Slashdot Mirror


Searching For Alternatives To China's Rare Earth Monopoly

KantIsDead writes "MIT's Technology Review adds to the ongoing discussion of China's monopoly on rare earth metals, an issue that was temporarily catapulted to national attention during China's rare earth embargo of Japan. The current article focuses on the search for alternatives to rare earth metals that would undercut China's monopoly and allow nations to develop their industry without fearing the hand of a Chinese embargo. From the article: 'In the US, the Chinese dominance of rare-earth mineral production has prompted a surge of funding focused on developing permanent magnets that use less, if any, rare-earth materials, such as nearly $7 million from the Advanced Research Projects Agency for Energy (ARPA-E). In one of these projects, University of Nebraska researchers are working to enhance permanent magnets made with an alloy iron and cobalt, or FeCo. This class of materials is sold today, but delivers half or less of the power of the best rare-earth-based magnets. The Nebraska researchers will focus on ways to dope the structural matrix of these alloys with traces of other elements, thereby rearranging their molecular geometry to create stronger, more durable permanent magnetic materials.'"

199 comments

  1. Looking elsewhere... by lionchild · · Score: 1

    I suspect there will be folks who open up new markets for rare earths. I believe there are a number of resources that are yet undeveloped on the African continent. Likely the replacement for Conflict Diamonds...Conflict Earths. (Sounds sorta like a scifi novel title, huh?)

    --
    Awk! Pieces of eight. Pieces of eight. Pieces of seven... ERROR: General Protection Fault. [Paroty Error.]
    1. Re:Looking elsewhere... by lul_wat · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Considering all the investment China is putting into Africa at the moment they are probably one step ahead in that department...

      --
      Divide a cake by zero. Is it still a cake?
    2. Re:Looking elsewhere... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or in the U.S. or Australia

    3. Re:Looking elsewhere... by ElectricTurtle · · Score: 1

      What aboot Canada, eh? Canada is freakin' huge, and there were a metric fuckton of diamonds discovered in the middle of frozen nowhere north of Yellow Knife. There have to be a lot of minerals undiscovered in all that frozen wasteland.

      --
      I support the Slashcott and will not be reading or commenting from 2/10/14 to 2/17/14. Beta is steaming pile of dog shit
    4. Re:Looking elsewhere... by lionchild · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Unlike Conflict Diamonds, it's really hard to trace where the Conflict Rare Earths come from. So, if they get funneled through China, it's very difficult to say where it orginally came from. :-(

      --
      Awk! Pieces of eight. Pieces of eight. Pieces of seven... ERROR: General Protection Fault. [Paroty Error.]
    5. Re:Looking elsewhere... by compro01 · · Score: 3, Informative

      We're already working on it. There's a rare earths mine currently getting started up near Lake Thor in the northwest territories.

      --
      upon the advice of my lawyer, i have no sig at this time
    6. Re:Looking elsewhere... by zill · · Score: 1

      Or in the U.S.

      Precisely. U.S. was the the global leader in rare earth metals production in the late 1980s.

    7. Re:Looking elsewhere... by WillAffleckUW · · Score: 1

      Ssh. Don't tell anyone.

      --
      -- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
    8. Re:Looking elsewhere... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I believe there are a number of resources that are yet undeveloped on the African continent.

      There are huge deposits in Texas around the Llano area, but it would be a shame to mine for them (hard to extract them without destroying the beauty of the environment around there). It would probably benefit Africa to mine there first, since they are in far greater need of economic development than Texas.

    9. Re:Looking elsewhere... by Monkeedude1212 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Not to mention that there is a lot of potential ability to recycle Rare Earth metals from electronics yet for whatever reason we keep shipping them off to China to be disassembled.

      If you don't want China to have all the Rare Earth Metals... STOP GIVING IT BACK TO THEM.

    10. Re:Looking elsewhere... by SEWilco · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Is an asteroid "elsewhere" enough for you? Most metallic asteroids probably have more metals than we have access to in the Earth's crust. We have ways of cutting up large metal objects, but I don't know if there are industrial processes for separating random mixtures of metallic elements. An asteroid which had melted and partially separated the metals would be an interesting challenge.

    11. Re:Looking elsewhere... by General+Wesc · · Score: 1

      See also: DR Congo.

    12. Re:Looking elsewhere... by treeves · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I was surprised to hear that Chinese companies are doing all the road-building projects in Ethiopia now. When I was there just a couple years ago, it was Europeans.

      --
      ...the future crusty old bastards are already drinking the Kool-Aid.
    13. Re:Looking elsewhere... by RsG · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Sure, but getting to and from is a bitch. And moving them into Earth orbit is the sort of thing you only screw up once. I'm all for mining the belt, but we need substantially better tech for both ground to orbit and in-system flight. Mind you, in the long run setting up such infrastructure is worthwhile for non-commercial reasons, so we really ought to be investing more in it on general principles.

      --
      Erotic is when you use a feather. Exotic is when you use the whole chicken.
    14. Re:Looking elsewhere... by ae1294 · · Score: 1

      Lake Thor in the northwest territories.

      Lake Thor? in the northwest territories eh? Hope you sacrificed a few virgins and preformed the correct rituals before breaking ground because the place sounds cursed if you ask me...

      Let me know if you find any old looking hammers laying around, maybe an ebay auction or something...

    15. Re:Looking elsewhere... by ae1294 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Precisely. U.S. was the the global leader in rare earth metals production in the late 1980s.

      Hey we moved on.. now we export nice clean things like Hollywood movies and heavy metal eh music... Digging in the dirt is so hard on the nails and only Mexicans wanna do that sort of work.

    16. Re:Looking elsewhere... by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 1

      Unlike Conflict Diamonds, it's really hard to trace where the Conflict Rare Earths come from.

      Blood diamonds may not be all they are cracked up to be.

      Besides, the conditions under which many "conflict-free" diamonds are mined ought to be enough to take the lustre off the stone too.

      --
      When information is power, privacy is freedom.
    17. Re:Looking elsewhere... by ae1294 · · Score: 1

      Can never ever happen, I can't even get on a plane to fly to the next state over without an anal probe do you really think they are going to let terrorist fly to an asteroid? What if Al-Qaeda(tm) smashes it into east Texas? { discuss }

    18. Re:Looking elsewhere... by aliquis · · Score: 1

      ... and enough energy.

    19. Re:Looking elsewhere... by Wyatt+Earp · · Score: 1

      They are here in the US, but just undeveloped.

      How far will we have to go scouring the ends of the Earth and fueling conflicts before environmentalists allow development?

      http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2010/09/chinese-threat-on-rare-earth-minerals.html

      http://news.slashdot.org/story/10/03/16/1739241/US-Sits-On-Supply-of-Rare-Tech-Crucial-Minerals

    20. Re:Looking elsewhere... by Nethead · · Score: 2, Funny

      ...northwest territories.

      No, Washington and Oregon are states now.

      --
      -- I have a private email server in my basement.
    21. Re:Looking elsewhere... by h4rr4r · · Score: 1

      Environmentalists are not the problem, refusing to add the cost of environmental cleanup to the imported product is the problem.

    22. Re:Looking elsewhere... by the+phantom · · Score: 2, Funny

      What if Al-Qaeda(tm) smashes it into east Texas?

      Wait... that's a possibility? Well, then... I think we need to get moving on this "mine the belt" idea right away!

    23. Re:Looking elsewhere... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nuclear power can do the job, and there will be even more fissionables in the rocks.

    24. Re:Looking elsewhere... by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 1

      I'll bet you can't pick it up.

      No, has nothing to do with magic. You're probably just wimpy.

      --
      (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
    25. Re:Looking elsewhere... by ae1294 · · Score: 1

      You're probably just wimpy.

      Why yes, I would gladly pay you Tuesday for a hamburger today...

    26. Re:Looking elsewhere... by h4rm0ny · · Score: 1

      Some of the projected estimates of how much could be mined from one suitable asteroid are staggering though. Yes, it would be a monstrous project to accomplish, perhaps it would take us twenty years to pull off. But put it in context - a small, metallic asteroid was estimated to yield around $20 trillion dollars worth of iron and precious metals and that's at 1997 prices. Some of the larger asteroids could effectively supply our metal needs on this planet (iron, rare earths, whatever) for any forseeable time period. Sounds like a bargain. And it's not like such a project is purely additional cost, you're long-term shifting the costs from the existing mining industry.

      But as good as this is, such projects would re-energise Western countries that are currently in a malaise caused by lots of labour-force freed from being needed due to mechanisation and off-shoring to poorer countries. You can't build an entire society on life-style coaches and shop-assistants. We need to reach out now that we're able to and strive to achieve more. We're not, on the whole, doing that. Which is a big problem for societies where the rewards of mechanisation and off-shoring go to an owning class rather than to people across society. There are only two ways out of that situation - up or down.

      --

      Aide-toi, le Ciel t'aidera - Jeanne D'Arc.
    27. Re:Looking elsewhere... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are right but you omit a little detail. Five years ago USA rare earth companies closed because they preferred to buy China. Now they want China to continue to sell them cheap without using it their selves for their own production. There is no problem here, prices will go up and some new companies will have to reopen their mines. USA made a strategic mistake closing their rare earth manufacturing(they take a lot of years to startup and if you close you lose all the people knowhow of years of experience.

      Recycle electronics is a nasty and dirty work.

      Today care is taken for assembling things easily(cheap to produce), but things are very very difficult to disassemble. how I know? I'm industrial engineer and all my life I wanted to disassemble things too know how they work.

      It is not easy because:

      You could learn(easily) how things work.
      You could modify(easily) the design to suit better your needs in a cheap way.
      You won't buy again if it is easy to repair little problems.

      Computer junk is mostly send to Africa, not China. They are contaminating water aquifers and air with the combustion fumes. Their technology there is not existent.

    28. Re:Looking elsewhere... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No need to move the entire asteroid. If you're not going to refine it on site, chop it up and move pieces of convenient size. An abrasive-coated cable is not a labor-intensive tool.

    29. Re:Looking elsewhere... by aliquis · · Score: 1

      For how long? Really, I'm just curious.

      How much nuclear substances are we likely to be able to / want to extract from the surface?

      How long would they do if we used them to 100% for electricity, transporatation, space travel, space exploration and mining. I do understand that we can get more while in space but =P

      If we want to reach nearby stars and terraform or start to live on their planets how much energy would the ships require if we want to get there in a reasonable amount of time? (and would we crash and burn while doing so?)

      Harvest more spice? :D

    30. Re:Looking elsewhere... by skids · · Score: 1

      Hey I pull the magnets out of every drive I scrap. Not that I recycle them, I just keep them as toys
      (my personal record for levitating a pencil lead is now up to 35 days), but don't blame me :-)

    31. Re:Looking elsewhere... by toddestan · · Score: 1

      Well, the reason why we do it is simple: The cost of disposing of them properly outweighs the value of any raw materials recovered from them.

    32. Re:Looking elsewhere... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Look Norther, and less west.

    33. Re:Looking elsewhere... by MasaMuneCyrus · · Score: 1

      It's not because the the Europeans don't have interest, it's because China has strategic and political interests in making the entire continent of Africa politically-aligned with and dependent upon China. It wants to displace the US as the world hegemony, and Africa is currently a place where a foreign aid/investing cold war, of sorts, is occurring between the US and China. China is frequently beating out Western developers, however by offering huge sums of state-backed money in exchange for exclusive mineral right contracts that last as much as several decades.

    34. Re:Looking elsewhere... by Coren22 · · Score: 1

      Levitating pencil lead? I wasn't aware this was ferro-magnetic. How is this done?

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
    35. Re:Looking elsewhere... by hazydave · · Score: 1

      There are rare earths all over the place... they're not actually rare.

      One problem is finding enough concentration of a particular material to make mining it economically sound. The USA, Australia, Canada, and a few others were, until relatively recently, the top suppliers of rare earth materials. Then China started selling them cheap... so cheap, most other companies went out of business.

      So we have some decades of ignoring the problem. Can't do that anymore, it would seem. With the prices on many of these compounds having doubled in the last 18 months, it's reasonable to assume that someone could make a profit now, where before, China undercut any possible domestic production. But if most of those companies are really defunct, this means new concerns have to get into this business. So it's a slow process.

      And of course, Western countries have environmental issues that, just perhaps, are not considered issues in China. This certainly adds to the cost of production, though it's also possible better mining technology could some into play.

      As far as tech goes, there are alternatives. Another recent story here was about Toyota working on licensing Tesla Motors's electric car technology for a new version of the RAV4-EV. Now, as the world's largest manufacturer of electric road cars (albeit hybrid electrics), you'd think Toyota wouldn't need this. Only... Toyota's motors are all three-phase permanent magnet motors -- they need rare earths like neodymium... each Prius needs about a kilogram of neodymium for its two neodymium-iron-boron magnet-based motors.

      Tesla uses polyphase AC induction motors with no permanent magnets... that's actually why their use of the name "Tesla" is fairly legit -- Nikola Tesla invented this kind of motor back in the late 19th century. Those in the Tesla Roadster use copper for the coils, aircraft aluminum for the structure, ceramic bearings, some special plastics, etc. But none of these rare earths.

      --
      -Dave Haynie
    36. Re:Looking elsewhere... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      hm, do you know how much water it takes?

  2. Someone had to say it... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Do magnets made of FeCo material smell bad?

    1. Re:Someone had to say it... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No; you're thinking of the ones that use carbon and aluminum in place of cobalt.

    2. Re:Someone had to say it... by biryokumaru · · Score: 3, Funny

      No, no one had to say that.

      --
      When you're afraid to download music illegally in your own home, then the terrorists have won!
  3. China is just the cheapest producer like Saudi by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    There are lots of rare earths in other countries. China is just the cheapest place to extract it. If the price goes up then other deposits will be able to be brought online economically.

    1. Re:China is just the cheapest producer like Saudi by TheEyes · · Score: 1, Informative

      The problem is that there aren't any other rare earth mines around, and they take a while to dig and bring online--ten years, from what I've read.

      Consider having to go without new hard drives for ten years, and you know why people are suddenly becoming nervous about China suddenly deciding to embargo Japan.

    2. Re:China is just the cheapest producer like Saudi by FooAtWFU · · Score: 1
      Nasty for your business if it happens all of a sudden, though, and it takes a couple years before the alternative supplies are actually ready.

      This is risk mitigation.

      --
      The World Wide Web is dying. Soon, we shall have only the Internet.
    3. Re:China is just the cheapest producer like Saudi by Ironsides · · Score: 1

      Consider it is still possible to recycle/reuse the rare earths from the existing equipment when it wears out. Recycling exists you know.

      --
      Fly me to the moon Let me sing among those stars Let me see what spring is like On jupiter and mars
    4. Re:China is just the cheapest producer like Saudi by zill · · Score: 2, Informative

      The problem is that there aren't any other rare earth mines around

      United states had a monopoly in rare earth metals back in the 80's. I'm pretty sure those mines can be re-activated on a short notice.

    5. Re:China is just the cheapest producer like Saudi by compro01 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Bullshit. There's a pair of big rare earth mines in California that will be up and running by the middle of next year. One of them (Mountain Pass) used to provide the vast majority of the world's rare earths before China came on the scene and priced them out of the market.

      There is no possibility of a long term shortage.

      --
      upon the advice of my lawyer, i have no sig at this time
    6. Re:China is just the cheapest producer like Saudi by L3370 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      They can.

      If we did, china would let it go on for a year or two, then wait till all the investors dump huge loads of cash into the business to expand and streamline. After fortunes are invested, China will stop any existing embargos and then triple their rare earth mining output just to slam all the competitors into the ground. If they do it right, they'd probably traumatize their competitors so terribly that no one would think of mining rare earth minerals for another 30 years.

      China corners the market because mining rare earth minerals creates environmental issues...and they are willing to puke all over their own land. Western nations have to deal with environmental laws, and that drives up cost.

    7. Re:China is just the cheapest producer like Saudi by aliquis · · Score: 1

      Recycling exists you know.

      He's from the US :(

    8. Re:China is just the cheapest producer like Saudi by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If China does that they'll get slapped with tariffs SO fast. Remember, China needs us (the rest of the world to buy their stuff) more than we need them. They don't offer anything someone else doesn't already do, they're merely a little cheaper.

    9. Re:China is just the cheapest producer like Saudi by khallow · · Score: 1

      If China does that they'll get slapped with tariffs SO fast.

      Who's going to do that? We have a leadership problem in the developed world. And if this rumble is processed through the WTO, then it'll take years before any action occurs.

    10. Re:China is just the cheapest producer like Saudi by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      Really? There are rare earth metals/materials recycling plants online right now today? Ones that don't exist only in china because of pollution controls and regulations make it generally otherwise unprofitable?

      It's pretty much the same concept. If China embargoes the world for whatever reason, recycling isn't going to save us. Especially when exponential growth in demand means that we can't meet the needs of the new with the crap that is old and recycled. I mean seriously, how many people had an Ipod or the equivalent 10 years ago compared to today. How many people have a computer today compared to 10 years ago. Do you think that's going to reverse itself somehow?

      What makes recycling glass and other metals successful today is that the demand severely outweighs the supply driving costs up and bringing new materials into the market at the same time means costs can be spread around as they are competitive with each other. I haven't seen anywhere where recycling rare earth metals have been done near as cheap as extracting new quantities unless it's in China or somewhere that pays what you make in an hour for a weeks wage and disregards environmental and occupational health concerns at the same time. If you know of something that makes me wrong, please inform me.

    11. Re:China is just the cheapest producer like Saudi by Ironsides · · Score: 1
      Don't think "right now today", think five years from now. If you only think today, you'll always be in crisis management.

      The number of ipods 10 years ago? What does that matter? If you want to look at ipods, look at how many people have owned in the past 10 years. Most people are on their 3rd ipod at this point, with two previous ones in the trash. Think about the amount of electronics we've thrown away in the past 30 years.

      By the way, what makes recycling successful is not that demand outweighs supply, it's that the cost to make new is more than the cost to recycle. Aluminum takes 20 times as much energy to extract new as it does to recycle. That's why recycling is driven. All that is really necessary is for the cost to recycle to be less than the sale cost.

      I haven't seen anywhere where recycling rare earth metals have been done near as cheap as extracting new quantities

      Before last month, have you seen recycling of rare earth metals anywhere? It's been economical to recover the gold in circuit boards for five years or more now. We already have places to drop off old computers in the US. To add rare earths to the mix is not a stretch.

      --
      Fly me to the moon Let me sing among those stars Let me see what spring is like On jupiter and mars
    12. Re:China is just the cheapest producer like Saudi by TapeCutter · · Score: 1

      Gold miners know the price of gold fluctuates and open/close thier mines accordingly, oil companies open/close their wells in response to OPEC, why would rare earth miners be "traumatised" doing the same thing? Sure there is a time lag between price movements and mine output but that lag also applies to China's mines.

      --
      And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
    13. Re:China is just the cheapest producer like Saudi by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      Don't think "right now today", think five years from now. If you only think today, you'll always be in crisis management.

      So we should start a corporate charity program right now today? Maybe I wasn't clear, the parent said it takes time to start a new mine, you said how about recycling, I spend a good bit of mental masturbation attempting to say it will take time too. I also said it doesn't exist today outside of China because it's too expensive when you have to pay workers a decent wage, worry about their health and the environment.

      It's not happening now because it's too expensive. It won't become economically feasible until either costs of recycling goes down or costs go up. With China artificially manipulating their dollar, we will need to either rely on costs going down somehow, or wait until a shortage makes the prices jump due to demand.

      The number of ipods 10 years ago? What does that matter? If you want to look at ipods, look at how many people have owned in the past 10 years. Most people are on their 3rd ipod at this point, with two previous ones in the trash. Think about the amount of electronics we've thrown away in the past 30 years.

      It matters because demand increases. This also means that if there are 3 million of the supplies to make something something, and there is a need for 4 million of it, you will be short the supplies necessary to make 1 million of them. Recycling is like this in a closed system, you will only have enough to make a certain amount. If demand grows, your stuck.

      By the way, what makes recycling successful is not that demand outweighs supply, it's that the cost to make new is more than the cost to recycle. Aluminum takes 20 times as much energy to extract new as it does to recycle.

      First, that's only true for aluminum. But energy isn't the only cost factor. There is buy off (buying the crap from the consumer), there is collecting, housing, consolidation, transportation, and quite a few other concerns that can easily cause the costs to outweighs buying new. In fact, it wasn't until relatively recently that it was cost effective on the whole to recycle aluminum (30 or so years with a recent shift further. Second, the costs of recycling, and yes, energy costs are different in different forms too, has to remain lower then the costs of manufacturing new or else it's a losing venture. Period, end of discussion.

      That's why recycling is driven. All that is really necessary is for the cost to recycle to be less than the sale cost.

      And that is achieved through supply and demand. If supply is greater then demand, the sale costs drop. If supply is being created in China, and China manipulates it's dollar making it cheaper and costs drop, then other places where it's more expensive then the sale cost to recycle or even make will stop producing or operate at a loss. They can only operate at a loss for a certain amount of time before going out of business anyways.

      Before last month, have you seen recycling of rare earth metals anywhere?

      From what I have seen, it's been in China and India primarily where they burn the circuit boards and extract the metals by standing over a sheet of steel and moving a metal rod though the molten puddle while breathing the toxic fumes then discarding the rest. I have been looking for a page I saw this at but can't seem to find it anymore. Anyways, it seems they do that only to extract the copper and not the rare earth metals so I guess I haven't seen it before a month ago.

      It's been economical to recover the gold in circuit boards for five years or more now. We already have places to drop off old computers in the US. To add rare earths to the mix is not a stretch.

    14. Re:China is just the cheapest producer like Saudi by Daniel+Phillips · · Score: 1

      If we did, china would let it go on for a year or two, then wait till all the investors dump huge loads of cash into the business to expand and streamline. After fortunes are invested, China will stop any existing embargos and then triple their rare earth mining output just to slam all the competitors into the ground.

      Not without violating numerous international treaties on fair trade.

      --
      Have you got your LWN subscription yet?
  4. What about by Dyinobal · · Score: 1

    I only wonder what lays yet undiscovered in the Antarctic, there is no telling what sort of things can be found there. Though I think treaty prevents any sort of commercial ventures.Though that's just so the Military can establish their secret base there.

    1. Re:What about by MightyMartian · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Apart from the fact that treaties pretty much bar any wide-scale development or extraction, simply put, it's damned cold down there, and even the limited amount of activity down there costs an exorbitant amount of money. Rare earth minerals would have to get really damned expensive before anyone would seriously consider it.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    2. Re:What about by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      I only wonder what lays yet undiscovered in the Antarctic, there is no telling what sort of things can be found there. Though I think treaty prevents any sort of commercial ventures.Though that's just so the Military can establish their secret base there.

      The Military just wants you to believe that. They're too embarrassed to admit the penguins keep kicking their asses, so they make up stories like that to throw you off.

      Those penguins are deceptively cunning war strategists, it turns out.

    3. Re:What about by mark-t · · Score: 1

      I think it's a safe bet that if Antarctica had it in sufficient quantity such that it would be economically feasible to obtain it, many countries would not really give a rats ass about the treaty and it would only be fear of repercussions that would stop them from carrying out any operations there that would violate it. The problem is that some nations are powerful enough that such fear would probably not be of concern to them... so I'm really rather leaning towards hoping that Antarctica doesn't have very much there that is useful.

    4. Re:What about by oatworm · · Score: 2, Funny

      It's true. I saw this documentary on Nickelodeon called Penguins of Madagascar and, man, they looked tough! We're talking crazy commando skills, unwavering loyalty, the ability to talk to zoo animals... it was chilling!

    5. Re:What about by Mitchell314 · · Score: 1

      That's because their Colonel's are brilliant. And modular.

      --
      I read TFA and all I got was this lousy cookie
    6. Re:What about by corbettw · · Score: 1

      Treaties are only valuable as long as the cost of violating them is greater than the cost of abiding by them. In other words, if large deposits of rich mineral deposits were discovered in Antarctica, it would be far more profitable to forget about the treaties and one could then expect a land rush as nations colonize it and began cutting up the landscape.

      --
      God invented whiskey so the Irish would not rule the world.
    7. Re:What about by ae1294 · · Score: 1

      I only wonder what lays yet undiscovered in the Antarctic, there is no telling what sort of things can be found there.

      Geologist William Dyer, a professor from Miskatonic University writes to disclose hitherto unknown and closely kept secrets in the hope that he can deter a planned and much publicized scientific expedition to Antarctica. On a previous expedition there, a party of scholars from Miskatonic University, led by Dyer, discovered fantastic and horrific ruins and a dangerous secret beyond a range of mountains taller than the Himalayas. They found the remains of fourteen ancient life forms, completely unknown to science and unidentifiable as either plants or animals, after discovering an underground cave while boring for ice cores. Six of the specimens are badly damaged, the others uncannily pristine. Their highly-evolved features are problematic: their stratum location puts them at a point on the geologic time scale much too early for such features to have naturally evolved yet. Because of their resemblance to creatures of myth mentioned in the Necronomicon, they are dubbed the "Elder Things" moar

      ... See where this is going ...

    8. Re:What about by aliquis · · Score: 1

      Here in Sweden a lot of mining is done in Kiruna:
      City(?):
      http://www.strangeharvest.com/mt/archive/kiruna3.jpg
      http://www.mynewsdesk.com/files/e1ec5f78a79c345d4a3fcf3c86177f0f/resources/ResourceWebImage/thumbnails/flygbild_kiruna_november_2007_large.jpg?1238409989

      They are even moving the whole city afaik because they have mined so much underneath it or if it's that they want to mine underneath it so it has to be moved.

      The ice hotel (Jukkasjärvi):
      http://www.qedata.se/bilder/gallerier/ishotellet/ishotell-ingang-natt.jpg
      http://www.qedata.se/bilder/gallerier/ishotellet/ishotell-rum-japan.jpg
      http://www.qedata.se/bilder/gallerier/ishotellet/ishotell-ingang2-natt.jpg
      http://www.qedata.se/bilder/gallerier/ishotellet/ishotell-ute-hjerta.jpg
      http://www.kirunabuss.se/taxibestallning-ishotellet/282FCFC53F4D46B483E98F34D627F045
      http://fjellfotografen.se/albums/uta/sverige/lappland/Miniatyr_Iskyrka%20och%20Ishotell,%20Jukkasj%E4rvi%20%A9%20uta-bg1044.jpg
      http://cache.virtualtourist.com/1323606-A_reindeer_fur_covered_bed_in_the_Ice_Hotel-Kiruna.jpg

      Aurora:
      http://www.ltu.se/polopoly_fs/1.36982!terassen_kiruna_aurora.jpg
      http://www.wired.com/images_blogs/autopia/images/2008/04/24/kiruna.jpg

      http://www.wintercities.kiruna.se/nytt/kiruna6.gif

      Kiruna on a map: http://homepage.swissonline.ch/Christener/Kiruna/Bilder/Kiruna.jpg

      Esrange space center is close by to.

      Kiruna location: 675118N, 201331O
      Alaska: 5440'N - 7150'N, 130W - 173E

      I don't know how much the gulf stream (eventually quite a bit?) help but if people can mine there I assume they can mine in Alaska to, why shouldn't they be able to? Heck I live in Örebro at around the same latitude as Stockholm and the location of this city is 5916N 1513O, so even that is more north than the southern parts of Alaska.

      Arctic circle:
      World: http://www.athropolis.com/map2.htm
      Alaska: http://www.studentsoftheworld.info/sites/country/img/15000_AlaskaMap.jpg

    9. Re:What about by Wyatt+Earp · · Score: 1

      Exactly, if they mine in Alaska, the Canadian Arctic, Siberia, Scandinavian Peninsula and the Kola Peninsula, they can mine in the Antarctic.

    10. Re:What about by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

      It's a small continent. Why would you think there's more there than in, say, Australia? Australia also has the distinct advantage that most of it isn't covered by a kilometre of ice.

    11. Re:What about by aliquis · · Score: 1

      Ah, it was about antarctic. Oh well, I blame the time :D

      Anyway, doubt it matters much as soon as you're a few meters below the surface.

    12. Re:What about by Wyatt+Earp · · Score: 1

      Arctic, Antarctic, its dark in the winter, light in the summer and fracking cold.

    13. Re:What about by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Then we will dig in the snow!

    14. Re:What about by 12WTF$ · · Score: 1

      Yes, under that first foot of ice is more ice, and then some more ice, and then then then and then more ice (to 15000 ft). If you think drilling for trouble^H^H^H^H^H oil in a measly 4000 ft of water of Gulf of Texaco is only for british pensioners, try running an open cut mine at the bottom of 15000 feet of ice. Or are you a global warming optimist so that the bright side of cooking our atmosphere is that the ice caps will melt and leave a mineral bonanza of the virgin antarctic continent? But that fantasy doesn't really work because by the time the ice caps have melted the majority of the antarctic 'continent' will be a couple of smallish islands. And dont forget about the thoroughly pissed off penguins.

      --
      Cryonics - Keep cool and carry on.
    15. Re:What about by MightyMartian · · Score: 2, Insightful

      A couple of things come to mind...

      Both are cold, but large portions of the Antarctic continent get considerably colder. Now maybe there's a summer time window there, but even barring that, probably just as bad, if not worse, is the fact that unlike Sweden or the Northwest Territories or Alaska, or even Siberia and all those other hostile northern hemisphere places, they are all on the same land mass as large-scale transportation infrastructure. Antarctica lies in the middle of an ocean, the nearest major port is a helluva long ways away, across a rather big and at times dangerous stretch of water. You're talking about not just extracting in some of the inhospitable environments on the surface of the planet, you're talking about quite possibly moving it over more of that inhospitable environment, loading it on to ships, requiring a major port which has to be built there and then, barring any of that, you have to create major shipping lanes through the Southern Ocean.

      Maybe at some point, perhaps when prices get high enough, it will be practical, but I know that this has been looked at before and no one could figure out how to make it work and make a dime at it.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    16. Re:What about by h4rm0ny · · Score: 1

      Well they tried mining in Australia but got attacked by Flying Polyps and the contractors from China just keep mumbling something about the Plateau of Leng. So really, it's a no-win situation.
      (And yeah, AtMoM was the first thing I thought of at that line as well. Here's hoping now that he's free of the Hobbit Del Torro returns to making the first ever big-budget Lovecraft adaptation)

      --

      Aide-toi, le Ciel t'aidera - Jeanne D'Arc.
    17. Re:What about by aliquis · · Score: 1

      I fucked up and read/thought about Alaska :)

      I had no idea whatever you where doing lots of mining and/or whatever there and whatever the military was around or not :)

      My impression was that atleast in some areas of Alaska it shouldn't be to different from here.

      The arctic? A different story.

      The antarctic? Even more so.

  5. Fungible Goods by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How exactly is that working out for China? I mean, the goods are fungible. It doesn't matter who you buy niobium from, just that you get niobium. If China won't sell it to them, someone else will.

    1. Re:Fungible Goods by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      thats a good theory and all until you realize that china supplies like 90% of the worlds supply.

      not because it can't be found anywhere else...mostly just because china is the only one mining it and can undercut everyone else on labor, and due to the fact that they don't care about safety.

    2. Re:Fungible Goods by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Those Chilean miners are damn lucky they weren't in China (or some part of Africa for that matter), if they were it would have been a write-off case kept away from the press and officials would have said "nothing to see folks, move along" despite protests from friends and family.

      I think that says a lot about a country, when what most people would consider a third world nation does a better job of looking out for its people.

    3. Re:Fungible Goods by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      That's bullshit. There have been plenty of rescued miners in China. Here's 115 coming out after a week underground in April:

      http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/36157561/ns/world_news-asiapacific/

      That's not to say it isn't a dangerous industry, though:

      http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Asia-Pacific/2010/1014/China-applauds-Chile-mine-rescue-avoids-awkward-safety-comparisons

    4. Re:Fungible Goods by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It says a lot about people, that their view of Chile is 30 years out of date. Chile's remarkable move to a free market economy has provided great benefits for Chileans.

  6. Chorus Motors electric motors dont use rare earths by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

    Chorus Motors is working with Boeing to put their electric wheel motors in Boeing's new aircraft. They are powered by the plane's APU instead of using the engines.

    http://choruscars.com/

    Their technology results in a smaller motor with higher torque that does not require an assist from an ICE at higher speeds in an electric vehicle. It also does not use any rare earths.

    Molycorp is restarting the rare earths mine in the U.S. but the industry to process the ore will take 15 years to redevelop.

    http://www.businessweek.com/news/2010-07-28/molycorp-s-ipo-aims-at-chinese-grip-on-smart-bombs.html

    "While U.S. deposits also exist in several states such as Idaho, Wyoming and Utah, they are still being explored and could take as many as 15 years before becoming fully operational, according the GAO report."

  7. Been Living In Your Parents' ( +1, Breaking ) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    basement too long? There are minerals! in Afghanistan.

    With the oil transit fees Afghanistan will be earning from transporting all that Iraqi oil, the military-industrial-pharmaceutical complex will soon be able to get any rare earth element it needs.

    Yours In Samarkand,
    Kilgore Trout.

    1. Re: Been Living In Your Parents' ( +1, Breaking ) by Wyatt+Earp · · Score: 1

      The mineral development in Afghanistan will be carried out by China, if its ever carried out.

  8. That'S easy by aepervius · · Score: 2, Informative

    You have two way of breaking the chinese monopoly :

    1)Impose a polution tax on dirty industry. That allow the local rare earth metal mining company to start again with the incured cost of respecting polution law, while still staying competitive
    2) repel polution law and allow local company to polute as much as the chinese. Human resource might still make them more expensive than the chinese though.
    3) make up a miracle new technology. Good luck on that one.

    --
    C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
    http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
    visit randi.org
    1. Re:That'S easy by lul_wat · · Score: 1

      You have two way of breaking the chinese monopoly :
      You have two way of breaking the monopoly :
      You have two way of breaking
      You have two way
      have two way
      two way
      two

      --
      Divide a cake by zero. Is it still a cake?
    2. Re:That'S easy by loshwomp · · Score: 5, Interesting

      3) make up a miracle new technology. Good luck on that one.

      Your miracle new technology is ready. (You're welcome, and thanks for the luck.)

      It's called the AC induction motor, and it uses no permanent magnets--only copper and/or iron and/or aluminum. A fine example was in GM's EV-1 in the 1990s, and its descendants live on at AC Propulsion, and, consequently, Tesla Motors. Permanent magnet motors are likely to retain slightly higher efficiency, but the difference in cost of the construction materials will allow the market to take care of the rare earth "problem".

    3. Re:That'S easy by JBaustian · · Score: 1

      What is the cost of a shooting war with China? Is it more or less than the cost of a trade war?

    4. Re:That'S easy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      The resultant force of a motor is directly proportional to the product of the magnetic flux densities of its two fields. The max magnetic flux for a rare earth magnet is orders of magnitude lower than what an electromagnet can generate. So for a given resultant force, the permanent magnet motor becomes less efficient compared to a non permanent magnet motor for larger and larger values of force. Hence why non permanent magnet motors are so popular at higher power ratings, ie in power generation, transportation, etc.

        AC synchronous motors have the added benefit that since their speed is regulated by the cycling frequency, they can operate at a constant voltage in a more efficient manner.

      oh yeah so permanent magnet motors can be very efficient in smaller motors, for larger traction motors in automotive applications they are much less efficient.

    5. Re:That'S easy by badkarmadayaccount · · Score: 1

      How do you plan on providing power to the rotating coil?

      --
      I know tobacco is bad for you, so I smoke weed with crack.
    6. Re:That'S easy by Coren22 · · Score: 1
      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
    7. Re:That'S easy by loshwomp · · Score: 1

      With the advent of modern switching electronics, there is absolutely no reason to use brushed motors for traction applications.

    8. Re:That'S easy by Coren22 · · Score: 1

      I was making a point. The parent asked how you pass power to a rotating coil, so I was showing it is a very solved problem.

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
  9. Easier alternative: drop them from the WTO by WillAffleckUW · · Score: 4, Interesting

    A much simpler method would be to just drop China from the WTO and have nations around the world reinstate their trade barriers against their unfairly priced goods on the open market.

    But that would be easy.

    And direct.

    --
    -- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
    1. Re:Easier alternative: drop them from the WTO by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And they wouldn't export all the garbage they sell at the local Wal-Mart and just about every other department store.

    2. Re:Easier alternative: drop them from the WTO by Ironsides · · Score: 1

      I fail to see the downside.

      --
      Fly me to the moon Let me sing among those stars Let me see what spring is like On jupiter and mars
    3. Re:Easier alternative: drop them from the WTO by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And they wouldn't export all the garbage they sell at the local Wal-Mart and just about every other department store.

      Then there might be incentive to make things in the U.S. again. Sounds like a double win.

      (And, no, I don't mind that goods will cost more. It'll be worth it.)

    4. Re:Easier alternative: drop them from the WTO by WillAffleckUW · · Score: 1

      See, sometimes from bad things, you get good things.

      --
      -- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
    5. Re:Easier alternative: drop them from the WTO by blind+biker · · Score: 2, Interesting

      And they wouldn't export all the garbage they sell at the local Wal-Mart and just about every other department store.

      Which would mean less lead and cadmium in toys, cosmetics and kitchenware. I can only hope.

      --
      "The agriculture ministry is not in charge of Gundam" - Japanese ministry official.
    6. Re:Easier alternative: drop them from the WTO by hackingbear · · Score: 1

      Then they will stop importing wheat, pork, chicken feet, semiconductors, airplanes, and nuclear reactors from the US and Japan and really roll up their sleeves to do researches rather than dumping R&D money in the property market as they are doing now?

      If China only exports and doesn't import, they would not have got their way so far. Most people don't seem to realize that almost everything they export have the "Made" in China labels outside whereas a lot of our exports do not even have labels, such as those key components in the Made in China electronic products. Our media, of course, would not highlight these for you.

      They have to import those key components partially because it will not economical to recreate such advanced low-labor products themselves, as well as to ensure some balance in the trades.

      Every action has its repercussion.

    7. Re:Easier alternative: drop them from the WTO by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      I like many other people in this country happen to like the cheaply priced crap that comes from China. I can buy things that I otherwise would be unable to afford. The quality is crap but it fits it's purpose quite nicely.

      And this coming from here in Australia a place where our economy and unemployment rate is much better than that of America. If you would seriously consider dropping China, now is not the correct time to do it.

    8. Re:Easier alternative: drop them from the WTO by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      Good luck. China has pumped tons of money into "anti-protectionist" candidates in the US, and they preach their free trade message through the #1 news network in the US, Fox News.

      (In fact, Rupert Murdoch's nth wife is a former spy for the Chinese government and since she's about 40 years from his level of senility, she gets to call a lot of the shots...).

    9. Re:Easier alternative: drop them from the WTO by WillAffleckUW · · Score: 3, Insightful

      There is no such thing as a former spy for the Chinese government.

      You meant she's supposedly on reserve status.

      Thanks.

      --
      -- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
    10. Re:Easier alternative: drop them from the WTO by WillAffleckUW · · Score: 1

      Again, this is not a bad thing. This would allow them to improve quite a few things, and the pollution from China would not be impacting us here on the West Coast of North America.

      Things change. When the system is out of balance you can whack it with a stick and it will reach a new balance point with a more optimal solution for everyone.

      --
      -- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
    11. Re:Easier alternative: drop them from the WTO by hackingbear · · Score: 1

      For "us", it could be bad if you are growing wheat, corn, chickens and pigs; or if you are an engineer. That's why our government can do much but maintain a status quote. And that may also be one reason they keep buying aircraft and microprocessors instead of really making efforts to make those. They certainly understand the political need to ensure we are not really united against them, just like the US wanted to make sure China and Soviet were not united back in the 1970's when we kicked Taiwan out of UN.

    12. Re:Easier alternative: drop them from the WTO by WillAffleckUW · · Score: 1

      Lol. You have no choice. Have you seen the Russian wheat crop this year? It's amusing how little you understand about crop futures or the actual demand in China for certain goods.

      Goods have a way of flowing. Just because we don't let them game the system won't mean they stop needing things.

      --
      -- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
    13. Re:Easier alternative: drop them from the WTO by aliquis · · Score: 1

      Less itamz = bad, m'key?

    14. Re:Easier alternative: drop them from the WTO by aliquis · · Score: 1

      Stop hoping, buy other things if that's what you want. It's quite easy (or well, maybe not, but if you ask for them they may come.)

    15. Re:Easier alternative: drop them from the WTO by aliquis · · Score: 1

      Closed borders rule. Just look at North Korea for total awesomeness.

    16. Re:Easier alternative: drop them from the WTO by h4rr4r · · Score: 1

      We must make sure they never take Alaska. Now is the time to invent PowerArmor.

    17. Re:Easier alternative: drop them from the WTO by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      semiconductors, airplanes, and nuclear reactors from the US and Japan and really roll up their sleeves to do researches

      no, they will just steal our designs and make shitty replicas like they do already.

    18. Re:Easier alternative: drop them from the WTO by shikaisi · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Good luck to you when the prices of your HDTV, your notebook PC, your iPad and your mobile phone all double, not to mention a hundred other hi-tech gadgets that you depend upon. The days when China only made cheap plastic crap are long past. Check all the high-tech goods that you own for Made in China labels. A huge proportion of all semiconductor manufacturing is in China, along with all the supply chain industries that enable it. And you are not going to just shift that to Africa or even India overnight, because they do not have the highly educated workforce that China can provide.

      --
      No left turn unstoned.
    19. Re:Easier alternative: drop them from the WTO by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      "The quality is crap but it fits it's purpose quite nicely."

      Depends on the quality control and insistence of the parent company. I've owned and seen Benchmade knives made in China (their "red line", now discontinued, Benchmade brought their lines back home) that are superior to many US knives in the same price range (such as SOG and Kershaw). It really depends on who is watching the production. I've seen SOG lines made overseas (Fusion) that were actually pretty decent compared to some of the minor issues I've come across on their domestic lines, even though the Fusion line is the line that's supposed to be crap.

      And some of the price differences aren't even in the same classification. Ever try a made in the USA workbench vise? The US version, while tougher, is $200 more. The China one is usually under $70 depending the size. There isn't even the option of finding a US version in most places.

      Lodge makes their enameled cast iron (not their season cast iron) in China. They do strict quality control and spot checks supposedly. Excellent goods, far cheaper than any US or French made wares, and even many of the US branded ones are made in China now (Cuisinart). Compared to other supposedly US made lines, they're half the price, and compared to the French lines, more than a hundred cheaper.

      Ever look at small gasoline engines for generators or replacement engines? The "blue" engines are exact Honda clones, since Japan gave China the dies. Some people say some of the machining is better than the Honda versions. And they're hundreds cheaper. In the US, most of the small engine plants were shut down (such as Tecumsah).

      Anyone who spouts off made in China sucks, they really don't *buy* anything or *do* anything, otherwise they'd know--a LOT of made in the US goods suck. There's a lot of goods we still rock in (welders, auto parts, basic battery tech), but we were arrogant for years. There was a reason why Americans tend to buy foreign cars, and blaming the Japanese for flooding the market isn't the full explanation--some of the US cars were just crap.

      Then again, I'm one of those people that think the reason US goods suck is more because the base suppliers are assholes. Try to buy good, exotic metal or plastics in the US is hell for a truly small business owner. It's freaking sick that you can often buy a finished good made in China in the US (made in China, shipped, and someone is profiting selling it in the US) that's a quarter of the price of the raw material blank from the lowest priced US supplier you can find. Add in regulations, lawsuits, etc., and it's near impossible sometimes to get a decent business that competes with China made goods off the ground--that's why many established companies have moved overseas, because if they don't, the entirety of their business fails.

    20. Re:Easier alternative: drop them from the WTO by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


      A much simpler method would be to just drop China from the WTO and have nations around the world reinstate their trade barriers against their unfairly priced goods on the open market.

      You mean the world should erect trade barriers against unfairly priced monopolistic goods? Like Oil? Windows licenses? Intel CPUs? Hollywood movies? Nasdaq co-lo space?

      I agree in general, but good luck on achieving that with the US on the WTO as well.

    21. Re:Easier alternative: drop them from the WTO by Trogre · · Score: 1

      But that would do away with two things:

      1. We'll never find labour in our own countries as cheap as in China. Slavery (which Chinese labour conditions are very, very close to) is illegal here. We have all those pesky human rights obligations.
      2. Being able to outsource our pollution is a major convenience.

      Face it, we (the western world) are just one big NIMBY.

      --
      "Nine times out of ten, starting a fire is not the best way to solve the problem." - my wife
    22. Re:Easier alternative: drop them from the WTO by WillAffleckUW · · Score: 1

      You assume my devices come from China - they could be from Vietnam, South Korea, Taiwan, and many other nations.

      In fact, certain factories have shifted literally overnight - just look at what happened when the China-Japan trade war kicked in this past month.

      --
      -- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
    23. Re:Easier alternative: drop them from the WTO by WillAffleckUW · · Score: 1

      >

      1. We'll never find labour in our own countries as cheap as in China. Slavery (which Chinese labour conditions are very, very close to) is illegal here. We have all those pesky human rights obligations.
      2. Being able to outsource our pollution is a major convenience.

      Face it, we (the western world) are just one big NIMBY.

      1. You say that like it's a bad thing to pay labor.

      2. If you watched a recent episode of Bloomberg or CNBC you'd realize - since you don't buy from US companies that only buy from US companies - that you already ARE paying a Carbon Tax. Investment in low-carbon alternatives in China is 3 times US investment.

      --
      -- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
  10. How did China come to this plan? by khallow · · Score: 1

    We're seeing the consequences of some old decisions by the Chinese government. So I have a request. Are there any modern Kremlinologists (the name for people who tried to divine the intent and inner workings of the former USSR) who have insight into the current resource strategy of the Chinese government and its origins? Making the deliberate decision to corner the rare earths market is a strategic one that would have required a great deal of effort and discipline, both of advocacy before the ultimate decision was made and communication, planning, and implementation afterward.

    I think that would be a interesting window into the decision making process and the sources of power in the Chinese government.

    1. Re:How did China come to this plan? by mbkennel · · Score: 1

      "Are there any modern Kremlinologists (the name for people who tried to divine the intent and inner workings of the former USSR) who have insight into the current resource strategy of the Chinese government and its origins?"

      I'm no CIA expert but the strategy seems to be this

      1) CCP win.
      2) You lose.
      3) Profit.

      Hokey religions and ancient political ideologies are no match for a mercantalist blaster at your side, kid.

    2. Re:How did China come to this plan? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You give the idea of central planning too much credit.

      China has cheap labor (the result of a huge, poor population) and next to no environmental regulations. This means that mining can be cheap and dirty, far cheaper than anywhere else.This "strategy" of undercutting the world has paid off in a monopoly over virtually all manufacturing, including mining.

      It's not so much a result of a plan to corner the market for this or that as a general model of exploiting the countries natural and human resources to the greatest degree possible.

    3. Re:How did China come to this plan? by anUnhandledException · · Score: 1

      China didn't make a concious effort to corner the rare earth market.

      Rare earths really should be called cheap ass low value earths. There isn't a lot of profit in it. The US, australia, and few other places mined them because they are needed but they are hardly masively profitable. China got into the biz because it is a cheap biz to get into and doesn't require a lot of skill (like say building jet planes or microprocessors).

      As a result of china dirt cheap labor, utter lack of safety or enviromental standards and willingness to manipulate its currency it was able to export rare earths (which once again aren't particularly rare or valuable) for fraction of its competitors. There was no real reason to protect this market because it isn't that valuable so developed nations simply shutdown mines rather than export at a loss.

      Your belief that is some "master plan" is misplaced. If we were willing to use slave labor, discard miners when the job killed them without benefits, contimnate ground water with industrial toxins which will be around for couple centuries causing birth defects, and manipulate the dollar downward to destroy any standard of living for our citizens we too could be king of the shit pile. All that for a market which grosses less revenue globally than video games do.

    4. Re:How did China come to this plan? by khallow · · Score: 1

      China didn't make a concious effort to corner the rare earth market.

      No offense, but yes, they did. They apparently have been buying rare earth production in other countries.

      Your belief that is some "master plan" is misplaced. If we were willing to use slave labor, discard miners when the job killed them without benefits, contimnate ground water with industrial toxins which will be around for couple centuries causing birth defects, and manipulate the dollar downward to destroy any standard of living for our citizens we too could be king of the shit pile. All that for a market which grosses less revenue globally than video games do.

      You're operating on the naive principle that the rare earths market will stay its current size. They're also working to grab a big share of the oil market. I hear that's a bit larger than the video game market.

  11. Dig Deeper by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

    China's on the other side of the planet. If we dig deep enough, we can mine their rare earth.

    1. Re:Dig Deeper by Fallingcow · · Score: 1

      Everyone knows it's just indestructible bedrock and the void beyond, if you go far enough.

      No, the real solution is to sneak in, destroy all their torches, and knock a couple holes in their walls somewhere they won't notice, so they get overrun with creepers. Bonus if we can find a way to cut off their supply of flint so they don't have enough arrows to defend themselves.

    2. Re:Dig Deeper by Coren22 · · Score: 1

      Also lava flows, it was quite a surprise the first time that happened.

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
  12. Re:Chorus Motors electric motors dont use rare ear by Wansu · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Molycorp is restarting the rare earths mine in the U.S. but the industry to process the ore will take 15 years to redevelop.

    http://www.businessweek.com/news/2010-07-28/molycorp-s-ipo-aims-at-chinese-grip-on-smart-bombs.html

    "While U.S. deposits also exist in several states such as Idaho, Wyoming and Utah, they are still being explored and could take as many as 15 years before becoming fully operational, according the GAO report."

    It's alot easier to get out of industries than it is to get in. I suspect this won't be the last industry we'll want to redevelop. It was foolish to get out of it in the first place. The same can be said for other industries.

    --
    Wansu, th' chinese sailor
  13. Import Tariffs would fix this by HighOrbit · · Score: 5, Insightful
    From the article

    Although well over 90 percent of the minerals are produced in China, they are found in many places around the world, and, in spite of their name, are actually abundant in the earth's crust (the name is a hold-over from a 19th-century convention). In recent years, low-cost Chinese production and environmental concerns have caused suppliers outside of China to shut down operations.

    In other words, we (the West) have artifically created this situation by shutting down our own mines with labor and evironmental regulations, while allowing China (with no real enforcement of labor or environmental regulations, even if they are on the books) to dominate the market. I saw a TV spot about this a while back and apparently there was an operating mine in California as recently as 10 years ago, which simply wasn't able to compete with Chinese prices because the California mine had the expense of actually complying with the US environmental regulations. That gives the Chinese an artificial price advantage.

    The market for these goods are mostly export markets in Japan, North America, and Europe, so this is in our power to control. To stimulate production in the west, we could do one of two things : 1) eliminate our own self-imposed regulations (perhaps unacceptabe from an environmental point of view) or 2) eliminate the artifical price advantage that the chinese have from not having regulations. I would choose # 2. We need only tax chinese imports and goods with chinese components. For example, say a motor from Japan uses magnets and is being exported to the USA, then the manufacturer would need to demonstrate that the magnet was made from non-chinese metals to be exempt from an import tariff. Once the artifical price advantage of the chinese component is nullfied, the manufacturer would be willing to pay higher prices from other non-chinese mines. Then other mines outside China would arise in the market. As an added side-effect, the Chinese might even begin regulating their own industry to get out from under the tariff.

    1. Re:Import Tariffs would fix this by mea37 · · Score: 1

      In a world without trade treaties or the possibility of retalliation from China, that would be a possible solution.

      Not a popular one, though. Tho dollars that pay those tarrifs end up coming out of consumers' pockets.

    2. Re:Import Tariffs would fix this by poopdeville · · Score: 1

      That may or may not be a bad thing. It is important that prices reflect the supply and scarcity of a resource, or else we will run out of it.

      --
      After all, I am strangely colored.
    3. Re:Import Tariffs would fix this by aliquis · · Score: 1

      In a free market don't they always?

      If you want to restrict usage on purpose I can see a lot of areas where you could do that. For instance start with gasoline, coal, diesel, ...?

    4. Re:Import Tariffs would fix this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In a free market don't they always?

      In theory, yes. In practice, definitely not. It depends on the discount rate businesses use. If it is out of whack with the "social discount rate" (which is somewhat analogous to the population growth rate or GDP growth rate), they can be more profitable in the short term, at the expense of "future generations" of users. There is a prisoner's dilemma: if you supply more than you "should", you sell more than your competitors at the market price (which of course is influence by how much everybody is supplying). By the time the consequence of such a policy "matters", you'll be long dead.

      Right or wrong, this is more-or-less what oil producers have done.

      Some businesses use a 30% discount rate. (Every "next" generation is worth 70% as much as "this" one in net present value terms).

      The Bush E.P.A's administrator resigned in order to bring attention to the fact that the E.P.A. was mandated from above to use a 30% discount rate when evaluating the costs of implementing environmental policy, for another example. Bad news, because dealing with externalities at the source is cheaper than dealing with them afterwards.

    5. Re:Import Tariffs would fix this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Some businesses use a 30% discount rate. (Every "next" generation is worth 70% as much as "this" one in net present value terms).

      It's even worse than that. Every year is worth 70% as much as the last one. If generations are quantified as occurring 25 years apart, you get something nasty, like every generation is worth (0.7)^25 as much as the last generation.

    6. Re:Import Tariffs would fix this by elashish14 · · Score: 1

      Yes, yes, yes - and which congressmember do you think would step forward to introduce such legislation? Keeping in mind that they're only sent there on the financial graces of their corporate lobbyists (which are just as well invested in China's terrible practices)?

      --
      I have left slashdot and am now on Soylent News. FUCK YOU DICE.
    7. Re:Import Tariffs would fix this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In a world without trade treaties or the possibility of retalliation from China, that would be a possible solution.

      It should be possible either way: You don't call it a tariff, you call it a pollution fee. It isn't for importing from China, it's for importing something that was made without appropriate pollution controls. Which means it isn't discriminating against China -- they can mine with verifiable pollution controls if they like -- which means you can do it.

      Not a popular one, though. Tho dollars that pay those tarrifs end up coming out of consumers' pockets.

      Total nonsense. Every penny this would generate would go into government coffers and allow them to hand the money back to US companies who buy this stuff in the form of subsidies -- thereby making the goods cost exactly the same amount to the consumer except that it makes US-mined rare earths competitive with Chinese because they, having been mined with pollution controls, don't have to pay the fee.

      (Of course, once people start buying them from US companies, the amount of revenue generated and thereby the amount of the subsidy decreases, leading to higher prices -- but that is inevitable. If you want mining without pollution, the money has to come from somewhere.)

    8. Re:Import Tariffs would fix this by sjames · · Score: 1

      Unless they're used to allow for reducing other taxes (I know, fat chance).

    9. Re:Import Tariffs would fix this by careysub · · Score: 1

      In a free market don't they always?

      In theory, yes. In practice, definitely not.....

      I believe that should be: "In a modern realistic theory of markets, definitely not. In practice, also definitely not...

      Although many economics discussion on-line seem to be informed only by a haphazard reading of Adam Smith, much progress has been made in recent decades in developing economic theories that actually resemble real world behavior with its costs and quite noticeable failures. The perfection of free markets is ideology (or worse, campaign rhetoric), not economics.

      --
      Starships were meant to fly, Hands up and touch the sky - Nicky Minaj
    10. Re:Import Tariffs would fix this by 10101001+10101001 · · Score: 1

      Funny, I had a similar idea involving product safety regulation, although it acknowledged that China isn't really the only country who does these sorts of things (you don't see massive import tariffs on oil from OPEC, for example*). And like other posters, I'm pessimistic that any such tariff increases would actually take place given how unpopular it would be.

      *Come to think of it, the whole oil example might be better. Basically, we have higher taxes which are funneled into subsidizing national oil extraction. It's not enough to make us foreign oil independent, but it's enough to hedge somewhat against OPEC vastly manipulating the market**. In essence, it shifts the dead-weight loss of monopoly pricing into the dead-weight loss of taxation. Since taxes are more hidden (and admittedly, the US isn't taxing enough to cover it's debts), there's more support for such a scheme. Of course, such market manipulation can have unintended side-effects (like the US subsidizing oil production that ends up being sold to other countries) but the effective lower real oil price makes it work out to the US's and the world's advantage in the overall.

      **And if China or OPEC were to boycott sales to the US, then supply shortages would cause a massive spike in the price. As a result, the increased tax revenue (presuming they were actually relative to price, which sadly they aren't in many cases) could be used to pay for material/energy diversification programs.

      --
      Eurohacker European paranoia, gun rights, and h
    11. Re:Import Tariffs would fix this by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      In other words, we (the West) have artifically created this situation by shutting down our own mines with labor and evironmental regulations, while allowing China (with no real enforcement of labor or environmental regulations, even if they are on the books) to dominate the market.

      Uh, you're close, but you left out the part where we didn't ALLOW China to dominate the market, we CAUSED China to dominate the market by BUYING THEIR GOODS. We know they are slavers and polluters but we keep buying. A responsible government would cut off all trade with a government which permitted such wanton use of the Earth's resources.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    12. Re:Import Tariffs would fix this by dlcarrol · · Score: 1

      I know that this is rat-holing the thread a bit, but can you expand on this? I hear it a lot, but it usually assumes a (IMO) really bad definition of "failures" which means "thing I want is more expensive than I want to pay" or "price changed more quickly than that for which I was prepared." Both of these might be undesirable to you and I, but are in no way "failures" in any sense of the word. They just reflect the previous state of imperfect knowledge and the (often irrational) reaction to the progressive revelation of knowledge; case in point? It's quite possible that no one knows who holds the note on your house; you don't know that, because you faithfully pay $X / mo to bank Y. With the exposure of ever greater banking shenanigans, the bank stocks will likely get creamed as the true information of their (worthless) value becomes known. The sell-off might be an overreaction, but it will oscillate to the proper price level (where "proper" means "equilibrium price between voluntary buyers and sellers).

    13. Re:Import Tariffs would fix this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not a popular one, though. Tho dollars that pay those tarrifs end up coming out of consumers' pockets.

      Total nonsense. ... If you want mining without pollution, the money has to come from somewhere.)

      douchebag.

    14. Re:Import Tariffs would fix this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      wanton use of the Earth's resources...

      Wanton...mmmm...wanton soup...

  14. oops, blockquote didn't work by HighOrbit · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Here is the part of the article I was quoting:

    Although well over 90 percent of the minerals are produced in China, they are found in many places around the world, and, in spite of their name, are actually abundant in the earth's crust (the name is a hold-over from a 19th-century convention). In recent years, low-cost Chinese production and environmental concerns have caused suppliers outside of China to shut down operations.

  15. History repeats? by Ironsides · · Score: 1, Interesting

    In 1920 the operators at AT&T striked. This led AT&T to pick up the pace and change it's entire network over to switches and the rotary phone. AT&T had resisted this prior to it realizing how vulnerable it was to a strike.

    It would be just history repeating itself if this action by China led us to a way to replace Rare Earths entirely rendering them obsolete. But that still depends on us being able to duplicate the effects.

    --
    Fly me to the moon Let me sing among those stars Let me see what spring is like On jupiter and mars
    1. Re:History repeats? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I wish you could learn the difference between its and it's. It really sticks out like a sore thumb, honestly it's like getting an icepick in the eyes. IT'S means IT IS. There, that's all you ever need to know. What is the problem?

    2. Re:History repeats? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      sorry sad cold
      plain out of luck
      but I dont give a shit
      I dont give a fuck

  16. Miracle magnets are already here by Billy+the+Mountain · · Score: 0

    There are many rare-earth materials but as far as Neodymium and magnets are concerned, Neodymium is probably going to get replaced by Fe16N2 magnets as soon as they figure out how to mass-produce the particular crystal that makes this type of magnet. Of course the nice thing is no exotic rare-earth materials required.

    Here's some random reference that describes it: http://nextbigfuture.com/2010/03/fe16n2-crystals-most-magnetic-material.html You could probably find a better one but you won't because you're too lazy!

    BTM

    --
    That was the turning point of my life--I went from negative zero to positive zero.
  17. The Yellow Peril by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Egad!

    We must Fear china or else we will Perish!

    The Rare Earths, though relatively abundant and simply expensive to process, are the Boot that the Yellow Peril People have on our Neck!

    Forget the fact that we can get our own supply of the stuff relatively simply by just mining the supplies that are on our own territory, as long as we are willing to handle the ~5-year startup time and the (probably) higher unit prices.

    What we must do now is PANIC because the CHINESE are plotting against us!

    And don't worry that our Paranoia will contribute to the possibility of a devastating USA-China war; for now, all we can do is Worry and Fret!

    To the Caves of Worry!

    1. Re:The Yellow Peril by ElectricTurtle · · Score: 1

      I couldn't help but reading that in my mind in the style of one of Harry Enfield's sketches.

      --
      I support the Slashcott and will not be reading or commenting from 2/10/14 to 2/17/14. Beta is steaming pile of dog shit
    2. Re:The Yellow Peril by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It wasn't too kamp, was it?

  18. Rare Earth Metals aren't so rare by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Rare earth metals aren't really that rare despite their name. China is good at mining them cheaply, which caused most everyone else shut down production. Some countries (U.S.A) are looking at reopening mines. By playing these games China may be shooting themselves in the foot. Time will tell.

    1. Re:Rare Earth Metals aren't so rare by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      While China would prefer a monopoly, I think they will do fine when competing on price, especially if they originally forced all other mines to close by competing on price.

  19. Rare earth is not rare... by mathfeel · · Score: 5, Informative

    There were many mines in North America. They were shut down because to comply with US/Canadian environmental regulation and pay the wages here would put them in a huge competitive disadvantage versus the Chinese mines. You just can't compete with places where they put environment and worker protection at such low places in their priorities.

    --
    The only possible interpretation of any research whatever in the 'social sciences' is: some do, some don't
    1. Re:Rare earth is not rare... by Beorytis · · Score: 1

      You just can't compete with places where they put environment and worker protection at such low places in their priorities.

      Maybe Chile has some rare earths to sell. They're definitely working recently to demonstrate their respect for the lives of their mine workers. I'm not sure about their environmental record. They definitely have metals mining infrastructure— 40% of their GDP is in mining. They're probably more expensive than China, but maybe cheaper than other capable places.

    2. Re:Rare earth is not rare... by elashish14 · · Score: 1

      You just can't compete with places where they put environment and worker protection at such low places in their priorities.

      And we essentially circumvent our own priorities by accepting theirs; we ourselves are placing those priorities at the same low that they do by investing in their goods. If we really did stand behind placing such a high priority on these protections, then we'd enforce it by actually investing in and supporting it ourselves, rather than relying on those that don't to do it for us.

      The principle doesn't change based on who's committing the action - if we can accept that others are showing such disregard for environmental and worker protections, we might as well accept that we're doing it ourselves. Not that I'm gonna bother waiting for the executives in Congress to grow the balls to do something about it.

      --
      I have left slashdot and am now on Soylent News. FUCK YOU DICE.
    3. Re:Rare earth is not rare... by Roxton · · Score: 1

      Hell, it goes beyond wage and work conditions. Targeting full employment and, presumably, the national interest, China has spent years dumping subsidized loans into mining. They've been exporting REEs below even their ridiculously low cost.

  20. Rare earths are not... rare! by excelsior_gr · · Score: 1

    The "rare" in rare earths does not mean "scarce". Just start digging them out elsewhere.

  21. it's about more than rare earths by circletimessquare · · Score: 4, Insightful

    as others have noted, there are enough rare earths, they aren't that rare. it's just that china, wihtout any work force laws or legal protections for its workers it is allowed to treat like slaves of the state, is able to parlay that into cheaper prices. so mining elsewhere withers and atrophies

    if push came to shove, we can start new mines rather quickly

    what worries me is manufacturing know how and infrastructure. it takes a generation to have a good manufacturing base, at least. and i'm not talking machines, i'm talking people. the manufacturing base is dying in the west, as everything moves to china

    this is where china can really squeeze us, and we won't be able to react fast enough, because in a decade or two, we won't know how to make anything, it will all be made in china

    we need to keep our manufacturing base, the whole spectrum of technologies and know how and expertise, humming along here

    a rare earth is a rare earth, whether dug up in california or inner mongolia

    but that 70 year old guy who knows how all about phase transitions in the manufacture of specialty glasses, or that 80 year old guy who knows all about resistance settings on collodial separation equipment, or whatever: when they go, its gone, the only other brain with that info is in shanghai

    it's like us in the west watching iran trying to build a nuclear bomb and stumbling in its lack of knowhow. in 20-30 years, in a conflict, china could be in the same position, just watching us try to manufacture all sorts of high specialized industrial applications and us over here going "how do you do this?" "i dunno, the guy who knew that died 20 years ago" "well where's his knowledge backup?" "well, the bank of china bought that portfolio 10 years ago and moved it all to guangzhou, no one at the time thought it was a big deal"

    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    1. Re:it's about more than rare earths by dattaway · · Score: 2, Informative

      The attempted solution to that is documenting an ISO process for everything in manufacturing. From what I have seen, this only looks good on paper. Trying to start a new production line by the book without experience may take longer than learning from scratch.

    2. Re:it's about more than rare earths by sznupi · · Score: 1

      Of course they're also buying mining rights throughout the globe. Won't work in all the places naturally, but should be enough to stifle manufacturing know how and infrastructure of others.

      --
      One that hath name thou can not otter
  22. F'ing Magnets... by Stregano · · Score: 1

    ...how do they work?

    --
    The world is how you make it
  23. YES NEBRASKA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    YES NEBRASKA

  24. No blood for Yttrium by Beorytis · · Score: 1

    Now I get why we're in Afghanistan.

  25. Re:Chorus Motors electric motors dont use rare ear by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So each plane is powered by its own Azusa Pacific University (http://www.google.com/search?q=APU) and does not need US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (http://www.google.com/search?q=ICE) at higher speeds?

    I'm confused, can you explain the acronyms for those of us that are not in the aviation industry?

  26. Re:Chorus Motors electric motors dont use rare ear by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 1

    It's alot easier to get out of industries than it is to get in. I suspect this won't be the last industry we'll want to redevelop. It was foolish to get out of it in the first place. The same can be said for other industries.

    On the bright side, its bringing jobs - not just McJobs either - back home. The rise of China - especially if they ever let the yuan float - may turn out to be the best thing to happen to the US in decades.

    --
    When information is power, privacy is freedom.
  27. recyle what we throw out by jpc1957 · · Score: 1

    More sane recycle policy/incentives for all the products that use rare earth metals would help.

  28. Onwee if you speak wike dis by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Den you misspewud feco mateeweoh.

  29. Yes, History repeats by hackingbear · · Score: 1

    Where will these iron-cobalt magnets be made? Yes, history will repeat.

    1. Re:Yes, History repeats by Mspangler · · Score: 1

      "Where will these iron-cobalt magnets be made?"

      Especially since the US has no cobalt mines. There was one once, near the Salmon river in Idaho. It's closed.

  30. Re:What about the Great White South? by WillAffleckUW · · Score: 1

    Also, the limitations are there on commercial usage. Not on scientific research.

    Like the continual scientific research on tasty, tasty whale meat and whale oil that Japan and Russia do.

    Everything is about the cost of opportunity. Just ask Jack Sparrow - or the US Navy.

    --
    -- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
  31. Fucking Magnets. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Fucking magnets, how do they work?

  32. Robotics industry booms? by mmaniaci · · Score: 1

    This is purely speculation, so take it with a grain of salt: No raw materials and manufacturing work from China due to embargoes and general asshattery --> Huge demand for mats and mfg --> No workforce willing/able/allowed to do the work --> the perpetually "almost there" robotics industry lurches forward to fill the void. The warehousing industry has already been transformed by robots, and theres plenty of talk about robotic mining already. I can't help but think that all this is quite a good thing.

  33. Actually, no by WindBourne · · Score: 2, Interesting
    There are 2 very distinct issues.
    1. China DOES have the largest amount of currently cheaply available REE. BUT, they are not the only ones. However, they have ran around for the last 15 years trying to buy up mines, or put them out of business by ignoring the environmental issues, subsidizing the prices, and then dumping on the market. Right now, they have the vast majority of working mines.
    2. China has the ONLY processing of REE. America had it with Magnaquench, but a bunch of neo-cons served as a front for China, bought it up, and then got W to override the DOD's object to the move of them company to CHina. And again, this WAS being subsidized, dumped, environmental regs ignored, etc by China.

    So, where does this leave the world now? Well, China mines the majority of the ore, and processes all of it. In addition, they will only process it if THEY buy it. Basically, we have China able to stop exports and screw the world. And we saw that with Japan.

    The best thing that the west can do, is re-start the processing of REE as quickly as possible. The smart thing is for the west to restart this in two or more different nations. That way, when China decides to move their cold war up the ladder, then we are still guaranteed production. In addition, it can keep prices down.

    --
    I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    1. Re:Actually, no by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are you aware WTO rules prescribe about export Bans/price discrimination?

      China reputably has restrictions 0n 480 odd items Vs the 86 or so that are allowed.
      The overnight Japan sanction just confirmed 'one country' supplier is a foolish mistake, and commercial risk decisions were wrong.

      So what should we do with a WTO member that scoffs at the rules
      as well as takes US companies down? Strategic Trade Retaliation

      Judging from 10000% profit from floating overpriced US mine re-openings, thats a good start.
      Tariffs against items containing the other 400 items should follow, but US congress critters
      dont want to tell the public a large, the enormity of this slow shafting and destruction of CORE industries.

    2. Re:Actually, no by slashHandle · · Score: 1
    3. Re:Actually, no by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      China has the ONLY processing of REE. America had it with Magnaquench, but a bunch of neo-cons served as a front for China, bought it up, and then got W to override the DOD's object to the move of them company to CHina.

      So here's a stupid question. This company that China bought, presumably it had US employees that worked for it? Employees who know how to process rare earth elements? So why don't they just start a new company, now that there is greater demand for it?

    4. Re:Actually, no by WindBourne · · Score: 1

      Sure. I also know that China manipulates their money and IMF says that it wrong, but does little to nothing. Likewise, IMF says that heavy subsidization is wrong, yet China subsidizes energy, mining, manufacturing, etc. Again IMF says to not dump, yet, China is the worst for it.
      The fact is, that China FLAUNTS their many treaties and legal obligations. W ignored it to America's downfall. Obama is at BEST, so-so with his handling of this (personally, I think that the current stuff has more to do with elections and will disappear after Nov. 3rd). And EU is now LOVING getting the loans of Dollars from China.

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    5. Re:Actually, no by WindBourne · · Score: 1

      It requires a LOT of money to fire it up. About 1 billion. That is money that my Congressman has a bill in CONgress to do a grant to start this. Sadly, the man does not have much spine and simply allowed it to fall to the byside. Personally, I would like to see CONgress quit giving money away and instead, lend it at 0% interest. And in this case, allow multiple companies to bid for this and perhaps lend to 2 companies. The fact is, that the world NEEDS REE, and there is no real good alternatives, save in Magnetics (REE's have MANY more uses than just magnets).

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
  34. Wrong by WindBourne · · Score: 1

    Re-starting mining is only 1-2 years of work. Starting a new mine may be 3-4 years depending on how big of an operation. CA is Re-opening Mountain Pass Mine, which was the largest mine at one time (and remains high in ore). In addition, it appears that mines in the west are going to be started. In particular, over in North West Colorado, by Rifle, Colorado.

    The item that takes time AND MONEY, is the PROCESSING of the ores. That is what the feds should have backed Congressman's bill to spend upwards of 1 billion to re-start the processing. Sadly, W overrode DOD's objections and allowed China to take Magnequench. If not for that, we would still have processing here.

    --
    I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    1. Re:Wrong by starfire83 · · Score: 0

      The mine in Mountain Pass won't be back up to full capacity for another year and a half or so but its projected production will be able to match China's output if not outpace it. It also has a projected 37+ years worth of ore deposits. It's raised A LOT of capitol for the restart project and it's going to be around for a while. They should also be able to outprice China since China has recently been locking how much it's going to be exporting.

    2. Re:Wrong by WindBourne · · Score: 1

      Having ore is NOT a problem. What is missing is the processing of the ore. That is what will not happen. And at this time, we have to send the ore to China to be processed. That is a BIG issue. That is also why we need to start a fast program to process it.

      While we will find alternatives for the magnets (in fact, probably better ones), I doubt that we will find alternatives for many of the uses. In particular, it is used in doping to improve conduction for many of the newer electronics. Basically, we need to not just mine, but process it.

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    3. Re:Wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The mountain pass will be building a processing plant for refining the ores so that's a non-issue.

  35. Re:Chorus Motors electric motors dont use rare ear by anUnhandledException · · Score: 1

    APU is auxillery power unit.

    An electrical powerplant for plane. More economical to have APU supply power for things like lights & AC than to need to spin up engines when sitting on tarmac. The grandparent post is indicating the wheels (ground propulsion) will be driven by an electric motor powered by the APU.

    On ICE I don't have clue. ICE is usually internal combustion engine but that doesn't make sense here. Propulsion on a conventional pasenger liner is from the jet engines which are obviously turbines not internal combustion.

  36. Solved already by gmuslera · · Score: 1

    Lets say that a foreing country have abundance of elsewhere's scarce resource. US government can claim that "the enemy" is there and invade. Worked pretty well with lithium and oil.

  37. Is it like the IT worker shortage in America? by khchung · · Score: 1

    Which means ... there is no shortage at all, they just want it cheap.

    It is no secret that rare earth is NOT rare at all, and China just have about 30-40% of the world's rare earth.

    The only "monopoly" China has is selling them cheaply. The purported reason by Chinese officials is because the rare earth industry is heavily fragmented, and econ 101, with many identical sellers, big buyers from US and Japan can set the price so low that only razor thin margin remains. You are free to make up you own conspiracy on why it has been so cheap so far.

    With such cheap source, it make no sense for other countries to mine their own rare earth, which also causes quite a lot of pollution, so all other mines were shut down elsewhere.

    Now, after getting a pittance for all the rare earth sold for the past few decades, China finally wakes up and realize that having a rare earth reserve is actually IMPORTANT in the long term. And surprise(!), they don't to continue to sell on the cheap. So they are now trying to consolidate the rare earth mining industry (which takes time), and in the meanwhile, use administrative means to limit the export (i.e. limit their losses).

    And what do countries like Japan and US do when China stop selling them cheap rare earth? "Wah Wah! China won't sell for pennies the stuff that we are too lazy to mines ourselves anymore, China EVIL MONOPOLY!"

    Just like the call for H1B in the US when IT wages rises. "Wah Wah! IT staffs won't work for pennies anymore, WORKER SHORTAGE!"

    Yeah, that's convincing.

    • China selling cheap stuff to you == dumping.
    • China stop selling cheap stuff to you == embargo, monopoly!
    • China buying stuff from you == economic takeover.
    • China not buying stuff from you == trade deficit, protectionism.
    --
    Oliver.
    1. Re:Is it like the IT worker shortage in America? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, basically, they are screwed, either way, from all sides, just because they are Chinese. It's Canadian Bacon all over again.

    2. Re:Is it like the IT worker shortage in America? by ibsteve2u · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Now, after getting a pittance for all the rare earth sold for the past few decades, China finally wakes up and realize that having a rare earth reserve is actually IMPORTANT in the long term. And surprise(!), they don't to continue to sell on the cheap. So they are now trying to consolidate the rare earth mining industry (which takes time), and in the meanwhile, use administrative means to limit the export (i.e. limit their losses).

      I'm sure that your use of the world "finally" is unintentional. China, on the other hand, rarely does anything unintentionally:

      Entering the 21st century, the pace of industrial and economic globalization is speeding up. As China enters the WTO, the Chinese government has begun the implementation of its policy to develop its western regions. Located in western China, Baotou is famous for its rich rare earth resources, thus being named "The Mother Lode of Rare Earth". In 1992, Chinese President Deng Xiaoping pointed out, "There is oil in the Middle East; there is rare earth in China...."

      Given the fact that the OPEC model of monopolistic control of resources was firmly established by 1992, I do not believe that Xiaoping - and China - had any intention other than gaining a monopoly, or they would have compared rare earths to dà biàn rather than oil.

      --
      Orwell: "In a Time of Universal Deceit, telling the Truth is a Revolutionary Act"
    3. Re:Is it like the IT worker shortage in America? by ibsteve2u · · Score: 1

      Second quote comes from http://www.rev.cn/en/int.htm - out of the horse's mouth, as it were. I previewed the html tag right out of existence.

      --
      Orwell: "In a Time of Universal Deceit, telling the Truth is a Revolutionary Act"
    4. Re:Is it like the IT worker shortage in America? by butlerm · · Score: 1

      Given the fact that the OPEC model of monopolistic control of resources was firmly established by 1992

      OPEC seems to have had its act together by 1973...

  38. Alternative == mine it yourself by khchung · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Sorry to reply twice, but the article title is just too silly.

    There is plenty of rare earth all around the world. So if you don't want to buy from China (or China won't sell to you), just mine it yourself.

    Instead of printing money to give to bankers, why don't the US government just setup and run mines to extract rare earth from US itself? It create real jobs and solve this problem in one go.

    But actually doing something to solve a problem? Nah... it is easier just to find someone to blame while still giving out pork to corporate supporters. It keeps the problem alive so more people can be blamed, and keep the pork money flowing too!

    --
    Oliver.
  39. a company developing non-rare earth metal motors by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    I have a buddy that has been developing such non-rare earth metal motors at a startup in Rapid City, SD... Dakota Power, LLC

  40. Iron cobalt? by Zifnab32 · · Score: 1

    I am excited by the prospect for replacing rare earth metals with easily produced FeCo matter.

  41. there are other key mineral near-monopolies by berbmit · · Score: 1

    What about the concentration of the platinum group metals ... 80% or so are found in South Africa and are central to every cars catalytic converter, not to say anything of the necessity of their properties in many other key industries.

    1. Re:there are other key mineral near-monopolies by RockDoctor · · Score: 1

      What about the concentration of the platinum group metals ... 80% or so are found in South Africa

      Is that figure relative to reserves, production or export? Yes, south Africa has a large proportion of the worlds PGE by all of the above measures, but it's by no means a monopoly. The reserves and production of the Russian Federation are also major, though export is less (as they use a lot themselves), then there are non-trivial reserves in Canada (Sudbury complex) ...

      Actually, the situations are quite comparable : the most profitable mines for REEs, PGEs, hydrocarbons, and many other materials are concentrated in relatively small areas, but that doesn't mean that they're the only mines, just that they're the most profitable ones. If your motives are not solely profit (say, you include strategic availability criteria), then the amount of price support or import tarriff you need to make domestic (or nearby) extraction profitable is relatively minor.
      Of course, that will have certain lunatic right-wingers screaming about reds under the bed, but just how different would that be from today?

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
  42. Stinkin Godless Commies .... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    don't they know God gave the Monopoly Rights to the US?

  43. Re:Chorus Motors electric motors dont use rare ear by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You could argue that it was foolish if it had been a conscious choice (i.e. if the government had controlled the industries like it does in Communist countries). In a (relatively) free market where companies are put out of business quickly by cheap imports, the only choice was in deciding how long to fight bankruptcy (and to lobby Congress for higher import tariffs) before realizing the fight had been lost.

  44. Re:Chorus Motors electric motors dont use rare ear by jbengt · · Score: 1

    . . . the jet engines which are obviously turbines not internal combustion.

    Though I have never heard of them referred to as internal combustion engines before, jet engines obviously do not have combustion external to the engine.
    The fuel burns inside the jet engine and is part of the working fluid, i.e. it is internal combustion.

  45. WHat do video cards use? by egell · · Score: 1

    I'm not a huge electronics fan, but every few years I like to buy a new video card and computer components. Can video cards be made without rare earths, or do they already do?

  46. Stratfor Article on China and REEs by Roxton · · Score: 1

    Stratfor published a fairly comprehensive article on this subject. The following link looks like a registration wall, but my understanding is that they'll just put the article in your inbox.

    http://www.stratfor.com/analysis/20101008_china_and_future_rare_earth_elements&h=a37a5

  47. Re:Chorus Motors electric motors dont use rare ear by skids · · Score: 1

    Part of the problem is that rare earth's have been so cheap they are being used some places where they are totally not needed.

    There are plenty of applications where a switched variable reluctance motor is just as effective and efficient, and those do not require any permanent magnets.

    (I've often wondered what nanotech might bring to bear on ferromagnetic materials for transformers and motors, to reduce hysteresis loss and increase saturation points. Doesn't seem to be an area that gets as much glory as developing the next more powerful permanent magnet.)

  48. Re:Chorus Motors electric motors dont use rare ear by Tom · · Score: 1

    It's alot easier to get out of industries than it is to get in. I suspect this won't be the last industry we'll want to redevelop. It was foolish to get out of it in the first place.

    I'm sure the responsible managers got a huge bonus for the cost savings they created.

    --
    Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org