all citizens from within the empire only ever knew Rome as their "motherland" and only spoke a latin of some sort, and then imagining how the ultranationalistic "Romans" of today's France and Ukraine (ie. all over the Roman empire) were now shouting from all rooftops how the Irish or the Scandinavians don't deserve their independence because they consider everything to belong to their Rome. That's how today's Han-chauvinism is expressed.

Point being that the Chinese dynastic state has long been a shamelessly/proudly imperialistic entity. If during the Manchu Qing and the Republic periods some of their "claimed colonies" declared their desire for the modern notion of independence (like most countries around the the world did) and the Chinese sent military missions suppressing (or attempting to supress) them... well, call it what you will.

Unlike the historically vague or nominal displays of Chinese imperial superiority through "ambans" with small garrisons and the extortion of tributes (indeed sometimes beneficially in exchange of military help against common enemies), the modern form of Chinese colonialism with its massive "Han-Chinese" population transfers, prevalent and thorough military control, large scale murder, totalitarian propaganda and sinicization policies and systematic exploitation of natural resources in the occupied territories using modern technology is indeed sinister and only comparable to the worst policies of Hitler and Stalin, who unsurprisingly both inspired the "modern" Chinese regimes.

If you object to calling China's ongoing imperial policies sinister, you'd do well in trying to imagine yourself in the shoes of today's Tibetan, Uighur or "Inner"-Mongolian. Manchus have indeed already ceased to exist as a people.

Re:China's military expansion of Lebensraum

[divide overflow]

Utter bullshit. Mongolia was never a part of the Soviet Union. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mongolian_People's_Republic

Please note that "regained its independence from" != "a part of." The post you replied to never said that Mongolia was "a part of" the Soviet Union, but only asserted the well documented political and military alignment with the Soviet Union. You may recall a similar situation existed with Cuba.

From Wikipedia:

When Chinese forces attacked Mongolia in 1919 to negate its independence from China, the Soviet Red Army helped Mongolia ward off the invasion. The Mongolian People's Republic was established in 1921 with Soviet influence.

The sky is falling.

[Charcharodon]

In other news, China is also competing for oil, steel, and hair care products....G7 nations are in a panic and the world economy is probably going to implode and civilization as we know it will end at midnight tonight.

Check back tomorrow for all the details as this exclusive story unfolds.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Resource limitations

[tdp252]

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.

Re:Resource limitations

[afidel]

The thing is once you've put the energy into obtaining these materials you have them in concentrated form so they are not lost, at worst you have to put additional energy into recycling them. This contrasts quite a bit with oil where once it's used you have nothing useful to show for it other than the work you performed with the small percentage of its energy you could capture.

The intrinsic worth of Gold

[Colin Smith]

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.

 

Re: Doubtability

[cryptor3]

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.

Re: Doubtability

[tepples]

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"?

Rare Earth Metal is a Rock and Roll Band

[dbdweeb]

Scarcity is the mother of all horror flicks

Green, my ass

[Reziac]

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.

MOD PARENT UP -- good historical points!

[Reziac]

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.)

Re: Doubtability

[cryptor3]

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 - its not just for cellphones

[sfm]

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.