Slashdot Mirror


Major Find By Japanese Scientists May Threaten Chinese Rare Earth Hegemony

cold fjord writes "It looks like deep sea exploration may pay off big time as Japanese scientists have located rich deposits of rare earth elements on the sea floor in Japanese Exclusive Economic Zone waters, following up on their find two years ago of huge deposits of rare earths in mid-Pacific waters. The cumulative effect of these finds could significantly weaken Chinese control of 90% of the world supply of rare earth metals, which the Chinese have been using to flex their muscles. The concentration of rare earth metals in the Japanese find is astonishing: up to 6,500 ppm, versus 500-1,000 ppm for Chinese mines. The newly identified deposits are just 2-4 meters below sea floor which could make for relatively easy mining compared to the 10+ meters they were expecting... if they can get there. The fact that the deposits are 5,700 meters deep means there is just one or two little problems to resolve : 'A seabed oil field has been developed overseas at a depth of 3,000 meters. . . But the development of seabed resources at depths of more than 5,000 meters has no precedent, either at home or abroad. There remains a mountain of technological challenges, including how to withstand water pressure and ocean currents and how to process the mining products in the ocean, sources said.'"

114 of 189 comments (clear)

  1. Herm... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    ...the Chinese don't have a monopoly exactly. They just undercut the prices any time anyone else tries to operate. I don't know why that wouldn't work against the Japanese as well. But the Chinese can't do it forever, and we all benefit from their cheap REM in the meantime.

    1. Re:Herm... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      The Chinese have the best military in the world...

      It can be said that when their soil runs out of resources, Taiwan, Japan or Korea, can become a substitute with just a bit of persuasion from PLA troops.

    2. Re:Herm... by X0563511 · · Score: 2

      Please define "best military" in this context.

      --
      For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
    3. Re:Herm... by h4rr4r · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The Chinese have a lot of soldiers, but no where near the best military.

      All three of those are under the protection of the actual best military in the world. China will not risk a shift ass kicking by the USA and her allies.

    4. Re:Herm... by Princeofcups · · Score: 3

      The Chinese have a lot of soldiers, but no where near the best military.

      All three of those are under the protection of the actual best military in the world. China will not risk a shift ass kicking by the USA and her allies.

      Just like the Korean War. Oh wait.

      --
      The only thing worse than a Democrat is a Republican.
    5. Re:Herm... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The Chinese have a lot of soldiers, but no where near the best military.

      All three of those are under the protection of the actual best military in the world. China will not risk a shift ass kicking by the USA and her allies.

      When the enemy has a near inexhaustible supply of men, a large and relatively easily dispersed armaments industry, a vast expanse of territory in which to bog your troops down in asymmetric warfare (which into the bargain is a Chinese national sport) and a complete disregard for casualties I think you''l find quantity trumps quality. Try to imagine Iraq, except an couple of orders of magnitude bigger against an enemy that can manufacture his own small arms, guided munitions, tanks, aircraft and even nuclear weapons. Their kit may not be as good as yours but they have a lot more of it and their factories can shovel it out many times more quickly than you.

    6. Re:Herm... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      False, North Korea (best Korea) has best military!

    7. Re:Herm... by dsvick · · Score: 1

      Having lots of people means nothing if you can't get them there. The Chinese navy is pretty much none existent, at least as far as what they would need to mount any sort of invasion of Taiwan or Japan. Even a very small US Naval force would be sufficient to prevent them from having any sort of success.

      Korea would be the only one they could have a chance of doing anything with. And even then I'm sure North Korea would have a thing or two to say about it.

    8. Re:Herm... by Reverand+Dave · · Score: 1
      --
      I got here through a series of tubes
    9. Re:Herm... by Githaron · · Score: 4, Funny

      Sounds like the Protoss versus the Zerg.

    10. Re:Herm... by Runaway1956 · · Score: 2

      Maybe YOU should define "best military". Time and again, our military is sent overseas to - do what, exactly? Make the world a safer place? To police? To win hearts and minds? To build nations? And, when was our last victory?

      Even when we actually win a military encounter, such as Iraq and Afghanistan, our politicians leave the military machine in place, in pursuit of impossible peripheral missions. In a war of attrition, being best is pointless. The numbers will win, eventually.

      --
      "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
    11. Re:Herm... by nomadic · · Score: 4, Informative

      Only if you're invading China in a ground war. They are not able to move their troops effectively via sea and could not effectively invade Japan; hell, they couldn't invade Taiwan.

    12. Re:Herm... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The military deploys overseas to kill people and blow shit up. How the politicians use the results of the military action is totally out of the hands of the military. The US has a deadly military but unfortunately the politicians handing out the missions are just a collection of morons who are experts at pulling defeat out the jaws of victory. The US militaries main strength is power projection to any place in the world. You can have 10 billion soldiers but if you can't deploy them against an enemy it doesn't really matter. China can not even invade Taiwan unless they want to use the "million man swim" maneuver.

    13. Re:Herm... by Luckyo · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Not just prices. Mining and refining rare earths is exceptionally toxic and polluting process. Like most such processes, it has been largely outsourced to poorer countries, in this case China.

      If we REALLY needed rare earths, there's a lot of them across the world. We just don't want the toxicity and pollution that goes with mining these in our back yards.

    14. Re:Herm... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      What about the Korean war?

      The Chinese made tremendous gains in a surprise attack, because (and major kudos to them) they built up significant forces along the Ya lung River without being detected by the UN. The UN forces were composed primarily of low quality south korean troops, who were in pretty bad shape after the Japanese occupation; only 1/3 was US troops. The Chinese on the other hand had numerical superiority, surprise, and battle hardened troops, with their main disadvantage being a lack of good equipment. However, they still took nearly 10-1 losses against a numerically inferior enemy and at best got to a stalemate at the 38th parallel. Doesn't sound like the best military in the world to me.

    15. Re:Herm... by h4rr4r · · Score: 1

      Try to imagine Iraq, without the need to invade.

      A war like this would simply be about containment. Sink any ship they sail, and shoot down any plane that leaves their airspace.

      Once cutoff from outside support the chinese will soon find themselves short on oil and coal.

    16. Re:Herm... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      Never get involved in a land war in Asia...

    17. Re:Herm... by hodet · · Score: 1

      You are thinking confrontation when the real players would be better off thinking cartel. Why fight when they can all get rich?

    18. Re:Herm... by ElectricTurtle · · Score: 1

      And you think the Russian Federation would just shrug its shoulders? They and virtually every other nation that borders China, except maybe India, would be wholly complicit in land-based resupply.

      --
      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
    19. Re:Herm... by ElectricTurtle · · Score: 4, Interesting

      The Chinese have invaded Taiwan several times. Koxinga did it successfully with a relatively small force in 1661, and Chiang Kai Shek did it again in 1949 (and yes, that was an invasion, since the islanders didn't want him there and his forces proceeded to initiate a political persecution rivaling the mainland's in viciousness if not scale that lasted generations). The reasons the communists couldn't immediately invade Taiwan were many, though primarily it was because they first had to consolidate their power on the mainland vs. remaining resistance pockets and they had to rebuild a navy since the KMT had taken as much of it as they could (which they used to harass the nascent PLA navy and merchant marine as much as possible, retarding immediate growth). By the time the communists were ready, geopolitics had shifted such that the US was ready to support Chiang and the KMT for the foreseeable future.

      Today the PRC has the capacity to invade Taiwan absolutely, but they don't want to risk war with the US to do it, especially since they've figured out they can just buy people like Ma Ying Jeou to secretly dismantle ROC sovereignty in closed-door meetings. Reunification lies down that road, but it will be on the PRC's terms, by and large.

      --
      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
    20. Re:Herm... by ElectricTurtle · · Score: 1

      That was over half a century ago, and it's funny that while you give the SK troops a pass for a war that ended half a decade before, you neglect to consider that the Chinese were coming fresh off a brutal civil war that only ostensibly "cooled down" some months earlier.

      Regardless, it would be absurd to judge the modern PLA on the performance of its first generation who are all retired or dead.

      --
      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
    21. Re:Herm... by tsotha · · Score: 1

      This is no longer true. China has spent the last two decades building up a large modern navy. The newer ships have comparable systems to anything the US has, and they recently launched an aircraft carrier with plans to build two more. Even the pentagon admits if China was "willing to pay the diplomatic and economic price" we could not stop them from taking Taiwan.

    22. Re:Herm... by girlintraining · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Mining and refining rare earths is exceptionally toxic and polluting process.

      Based on the way they do it now, yes. But it doesn't have to be. we've proven that you can mine an area for valuables, then restore the environment to its previous ecological state after. No toxic sludge. No buried waste. After you've taken what you want out, you put the leftovers and some filler back in. The reason it's toxic and polluting is because it's more profitable to be toxic and polluting, not because it's not feasible.

      --
      #fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
    23. Re:Herm... by Luckyo · · Score: 1

      Problem with this approach is that there are few if any chemical processes that would not have extremely toxic by-products in rare earths mining. Environmentalists like to claim that they exist, but they usually either simply do not work at all, or have severe caveats attached that environmentalists tend to just ignore because they're not in line with ideology.

      Also, when you "put things back in", what exactly do you do when these things seep into ground water and poison the area? I have barely any knowledge on geology, but what I can recall of it, your suggestion is borderline absurd. I do have enough understanding of chemistry to understand that most processes that are used in separating rare earths from ore usually involve things like acids and toxic solutions which end up bonding with ore in ways that make by-products extremely toxic. Which would be extremely stupid to "put back in". Admittedly I could be wrong, as I'm not a geologist.

      If you want to put "something else" back in, that means something else needs to be mined for it, and that "something else" needs to be transported and planted. That is pretty much an antithesis of environmental action there. Not to mention that this isn't a solution for the actual problem, the toxic by-products created during refining process.

      In many ways, your focus on mining process over refining process shows this very problematic environmentalist behaviour. It's not digging things out of the ground that's the big problem. It's the refining of the ore, the tech process used in it and its by-products that is the problem.

    24. Re:Herm... by hairyfish · · Score: 1

      China will not risk a shift ass kicking by the USA and her allies.

      Yeah I bet they're still running scared after their little experience in Vietnam. Oh wait...
      Yeah but that was 40 years ago, America is hell good at war now dude. Just see Afghanistan for example. Oh wait...

    25. Re:Herm... by stoploss · · Score: 1

      ZOMG! Nork rush!!!!1!!!eleven!!!

  2. Rare earth elements are not rare at all... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    They're simply called that. The reason why the Chinese has a huge monopoly is their cheap labor and lack of safety regulations. The US had plenty of mines for this stuff but they were shut down due to the cheap abundant supply.

    1. Re:Rare earth elements are not rare at all... by Thud457 · · Score: 1

      yeah, yeah. And Monster Island is really a peninsula. And Camelot is only a model. Tell us something we don't already know.

      --

      the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff

  3. rare earths are not "rare" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    We have plenty of rare earths in the USA. Only the absurd policies regarding treating thorium (which has a 14 billion year half life) as a dangerous nuclear waste, requiring prohibitively expensive disposal, keeps us from taking advantage of those resources. note: Coal fired power plants get to treat the radioactive nuclear material in their fly ash as a natural byproduct and so are completely unregulated.

    1. Re:rare earths are not "rare" by JavaBear · · Score: 2

      Wow, I'm out of mod points someone please mod parent up! Our regulations in this country need some overhauling.

      I agree, Parent definitely need the 5 score.

      The EU are in the same boat, and right now they are fighting about allowing Greenland to mine their deposits. IIRC some idiot even suggested that since the Chinese are so good at mining the stuff, they should sell the mining rights to them...

    2. Re:rare earths are not "rare" by interkin3tic · · Score: 1

      Our regulations in this country need some overhauling.

      I think most people worldwide throughout most of history would agree that this statement was true for their country.

    3. Re:rare earths are not "rare" by PRMan · · Score: 1

      From Wikipedia:

      Powdered thorium metal is pyrophoric and will often ignite spontaneously in air. Natural thorium decays very slowly compared to many other radioactive materials, and the alpha radiation emitted cannot penetrate human skin meaning owning and handling small amounts of thorium, such as a gas mantle, is considered safe. Exposure to an aerosol of thorium, however, can lead to increased risk of cancers of the lung, pancreas, and blood,[citation needed] as lungs and other internal organs can be penetrated by alpha radiation. Exposure to thorium internally leads to increased risk of liver diseases. Thorium is radioactive and produces a radioactive gas, radon-220, as one of its decay products. Secondary decay products of thorium include radium and actinium. Because of this, there are concerns about the safety of thorium mantles. Some nuclear safety agencies make recommendations about their use.[85] Production of gas mantles has led to some safety concerns during manufacture.

      Maybe not so absurd...

      --
      Peter predicted that you would "deliberately forget" creation 2000 years ago...
    4. Re:rare earths are not "rare" by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 1

      I guess you missed the "[citation needed]" part of the Wiki entry...

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    5. Re:rare earths are not "rare" by khallow · · Score: 1

      Come on. These rare earth mines aren't going to concentrate a bunch of thorium and burn it or dump it in some building's air ventilation system. It'll get dumped in a tailings pile or pond, and pretty much sit there until such time as thorium actually becomes a valuable element to extract.

  4. Re:Oh good, undersea mining by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 5, Interesting

    That's basically space technology - building autonomous vehicles operating in extreme conditions doing useful work. Almost like space mining, although in a different environment. For the Japanese, this could be their equivalent of the Apollo project. I find it an interesting technical challenge. But you're right that if rare earth elements are the only thing to be extracted from these seabeds, they'll end up with huge piles of tailings. Well, I guess that would be one of the the tough tech problem to crack...

    --
    Ezekiel 23:20
  5. Dejavu by SirDrinksAlot · · Score: 5, Informative

    Seems like this just tells us the concentration, otherwise we already knew this in 2011.

    http://science.slashdot.org/story/11/07/04/2058218/japanese-team-finds-new-source-of-rare-earth-elements

  6. Re:Oh good, undersea mining by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    As apposed to the Chinese's serious care for environment or its minions on land.

  7. Yep... by Type44Q · · Score: 1

    how to process the mining products in the ocean

    Oh, that? By polluting a lot. :p

    1. Re:Yep... by Reverand+Dave · · Score: 1

      Maybe China will have to take this one after all...

      --
      I got here through a series of tubes
  8. Re:Oh good, undersea mining by Mystakaphoros · · Score: 1

    And while it's not optimal by any means, at least the tailings will already be at the bottom of the ocean, so they won't have to dump them somewhere else.

  9. Plenty of deposits, just have to mine them by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    I'm fairly sure that the reason China controls 90% of the market is because they're actually mining their deposits, not because they are the only ones who have deposits. I think there are plans in the U.S. to restart some mines, and surely this is the case elsewhere too. There was a time when it was very uneconomical to run these, so they were mothballed.

  10. Senkaku islands by KiloByte · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Cue China's claim these areas "have always belonged to China", like Senkaku Islands, in 3.. 2... 1...

    --
    The creatures outside looked from Alt-Right to Antifa; but already it was impossible to say which was which.
    1. Re:Senkaku islands by interkin3tic · · Score: 5, Insightful
      Great, but that's not really the issue here.

      On 14 January 1895, during the First Sino-Japanese War, Japan incorporated the islands under the administration of Okinawa, stating that it had conducted surveys since 1884 and that the islands were terra nullius, with there being no evidence to suggest that they had been under the Qing empire's control.[13] After China lost the war, both countries signed the Treaty of Shimonoseki in April 1895 that stipulated, among other things, that China would cede to Japan "the island of Formosa together with all islands appertaining or belonging to said island of Formosa."

      Wiki goes on to list some of the complications, but western powers had nothing to do with Japan taking control of it. Also noteworthy: China only asserted it's claim to the islands after oil was found there.

      After it was discovered in 1968 that oil reserves might be found under the sea near the islands,[4][5][6][7][8] Japan's sovereignty over them has been disputed by the People's Republic of China

      wiki

      So, yeah, the US and the brits, and other western countries were assholes about claiming and trading land that wasn't theirs when it's in their strategic interests, much like all nations attempt to do, and much like China is doing here. "We included these uninhabited islands in our maps in the 14th century, so clearly the oil is ours!"

    2. Re:Senkaku islands by Zinho · · Score: 1

      Having it in your map in the 14th century is a better claim than, "I have bigger guns than you, it's mine now."

      Perhaps, but it's a much more practical claim than the ancient map, especially when coupled with "I've been standing on it for the last 100 years"...

      --
      "Space Exploration is not endless circles in low earth orbit." -Buzz Aldrin
    3. Re:Senkaku islands by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      read history books about Americans and Brits making shit up and giving away things they have no right to give away in the first place.

      That makes it all better, then. Please disregard all current wrong-doings because a country somewhere once did something wrong to another country at some point in history. Thank you for your insight in this matter.

    4. Re:Senkaku islands by interkin3tic · · Score: 1

      Noted, but that's an oversimplification of what is going on here, so your point is irrelevant.

    5. Re:Senkaku islands by cyfer2000 · · Score: 1

      After WWII, it was decided that "Japan was to be reduced to her pre-1894 territory". Wiki proof. All those things Japan got in 1895 does not count anymore.

      --
      There is a spark in every single flame bait point.
    6. Re:Senkaku islands by interkin3tic · · Score: 1

      GGP was insinuating that America or Britain took the islands away from China and gave them to Japan. Which isn't the case. Japan took them herself. Whether later treaties affected Japan's claim doesn't change the fact that the west wasn't divvying up land to start a conflict in this case.

  11. Re:T-minus 10 by SirDrinksAlot · · Score: 2

    How are they going to do that? It's in the Japanese Exclusive Economic Zone, did you read the article or just jumped to posting a reply for the sake of trying to appear clever? They can't clam it but they could just setup shop and start mining, and the Japanese and US and anyone else can park right up next side them.

    http://www.ehow.com/about_5423099_ocean-mineral-rights.html

  12. Check the map... by xxxJonBoyxxx · · Score: 1

    >> rich deposits of rare earth elements on the sea floor in Japanese Exclusive Economic Zone water

    Good thing no one's ever disputed ownership of an island two-thousand miles away from the mainland, right?

  13. Rare earth refining by benjfowler · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Anyway, I thought the problem wasn't finding the deposits (they're everywhere, and rare earths aren't that "rare").

    The problem here is competing with China's willingness to pollute the absolute living fuck out of their own back yard, to refine the ores cheaper than everyone else.

    If Japan and the West wanted to do something REALLY useful -- find refining methods that are less polluting and resource intensive -- or find substitute substances and processes to avoid the need for rare earth metals completely.

    1. Re:Rare earth refining by MrL0G1C · · Score: 1

      problem here is competing with China's willingness to pollute the absolute living fuck out of their own back yard

      or they could just set standards, for the minerals they Import, except they can't because they're signed up to wto which bars them from using trade barriers even when they are justified

      --
      Waterfox - a Firefox fork with legacy extension support, security updates and better privacy by default.
    2. Re:Rare earth refining by Dripdry · · Score: 3, Interesting

      it's not just that. The rare earths in China don't have to be refined as much as the stuff found pretty much everywhere else on earth. I don't remember the term, but a metallurgist friend explained it to me once, saying that hands down China is at the front of the pack because of this.

      So, I'd be interested to know if the rare earths (and I know, there are many substances under that umbrella) found here are of a similar purity to the ones in China or the ones in the States.

      --
      -
    3. Re:Rare earth refining by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      they're signed up to wto which bars them from using trade barriers even when they are justified

      OK, guy who proudly displays his ignorance. From the WTO's own statement of "what we do,":

      The WTO’s agreements permit members to take measures to protect not only the environment but also public health, animal health and plant health.

  14. Issue was Never Access but Cost by Koreantoast · · Score: 5, Informative

    The issue with rare earth metals has never been access to them, contrary to the article, but cost. If it were simply a matter of access, the United States, Australia and other nations have massive supplies. However, producers in those nations were driven out of business because the cost of extracting them in a clean, (relatively) environmentally friendly manner was simply not competitive with the Chinese, who can afford to undercut foreign producers due to their notoriously lax environmental regulations. Now this new methodology may be helpful in that it drives down the cost of production to become competitive again, but I am concerned that it may create tremendous environmental damage.

    1. Re:Issue was Never Access but Cost by rtb61 · · Score: 1

      Well, the answer is right there, given sufficient time the problem will solve itself due to toxic build up. Eventually the deposits in China will become unworkable due to the lethality of the environment and the impossibility of cleaning it up. 15,000 dead pig agree? with this outcome, considering the level of corruption, what really killed and contaminated them to the point where they couldn't be corruptly slipped into the system. The cost of cleaning this crap up can often far exceed any revenue generated or as often happens requires to closing off and abandonment of large areas of polluted land.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
  15. Re:Oh good, undersea mining by X0563511 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    So, you didn't read his comment at all did you? Just decided to go on an anti space-mining tirade because he mentioned it in a passing simile?

    --
    For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
  16. Re:Oh good, undersea mining by Joce640k · · Score: 1

    A big use for rare-earth metals is making magnets for generators (eg. wind turbines).

    --
    No sig today...
  17. Re:T-minus 10 by alen · · Score: 1

    there are some tomahawks and JDAMS that say otherwise

  18. Re: Oh good, undersea mining by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Don't let them do it, they'll let out Godzilla!!!

  19. Re:Oh good, undersea mining by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Can you point to a place in space that has the concentration of minerals you want, and is as easily and cheaply accessible as the ocean?

    Comparatively? Yes. We know that a significant portion of the asteroid belt bodies are M-type asteroids with very high concentration of iron and nickel. (Just try to imagine a 200 km-sized mountain of virtually pure iron.) If you're in space and need large volumes of structural materials for space use, an M-type asteroid is the place to go. After a certain point, it's going to be cheaper that lifting steel from Earth's gravity well.

    --
    Ezekiel 23:20
  20. Rare Earths are NOT Rare by the+eric+conspiracy · · Score: 5, Informative

    The problem with rare earths is that they are usually found in conjunction with radioactive ores, particularly containing thorium.

    This makes recovery and refining a nasty and if you insist on environmental safety a quite expensive job.

    China has been willing to do it on the cheap for the rest of the world. More recently they have realized that other nations have been exporting their environmental issue to China by buying cheap Chinese rare earths. This is coming to an end as China sensibly restricts exports of these materials.

    1. Re:Rare Earths are NOT Rare by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Well then I guess the US should find something to do with Thorium.
      Then fund that properly; solving the rare earth problem. Gee I wounder what
      can be done with Thorium? Hmmm...

    2. Re:Rare Earths are NOT Rare by the+eric+conspiracy · · Score: 1

      > Are you sure they restrict export of these materials to curtail polution.

      The NYT had a good article on this issue.

      http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/21/business/global/china-vows-tighter-controls-over-rare-earth-mining.html

    3. Re:Rare Earths are NOT Rare by Duhavid · · Score: 2

      "More recently they have realized that other nations have been exporting their environmental issue to China by buying cheap Chinese rare earths"

      China has been importing the environmental issue to China by

      1 mining in environmentally un-friendly ways and
      2 price the results in a way that makes hard for others to mine competitively.

      I am not sure how casting it as "poor, poor China" is appropriate.

      --
      emt 377 emt 4
    4. Re:Rare Earths are NOT Rare by PingPongBoy · · Score: 1

      > China has been willing to do it on the cheap for the rest of the world. More recently they have realized that other nations have been exporting their environmental issue to China by buying cheap Chinese rare earths. This is coming to an end as China sensibly restricts exports of these materials.

      Economics of the moment is all it is. A few years from now and the price of this shit will go up to the point where a serious look will be taken at refining it domestically while the Chinese refuse to roll over for everyone else in the world. Once the technology is in place for clean mining (may take some time) it'll be as though this whole debate never happened, pricewise.

      --
      Know your pads. One time pad: good for cryptography. Two timing pad: where to take your mistress.
  21. Re:T-minus 10 by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

    If the Chinese set up a mining operation in the Japanese exclusive economic zone, the Japanese and Americans would park a bunch of warships in the area. Exclusive economic zones are claimed by nations for their exclusive use. Outside countries can't just set up mining/fishing or any other operations there.

  22. Re:Oh good, undersea mining by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 3, Informative

    I guess the problem lies in the ecological effect of possible dispersion of the materials over large areas of the ocean. It's not like finely-grained materials don't create a freely-floating suspension in water. Although I guess that one could say that you have to solve the problem anyway, otherwise the machines won't be able to see where they are working, due to all the turbidity around them.

    --
    Ezekiel 23:20
  23. Re:REE aren't that rare after all by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 3, Informative

    The so-called "rare earths" aren't all that rare, the problem lies in the fact that geology-wise, they don't tend to form highly concentrated ore deposits, and basically have to be mined as less-concentrated admixtures in ores of other elements.

    --
    Ezekiel 23:20
  24. less need now by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Recent advances in power electronics mean that Switched Reluctance motors are better for EVs and windmills, and cheaper.
    http://powerelectronics.com/content/case-switched-reluctance-motors
    http://www.radicalrc.com/blog/?p=2513

  25. Re:Oh good, undersea mining by Reverand+Dave · · Score: 2

    Not just generators, but a lot of electronics, especially HDDs.

    --
    I got here through a series of tubes
  26. Re: Oh good, undersea mining by SJHillman · · Score: 2

    That's the plan, and we're ready to film it.

    http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0831387/

  27. Re:Oh good, undersea mining by dlmarti · · Score: 5, Funny

    They could wake up Godzilla

  28. Re:Oh good, undersea mining by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    What a douche comment. You can't possibly know what might be found in all those asteroids. There is every reason to suspect that there are rare earths in some of them. There might even be a huge asteroid with such concentrations that it will satisfy our needs for the next thousand years. Exploration is what locates such things.

    Obviously, you are opposed to space exploration. Is there a reason for that? Are you afraid of the unknown?

  29. Glomar Explorer by A10Mechanic · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Finally another use for the Hughes Glomar Explorer, a ship built in the 70's under the guise of underwater mining but actully used by the CIA to raise a sunken sub. My daily dose of Irony is now complete.

    1. Re:Glomar Explorer by dave1791 · · Score: 1

      When I saw this headline, my snarky alter ego asked if the Chinese had lost a sub in that area. The Glomar Explorer was my first thought.

  30. Re: Oh good, undersea mining by Runaway1956 · · Score: 1
    --
    "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
  31. Special interest misrepresenting reality? by 0xdeadbeef · · Score: 3, Informative

    Google "rare earth thorium regulation". Usually, anti-regulation whining like this gets plenty a mention in right-wing think tank-funded articles and political editorials.

    This one gets YouTube propaganda from the thorium reactor proponents and some of their websites. Why is it that, at least in terms of web presence, the only people concerned about this care more about thorium than rare earth minerals?

    1. Re:Special interest misrepresenting reality? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Which indicate that it's an actual concern instead of astroturfing. See, there's not much investment in the US in rare earth production because fo the environmental regulation. Therefore, there's nobody ddumping money into the argument, so it's invisible.

  32. Re:Old News... by Runaway1956 · · Score: 1

    So - Coneheads are really Japanese?

    --
    "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
  33. Re:Oh good, undersea mining by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I know you're trolling, but actually considering the cost to lift a pound of iron (Around $10,000), there's a lot more than just mere dollars worth of stuff out there.

  34. Meanwhile, China continues "We own Japan" plan by erroneus · · Score: 3

    Probably not news many people here are aware of, but China, and in some cases Russia, have been claiming islands owned and even occupied by Japan are theirs. Most significantly, China claims Okinawa and asserts that Okinawans are genetically Chinese.... therefore... well you get the idea.

  35. Re:Calling all goldbugs by erroneus · · Score: 1

    I seriously doubt enough gold could be located on the planet to change the value of gold significantly.

    Part of gold's value is perception anyway... kind of like diamonds, or the US dollar.

  36. Re:Oh good, undersea mining by brazucaNY · · Score: 2

    Bollocks. Just call the guys from "Bering Sea Gold". They will just get down there and suck up all the Rare Earths....all with the drama that we all love... Show name: "Japanese Exclusive Economic Zone Waters Rare Earths" , or JEEZWRE (working title)

  37. Robot mining by Rastl · · Score: 1

    Japan is producing a heck of a lot of robots. Given the treasure they've just found I find it difficult to believe that they aren't already designing robots and robotic processes to do the mining for them and send up the refined material. There's plenty of experience out there in developing machinery for extreme environments so coupling that with their history of making robots I see them getting a mine going in very short time.

  38. Re:Oh good, undersea mining by charles2678 · · Score: 2

    There's nothing out there that's so vitally important, yet incredibly rare on Earth, that makes it worth it.

    If you think "rare on earth" is in any way part of the point, you aren't paying any attention. People proposing mining asteroids aren't proposing returning the materials they mine to Earth.

  39. Re:Oh good, undersea mining by Hoi+Polloi · · Score: 2

    The real catch isn't if it is possible but if it is economically feasible. Just like tar sands if the cost and energy required to extract it is too high then it might as well not exist.

    --
    It is by the juice of the coffee bean that thoughts acquire speed, the teeth acquire stains. The stains become a warning
  40. Re:Oh good, undersea mining by Bartles · · Score: 1

    Yeah, lifting a pound of feathers is relatively cheap. Coming from a different thread, putting a pound of aerogel into orbit would be almost free!

  41. Re:Oh good, undersea mining by mattr · · Score: 2

    Ignorant troll, I'll feed you. If you are in space you want to get the materials from space, i.e. somewhere with a gravity well that is not as bad as Earth. Maybe the moon is good. Asteroids will be useful due to Zero-G which may allow much lower cost exploitation, and many are nearer outer destinations. Plus we will spend more time on mapping asteroids that come near Earth which is a good side benefit spaceguard-wise. There exist ideas for exploitation of space resources that once started can be self-fulfilling and allow Man's leap into space. Yes, it started with Science Fiction. With Capitals. Or didn't you know satellites as communication relays is an idea first promoted by a Science Fiction writer? (Many of whom have scientific or technological backgrounds of their own)
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_C._Clarke

  42. Chinese flex economic muscles? by dgharmon · · Score: 1

    "Japanese scientists have located rich deposits of rare earth elements .. The cumulative effect of these finds could significantly weaken Chinese control of 90% of the world supply of rare earth metals, which the Chinese have been using to flex their muscles."

    How is China forcing the US to buy cheap rare earth elements from China? link

    --
    AccountKiller
  43. Re:Oh good, undersea mining by meerling · · Score: 1

    So which weighs more, a pound of lead or a pound of aerogel?
    Who cares, my question is how did you fit an entire pound of aerogel in that room?

  44. Re:Oh good, undersea mining by fermento · · Score: 1

    If anything, a pound of aerogel would be more expensive. A pound is a pound, but the volume for a pound of super-aerogel must be the size of a barn.

  45. Re:Oh good, undersea mining by meerling · · Score: 4, Insightful

    They have lots of samples, so they have a pretty good idea of what can be found.
    It's possible there are unexpected pockets of concentrations, but it's rather unlikely as those big rocks weren't formed in significant gravity wells that could cause the density based separations. Nor does it appear that they were formed with the same kind of thermal convection type actions that affected Earths geology either.

    No, I'm not a geologist, but come on, don't people stay awake during the high school science classes? Or ever catch one of the various educational channels shows on the formation of the solar system?

  46. Re:Oh good, undersea mining by torsmo · · Score: 1

    The irony here burns the soul.

  47. Re:Calling all goldbugs by jackjumper · · Score: 1

    The way I like to think of it is that the dollar is based on the value of the citizens of the United States, and what could be more valuable than that? Also, asteroid mining

  48. Re:T-minus 10 by SirDrinksAlot · · Score: 1

    Sorry, I meant to say they could setup shop just out side of the exclusion zone.

  49. Re:If it's Japanese by mousse-man · · Score: 1

    You forget Switzerland - they have a German-speaking majority. So German would have lived on.

  50. Rare earths are not rare by tsotha · · Score: 1

    Again the unfortunate name of this group of elements comes back to bite us. Rare earth elements are not rare, they simply don't occur in high concentrations. There are exploitable deposits all over the world, but nobody wants to mine them because the process of extracting what you're after makes a big mess. That made China the perfect place for RE production because until recently they didn't seem to care about that.

  51. "just around corner" technology for decades by peter303 · · Score: 1

    Seafloor mining has been talked about for decades, but hasnt gone anywhere. besides rare earths, there may be large concentrations of more conventional minerals.

  52. Rare Earth from China!? by Mister+Liberty · · Score: 1

    All these years I was under the assumption
    Rare Earth came from Motown.
    Oh well.

  53. Re:Oh good, undersea mining by Drishmung · · Score: 2

    So which weighs more, a pound of lead or a pound of aerogel? Who cares, my question is how did you fit an entire pound of aerogel in that room?

    A pound of lead. No, really, unless you are weighing in a vacuum.

    Think of weighing a pound of lead and a pound of wood underwater. The lower density of the wood and the weight of the water displaced makes for the difference. The same holds for air, but for most substances the difference is undetectable. However, lead vs aerogel is easily detectable. By my rough calculations, at room temperature, 1lb of lead weighs 0.99989418lb allowing for air displacement and 1lb of aerogel (at 1.9kg/m^3) weighs 0.368421053lb (and occupies 0.238732632m^3, so it'll fit in the room quite easily)

    (Of course, to be ultra pedantic, I'm assuming you mean pound mass rather than pound force here)

    --
    Protoplasm. Quiet Protoplasm. I like quiet protoplasm.
  54. Re:Oh good, undersea mining by WindBourne · · Score: 1

    Compared China's record, it is.

    --
    I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
  55. No, wrong by sesshomaru · · Score: 2

    The Chinese haven't been using "rare earth hegemony" to flex their muscles. The Chinese have correctly identified rare earths as an important strategic resource, and therefore aren't in a hurry to sell them at bargain basement prices to whoever wants them.

    This of course, has put the people who like buying rare earths cheaply into a snit, and caused them to put their spin machine into action to demonize this as some kind of belligerent act.

    --
    "MIT betrayed all of its basic principles."
  56. Re:Oh good, undersea mining by Sabriel · · Score: 1

    Posts like these are part of why I enjoy Slashdot. Thanks! :)

  57. Re:T-minus 10 by voidphoenix · · Score: 1

    The way they've always done it. They declare its theirs, then they move in and act like its always been theirs.

  58. When will the world learn ...? by OldHawk777 · · Score: 1

    Japan, Philippians, Australia, New Zealand, Taiwan, and all other local Island Nations fall in Chinese territorial waters; Therefor, they are part of China. Also, China's Pacific economic zone includes Midway and the Hawaii Islands; Hence, China can fish-out those waters to feed China. Who pwns UBaby? CHINA!

    Any attempts by Japan or others to mine rare earth metals in the China Sea [AKA: South Pacific] or the Pacific China economic expansion zone will be removed forcefully from the Pacific.

    Have a very nice China Communist new year on April 1, and remember the China Sea is most all the Pacific.

    --
    Unaccountable leaders are masters, and unrepresented people are slaves. How do US and EU fare?
  59. Re:Oh good, undersea mining by cthulhu11 · · Score: 1

    More likely they've found a lost Russian nuclear sub and this is their equivalent of Azorian.

  60. Re:Oh good, undersea mining by cthulhu11 · · Score: 1

    We mostly build spacecraft out of titanium, not iron, no?

  61. Re:Oh good, undersea mining by RockDoctor · · Score: 1

    People proposing mining asteroids aren't proposing returning the materials they mine to Earth.

    Actually, some of the reporting of the prospects for asteroid mining does sound as if the reporters think that returning materials to Earth is part of the point. There's not a huge amount of point to reporting that your 200km "mountain of iron" contains several thousand tonnes of platinum or gold, other than to make people think about selling the "precious metal" on Earth.

    I'm quite sure that the actual proponents of the schemes aren't particularly bothered by these reporting issues, but it does seem to interest reporters.

    A quick brain check ... a 1km diameter asteroid (a much more reasonable size to consider - there are thousands or millions, but only a handful of 100km order asteroids) has a volume of 500 million cubic metres for a mass (if made of metals, density around 5 times water, similar to the bulk Earth) of around 2600 million tonnes. So, if you distributed, say a thousand tonnes of platinum through that mass, you'd still have to go through almost 2600 million tonnes of other stuff to get to it.

    Mining "precious" metals generally isn't worth it, unless you're going to make at least some profit on the rest of the stuff you mine, or something has already done a lot of pre-concentration of the target mineral for you. Most gold production is, for example, a by-product of copper mining and processing (because the minerals are associated, and the gold follows the copper through processing, until the copper is improved to electrical standards, which throws the gold out in a pretty concentrated form).

    --
    Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
  62. Re:Oh good, undersea mining by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

    It's possible there are unexpected pockets of concentrations, but it's rather unlikely as those big rocks weren't formed in significant gravity wells that could cause the density based separations.

    Some of them must have been. It's not like the metallic ones were formed by simple agglomeration of undifferentiated material. And even if the interesting stuff wasn't in the core, now flying around naked and in pieces, the other pieces (of the former crust of those large bodies, now destroyed) must still be out there somewhere. I wouldn't lose hope, there are thousands of these bodies, you never know what interesting things we're going to find there. Remember, nature is often more surprising than any fiction. ;-)

    --
    Ezekiel 23:20
  63. Re:Oh good, undersea mining by MrResistor · · Score: 1

    You have a good point if we're talking about fishing in the breakers or picking up driftwood along the beach. 5000 meters down is a much different story. It's not exactly just like picking up a rock from the bottom of the swimming pool, only deeper.

    --
    Under capitalism man exploits man. Under communism it's the other way around.
  64. Re:Oh good, undersea mining by MrResistor · · Score: 1

    Actually, we can expect to find much higher concentrations of heavier elements in asteroids and other space debris than we do on Earth, thanks to this thing called "gravity". Neil deGrasse Tyson explains it very well in the conversation he had with Joe Rogan. Look it up on Youtube.

    --
    Under capitalism man exploits man. Under communism it's the other way around.
  65. Two things by DarthVain · · Score: 1

    A big part of it has nothing to do with scarcity of "rare earths". From what I recall, "rare earth" simply means it is rare to find them in concentrations such as deposits or veins and the like. It also has little to due with "resource" cost.

    The mining cost, specifically the environmental cost of that mining is why China is #1. No one else whats to mortgage their environmental future.

    Not only is it a very dirty to extract (see lots of extraction for little material), but in order to process (see sorting all that material for rare earth) it is also very dirty.

    So there is plenty elsewhere but so long as China wants to do it and for cheap, let them.

    As for the Japanese find... LOL!

    A) It is underwater to the tune of 6000m, yeah that won't be massively expensive.
    B) It is underwater, how much environmental impact do you think that will have? I'm going to go with more, particularly if the Japanese like fish or anything.

  66. Old hard drives? by vandamme · · Score: 1

    Why don't they just collect the magnets out of old hard drives? I have a ton of them...OK, not that much...yet.