Slashdot Mirror


CMI Director Alex King Talks About Rare Earth Supplies (Video)

CMI in this context is the Critical Materials Institute at the Iowa State Ames Laboratory in Ames, Iowa. They have partners from other national laboratories, universities, and industry, too. Rare earths, while not necessarily as rare as the word "rare" implies, are hard to mine, separate, and use. They are often found in parts per million quantities, so it takes supercomputers to suss out which deposits are worth going after. This is what Dr. King and his coworkers spend their time doing; finding concentrations of rare earths that can be mined and refined profitably.

On November 3 we asked you for questions to put to Dr. King. Timothy incorporated some of those questions into the conversation in this video -- and tomorrow's video too, since we broke this into two parts because, while the subject matter may be fascinating, we are supposed to hold video lengths down to around 10 minutes, and in this case we still ended up with two videos close to 15 minutes each. And this stuff is important enough that instead of lining up a list of links, we are giving you one link to Google using the search term "rare earths." Yes, we know Rare Earth would be a great name for a rock band. But the mineral rare earths are important in the manufacture of items from strong magnets to touch screens and rechargeable batteries. (Alternate Video Link)

27 comments

  1. Garbage Dumps by Scottingham · · Score: 2

    I read somewhere (maybe on another /. forum) that a lot of garbage dumps now contain more rare-earth elements than high density deposits. Would something like plasma gasification solve two problems at once?

    Could be total bunkum...any body with real knowledge care to chip in?

    1. Re:Garbage Dumps by i+kan+reed · · Score: 1

      It's certainly the highest concentration of [insert currently villified tech company here]'s products.

    2. Re:Garbage Dumps by Khyber · · Score: 2

      Our landfills likely contain more REEs and metals than we can possibly imagine.

      Pretty soon, I'll bet on combo energy-producing/recycling/processing area built right atop landfills as we realize just how much of that stuff can be easily reclaimed and re-purposed or utilized for energy.

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    3. Re: Garbage Dumps by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I.e. "Mr. Fusion".

    4. Re:Garbage Dumps by vux984 · · Score: 2

      Pretty soon, I'll bet on combo energy-producing/recycling/processing area built right atop landfills as we realize just how much of that stuff can be easily reclaimed and re-purposed or utilized for energy.

      I'm skeptical about this. My impression was that the REEs in landfills (ie discarded finished products), are far more difficult to process than those simply in the ground.

      The contents of the ground is relatively homogenous and easy to process by comparison, you dig it up, crush it down to 'gravel', melt it down, etc; rinse and repeat.

      With landfill is extremely heterogeneous you've got ceramics, metals, plastics, glass, all part of one broken iphone in the same bag as a dirty diaper and some sheetrock. It doesn't all crush well, it doesn't all melt well, it doesn't grind up well, etc.

      Processing "rock" is far easier, and cheaper.

  2. Why is this not in text? by kruach+aum · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Videos are a worthless communication medium when the intent is the transfer propositional (rather than visual) information. I can't scan a video the way I can scan text, it's hard to pick out when questions are being asked without watching the entire thing, I can't control the rate of information dispersal, etc. etc.

    There is no reason for this to be a video, or for it to be in two parts for that matter. Oh wait, there is, but only for your corporate overlords: money.

    1. Re:Why is this not in text? by kruach+aum · · Score: 3

      Well, that was dumb. My fault, didn't see the transcript link.

      Nevertheless there is still no reason why this should be in two parts.

    2. Re:Why is this not in text? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Apparently your skimming missed the explanation in the summary. Just be glad it's 2 parts instead of 3

    3. Re:Why is this not in text? by bob.lansdorp · · Score: 1

      Videos are a worthless communication medium when the intent is the transfer propositional (rather than visual) information. I can't scan a video the way I can scan text, it's hard to pick out when questions are being asked without watching the entire thing, I can't control the rate of information dispersal, etc. etc.

      There is no reason for this to be a video, or for it to be in two parts for that matter. Oh wait, there is, but only for your corporate overlords: money.

      I agree. I want to read skim something in 15 seconds to see if I want to commit to reading in detail, not waste 10 minutes of my life on a video.

    4. Re:Why is this not in text? by Rei · · Score: 1

      I too missed the transcript link. It's not exactly that noticeable. And I too find the current trend of "putting everything in a needlessly long, unskimmable video" highly annoying.

      --
      Trick People Into Clicking Your Headline With This One Weird Trick!
  3. Can the mods update the summary? by cheese_boy · · Score: 2

    "Dr. Ames and his coworkers" should be "Dr. King and his coworkers"

    1. Re:Can the mods update the summary? by Roblimo · · Score: 1

      Thank you for noticing. Fixed.

  4. Chinese cornering the market? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Aren't the Chinese trying to corner the market?

    Aren't there large deposits in Greenland?

    1. Re:Chinese cornering the market? by knightghost · · Score: 1

      Yes, the chinese cornered the market on mining rare earth then abruptly shut down exports to use it in their own manufacturing.

    2. Re:Chinese cornering the market? by khallow · · Score: 1

      It's kind of interesting how disinterested the US media got on that subject. I haven't heard about this story for a while.

    3. Re:Chinese cornering the market? by Rei · · Score: 2

      That would be because the problem was by and large resolved.

      Metal prices can fluctuate by several orders of magnitude in the short term. They can fluctuate to a moderate degree in the mid-term. But the long-term trend of metals as a whole is almost always downward (excepting "investment metals", which are inherently distorted by investors). There's no shortage of anything in the crust. The crust is unimaginably massive. It's always a question of what you've found, what extraction processes you've gotten mature enough to compete, and what infrastructure you've actually built. As a general rule, most resource "reserves" rise over time, not drop, because each tech advancement tends to put exponentially more resource into play.

      --
      Trick People Into Clicking Your Headline With This One Weird Trick!
    4. Re: Chinese cornering the market? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, it was not resolved. The price in China is about 1/10 of global prices.

  5. mined and refined profitably by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

    Ah yes, monetary profit. The only reason to do anything. How else can we force a man to work if we can't ration his necessities?

    Anyway, for maximum profit, learn to mechanize the process. Tunnel boring machines can be made in any size, and if you do it right, you can have it drag along a smelter, so only the pure shit comes out of the hole.

    --
    “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    1. Re:mined and refined profitably by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Mining is mechanized.
      Tunnel boring machines are used in mining.
      Putting a smelter underground is a pretty bad idea for a lot of reasons.
      Smelting is energy intensive and that is what makes it expensive, not labor.
      It takes a huge chemical plant to refine rare earths.
      Leach water through the tailings, waste water from the chemical plant and disruption of underground water systems results in poisoning of ground water due to rare earth mining operations. Addressing these problems in a responsible manner is expensive (though not necessarily due to labor), which is why doing it in China is so cheap.

    2. Re:mined and refined profitably by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

      We have to learn to separate the waste products. These things aren't impossible. Let's not pretend we can't refine the tech. Our economic/political system is the only impediment to progress.

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    3. Re:mined and refined profitably by Rei · · Score: 1

      I personally feel the solution to the "exporting pollution to other countries" problem is PAT - Pollution-Added Tax, implemented in exactly the same manner as VAT except for taxing the pollution emitted during that stage of manufacturing (based on a standardized set of rates) rather than value added at that stage. "Pollution" being everything from arsenic dumped into rivers to carbon dioxide dumped into the atmosphere. Just like VAT, goods produced outside the PAT zone would get PAT levied upon import, and goods inside the PAT zone would get rebate upon export - hence, there's no "I can make goods cheaper by producing them somewhere with little environmental controls" advantage. And because we know that VAT is legal and functional in today's global environment, we can be comfortable that PAT would be as well.

      --
      Trick People Into Clicking Your Headline With This One Weird Trick!
  6. Poor Editing by Khyber · · Score: 2

    "And this stuff is important enough that instead of lining up a list of links, we are giving you one link to Google using the search term "rare earths." "

    And said search term brings up totally different results depending upon your geographical area, some of which lead you to nothing worth value.

    It's like the editors of this once-venerable tech blog have totally forgotten about tech and stories they've covered in the past.

    --
    Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    1. Re:Poor Editing by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 1

      Well, they tried making a slashdot clone earlier this year. Got slashcode up and running and everything. I was all for it, I started reading.

      Within 72 hours of the site going live they had posted a duplicate story. At that point I gave up on them. I don't remember the name, only that it was a dumb one.

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    2. Re:Poor Editing by Khyber · · Score: 1

      soylent news.

      And yea, it sucks dicks. I feel ashamed for having even contributed to that site in the tiniest bit.

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
  7. Afghanistan by Fully+Functional · · Score: 2

    Don't forget that Afghanistan has an estimated about 1 Trillion $USD worth of rare earth metals. One day they will get their shit sorted out and move into the 20th century. Then they will be mining and making billionaires and eventually a tech industry. By then the metals will be worth even more.

  8. Re:Why is this not in text? where is transcript ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    where is transcript link?

  9. Just disable Javascript and force Classic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...and *poof* you get the transcript all visible. And the black hole pretending to be video doesn't get in the way much.

    Granted, the semi-patronizing "A plugin is needed to display this content -- install plugin" is mildly annoying, but still worlds better than the "What's going on here?" coming into fashion with HTML5.

    Life without active content is actually better, believe me.