Slashdot Mirror
Interviews: Ask CMI Director Alex King About Rare Earth Mineral Supplies
The modern electronics industry relies on inputs and supply chains, both material and technological, and none of them are easy to bypass. These include, besides expertise and manufacturing facilities, the actual materials that go into electronic components. Some of them are as common as silicon; rare earth minerals, not so much. One story linked from Slashdot a few years back predicted that then-known supplies would be exhausted by 2017, though such predictions of scarcity are notoriously hard to get right, as people (and prices) adjust to changes in supply. There's no denying that there's been a crunch on rare earths, though, over the last several years. The minerals themselves aren't necessarily rare in an absolute sense, but they're expensive to extract.
The most economically viable deposits are found in China, and rising prices for them as exports to the U.S., the EU, and Japan have raised political hackles. At the same time, those rising prices have spurred exploration and reexamination of known deposits off the coast of Japan, in the midwestern U.S., and elsewhere.
Alex King is director of the Critical Materials Institute, a part of the U.S. Department of Energy's Ames Laboratory. CMI is heavily involved in making rare earth minerals slightly less rare by means of supercomputer analysis; researchers there are approaching the ongoing crunch by looking both for substitute materials for things like gallium, indium, and tantalum, and easier ways of separating out the individual rare earths (a difficult process). One team there is working with "ligands – molecules that attach with a specific rare-earth – that allow metallurgists to extract elements with minimal contamination from surrounding minerals" to simplify the extraction process. We'll be talking with King soon; what questions would you like to see posed? (This 18-minute TED talk from King is worth watching first, as is this Q&A.)
Alex King is director of the Critical Materials Institute, a part of the U.S. Department of Energy's Ames Laboratory. CMI is heavily involved in making rare earth minerals slightly less rare by means of supercomputer analysis; researchers there are approaching the ongoing crunch by looking both for substitute materials for things like gallium, indium, and tantalum, and easier ways of separating out the individual rare earths (a difficult process). One team there is working with "ligands – molecules that attach with a specific rare-earth – that allow metallurgists to extract elements with minimal contamination from surrounding minerals" to simplify the extraction process. We'll be talking with King soon; what questions would you like to see posed? (This 18-minute TED talk from King is worth watching first, as is this Q&A.)
Just really yucky to mine and process, which is why the last US mine got spun down in favor of letting the Chinese eat the pollution.
If oil had remained the same price as it was in the 1990s and early 2000s, do you think we would have the "Franking Boom" that we have now?
Probably not - even with modern technology much of America's horizontal-drilling/fracking oil extraction isn't cost-effective at $30/barrel.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
So does this mean my horde of hard drive magnets will finally be worth what it should? :)
In a more serious note, is recycling for rare earth a viable option yet?
yes, i definitely have a question. i heard the statistic that the concentration of heavy and rare earth metals is now *higher* in landfill sites than it is in the original mines that they came from, which, if true, is a global disgrace for which all of us are responsible. firstly, is this actually true, and secondly, is anyone doing anything about the extraction of rare earth metals from the electronics in which they were originally embedded?
The minerals themselves aren't necessarily rare in an absolute sense, but they're expensive to extract.) The most economically viable deposits are found in China, and rising prices for them as exports to the U.S., the EU, and Japan have raised political hackles. (At the same time, those rising prices have spurred exploration and reexamination of known deposits off the coast of Japan, in the midwestern U.S., and elsewhere.
My understanding revolves around only the crudest idea about modern mining methods and the resulting tailings & water usage they often employ. I assume that in China, they get around these costs by just damaging the environment (like dumping tailings where ever instead of having dedicated settling and filtering ponds). Could you give us some back of the envelope calculations (they could be percentages or additional yearly operating costs) of what these environmental regulations mean for mining operations in the United States versus China? There's an awful lot of talk on Slashdot and other news sites about how cost prohibitive the EPA makes business in America but I've never seen an expert in the industry actually talk hard numbers. Any ballpark estimates would be greatly appreciated. In your experience, are any of these laws and regulations less or more effective than others?
My work here is dung.
What is being done, currently, to get the US back into the rare earths mining market?
One of the major issues currently is that most rare earths are "contaminated" with Thorium. Is any work being done with the cooperation of the EPA to reduce regulatory burdens and possibly stockpile this potentially useful nuclear fuel?
Chas - The one, the only.
THANK GOD!!!
Recently this year the WTO ruled against China's practices in the rare earth market but some pundits have stated that this ruling doesn't matter because China controls the whole supply chain of rare earths. Would you care to comment on the efficacy of the WTO's ruling? Can you explain what part of the supply chain the US is missing? For example, we're missing mines but if we had mines we're missing refineries but if we had them we're missing ... etc. What throughput of each mineral in our domestic supply chain would we need to put the US government at ease?
My work here is dung.
At the same time, those rising prices have spurred exploration and reexamination of known deposits off the coast of Japan, in the midwestern U.S., and elsewhere.
Alex King is director of the Critical Materials Institute, a part of the U.S. Department of Energy's Ames Laboratory. CMI is heavily involved in making rare earth minerals slightly less rare by means of supercomputer analysis; researchers there are approaching the ongoing crunch by looking both for substitute materials for things like gallium, indium, and tantalum, and easier ways of separating out the individual rare earths (a difficult process).
These are excellent examples of why, over the medium and long term (10+ year granularity) prices in these things tend to come down, rather than become problematic and scarce. It isn't just finding more, it's finding substitutes and alternatives all along the path of progress.
The Ultimate Resource is the cleverness of free people in a free society, which not only includes, but depends on economic freedom, leading to this counter-intuitive and well-established phenomenon.
Here are some related things about the benefits of an open society, and conservatives could learn a thing or two, too, about increasing rather than stifling immigration.
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
There are plenty of new rare earth mines coming. However, molycorp was going to make a new processing plant, and then with a change of CEO, pulled out of this.
So,
1) Will the federal gov. help out with setting up a processing plant? My rep, Mark Coffman, used to push this as needed for national security, but, he has stopped since his friend was booted.
2) Will the federal and/or state gov. help with increasing demand so that we can rare earth processing off the ground again?
3) Is there any push by your group to deal with the thorium that comes with rare earth mining? Perhaps, new thorium reactors?
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.