Slashdot Mirror


US Gives $120M For Lab To Tackle Rare Earth Shortages

coondoggie writes "With China once again playing games with the rare earth materials it largely holds sway over, the U.S. Department of Energy today said it would set up a research and development hub that will bring together all manner of experts to help address the situation. The DOE awarded $120 million to Ames Laboratory to set up an Energy Innovation Hub that will develop solutions to the domestic shortages of rare earth metals and other materials critical for U.S. energy security, the DOE stated."

170 comments

  1. Solution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    Just lick butt of mighty China.

    Now give me my $120M please.

    1. Re:Solution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nice try 50 cent party.

    2. Re:Solution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

      Leave it to the Obama administration to throw the money at publicity headlines rather than anything that would actually make an investment of tax dollars.

      Congress is in control of funding, "you moron"!

    3. Re:Solution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The geology is well understood and is not the issue here. What needs to happen is we need to come up with a viable business plan to ensure that when the Chinese are playing games with the supply of rare earths, we have another source we can substitute without years of down time or minting a $1T coin.

    4. Re:Solution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      all this magnetic core on mars...and we mine here.

    5. Re:Solution by citab · · Score: 1

      Geology is a form of science. Who says the group being given the money are not made up of at least some geologists.

    6. Re:Solution by flyingfsck · · Score: 1

      I'm regularly astounded at how little the US posters know about their own country. The State governments and Congress runs the country. Obama is in control of foreign policy and defence only. He has buggerall to do with the internal affairs of the USA.

      --
      Excuse me, but please get off my Pennisetum Clandestinum, eh!
    7. Re:Solution by Lawrence61 · · Score: 0

      Agreed!

    8. Re:Solution by niado · · Score: 3, Informative

      I'm regularly astounded at how little the US posters know about their own country. The State governments and Congress runs the country. Obama is in control of foreign policy and defence only. He has buggerall to do with the internal affairs of the USA.

      While I wholeheartedly agree with your point that most Americans believe that the president has more power than he actually does, and I am continually exasperated by political discussion that vividly illustrates this point, your statement is not entirely accurate.

      The POTUS is directly responsible for a very large segment of the government. In addition, to quote wikipedia "each modern president, despite possessing no formal legislative powers beyond signing or vetoing congressionally passed bills, is largely responsible for dictating the legislative agenda of his party and the foreign and domestic policy of the United States." The influence of the POTUS has grown substantially since FDR's presidency.

    9. Re:Solution by Runaway1956 · · Score: 2

      " is largely responsible for dictating the legislative agenda of his party "

      I think you've got that skewed. The party more likely dictates the presidents agenda. They leave him a lot of leeway, to be sure, but the party has an "agreement" in place before they ever nominate the guy for office.

      --
      "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
    10. Re:Solution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why is this the job of the US to waste taxpayer dollars on in the first place? If a private company wants to compete, they figure out how to get rare earths or yield to a company that has their act together. If it means having manufacturing in China for access to their resources, so be it.

      This is not something that the country needs to poke a hole in its belt and up the debt limit (payable to China, of course) to do.

    11. Re:Solution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      is largely responsible for dictating the legislative agenda of his party

      That's informal. Anybody in his party can give him the finger and do their own thing. It would be better to phrase it as "The party of the sitting President tends to roll over and take it up the ass, it lets them kick the blame to the Prez on unpopular issues and take the credit when it's to their advantage."

      As for the article, the solution is to re-open our rare-earth mining operations we used to have here in the US. I only need $1mill as my consulting fee, and won't charge extra for also giving us $119million worth of breathing room on the debt ceiling.

    12. Re:Solution by niado · · Score: 1

      " is largely responsible for dictating the legislative agenda of his party "

      I think you've got that skewed. The party more likely dictates the presidents agenda. They leave him a lot of leeway, to be sure, but the party has an "agreement" in place before they ever nominate the guy for office.

      Well, that was a quote, but yes I think it's likely that whomever is elected president has had his agenda dictated by many factors, including his political party. He still has significant day-to-day authority, much of which he delegates to some of his four million employees.

      The situation could be imperfectly compared to that of a very large corporation, where the President would be the equivalent of a CEO, a combination of his party leaders and congress would be board-of-directors, and the voting public would be shareholders.

    13. Re:Solution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Didn't you get the memo - until Jan 2016, just blame it on the nigger, especially if was really the fault of one of the white guys that came before him.

    14. Re:Solution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The comment was on Obama, his policies, and the limits of presidential power. Regardless of who's analyses are right or wrong, it is YOU that turns it into a matter race. You could actually respond to the points raised.

  2. Viability of ocean mining? by rolfwind · · Score: 2

    I realize it's going to take robots/remote control machines and such but what is the real hurdle to ocean mining because I imagine that there is a lot of unexplored spots in the world and there could be a ton of material in the oceans just waiting for us.

    1. Re:Viability of ocean mining? by CSMoran · · Score: 4, Informative

      what is the real hurdle to ocean mining

      The first google hit on "rare earths ocean" says this

      Deep-sea mining is an old idea, but one that has yet to prove itself in the face of high costs and environmental concerns. Discovered decades ago, chunks of manganese on the ocean floor and deposits of metals such as zinc and copper in the Red Sea have proven impractical to mine.

      “I don’t understand how this can be expected to be an economic way to recover rare earth,” says Daniel Cordier, a mineral commodity specialist at the U.S. Geological Survey’s National Minerals Information Center in Reston, Va.

      --
      Every end has half a stick.
    2. Re:Viability of ocean mining? by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Ocean mining is not necessary because there is no particular shortage of rare earth ore. China is not the leader because they have the only rare earths, but because low labor costs made it cheaper to mine them there. Since they began to impose export restriction, rising prices have enabled operations to restart in several mines, including the Mountain Pass Mine in California.

      But reducing the need for rare earths is also a good idea, so the research being funded makes sense. However, just handing out grants is the wrong approach . It would be much better to set out the goals and offer specific awards for achieving them. Competitive contests, like the DARPA Grand Challenge, the Ansari X Prize, and the Google Lunar X Prize, have been far more effective at achieving results than grant based funding.

    3. Re:Viability of ocean mining? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Surely it has to be more feasible than capturing an asteroid to mine though?

      E.g.:
      http://tech.slashdot.org/story/12/04/21/229248/billionaires-and-polymaths-expected-to-unveil-a-plan-to-mine-asteroids
      http://science.slashdot.org/story/11/08/31/1656237/chinese-want-to-capture-an-asteroid

    4. Re:Viability of ocean mining? by Luckyo · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Not so much about cheap labour as it is about less stringent environmental standards. The biggest cost of rare earth mining is keeping it as clean as regulations require and China has large areas which are completely and utterly poisoned by rare earth mining.

      That's in fact one of the reasons (and the main official reason) why China is currently restricting rare earth exports. Mining and refining rare earths is a very toxic process.

    5. Re:Viability of ocean mining? by burisch_research · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      Posting to undo accidental mod.

      --
      char*f="char*f=%c%s%c;main(){printf(f,34,f,34);}";main(){printf(f,34,f,34);}
    6. Re:Viability of ocean mining? by telchine · · Score: 2, Insightful

      However, just handing out grants is the wrong approach . It would be much better to set out the goals and offer specific awards for achieving them.

      The goal in this case is to obtain materials. And the reward is money. So you're suggesting that we offer money in exchange for rare earth materials. That's called buying it. We do that already and it's expensive. I think funding research is a good idea in this case!

    7. Re:Viability of ocean mining? by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The goal in this case is to obtain materials.

      No, that is not the goal. The goal of the research is to reduce or eliminate the need for the rare earth metals.

    8. Re:Viability of ocean mining? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Grants are not "just handed out". Grants are awarded to the best plan that is submitted.

      Also, grants are much better, because they allow many more different types of research to be funded, rather than just the tiny scope of engineering challenges. Yes, each of these engineering challenges is good, and yes they produce results, but that is because engineering lends itself perfectly for such a challenge. The general idea is the same, but the approaches to the problem are different; doing them in parallel and with different teams makes sense, and each contribution is valuable even if they do not win. However, in the case of research, it does not make sense to repeat work several times.

    9. Re:Viability of ocean mining? by feedayeen · · Score: 2

      Surely it has to be more feasible than capturing an asteroid to mine though?

      E.g.:
      http://tech.slashdot.org/story/12/04/21/229248/billionaires-and-polymaths-expected-to-unveil-a-plan-to-mine-asteroids
      http://science.slashdot.org/story/11/08/31/1656237/chinese-want-to-capture-an-asteroid

      Yes, but nobody is actually seriously considering that option either. Hiring an pundit to think of ideas and write about them doesn't cost much. Actual implementation would require you to cube their salary raising the cost from a few thousand to a few billion.

    10. Re:Viability of ocean mining? by serviscope_minor · · Score: 4, Insightful

      China is not the leader because they have the only rare earths, but because low labor costs made it cheaper to mine them there.

      It's a mixture of several things:
      * low labour costs
      * lax safety standards
      * lax environmental standards
      * goverment subsidy plus dumping to put everyone else out of business

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    11. Re:Viability of ocean mining? by balsy2001 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      The other idea that gets thrown around a lot is to make them in a reactor. I used to work at a DOE facility where every year or so we would be asked about this specific problem and if we couldn't just make X isotope. Sure you can make all kinds of elements through transmutation, but the volume of production is just not very high unless you have massive amounts of infrastructure to create them (lots of reactors specifically for the task) and for most things special chemical facilities to separate all of the various radioactive stuff out (if you put in a specimen X you don't just get 100% of Y after a certain amount of time, and because of special DOE moratoriums it would be nearly impossible to "free release" any of this material for commercial/industrial use). That is why generally speaking it only makes sense to produce a limited number of elements in this manner, usually ones you don't need a lot of and ones you specifically want to be radioactive (there are some medical isotopes and cobalt sources for imaging where this does make sense and is done).

      --
      GENERATION 27: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum and add 1 to the generation.
    12. Re:Viability of ocean mining? by todrules · · Score: 2

      Basically, it's just like extracting oil from tar sands. Until very recently it was just not economically viable to get oil that way. However, once the price of oil hit a certain mark, then it was. Ocean mining for minerals is the same way. At the moment, it's not economically viable. At some point in the future, it will be.

    13. Re:Viability of ocean mining? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We're rare,
      So there,
      Get used to it.

    14. Re:Viability of ocean mining? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, this and the other suggestions in the replies are not feasible because rare earths are not rare.

    15. Re:Viability of ocean mining? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Not necessarily. Probably not in the medium term, and in the long term there is no comparison.

      The biggest barriers to asteroid mining are the high cost of surface to orbit transit and a lack of orbital infrastructure. When a fully mechanized asteroid capture and processing system makes it past those hurdles, though that may take a while, the price of scaling everything up starts dropping to free:

      - There is no superlinear increase in mining cost with increased extraction, since the robots can cherrypick small asteroids that are easy to drill through.

      - There's far more of every nonorganic resource out there, in relatively easy reach, than we could possibly need. Even into the fairly distant future.

      - Most if not all of the infrastructure will become useful for things other than asteroid mining: Science, space tourism, solar and horticultural farms, manufacturing, colonization, etc. The pressure problem renders this bonus nearly nonexistent for undersea infrastructure.

      - Sending mountains of mined ore back down is free. Don't give me that look.

      In contrast:

      - Anything sent into space only needs to withstand only one to zero atmospheres of pressure, while sea mining requires pressure changes hundreds to thousands of times larger.

      - Objects in space are easier to track and can be surveyed by external instruments in the event of system failures.

      - Smartly repurposed mining slag from asteroids won't pollute our biosphere the way it might underwater.

      - Robots sink to the sea floor, but megatons of heavy ore will have to fight gravity bitterly for every meter to the surface.

      And as far as I'm aware, in space there are significantly fewer house-sized monsters with a taste for cable sheathing.

    16. Re:Viability of ocean mining? by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Grants are not "just handed out". Grants are awarded to the best plan that is submitted.

      Have you ever worked in a research lab? I have. We had two tiers of scientists. The best people were dedicated to the activity that brought in the revenue: writing proposals. The second tier spent their time on less important tasks, like doing research. The primary purpose of the research was to produce non-definitive results that could be used to justify more funding.

      During the 1980s and 1990s DARPA poured tens of millions into research on robotics and automated vehicles, all for little effect. Then they offered a small fraction of their previous spending as a monetary prize for a specific result, and the result was rapid and revolutionary progress. Competition works.

      The $120 million that DOE is spending on this is sixty times the cost of the DARPA Grand Challenge. Do you really think it is going to be anywhere near as effective?

    17. Re:Viability of ocean mining? by mooingyak · · Score: 4, Funny

      And as far as I'm aware, in space there are significantly fewer house-sized monsters with a taste for cable sheathing.

      You had some good points up until you casually dismissed the stellar kraken.

      --
      William of Ockham had no beard. The most likely explanation is that it was chewed off by squirrels every morning.
    18. Re:Viability of ocean mining? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I realize it's going to take robots/remote control machines and such but what is the real hurdle to ocean mining because I imagine that there is a lot of unexplored spots in the world and there could be a ton of material in the oceans just waiting for us.

      best bet would actually be to mine landfills right now.

      \

    19. Re:Viability of ocean mining? by rally2xs · · Score: 0

      Its not low labor costs. Its US income tax rates, that were, BTW, just raised again. You can't expect to come tromping into US companies with your tax handgun drawn and leave with 44% of their profits and have them survive international competition.

      The solution? Repeal absolutely ALL the income taxes, every one including corporate, individual, self-employment, capital gains, inheritance, gift, alternative minimum, social security, medicare, every one of them, and the 16th Amendment, and instead pass the Fair Tax, a tax on retail goods and services for sale. That'll set the foreigners back on their heels, as US industry loses a whale of a lot of cost in their operations, and the foreigners don't. We can mine our own rare earths, if the gov't would just get the H out of the way...

    20. Re:Viability of ocean mining? by turkeyfeathers · · Score: 1

      The only hurdle to successfully mining the ocean floor is that James Cameron hasn't decided to do it yet.

    21. Re:Viability of ocean mining? by __aaltlg1547 · · Score: 2

      The goal in this case is to obtain materials.

      No, that is not the goal. The goal of the research is to reduce or eliminate the need for the rare earth metals.

      No, the goal is to get the cost, including externalities, below the utility.

    22. Re:Viability of ocean mining? by h4rr4r · · Score: 2

      During the 80s and 90s that sort of computer power was barely possible to create. The money DARPA spent on those automated vehicles and other projects for AI and computer vision are why later competitions could even be held.

    23. Re:Viability of ocean mining? by the+gnat · · Score: 1

      You can't expect to come tromping into US companies with your tax handgun drawn and leave with 44% of their profits and have them survive international competition.

      Which is why, when the government decides some essential industry is too important to leave to the Chinese, they traditionally offer huge tax breaks to the domestic producers. Problem solved. It's been done many times before, and surely will be in the future; this is no different. (I'm ignoring the obvious avenues for corruption, which are indeed serious, and if I were going to design my ideal fantasy system it would probably have no corporate income tax at all, but it's simply obtuse to pretend that the default corporate income tax rate is an absolute barrier.)

    24. Re:Viability of ocean mining? by SilentStaid · · Score: 1

      You had some good points up until you casually dismissed the stellar kraken.

      Drink!... Dimissing is technically 'releasing,' right?

    25. Re:Viability of ocean mining? by rally2xs · · Score: 0

      Read everything you can about The Fair Tax. If we passed the Fair Tax, we would supercharge our economy, full employment would be achieved probably within 2 years, and we would be the #1 economic engine on the planet. Prosperity would be restored, and we could accept immigrants to any extent we wanted, because we would be able to put all of them to work in a revitalized manufacturing industry. They try to say that there's no silver bullet, but there is, and it is the Fair Tax.

    26. Re:Viability of ocean mining? by TubeSteak · · Score: 2

      * goverment subsidy plus dumping to put everyone else out of business

      [Citation Needed]
      If anything, China has one the opposite of dumping, by severely restricting the export of refined rare earths.
      The USA went to the WTO twice last year to try and force China to increase their exports.

      China is the leader because they bought almost all the mining and refining capacity.
      The parent governments could have prevented the sales of their assets.
      Really anyone with money could have stopped them.

      --
      [Fuck Beta]
      o0t!
    27. Re:Viability of ocean mining? by Pope · · Score: 1

      Read everything you can about The Fair Tax. If we passed the Fair Tax, we would supercharge our economy, full employment would be achieved probably within 2 years, and we would be the #1 economic engine on the planet. Prosperity would be restored, and we could accept immigrants to any extent we wanted, because we would be able to put all of them to work in a revitalized manufacturing industry. They try to say that there's no silver bullet, but there is, and it is the Fair Tax.

      Laffo.

      --
      It doesn't mean much now, it's built for the future.
    28. Re:Viability of ocean mining? by niado · · Score: 1

      Anything sent into space only needs to withstand only one to zero atmospheres of pressure, while sea mining requires pressure changes hundreds to thousands of times larger.

      Unfortunately there seem to be other non-trivial engineering difficulties to contend with in space.

    29. Re:Viability of ocean mining? by foniksonik · · Score: 1

      A VAT tax is better. FAIR tax is too easy to avoid by paying in cash. It's an accounting nightmare compared to VAT.

      --
      A fool throws a stone into a well and a thousand sages can not remove it.
    30. Re:Viability of ocean mining? by TheRaven64 · · Score: 2

      During the 1980s and 1990s DARPA poured tens of millions into research on robotics and automated vehicles, all for little effect. Then they offered a small fraction of their previous spending as a monetary prize for a specific result, and the result was rapid and revolutionary progress. Competition works.

      Or, to rephrase for those not completely ignorant of historical context:

      During the 1980s and 1990s, when computing power was still very limited, sensors were very expensive, sensor integration was an active and immature research area, DARPA put a lot of money into the kinds of project that would produce the physical devices and algorithms required for this kind of thing. Now that all of the building blocks exist as commodity off-the-shelf parts (many, in part, because of their DARPA funding for the early part of the R&D cycle), they are offering a lot less for something that is nearly ready for commercialisation, with the added incentive that a commercial product will rake in large amounts of money independent of the prize. For some reason, it's only now, after the prize was offered, that we're seeing things close to commercial solutions.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    31. Re:Viability of ocean mining? by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

      They were dumping to drive other mines out of business, then they imposed artificial scarcity to drive the price up and increase their profits. It's a very old scam and most countries have laws that, if a company did it, would mean that they got massive fines. When a country does it, you need to wait for the WTO to do it, and then see if you can actually enforce the ruling (which you generally only can against small countries - the US typically just ignores rulings against them, and I presume China does too).

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    32. Re:Viability of ocean mining? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "The biggest cost of rare earth mining is keeping it as clean as regulations require"
      When you mine rare earths, you also get thorium, and vice versa.
      The biggest cost is disposing of the thorium as radioactive waste, as regulations require.
      If you could find a market for the thorium, the economics would be transformed.

    33. Re:Viability of ocean mining? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'll give you "that look" ("Sending mountains of mined ore back down is free. Don't give me that look.") any time that I please. I can't have been the only one here to have read "The Moon Is A Harsh Mistress".

    34. Re:Viability of ocean mining? by EL_mal0 · · Score: 2
      Well, not really. According to TFA, the goals of the studies are to:

      Diversify Supply - enable new sources of critical materials that are not now commercially viable, improve the economics of processing existing sources, and identify new uses for co-products and by-products that do not currently contribute to the economics of materials production.

      Develop Substitutes - design and deploy replacement materials that have lower or zero critical materials content, and develop a knowledge-based approach to accelerate advanced material development and deployment.

      Improve Reuse and Recycling - both reduce demand and increase supply by developing economically viable technologies for efficient material use in manufacturing, recycling, and reuse.

      Conduct Crosscutting Research - develop theoretical, computational, and experimental tools necessary to support the basic science needs of the other focus areas; develop and apply strategies to assess and address environmental sustainability and the life cycle of new CMI developed materials and processes; and evaluate the social and economic viability of the CMI developed science and engineering solutions.

    35. Re:Viability of ocean mining? by EL_mal0 · · Score: 1

      Not really. they priced other operations out of the market, i.e., Mountain Pass with all its costs related to labor and environmental snafus. Now the price is getting back up to where laying out the capital (tens to hundreds of millions of dollars) is again worth looking into.

    36. Re:Viability of ocean mining? by 1u3hr · · Score: 1

      The solution? Repeal absolutely ALL the income taxes,

      I've got 5 mod points burning a hole in my pocket, and I so much wanted to give some to you, but there doesn't seem to be a "-5 idiotic" option.

    37. Re:Viability of ocean mining? by thoth · · Score: 1

      The primary purpose of the research was to produce non-definitive results that could be used to justify more funding

      Come on, the real hurdle in research is paying for the initial very expensive part. After that, when the mistakes are made and lessons learned, and engineering processes improved/perfected and supplementary systems built, then sure, it's cheap, easy, and obvious and corporations can swoop in. But don't pretend they would have been there without the funding guarantees and expensive earlier part first. The modern corporation doesn't wipe its ass without a clear profit inventive, since they have to answer to shareholders and what-not, so they aren't going to plunge into a deep money pit without crying for subsidies. Somebody has to pay to get over that initial hump and that winds up being the government, i.e. the public.

      If we are going to mine asteroids or the ocean floor, I guarantee it'll trace back to technologies learned/developed from government grants.

      There are billionaires who could fund this kind of stuff but it turns out those people aren't investing seriously pie-in-the-sky research.

    38. Re:Viability of ocean mining? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      All of this is moot, as mining is still vary cheap and no actual global shortage. China is dumping rare earth materials onto the global market which shut down several productive mines. As these mines are nasty to the local environment and if China wants to deal will all that pollution themselves there is little reason not to let them, it's not like those minirals are not still sitting there waiting for someone to restart those shutdown mines.

      PS: Having a strategic reserve would still be a good idea.

    39. Re:Viability of ocean mining? by Immerman · · Score: 2

      Sure, it depends where you are in the cycle - mining and refining is not a cheap endeavor, there are considerable start-up costs. So a monopolist looking to maximize profits will tend to follow a cycle:

      1. Drop prices to near (or below) cost to drive everyone else out of business. This is especially easy to do if you have the backing of an economic superpower.
      2. Raise prices and reap profit until competition starts to come back
      3. When the competition is nearing the point of entering the market, GOTO 1

      Now I'm not claiming that is necessarily the (only) motivation behind China's behavior, but it's probably a major factor. Perhaps they really are trying to reduce their environmental impact, they're certainly starting to have to face some real ugly problems. The truth will be apparent in the details - are they cutting production or just exports (i.e. expanding their monopoly vertically)? And when substantial competition appears, will they increase production to drive them out of business? The threat of that will likely allow them to reap substantial profits for quite some time, regardless. Without substantial government backing it would be extremely risky for anyone else to try to enter the market at this point.

      And yeah, it's easy to stop a monopolist before they capture the market. Unless of course most of the players are far more concerned with quarterly earning reports than long-term strategic planning.

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
    40. Re:Viability of ocean mining? by the+gnat · · Score: 2

      If we passed the Fair Tax...

      Every time I read claims like this, I'm reminded of the central planners in communist regimes, who sincerely believed - with an almost religious fervor - that putting Marx's theories into practice would lead to explosive economic growth and a rapid increase in prosperity.

    41. Re:Viability of ocean mining? by Agent+ME · · Score: 1

      The point in mining asteroids is that you're mining materials already in space, rather than launching them up yourself.

    42. Re:Viability of ocean mining? by Luckyo · · Score: 1

      Radioactivity is nonexistent in terms of harm done. The real harm comes from tens and hundreds of tonnes of various toxic chemicals needed to split the target rare earth from the raw ore, these chemicals seeping into the ground, getting into ground water, and spreading into the area.

      Soil radioactivity from Fukushima and Chernobyl are a joke in comparison to that toxicity. People can live on food produced in farms surrounding Fukushima, with just a noticeably higher cancer rate. People can not, and likely won't be able to live off food grown around the rare earth mines for tens if not hundreds of years due to extreme toxicity which isn't going anywhere - most of the chemicals are heavy enough to sit there for decades and centuries before they are diluted to tolerable levels.

      We're talking about really nasty stuff here, from various heavy metals to toxic alkaline compounds to acids. There's life on radioactive soil and in radioactive lake. There's none in soil and lake poisoned by that stuff, outside some microbial activity that specializes in living in those conditions.

    43. Re:Viability of ocean mining? by lister+king+of+smeg · · Score: 1

      Read everything you can about The Fair Tax. If we passed the Fair Tax, we would supercharge our economy, full employment would be achieved probably within 2 years, and we would be the #1 economic engine on the planet. Prosperity would be restored, and we could accept immigrants to any extent we wanted, because we would be able to put all of them to work in a revitalized manufacturing industry. They try to say that there's no silver bullet, but there is, and it is the Fair Tax.

      "Anything that sounds to good to be true probably is"

      --
      ---Saying gnome 3 is better than windows 8 not so much a compliment as it is damning with light praise.
    44. Re:Viability of ocean mining? by rally2xs · · Score: 1

      That's why you should read about it, carefully. You will find out why it is true, and why the politicians don't want to implement it (lotsa reasons...) No, none of those reasons are that it would be bad for the USA - its more about how it would be bad for them personally...

  3. Politics by DaMattster · · Score: 2, Insightful

    It's about high time that we have bipartisan support for energy independence. It's time for both political parties to pull their thumbs out of their collective arses and get it done!

    1. Re:Politics by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 3, Interesting

      It's about high time that we have bipartisan support for energy independence. It's time for both political parties to pull their thumbs out of their collective arses and get it done!

      It is being done. The USA is already self-sufficient in natural gas, and falling gas prices are causing gas to displace coal for electricity generation. Fracking technology, developed for gas, is now being applied to oil, with very successful results. By 2020 the USA is expected to surpass Saudi Arabia as the biggest oil producer in the world. All of this is because US politicians have done something that they have so often failed to do in the past: stay out of the way.

    2. Re:Politics by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ha! You actually think the reason they don't come to an agreement is because of partisanship? The two party system is really a one party system where they use the illusion of partisanship to keep their hands in your pockets without you disobeying or questioning their motives. Both "sides" of the great partisan debate are making money hand over fist, all the while they're talking out of one side of their mouth claiming that they're going all they can for the citizens while using the other side of their mouth to suck the life out of anything that would challenge their position of power.
       
      As so many here shout; follow the money. They're both paid well by the same sources to keep things the way they are. And before anyone blames the evil corporations for this just remember that you can't buy what isn't being sold.

    3. Re:Politics by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This story has nothing to do with energy independence.

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

      Biggest oil (or even energy) producer != Energy independence

      We are so wasteful and inefficient that being #1 doesn't solve our problem since we're at or near #1 in consumption, waste and any other category you can think of.

    5. Re:Politics by turp182 · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I agree on all points but that of oil. Fracking depends on high oil prices, otherwise it isn't economically viable (don't expect the price of gas or oil to come down). As well, those fracked wells show much faster production declines than traditional oil wells, on an individual basis they decline pretty fast. Environmental concerns are also pretty big, may as well be mining rare earths...

      For more info regarding fracking and the "more oil than Saudi Arabia" propaganda (at best that's what it is, at worst it is completely uninformed...), this article goes over the basics:
      http://www.theoildrum.com/node/9753

      The Oil Drum has many other more detailed articles as well.

      --
      BlameBillCosby.com
    6. Re:Politics by tmosley · · Score: 1

      Yes, those two aren't equal. That doesn't mean that we aren't going to be both things, however.

      Of course, one of the easier ways to solve the Rar Earth Shortage would be to develop thorium technology. Not only would it provide the energy needed to mine and process the metals, it would create a use for what is currently a big stumbling block to rare earth production--contamination with thorium, which is mostly just a costly contaminant with few uses.

    7. Re:Politics by tmosley · · Score: 1

      FYI, the Oil Drum is full of Malthusian fools who have done nothing but cry "PEAK OIL!" since day one.

    8. Re:Politics by gewalker · · Score: 1

      Using thorium is not even necessary for rare earth's to be feasible. All you have to do is change the regulations that make you treat it as horrible toxic waste. With a half-life of 14 billion years, it is so weakly radioactive (and alpha and beta emitters in the decay chain to boot) that the current regulations are asinine.

      Thorium is just about everywhere, yet somehow it is not horribly toxic until it mined.

    9. Re:Politics by turp182 · · Score: 2

      It's actually mostly science these days. Check out the headlines on the front page. There are several energy experts and drilling specialists (who are in the know with regards to old technology like fracking, it's been around for decades by the way) on the site. The Drumbeats can be "Malthusian" as you say, but they are supposed to be open forum discussions (good info on LED lights, insulation, you name it).

      And they don't cry "PEAK OIL" anymore. They mostly point out that energy prices cannot decline as the production methods being applied more and more these days aren't economically viable if the price of oil drops (fracking). And that these methods result in wells that decline fast and pollute.

      Do you consider oil to be an infinite resource? If not, when do you think production costs will become prohibitive for a large swath of the Earth's population to afford (excluding Africa, they are already mostly priced out)? That's what they discuss these days.

      --
      BlameBillCosby.com
    10. Re:Politics by flyingfsck · · Score: 1

      Yup, you can hold a chunk of Plutonium or Thorium in your hand without any ill effect. OK they also have radio active isotopes, but the regulations are just written in a bad way.

      --
      Excuse me, but please get off my Pennisetum Clandestinum, eh!
    11. Re:Politics by SleazyRidr · · Score: 1

      The price of oil may not come down, but without the oil from frakking it would have gone through the roof in fairly short order.

    12. Re:Politics by turp182 · · Score: 2

      I agree, but why would it have gone through the roof?

      I would posit that it would due to conventional oil production is in a state of decline or at best level outputs. Discoveries and new fields aren't covering the depletion gap, they haven't for some time. Here's a graph of discoveries versus production:

      http://www.forbes.com/pictures/efee45fmdh/oil-production-v-oil-discovery-2/

      Saudi Arabia claims to have a bunch of excess production (over the OPEC quotas). They have stated publicly that they want $100 per barrel oil. If oil went to $150 or higher, would Saudi/OPEC bring their excess capacity to the market? Could they (the key question, the only one that really matters)?

      Alternative oil fields help to keep a cap on oil prices but at the same time are dependent on oil prices being at a certain level where such oil production is economically feasible. That we are talking about such oil production at all is proof of "peak oil". Otherwise conventional (and much cheaper) oil production would be all that is needed.

      If Saudi/OPEC did have a bunch of excess capacity they could dump it on the market and crush alternative oil developments.

      The next couple of decades will be very interesting in my opinion...

      --
      BlameBillCosby.com
    13. Re:Politics by SleazyRidr · · Score: 1

      You have hit the nail on the head, but I'll elaborate for those people playing along at home.

      The price of oil is mainly dependent on the cost to get the last gallon out of the ground. If 90% of the worlds oil can be dug up for $20 a barrel, but that last 10% costs $140/bbl then everyone pays $140/bbl. If you can expand your $20/bbl oil to the whole world's supply then you can lower the price, and the guys sitting on the $140/bbl oil won't be able to make any money. With the consumption rate of oil going up, there is the possibility of the current oil sources not being sufficient, so we'd need to go find some more oil, which would probably be more expensive.

  4. Alchemy! by Alex+Belits · · Score: 2

    What? It's less idiotic than some things American politicians do.

    --
    Contrary to the popular belief, there indeed is no God.
  5. i hope they succeed by mov_eax_eax · · Score: 5, Insightful

    today works like this: bribe local authoritites and enslave miners in third world countries while destroying the environment, then let criminal organizations export them back to the us, like the blood diamonds; there is a huge black market out there.

    Well funded R&D can bring us amazing advancements, I only hope this project succeeds and stops the illegal mining and the black market in the same vein of the synthetic latex.

    1. Re:i hope they succeed by khallow · · Score: 1

      I just wanted to make a few remarks on "blood diamonds". The thing to remember about them is that first and foremost, they undermine the De Beers cartel on diamond production. That's the primary reason for the ban and the propaganda.

      Second, those "criminal organizations" that move things like blood diamonds are for the most part just unrecognized governments. While there are some legitimate governments that are more wholesome than these groups, there are also a number of diamond producers who aren't, for example, the current government of Zimbabwe.

      Third, blood diamonds just like any other product made or mined elsewhere, do enrich the local populations. Yammering about "slavery" ignores that the slaves would be slaves whether they were mining diamonds or something else. You can buy a cheap diamond, help African workers, and help destroy a cartel.

  6. Shovels? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Have they considered digging it up? American rare earth production didn't stop because it ran out, it just became less profitable than competing with China.

  7. Somebody didn't get the memo! by flightmaker · · Score: 5, Interesting

    According to an article in Popular Mechanics (page 60, January 2013 issue) a company called Molycorp is running a re-opened rare earth mine in the Mojave Desert, forecasting "By mid 2013 the mine will have the capacity to produce 40,000 metric tons anually".

    1. Re:Somebody didn't get the memo! by kannibal_klown · · Score: 1

      But for how many years?

      Since it's a mine there has to be a finite amount. What happens when THAT runs out?

    2. Re:Somebody didn't get the memo! by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 1

      But for how many years?

      Since it's a mine there has to be a finite amount. What happens when THAT runs out?

      Oil and coal are biological in origin, and thus only located close to the surface, and can be "used up". But rare earths, and other non-biological ores, are not "used up" in the same way, because you can always just dig deeper. The cost may go up, but there is no reason to believe we will ever run out of ore.

    3. Re:Somebody didn't get the memo! by jgtg32a · · Score: 1

      Hopefully that will help their stock price out.

      I went full retard on that stock a while back.

    4. Re:Somebody didn't get the memo! by tmosley · · Score: 1

      Rare earths aren't actually rare. It will be a few thousand years before we run out, and recycling will come into play a long time before that.

    5. Re:Somebody didn't get the memo! by kannibal_klown · · Score: 1

      But for how many years?

      Since it's a mine there has to be a finite amount. What happens when THAT runs out?

      Oil and coal are biological in origin, and thus only located close to the surface, and can be "used up". But rare earths, and other non-biological ores, are not "used up" in the same way, because you can always just dig deeper. The cost may go up, but there is no reason to believe we will ever run out of ore.

      Are you sure you don't have that backwards?

      Biological means that, EVENTUALLY, it's renewable. Even if it means waiting hundreds of years, thousands, or even millions... eventually biological processes will create more. Dead carbon becoming coal, oil, whatever.

      WITHOUT RECYCLING... digging up non-biological ores means you'd eventually run out. Sure, the amount of MetalX is probably great enough that if you knew where to dig it would take many many lifetimes to use up. But eventually, you WOULD use it up.

      And prior to that hypothetical time... you'd also reach a point that you'd be spending more resources to mine that ore than it would make it feasible. Imagine if you use up everything easily obtainable in the next 200 years... and you find the rest of the veins are 20miles underground. Well, it's not just a matter of it "costing money" more to get there. Good luck getting down there to mine since the furthest we've ever drilled is like 10miles with a narrow drill bit.

    6. Re:Somebody didn't get the memo! by gr8_phk · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I'm starting to think they're a pump-n-dump stock. They keep talking about the price of rare earths and how they have this mine, and how they just need to clear some government hurdle... It's always right around the corner. Dude, it's their own fucking mine, just ramp production back up and show me the money. They need to stop talking about it and start producing. Been a few years now.

    7. Re:Somebody didn't get the memo! by TubeSteak · · Score: 1

      Funny that this just passed across my desk earlier today:

      Molycorp Plummets on JP Morgan Price Target Cut

      JP Morgan cited lower volumes and a recent rare earth price collapse as the key drivers behind their price target cut. Specifically, JP Morgan writes, âoeWe continue to believe MCP will likely have to seek additional capital beyond just a revolver and/or equipment leaseback.â

      Until Thursday, Molycorp had been having a solid week. Shares rallied over 12 percent on Monday after the Chinese government cut its production quotas for rare earth metals.

      In 2011 Molycorp stock was $75.
      Today their stock is around $8.

      --
      [Fuck Beta]
      o0t!
    8. Re:Somebody didn't get the memo! by ahoffer0 · · Score: 1

      SAN FRANCISCO (MarketWatch) -- Shares of rare earths producer Molycorp Inc. MCP -25.12% fell as much as 22% at the open Thursday after the company warned it expects lower cash flow and revenue in 2013 than earlier anticipated. The company also said it would not proceed with the planned next phase of development at its Mountain Pass, Calif., manufacturing complex until it saw an improvement in rare earths demand, prices, and easier access to capital.

    9. Re:Somebody didn't get the memo! by EL_mal0 · · Score: 1

      It's true that rare earths aren't rare, geologically speaking. But big deposits that have the mineralogy to give them high concentrations amenable to processing are quite rare. They're out there, but they're not common. And China can extract and process them for a lot less than we can here in the rest of the world.

    10. Re:Somebody didn't get the memo! by EL_mal0 · · Score: 1

      You're blissfully unaware of the regulations involved in getting a mine up and running. Especially in California. It takes years to get through permitting. And Molycorp's environmental record is far from pristine, which throws more regulatory junk in their way. link. I work in mining, and for an expansion of a mine I worked at that was 100% on private property, there were something like 30 permits, each with its own lengthy process, that we needed to clear before going forward. And that was in a state far more friendly to the industry

    11. Re:Somebody didn't get the memo! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There are other companies that will be bringing more production online within a few years. For example, Avalon Rare Metals Inc. is going to be developing a large deposit of heavy rere earths up in Canada then shipping concentrate for processing to south US (I think Alabama?).

      So no, we will not be running out of rare earths. They are only called rare because of generally low concentrations and high smelting costs. Remember, until recently (1900s), Aluminum was a rare and expensive metal.

  8. What about mining your own stuff ? by MACC · · Score: 3, Interesting

    The US has sufficient resources.
    see:
            http://minerals.usgs.gov/minerals/pubs/commodity/rare_earths/mcs-2012-raree.pdf

    Political interest actually is about getting _cheap_ access to china's resources.

    1. Re:What about mining your own stuff ? by Luckyo · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Political interest is also about not having to restart highly toxic rare earth mining at home with all the consequences that it brings.

    2. Re:What about mining your own stuff ? by MACC · · Score: 2

      Political interest is also about not having to restart highly toxic rare earth mining at home with all the consequences that it brings.

      But China should bear the consequences without compensation or limitation?
      The US has ofloaded/ofshored significant elements of it's Carbon Footprint to China already.
       

    3. Re:What about mining your own stuff ? by sound+vision · · Score: 2

      Carbon footprint is one thing, and that has global consequences. But the bigger toxicity of heavy metal mines and refining is from the *material itself*, and that contamination is more local. That is, if it's made in China, it stays (more) in China.

    4. Re:What about mining your own stuff ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      with the dust coming from china, it'd be better to mine it here with environmental standards than the breathe the shit we're downwind of. It can be done cleanly, but can't be legally started in the US inside a decade.

    5. Re:What about mining your own stuff ? by Luckyo · · Score: 1

      This isn't about dust. This is about soil and ground water being poisoned for tens and hundreds of years into condition where humans cannot live on it. Dust is just a minor pittance in the entire issue, barely a rounding number when it comes to total damage done if even that.

  9. Rare Earth Shortage, you say? by VortexCortex · · Score: 1

    It's true the Earth is very rare, but only because it keeps getting destroyed, thus the new Young Earth is always a little under-done -- Nothing a bit of Global Warming won't fix... Where was I? Oh, Shortage, right: The answer is quite simple, grant human rights to the Dolphins and ask them if they'll build you another one! Then you just have to make a formal complaint to the intergalactic zoning commission to prevent the hyperspace expressway before the Vogons get here... Blam! Just doubled your natural resources! (and my CPU power)

    Now, if you'll excuse me, I've got a few mazes to run before I get back to removing the labels (and your memories) of the most important button on everyone's keyboards. I mean, look at it. It's the biggest one, and it's Blank?! Ha! Soon no one will be able to remember how it's used to locate the Restaurant at the End of the Universe, thus I'll have saved the Universe too! It's taking longer than I thought since many folks have retained a vague recollection of that unforgettable place and started re-labeling the key: "Space Bar"

  10. here, save about $120e6 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    possible solutions:

    1. invade china
    2. ask the UN to sanction china
    3. ask the UN to write them a harshly worded letter
    4. mine for our own resources
    5. recycle existing rare earth stockpiles (aka your local landfill)

    1. Re:here, save about $120e6 by MACC · · Score: 1

      too many options ( for politicks ).
      Who can count beyond three ;-?

      Machiavelli, paraphrased:
              "soldiers can always bring you rare earth"

    2. Re:here, save about $120e6 by jamesh · · Score: 1

      5. recycle existing rare earth stockpiles (aka your local landfill)

      Don't you offshore that rubbish somewhere already? And isn't it to China?

    3. Re:here, save about $120e6 by SternisheFan · · Score: 1

      possible solutions:

      1. invade china 2. ask the UN to sanction china 3. ask the UN to write them a harshly worded letter 4. mine for our own resources 5. recycle existing rare earth stockpiles (aka your local landfill)

      May I add... 6. Worldwide cooperation in the exploration / exploitation of nearby asteroids. One side benefit being: No need to conquer / control other lands & its people for their earth resources.

    4. Re:here, save about $120e6 by tibman · · Score: 1

      We make mountains out of it, cover it with a thin layer of grass, and harvest the delicious fumes : )

      --
      http://soylentnews.org/~tibman
    5. Re:here, save about $120e6 by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

      Redneck bumper sticker of the future:

      "Kick their perineum, take their neodymium!"

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
  11. Transmutation can be done by Moabz · · Score: 1

    Ames lab knows how to perform low energy nuclear transmutations. There was a presentation at CERN last year showing that Mitsubishi Heavy Industries got positive results of transmuting Cs into Pr (Praseodymium is a rare earth element). Recently Hitach has reproduced these results. "advanced batteries" and "alloy formulations" sound good enough to dedicate some of the money to LENR related research.

    1. Re:Transmutation can be done by Moabz · · Score: 1

      The Mitsubishi and Hitachi results were shown at the American Nuclear Society's winter meeting on 14 Nov in San Diego.

    2. Re:Transmutation can be done by balsy2001 · · Score: 1

      It has never been a question of whether it CAN be done. The question is whether it is practical or not and cost effective. The problems are: 1) reactor capacity (output of material), 2) radioactivity, 3) enrichment of the resulting material. Running reactors, enrichment facilities, and chemical processing plants for radioactive materials is not cheap. This is done by the INL (listed in the article as a partner) at the Advanced Test Reactor (ATR). They are the US's only source of cobalt 60 and used to make some other medical isotopes (not sure if they still do, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_Test_Reactor). The material/sources they make are used as is with none of the other processing and are wanted specifically because of the radioactivity. The INL regularly addresses this question from the DOE. This isn't for anything you need in large industrial volumes. I don't think they should spend and of the $120M for this type of research at this point., but I won't be surprised if they spend some on it.

      --
      GENERATION 27: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum and add 1 to the generation.
    3. Re:Transmutation can be done by Moabz · · Score: 2

      I am talking about a very different technology to produce the transmutations.

      Mitsubishi made experiments which showed that Cs can be transmuted into Pr at low energies. The results were presented at a CERN colloquium last year http://indico.cern.ch/getFile.py/access?resId=5&materialId=slides&confId=177379

      Recenty Toyota (not Hitachi, my mistake) replicated the results, this was presented at the ANS winter meeting:

      "Replication experiments have been performed in some universities or institutes mainly in Japan. T.Higashiyama et al. of Osaka University observed transmutation of Cs into Pr in 2003[7]. H.Yamada et al. performed similar experiments using Cs and detected increase of mass number 137 by TOF-SIMS. They used a couple of nano-structured Pd multilayer thin film and observed the increase of mass number 141 (corresponding to Pr) only when 133Cs was given on the Pd sample [8]. N. Takhashi et al., the researchers of Toyota Central R&D Labs, presented that they detected Pr from the permeated Pd sample using SOR x-ray at Spring-8 and the detected Pr was confirmed by ICP-MS and TOF-SIMS [8]."

      http://newenergytimes.com/v2/conferences/2012/ANS2012W/2012Iwamura-ANS-LENR-Paper.pdf

    4. Re:Transmutation can be done by balsy2001 · · Score: 1

      Mod up and the earlier post by same person. Very interesting and definitely different than what I was talking about. Thanks for the informative read. Well, that removes the need for a reactor. I couldn't tell if there was any induced radioactivity of the substrate materials involved, so that may still be an issue. It also seems like enrichment and volume production could be issues. It kind of sucks that they are making the substrates using palladium and platinum as main ingredients. It does seem that they have some insight into how determine what isotopes may be feasible to transmute in this manner. That would be worth some research money. Even if this isn't a solution for large scale production it is cool and worth some funding. I stand corrected.

      --
      GENERATION 27: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum and add 1 to the generation.
    5. Re:Transmutation can be done by the+gnat · · Score: 1

      Hell, transmutation has been done for decades - it's one of the things the DOE is really good at (since I believe it was invented at what is now Berkeley Lab). You just need an accelerator suitable for heavy ions (really just a beefy, room-sized cyclotron), which are smashed into something else heavy at high energies. Most of the known transuranic elements were created this way. The problem is that it's horrifically inefficient - it's mostly just a scientific tool, used to study elements/isotopes that don't exist in nature and aren't stable for any useful length of time anyway.

    6. Re:Transmutation can be done by flyingfsck · · Score: 1

      Also useful to produce isotopes for cancer treatment. Some isotopes have such a short half life that they have to be produced on site, or pretty close by anyway. Therefore there are cyclotron transmutation devices all over the world at the major cancer treatment centres.

      --
      Excuse me, but please get off my Pennisetum Clandestinum, eh!
    7. Re:Transmutation can be done by Moabz · · Score: 1

      I am talking about a different technology to produce the transmutations, no accelerator needed. You might find the links I provided very interesting to read.

    8. Re:Transmutation can be done by the+gnat · · Score: 1

      Very interesting (assuming it's reproducible and not an artifact), but will it scale any better than the accelerator method? Palladium is not exactly cheap.

    9. Re:Transmutation can be done by Moabz · · Score: 1

      well it was reproduced, by Toyota and Osaka University. And it is repeatable. So not an artifact. Whether it will scale and whether other "host" materials can be used needs to be answered. If they could throw $120M at that question they would certainly find the answer.

      I am happy that you find this interesting, I wish more people would know about it. This is slashdot, stuff that matters, but nobody knows about it and I can tell why that is so.

      This topic is also known as Low energy nuclear reactions, if you google that you'll find that it is also known as cold fusion. Now everybody _knows_ cold fusion is crackpot and can be dismissed without review. Yet, many reliable labs have presented compelling evidence that something anomalous is definitely going on. http://research.missouri.edu/iccf18/

    10. Re:Transmutation can be done by Moabz · · Score: 1

      thanks. I hope that you feel that reading this was a waste of your time when I tell you that this topic is also known as Low energy nuclear reactions, which after a short google you will find out is a synonym for cold fusion.

      After all most people will tell you that cold fusion is crackpot, right ? That is can be dismissed without review.

      Very interesting topic, I can tell you.
      University of Missouri will be hosting the ICCF-18 conference in July, together with Purdue University.
      http://research.missouri.edu/iccf18/

    11. Re:Transmutation can be done by Moabz · · Score: 1

      correction: I do not hope

  12. Economic formula: by lexa1979 · · Score: 1

    1st: declare there's a shortage of some sort, scare people telling them there's not even enough of that resource for healthcare (but forget to mention there's plenty for money-producing-industries) -- 2nd: give some millions bucks to your friends to "look for solutions" -- 3rd: go on vacation with some of the $$ your friends give you back under the table

  13. Shortage? You mean excessive waste. by Sait-kun · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Instead of finding even more ways to strip the earth of all useful materials they should be investing in recycling used materials.

    There are literally millions if not billions (in both weight/tons and in value) of rare earth materials in thrown away products around the world.

    They should be investing in developing technologies to recycle old products and re-use as many of the materials as possible and not just the rare ones either as materials that are a plenty now will become rare if we continue to use and throw them away.

    1. Re:Shortage? You mean excessive waste. by ElectricTurtle · · Score: 1

      Your cognitive dissonance is staggering. If we can reclaim rare earths through recycling (which is true), it really doesn't matter if we "run out" of initial extraction possibilities (which is nowhere even near the horizon). Reclamation can happen at any time, and it will happen precisely when all things happen, when it makes more logistical sense to reclaim than extract.

      --
      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:Shortage? You mean excessive waste. by ledow · · Score: 2

      Good luck trawling through a motherboard (even a pristine, fully-working, but obsolete motherboard handed to you for nothing) and finding the rare-earths and extracting them back to a form, purity and volume that suppliers would take them from you to put back into products.

      You're literally assuming that it's like gold, or iron - just melt it down, scrape off the top and sell what's left. What if those rare-earths are modified to be part of a compound, fine nanostructure, device, etc.? It would literally take more energy to pull them out and back into a useable format than the entire thing cost to dig from a dwindling ore supply and make in the first place.

      You know what happens to more household waste put into a recycling bin in the UK (as exposed by various TV investigations)? It's shipped abroad and buried in landfill, if it even makes it that far. That's literally things like plastics and glass which are quite "easy" (relatively speaking) to separate, purify, reform, etc.

      Just how do you expect to reclaim the yttrium, say, from LED's in TV sets? Do you realise just what a percentage they make up and how spread out they are in even the largest of TV's?

      And if you know the model PERFECTLY and get every ounce of them back out, you're likely to end up requiring MILLIONS of devices to get it back to a saleable amount (not to mention it's poisonous to lungs, which adds whole new costs to its extraction and handling). But it's also the 28th most abundant element in the Earth's crust (so "rare earths" isn't what you might think). It's even difficult to separate from its own raw form, let alone reclaiming it - and there's probably more in your spleen now than in a TV sent to recycling.

      Recycling a material only makes sense when you can do so repeatedly (otherwise you end up making more and more concentrated rubbish), consistently and more cheaply than getting the original source. And all the things we routinely recycle we can do because of VOLUME. We dispose of millions of tons of paper or glass or plastic every year, and though it's not perfect or saleable in that form we dispose it, it takes little to make it so (in fact, collection is probably the greatest expense because of the volume it's available in).

      Rare earth recycling is pretty much pointless until it becomes, quite literally, like gold-dust. It has to be worth enough that someone just grabbing a couple of motherboards or old TV's off a scrapheap would be paid enough for their efforts through a resale price that makes it worthwhile. You can literally make a living scouring gold and platinum and even iron from junk and selling it on in volume. Doing so with rare earths is CENTURIES away, for even the rarest.

    3. Re:Shortage? You mean excessive waste. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "consistently and more cheaply than getting the original source" don't you think, that when it will be cheaper to recycle it, it will be too late to repair devastation that was caused by mining ( just because it was cheaper to mine it )

    4. Re:Shortage? You mean excessive waste. by ledow · · Score: 1

      You think that pure ore wouldn't be needed even if we started recycling? The damage will be done anyway. In a way, better to get it over with.

      The normal process is "almost exhaust supply", "require alternatives", "find way to recycle old supply in meantime", "exhaust supply while transitioning".

    5. Re:Shortage? You mean excessive waste. by tmosley · · Score: 1

      You think recycling is free? You think recycling doesn't pollute?

      Might want to think a bit on that.

    6. Re:Shortage? You mean excessive waste. by tmosley · · Score: 1

      Yes, because the Mojave Desert is just TEEMING with life. Fragile, easily destroyable life.

    7. Re:Shortage? You mean excessive waste. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well actually, the Mojave is covered in desert vegetation, and the animal life that has adapted to live out there. Granted, the amount of life per square mile in a desert is probably not as dense as most other regions of the world, but people need to stop confusing deserts with sandboxes. The real world ecology is a little more complex than that.

    8. Re:Shortage? You mean excessive waste. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm a grad student in the Materials department at Univ. of Birmingham, UK. A couple of our academics are doing pretty great things in recycling rare earth magnets using Hydrogen Decrepitation techniques, and are getting up to 95% recovery of Nd from old hard drive magnets. The technique works pretty well for SmCo magnets too.

      They are getting a lot of interest from Japan as China's effective embargo leaves them sensitive to political wranglings.

      So, it won't be long until Toshiba start making "green hard drives".

  14. Maybe they are going to mint the platinum coin by elucido · · Score: 2

    This would explain why they need to get all the precious metal.

  15. US-centric much? by boundary · · Score: 1

    How dare China play games with its own resources? And to the detriment of 'merica! Bad yellow peril! What a horrible, US-centric article!

    1. Re:US-centric much? by just_common_sense · · Score: 0

      So do you also think it's OK for a company to abuse its monopoly power?

    2. Re:US-centric much? by boundary · · Score: 1

      No, but then again that's completely irrelevant as last time I checked China was a country, not a company.

    3. Re:US-centric much? by just_common_sense · · Score: 0

      Note that I said "also". Your original statement seems to imply that you think it's OK for a country to abuse monopoly power, and I was wondering how far you would go with that. I don't think it's ever right to abuse monopoly power. In any case, the article isn't really about China, so I'm not sure why you're so critical of it.

  16. And no video on this ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Fortunately I have one : Video

  17. A sure-fire plan by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    1. Buy $120m of rare-earth materials.
    2. ???
    3. Profit!

    Step 2 could be as simple as 'wait'.

    1. Re:A sure-fire plan by balsy2001 · · Score: 1

      You say this in jest, but the government actually has "strategic stockpiles" of a lot of different materials. See http://www.bis.doc.gov/defenseindustrialbaseprograms/osies/stockpikecommittee.html and https://www.dnsc.dla.mil/

      --
      GENERATION 27: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum and add 1 to the generation.
    2. Re:A sure-fire plan by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      yeah, like helium. i bet the chinese wish they had our helium.

    3. Re:A sure-fire plan by crunchygranola · · Score: 1

      Well, not a lot of different materials any more.

      If you look at their latest planning document: https://www.dnsc.dla.mil/Uploads/Materials/FY11%20Operations%20Report%20-%20Signed%2002-23-2012.pdf you will see they are in a "going out of business sale" mode for the most part.

      They are selling off all of their stockpiles except for just three materials: chromium, manganese, and tin.

      Becoming a guaranteed buyer for a portion of the Mountain Pass production to get it into production and keep it there would see to be strategically desirable. Any rare earth stockpile could be used to prevent Chinese price warfare - either trying to shut down other producers again, or trying to strangle competing industries overseas that use rare earths (like now).

      Appealing to the WTC is all very well, but being able to defeat economic warfare in the field is better.

      --
      Second class citizen of the New Gilded Age
  18. They're NOT RARE by argStyopa · · Score: 4, Informative

    From TFA:
    "...CMI specifically plans to organize its efforts in four mutually supporting focus areas:
    Diversify Supply
    Develop Substitutes
    Improve Reuse and Recycling
    Conduct Crosscutting Research ..."

    Correct me if I'm wrong, but Rare Earths aren't really rare in the sense of scarcity - they're about as common as lead or tin. They're "rare" in the sense that they're not found in veins or nuggets, they're found only by processing large quantities of materials (a usually complicated and toxic process that the US has largely farmed out to China because China's far more tolerant of environmental pollution). the article asserts that China controls 95% of the supplies of rare earths - I presume this means they currently produce 95% of the world's production, NOT that they sit on 95% of the world's reserves; two entirely different situations.

    So aside from perhaps the first subject peripherally, as far as I can tell none of these points tries to substantively address that MAIN barrier to our 'supply' of "rare earths": regulatory reform to allow US firms to compete economically and viably with Chinese rare earth recovery companies. There must be an economic motivation if so many countries are nervous about China's lock on the processing capability, certainly?

    --
    -Styopa
    1. Re:They're NOT RARE by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      All valid points. China only holds the majority on processing capability because nobody else capable wanted it (regulations = we don't want this). Maybe addressing the reasons why somebody would choose to not want this particular capability might be deemed as "moving forward", instead of rolling back regulations to medieval times in order to gain competitiveness back.

    2. Re:They're NOT RARE by Lehk228 · · Score: 1

      "Regulatory Reform" is libertarian code for "dump toxic shit in our water"

      --
      Snowden and Manning are heroes.
  19. The answer is simple... by jonwil · · Score: 1

    If these minerals are so vital to the nation (and possibly even important to national security because of their uses in military technology etc) just offer whatever subsidies are necessary to make it viable for mining companies to mine and process the deposits that the US has on its own soil.

    You could also introduce tariffs on the import of minerals from foreign countries.

    There is precedent here, the US does exactly this (subsidize domestic production, tax foreign imports) for a number of agricultural commodities (sugar being one)

  20. Simple solution by Muad'Dave · · Score: 2

    Simple, non-technical solution: Refuse to rely on a foreign source for materials deemed critical to the nation. Maintain your own production capability even when buying a cheaper foreign product (and stockpile if you must), but don't let your domestic production capability falter.

    --
    Tiller's Rule: Never use a word in written form that you've only heard and never read. You will end up looking foolish.
    1. Re:Simple solution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      US used to have production of rare earths. China also had production of rare earths - that were cheaper. It was more expensive for the US to produce the same thing they could purchase from China, so naturally you stop production. This is all well and good until the 90s when China decided it needed more of its produced volume to remain internal and started increase the price for export. They have been continually increasing the price to a point where in the last few years the US and other countries have taken notice and are vehemently starting research programs such as the one detailed in this article.

  21. Why not manage the recycling process as well by Tangential · · Score: 2

    Seems like step number one is to stop sending anything with rare earths to Asia to be recycled.

    Step 2 would be to try and attract foreign components containing rare earths here to be recycled. If its that important bite the bullet on not-cheap labor and other environmental issues (and develop better processes for doing it.)

    At the same time of course, turn the geologists loose to find more.

    --
    Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of congress. But then I repeat myself. -- Mark Twain
  22. Transmutation can be done by Moabz · · Score: 1

    Mitsubishi Heavy Industries reported transmutation of Cs to Pr at low energies, it was presented at a CERN colloquium last year.

    http://indico.cern.ch/getFile.py/access?resId=5&materialId=slides&confId=177379

    Toyota has replicated the experiment.

    It was also presented at the American Nuclear Society's winter meeting in Nov 2012:

    "Replication experiments have been performed in some universities or institutes mainly in Japan. T.Higashiyama et al. of Osaka University observed transmutation of Cs into Pr in 2003[7]. H.Yamada et al. performed similar experiments using Cs and detected increase of mass number 137 by TOF-SIMS. They used a couple of nano-structured Pd multilayer thin film and observed the increase of mass number 141 (corresponding to Pr) only when 133Cs was given on the Pd sample [8]. N. Takhashi et al., the researchers of Toyota Central R&D Labs, presented that they detected Pr from the permeated Pd sample using SOR x-ray at Spring-8 and the detected Pr was confirmed by ICP-MS and TOF-SIMS [8]."

    http://newenergytimes.com/v2/conferences/2012/ANS2012W/2012Iwamura-ANS-LENR-Paper.pdf

  23. Rare Earth Metals... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...also known as "Common Asteroid Metals".

  24. Afghanistan - Follow The Money by RudyHartmann · · Score: 1

    The older I get, the harder it gets to fight off becoming a cynical old coot. I have wondered why the USA is militarily involved in a country like Afghanistan. On the surface it does not appear to have anything in the national interest. Sure there were some terrorist training camps there. From the sparse media coverage of this war, the country appears to be run by 7th century goat herders. The drone war has been flattening those bases and the bad guys over there for a while though. What has been peculiar is this:

    Why do we have boots on the ground when drones are working so well?
    Why are we spending so much effort at "Nation Building".

    Well well well. It appears there is a huge deposit of rare earths that were discovered by some of our geologists. Try Googling "rare earths Afganistan". Some reports claim a trillion dollar cache of the stuff has been discovered. I suspect there maybe a larger deposit than that. Check out just this one article.

    http://www.livescience.com/16315-rare-earth-elements-afghanistan.html

    Me cynical? Naaaa.

    --
    Oh, yeah! Wise guy, huh? Woob woob woob woob! Nyuk! Nyuk!
    1. Re:Afghanistan - Follow The Money by tibman · · Score: 1

      I think the idea behind surveying Afghanistan was to find their citizens another way to make money. Growing drugs seems to be a dangerous way of life. I'm sure some American companies would love to move in and start mining, but that's not likely to happen.

      --
      http://soylentnews.org/~tibman
  25. Here's my suggestion, where are my $120M? by Ihlosi · · Score: 4, Informative
    Just reopen the mines that were deemed unprofitable when China still flooded the market with "dirt cheap" rare earth metals.

    Really. There's no actual shortage of the stuff. There's just a shortage of mines that produce them cheaper than China did back then. Market prices rise? Well, I guess those old unused mines might become profitable again.

    1. Re:Here's my suggestion, where are my $120M? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The US government has helped Molycorp re-open the Mountain Pass mine. However, it requires serious revamping and technological update to their entire process. There was also at least one that re-opened in Canada.

      I'll bill you for the $120M.

  26. Have they read Fallout lore? by theRunicBard · · Score: 1

    It pretty much lists everything America and China need to do in the next 100 years.

  27. $120M for tackling shortages? by MatrixCubed · · Score: 1

    What do they pay if you pile-driver a midget?

  28. Orbital mining = WMDs by sjbe · · Score: 1

    The biggest barriers to asteroid mining are the high cost of surface to orbit transit and a lack of orbital infrastructure.

    While those are huge barriers the biggest barrier is the fact that returning materials from orbit in any meaningful quantity results in a weapon of mass destruction. Dropping several tons of metal from orbit has the same effect as a nuclear weapon. Do you think Russia or China or the US would be comfortable with regular transit of WMDs in orbit? Even an accident would have very bad consequences.

    Sending mountains of mined ore back down is free. Don't give me that look.

    Free? Explain to me how you are going to get a 10 ton chunk of iron down from orbit without the huge explosion when it hits the ground. Explain to me how you assure nation states that you really aren't going to drop that chunk of ore on their capital.

    1. Re:Orbital mining = WMDs by niado · · Score: 1

      Sending mountains of mined ore back down is free. Don't give me that look.

      Free? Explain to me how you are going to get a 10 ton chunk of iron down from orbit without the huge explosion when it hits the ground. Explain to me how you assure nation states that you really aren't going to drop that chunk of ore on their capital.

      Ah, the old adage, "It is much easier to apologize than to ask permission."

    2. Re:Orbital mining = WMDs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you've already got the ability to make a meaningfully-sized asteroid mining fleet, it only adds a handful of years to also build a smelting and shaping facility up there. Then you can create numerous small rods with ogives for tips (or giant parachute-shaped sheets, whichever works better) and send them down one at a time in rapid succession, carefully aimed at a shallow body of water. If the objects were slow and/or aerodynamic enough the local atmosphere wouldn't heat up appreciably, and the impact would be barely noticeable. Natural meteors are very inefficiently shaped for this purpose and people only remember the unnecessarily huge ones.

      There's also the possibility that China and the US government would think having the commercially-disguised ability to aim large amounts of (normally safe) impactors at any military base on Earth is a good idea. It's not as if they don't already have worse.

    3. Re:Orbital mining = WMDs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Easy, just drop it in the ocean. Then send some subs to pick it up. ;-)

  29. The solution: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Step 1: Pay other nations to dig up their rare metals/minerals and sell them to the USA.
    Step 2: Hoard all of those rare metals/minerals.
    Step 3: Wait for other nations to run out of their rare metals/minerals.
    Step 4: ???
    Step 5: Profit.

  30. Master Blaster Run Bartertown by tekrat · · Score: 1

    So, here's the conversation between President Obama and the Chinese Prime Minister....

    Obama: What happened to the rare earths?
    CPM: Who run Bartertown?
    Obama: We don't have time to play this game. Turn up the rare earths.
    CPM: WHO RUN BARTERTOWN.
    Obama: I'm not playing this.
    CPM: Embargo. Embargo!
    Obama: (heavy sigh)... Ok ok... Master Blaster run Bartertown.
    CPM; Embargo.... Lifted!

    --
    If telephones are outlawed, then only outlaws will have telephones.
  31. Here is a thought by Dcnjoe60 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Here is a thought. The US is a capitalistic society. Why is the government funding this? If there is a resource shortage, isn't the private sector the solution? Or is it that the private sector is only the solution once all the hard stuff has been paid for by the taxpayer?

    1. Re:Here is a thought by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      China is really close to proving that State Capitalism can beat regular Capitalism. Given 50 years it might turn out that a fascist state can with the help of their corporations can beat anyone who doesn't interfear with their businesses.

      On that note, since the Chinese government answers to no one they can plan long term and beat anyone who has to appease voters every election.

  32. Rare Earths not RARE by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Rare earths are not rare. During mining one of the components that is almost always found with rare earths is... wait for it. THORIUM, which has to be treated as radioactive waste. This is a regulatory problem, not a scarcity problem.

  33. The Wikipedia entry made me laugh.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Thorium

    Not to be confused with Thallium or Thulium. .. I'm not sure why that strikes me as funny.

  34. Re:Viability of asteroid mining? by Immerman · · Score: 1

    Generally speaking asteroid mining is proposed (at least in the near term) because having raw materials and heavy industry available *in space* would be immensely valuable to further space development since bringing stuff up from Earth currently costs at least a few thousand $/lb and is unlikely to fall by more than an order of magnitude any time soon unless that airship-to-orbit idea pans out. At those prices things like iron that are readily available in asteroids without even needing+ refinement start looking really good. Getting it back to Earth is a bit of a headache for reasons others have described, and is unlikely to be worth it for your primary materials, though the trace materials like gold, platinum, etc. that are significantly valuable on Earth are likely worth transporting down and may even manage to make the mining base pay for itself. The real treasure though is all the resources that will never see the surface of the Earth.

    Now if we ever build something like a skyhook that can productively capture the angular momentum of transferring something from orbit to the surface that may change - essentially dropping stuff to Earth is the "fuel" that pays for lifting other stuff up. Unless demand increases dramatically though base materials like iron, carbon, water, etc will still probably be considerably cheaper to get on Earth - mining asteroids is likely to be considerably more challenging/expensive than landfills.

    --
    --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
  35. This is why I quit recycling by WindBourne · · Score: 1

    Since 1967, I have recycled what I could (cans, bottles, paper, and these days plastics).
    However, I found out that Waste Management (WM) sends our recycled goods to China. That is JUST INSANE to buy goods from there and then send it back to there. This has multiple issues. Basically, China requires the ships to return full. They can either send back resources, or manufactured goods. At this time, they can send back resources because we are foolish enough to do so. However, if we stockpile the items, at some point, we will figure out that recycle of our trash is the way to really lower our costs. At the same time, it stops China from being able to wage an economic war with the west.

    Now, as to access to resources, we have the rare earths. That is not an issue. Molycorp has those. In fact, molycorp has even developed a clean safe cheap way to mine the resources. What is really missing is the actual conversion of ore to the metals. And that is pretty wicked. If we can clean that up, then we should be OK.

    --
    I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
  36. one of the issues. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Regularly, our universities and labs have allowed Chinese students to come here and grab the science slots. Generally, it is because not only does the US give a free ride to a number of students, but then China quietly gives up money. They are double-dipping.
    But to make matters worse, these scientist will then bring in only their fellow country-men rather than looking at the top candidates.
    It is long past time that America stops this insanity. We are destroying ourselves.

  37. Ames Laboratory Priority by PPH · · Score: 1

    For $120M, can you find some way to stop meth addicts from sawing off catalytic converters and selling them for cash to scrap dealers? Who will turn around and ship them overseas where the rare metals are recovered?

    --
    Have gnu, will travel.
  38. use Thorium in by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    LFTRs please

  39. in case op wasnt clear by nimbius · · Score: 1

    here are the "games" china is playing. same "games" youll see with the diamond and oil industries, as well as canadian logging and even the US mint for coin collectors, but in this case we give a shit because, well, scary evil china.

    --
    Good people go to bed earlier.
  40. what shortage? by jsepeta · · Score: 1

    well we could use more rare earth on youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o3Z8NU5ImK0

    --
    Remember kids, if you're not paying for the service, YOU ARE THE PRODUCT THAT IS BEING SOLD.
  41. Fail....... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There is no shortage of rare earth metals in the earth. The only shortage is no companies mining for it in the U.S and other places. China invested in this area. Now its time the rest of the world mans up and invests in their own mining to break China's monopoly