High Rare-Earth Prices Force Hitachi, Toyota to Find Alternative

[phantom power]

Japanese rare-earth buyers are switching to quarterly sales contracts and looking for alternative sources after China curbed shipments, increasing prices for the materials used in hybrid cars and missiles.

Prices have increased by as much as three times since May, hurting companies such as Hitachi Metals Ltd. (5486), which makes magnetic and electronic materials, said Shinya Yamada, a Tokyo- based analyst at Credit Suisse AG. Higher costs may drive users to avoid applications based on the 17 chemically similar elements entirely, Yamada said.

China produces more than 90 percent of the world’s rare earths, used in Apple Inc. iPads, Boeing Co. helicopter blades, Raytheon Co. missiles, Toyota Motor Corp. (7203) hybrid cars and wind turbines. The nation has curbed output and exports since 2009, saying it wanted to conserve resources and protect the environment. Japan is the top buyer of rare earths.

“China changed its strategy from limiting export quotas to tightening regulations for digging and refining,” Fujinori Sato, deputy manager at the electro materials section of Sojitz Corp. (2768), said Aug. 25. “Prices may go up further later this year.”

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-08-29/high-rare-earth-prices-force-hitachi-metals-toyota-to-find-alternatives.html

[ChandlerJr]

1. Art imitates Nature

and Necessity is the Mother of Invention

[Amonester]

2. (Related) Quebec rare earth explorers make big finds in north

A small Quebec company says it has uncovered one of the world’s most significant deposits of neodymium reports the Montreal Gazette. GeoMegA Resources believes its Montviel property about 500 kilometres northwest of Quebec City, has a huge potential for quick development thanks to the size of the deposit and closeness to infrastructure.

http://www.mining.com/2011/08/07/quebec-rare-earth-explorers-make-big-finds-in-north/

(Liberal)Quebec Premier Jean Charest says Japan is ripe market for province's metal

TOKYO - Quebec is more than ready to meet Japan's metal needs, Premier Jean Charest said during a trade visit to the Asian country on Wednesday.
...

"They have major needs," Charest told a briefing in Tokyo.

...

Japan has been frustrated by Chinese control over a number of so-called rare earth elements — metals used in high-tech and military applications — and is looking for a new source of supply. Charest said Quebec is a perfect option.

"The Plan Nord (Charest's plan for northern Quebec) is coming on stream and we're telling the Japanese that Quebec is a natural partner."

http://www.680news.com/news/national/article/270141--quebec-premier-jean-charest-says-japan-is-ripe-market-for-province-s-metal

[OKIsItJustMe]

3. Need to set priorities

Although not quite as rare as the name implies, “http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rare_earth_element">Rare Earths” are not abundant.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2009/08/31/us-mining-toyota-idUSTRE57U02B20090831

As hybrid cars gobble rare metals, shortage looms

By Steve Gorman

LOS ANGELES | Mon Aug 31, 2009 8:07am EDT

(Reuters) - The Prius hybrid automobile is popular for its fuel efficiency, but its electric motor and battery guzzle rare earth metals, a little-known class of elements found in a wide range of gadgets and consumer goods.

That makes Toyota's market-leading gasoline-electric hybrid car and other similar vehicles vulnerable to a supply crunch predicted by experts as China, the world's dominant rare earths producer, limits exports while global demand swells.

Worldwide demand for rare earths, covering 15 entries on the periodic table of elements, is expected to exceed supply by some 40,000 tonnes annually in several years unless major new production sources are developed. One promising U.S. source is a rare earths mine slated to reopen in California by 2012.

Among the rare earths that would be most affected in a shortage is neodymium, the key component of an alloy used to make the high-power, lightweight magnets for electric motors of hybrid cars, such as the Prius, Honda Insight and Ford Focus, as well as in generators for wind turbines.

…

Each electric Prius motor requires 1 kilogram (2.2 lb) of neodymium, and each battery uses 10 to 15 kg (22-33 lb) of lanthanum. That number will nearly double under Toyota's plans to boost the car's fuel economy, he said.

…

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=115&topic_id=308846&mesg_id=308846

…

• 96 kWh of batteries would be enough for a fleet of 64 Prius-class hybrids that will each save 160 gallons of fuel per year and generate a societal fuel savings of 10,240 gallons per year;
• 96 kWh of batteries would be enough for a fleet of six Volt-class plug-in hybrids that will each save 300 gallons of fuel per year and generate a societal fuel savings of 1,800 gallons per year; and
• 96 kWh of batteries would be enough for a fleet of four Leaf class electric vehicles that will each save 400 gallons of fuel per year and generate a societal fuel savings of 1,600 gallons per year.

…

[kristopher]

4. Actually rare earths *are* abundant - this is nothing more than markets at work.

The delivered supply is short because new applications have developed. This thread demonstrates perfectly the normal way economies respond by developing more marginally profitable sources of supply. There is no shortage of the resources that will have any significant effect on the development and deployment of either battery electric vehicles or renewable energy extraction technologies.

[OKIsItJustMe]

5. It depends on how you define abundant

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rare_earth_element

Rare earth element

…

Despite their name, rare earth elements (with the exception of the radioactive promethium) are relatively plentiful in the Earth's crust, with cerium being the 25th most abundant element at 68 parts per million (similar to copper). However, because of their geochemical properties, rare earth elements are typically dispersed and not often found in concentrated and economically exploitable forms known as rare earth minerals.<3> It was the very scarcity of these minerals (previously called "earths") that led to the term "rare earth". The first such mineral discovered was gadolinite, a compound of cerium, yttrium, iron, silicon and other elements. This mineral was extracted from a mine in the village of Ytterby in Sweden; many of the rare earth elements bear names derived from this location.

…

The principal sources of rare earth elements are the minerals bastnäsite, monazite, and loparite and the lateritic ion-adsorption clays. Despite their high relative abundance, rare earth minerals are more difficult to mine and extract than equivalent sources of transition metals (due in part to their similar chemical properties), making the rare earth elements relatively expensive. Their industrial use was very limited until efficient separation techniques were developed, such as ion exchange, fractional crystallization and liquid-liquid extraction during the late 1950s and early 1960s.

…

http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/2002/fs087-02/

…

“Rare” earth elements is a historical misnomer; persistence of the term reflects unfamiliarity rather than true rarity. The more abundant REE are each similar in crustal concentration to commonplace industrial metals such as chromium, nickel, copper, zinc, molybdenum, tin, tungsten, or lead (fig. 4). Even the two least abundant REE (Tm, Lu) are nearly 200 times more common than gold. However, in contrast to ordinary base and precious metals, REE have very little tendency to become concentrated in exploitable ore deposits. Consequently, most of the world’s supply of REE comes from only a handful of sources.

Differences in abundances of individual REE in the upper continental crust of the Earth (figs. 3, 4) represent the super-position of two effects, one nuclear and one geochemical. First, REE with even atomic numbers (58Ce, 60Nd, …) have greater cosmic and terrestrial abundances than adjacent REE with odd atomic numbers (57La, 59Pr, …). Second, the lighter REE are more incompatible (because they have larger ionic radii) and therefore more strongly concentrated in the continental crust than the heavier REE. In most rare earth deposits, the first four REE—La, Ce, Pr, and Nd—constitute 80 to 99% of the total. Therefore, deposits containing relatively high grades of the scarcer and more valuable heavy REE (HREE: Gd to Lu, Y) and Eu are particularly desirable.

…

Over the past several years the only domestic source of REE, the mine at Mountain Pass, California, has operated below capacity and only intermittently. Following environmental and regulatory problems with the main wastewater pipeline, the REE separation (solvent extraction) plant was shut down. Mountain Pass currently produces only bastnäsite concentrates and sells separated REE only from stockpiles produced before the shutdown. Even after the regulatory situation has been resolved, however, the long-term viability of Mountain Pass as a supplier of separated REE for high-technology applications is threatened by market factors.

…

The USGS recently did a survey of domestic sources of Rare Earth Elements:
http://pubs.usgs.gov/sir/2010/5220/

One of those sources is in Mineville, NY. Mineville is the the “North Country” of New York. With a name like “Mineville,” you’ll never guess what its economy was based on.

The (iron) mines played out, and closed in 1971. The USGS report calls for mining the tailings.

…
Estimated resources: Currently, large tailings piles and unmined parts of magnetite orebodies in the Mineville district contain REE-bearing apatite-rich rock. Staatz and others (1980) estimated that about two-thirds of the tailings piles were derived from apatite-rich ores, which would represent about 9 million metric tons (10 million tons) of the tailings. Using an average grade of about 8 percent apatite content, approximately 720,000 metric tons (790,000 tons) of apatite could be present in the tailings dumps in the district. McKeown and Klemic (1956) reported an average rare earth oxide content of 11.14 percent in 14 samples of apatite separated from the Old Bed, Joker, and Smith orebodies. Thus, the tailings dump piles could contain approximately 80,200 metric tons (88,400 tons) of rare earth oxides.

…

The thing is, my Dad was raised not far from there, and he remembers them mining for rare earths. So, I’m skeptical regarding how much actually remains in those tailings.

[kristopher]

6. No, it doesn't. Rare earths are abundant.

What you've posted does nothing to support your assertion that they are not. All you've shown is that there is a constrained supply because of historic lack of demand.

Please don't tell me you are going to start spinning information on behalf of hydrogen again.

[OKIsItJustMe]

7. Abundant and commercially available are different things

http://pubs.usgs.gov/sir/2010/5220/downloads/SIR10-5220.pdf

…

Basic Geology of Rare Earth Elements

Several geologic aspects of the natural occurrence of rare earth elements strongly influence the supply of rare-earth- elements raw materials. These geologic factors are presented as statements of facts followed by a detailed discussion. This section is placed before the balance of the report because an understanding of these facts is critical to the discussion that follows and should be read first.

Although rare earth elements are relatively abundant in the Earth’s crust, they are rarely concentrated into mineable ore deposits.

…

The ores of rare earth elements are mineralogically and chemically complex and commonly radioactive.

…

The principal deleterious impurity in REE-bearing minerals is thorium, which imparts an unwanted radioactivity to the ores. Because radioactive materials are difficult to mine and handle safely, they are heavily regulated. When a radioactive waste product is produced, special disposal methods must be used. The cost of handling and disposing of radioactive material is a serious impediment to the economic extraction of the more radioactive REE-rich minerals, in particular monazite, which typically contains considerable amounts of thorium. In fact, imposition of tighter regulations on the use of radioactive minerals drove many sources of monazite out of the rare earth elements market during the 1980s.

The complex metallurgy of rare earth elements is compounded by the fact that no two REE ores are truly alike. As a result, there is no standard process for extracting the REE-bearing minerals and refining them into marketable rare earth compounds. To develop a new rare earth elements mine, the ores must be extensively tested by using a variety of known extraction methods and a unique sequence of optimized processing steps. Compared with a new zinc mine, process development for rare earth elements costs substantially more time and money.

…

[kristopher]

8. Well stated, that was precisely my point.

As well as the secondary point that current production is strictly a reflection of the historic (lack of) market. The production will increase as the value increases. Since the rare earths portion of the cost for turbine etc is minute, even at what would be extraordinarily high prices they are not a constraint on these technologies.

[OKIsItJustMe]

9. Perhaps you misunderstand

…

The estimated average concentration of the rare earth elements in the Earth’s crust, which ranges from around 150 to 220 parts per million (table 1), exceeds that of many other metals that are mined on an industrial scale, such as copper (55 parts per million) and zinc (70 parts per million). Unlike most commercially mined base and precious metals, however, rare earth elements are rarely concentrated into mineable ore deposits. The principal concentrations of rare earth elements are associated with uncommon varieties of igneous rocks, namely alkaline rocks and carbonatites. Potentially useful concentrations of REE-bearing minerals are also found in placer deposits, residual deposits formed from deep weathering of igneous rocks, pegmatites, iron-oxide copper-gold deposits, and marine phosphates (table 2).

…

[kristopher]

10. No, I don't misunderstand.

Perhaps you should delve deeper into the facts instead of being so intent on spinning a non-issue. There are lots of recovered rare earths associated with the mining of many products. Previously they've not been recovered because there was no market. Now that a larger market is developing they will be recovered. There is no resource shortage, and there is no economic obstacle to developing an adequate delivered supply.

Hydrogen still can't compete.

[OKIsItJustMe]

12. Either you misunderstand, or you’re being disingenuous

This is not a “non-issue.”

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=115&topic_id=309205&mesg_id=309255

[OKIsItJustMe]

11. Sparing the rare earths

http://www.sciencenews.org/view/feature/id/333202/title/Sparing_the_rare_earths_

Sparing the rare earths

Potential shortages of useful metals inspire scientists to seek alternatives for magnet technologies

By Devin Powell
August 27th, 2011; Vol.180 #5 (p. 18)

The Toyota Prius isn’t exactly a muscle car. But the magnets under the hood certainly pack a punch.

Pound for pound, these permanent magnets are some of the most powerful on the planet. They generate fields 10 times stronger than those of typical refrigerator magnets, helping the hybrid car’s motor and generator to turn the wheels and charge the battery. The secret to the magnets’ intense fields? About three pounds of alloy made with rare earth elements.

…

Despite recent advances, neither Japan nor the United States appears to be counting on magnet breakthroughs anytime soon. Geologists from the University of Tokyo and their colleagues recently proposed dredging the Pacific Ocean for rare earths (http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/332099/title/Rare_earth_elements_plentiful_in_ocean_sediments">SN: 8/13/11, p. 14). Several Japanese companies have also started “urban mining” programs meant to reclaim the rare earths buried in cell phones and other devices. Hitachi is working to reclaim 80 percent of the rare earths from the magnets of discarded hard drives and air conditioners.

…

But these efforts to dig out of a difficult situation may not prove economical, and the combined creativity of scientists on both sides of the Pacific may fall short. So Toyota has launched a program to rid its cars altogether of permanent magnets — rare earth or not — by developing a new motor that would run on electromagnets, which generate fields by passing current through coils of wires and have traditionally been considered too bulky for hybrid and electric cars.

…

[kristopher]

13. No breakthoughs are needed.

Current technologies, with or without the rare earths, are perfectly adequate to service our needs. You conflate drive for a competitive economic edge with required technologies.

[OKIsItJustMe]

14. It’s odd that you’re apparently the only one who believes this…

So far as I can tell, it seems that a number of companies, governments & scientists are working hard to solve a problem that you say does not exist!

https://arpa-e-foa.energy.gov/#be363c9a-ef01-4b77-956a-6e31b54621cd

…

DE-FOA-0000472: Rare Earth Alternatives in Critical Technologies for Energy (REACT)

Rare earths are naturally-occurring minerals with unique magnetic properties that are used in many emerging energy technologies. As demand for these technologies continues to increase, rare earths are rapidly becoming more expensive due to limited global supply – prices of many have increased 300–700% in the past year. Rising rare earth prices have already escalated costs for some energy technologies and may jeopardize the widespread adoption of many critical energy solutions by U.S. manufacturers. ARPA-E seeks to fund early-stage technology alternatives that reduce or eliminate the dependence on rare earth materials by developing substitutes in two key areas: electric vehicle motors and wind generators.

…

[kristopher]

15. Sophistry and strawmen instead of reality?

The content of that quote is completely consistent with everything I've written.

[OKIsItJustMe]

16. Then, clearly I misunderstand everything you've written.

You appear to wave your hands and say there is no problem.

The experts appear to say otherwise:
http://pubs.usgs.gov/sir/2010/5220/downloads/SIR10-5220.pdf

…

Summary

United States domestic reserves and inferred resources of REE are approximately 1.5 million tons, which are large compared with peak domestic consumption of REE of 10,200 tons in 2007 (U.S. Geological Survey, 2010). How much of that reserve and resource will be economically available, when, and at what rate, cannot be addressed with the data at hand. It can be said that the reserves and inferred resources reported in table 10 are of light REE and that these two potential mines may not be able to meet domestic needs for heavy REE with the production plans currently (2010) proposed. The pipeline of new REE projects within the United States is rather thin, with 10 out of 150 REE exploration projects identified worldwide. If we extend our analysis to reliable trading partners, such as Australia and Canada, prospects for diversifying supply and meeting future demand are considerably improved. Unfortunately, the time required for development of new REE mines is on the order of at least a decade, perhaps much longer in the United States, and forecasting future supply that far into the future is hazardous.

The lack of mining industry exploration of REE deposits in the last few decades is paralleled by a low level of geological research. The U.S. Geological Survey has demonstrated in related studies that the first step in improving our understanding of REE resources and prospects for further discoveries is to conduct national and global mineral resource assessments. Rare earth elements are one of the commodities under consideration for the next National Resource Assessment, scheduled to begin in 2012. Preliminary work is underway as part of the Minerals at Risk and for Emerging Technologies Project, which will be completed at the end of Fiscal Year 2011.

…

[kristopher]

17. Nothing I've said is contradicted by "the experts"

It is the false spin you've attempted to impart to their work that is the crux of our discussion.

In an effort to bolster a pseudo-science hit piece on electric vehicles you'd earlier posted, you wrote in post #3, "Although not quite as rare as the name implies, “Rare Earths” are not abundant."

I replied in post #4, {i]"Actually rare earths *are* abundant - this is nothing more than markets at work. The delivered supply is short because new applications have developed. This thread demonstrates perfectly the normal way economies respond by developing more marginally profitable sources of supply. There is no shortage of the resources that will have any significant effect on the development and deployment of either battery electric vehicles or renewable energy extraction technologies.

Instead of actually entering a discussion, you contradicted this with the irrelevant comment that "It depends on how you define abundant" followed by a couple of paragraphs that began by supporting exactly what I wrote.

After i pointed out that you had not shown anything to contradict what I'd written, you then agreed directly with my statements in post #4 by posting, " Abundant and commercially available are different things." Which was an effort that I applauded by writing in #8, "Well stated, that was precisely my point. As well as the secondary point that current production is strictly a reflection of the historic (lack of) market. The production will increase as the value increases. Since the rare earths portion of the cost for turbine etc is minute, even at what would be extraordinarily high prices they are not a constraint on these technologies."

Not content to be in agreement you then manufacture further disagreement with another irrelevant post about the low concentration of these elements; a point that is meaningless since the method of extraction is built around their rather low level but ubiquitous presence when mining for so many OTHER elements.

And it keeps going in that vein. So I repeat, perhaps you should delve deeper into the facts instead of being so intent on spinning a non-issue. There are lots of recovered rare earths associated with the mining of many products. Previously they've not been recovered because there was no market. Now that a larger market is developing they will be recovered. There is no resource shortage, and there is no economic obstacle to developing an adequate delivered supply.

What I find most fascinating is that you are so fearful of actually making direct statements. Your preference for arguing by implication and suggestion speaks poorly of your intentions.

[OKIsItJustMe]

18. Fascinating

… There is no shortage of the resources that will have any significant effect on the development and deployment of either battery electric vehicles or renewable energy extraction technologies.

…

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=115&topic_id=309205&mesg_id=309263

…

DE-FOA-0000472: Rare Earth Alternatives in Critical Technologies for Energy (REACT)

Rare earths are naturally-occurring minerals with unique magnetic properties that are used in many emerging energy technologies. As demand for these technologies continues to increase, rare earths are rapidly becoming more expensive due to limited global supply – prices of many have increased 300–700% in the past year. Rising rare earth prices have already escalated costs for some energy technologies and may jeopardize the widespread adoption of many critical energy solutions by U.S. manufacturers. ARPA-E seeks to fund early-stage technology alternatives that reduce or eliminate the dependence on rare earth materials by developing substitutes in two key areas: electric vehicle motors and wind generators.

…

You don’t see any contradiction?

Please, cite some authoritative source to back up your contentions.

[kristopher]

19. Let's try something different

Let's pretend for a moment that you are capable of actually interpreting the *meaning* of something that you post.

Explain precisely how your citation that contradicts what I've written.

[OKIsItJustMe]

20. What the … ?

You say:

… There is no shortage of the resources that will have any significant effect on the development and deployment of either battery electric vehicles or renewable energy extraction technologies.

The department of energy says:

• There is a “limited global supply” (AKA a “shortage”)
• which “may jeopardize the widespread adoption of many critical energy solutions” (i.e. a significant effect on deployment.)

Kristopher                              Department of Energy
No shortage                             Shortage
No significant effect on deployment     jeopardize adoption (AKA “deployment”)

Now, I know what you’re thinking, a price increase will naturally lead to an increase in production.

http://articles.latimes.com/2011/feb/20/business/la-fi-rare-earth-20110220

High-tech's ace in the hole

California mine could ease U.S. reliance on China for rare earth elements

February 20, 2011|Tiffany Hsu

…

"The use of these materials has really skyrocketed, with demand outstripping supply literally overnight," said Molycorp Chief Executive Mark A. Smith. "We've got some serious issues in this industry. It's going to be a tough year."

…

The California deposit was discovered in the 1940s by uranium prospectors and at one point became the world's largest supplier of rare earths as the demand for europium, which is used for color television screens, surged in the 1960s.

…

And even if more mines open in the U.S., the country has few companies that can process rare earths, use them to manufacture batteries and magnets and work them into products. Without a domestic supply chain, most of the material extracted in the U.S. would have to be shipped overseas anyway.

…

"It takes a lot to go from some dirt in the ground to magnets," said Lifton, the analyst. "Finding a deposit is like saying, 'George Washington slept here.' It doesn't mean much. We've got enough bananas, but now we've got to figure out how to make banana splits."

…

[kristopher]

21. Are you completely incapable of forming a sentence and producing a reasoned argument?

I asked you to precisely explain HOW that cite contradicts what I wrote. I know you THINK it somehow does, but your inability to articulate a reasoned explanation makes it impossible to have a productive dialog where differences in thinking can be resolved.

So once more, PLEASE, explain in your own words - put together in sentences - how you think that (and your other citations) contradicts what I've written.

[OKIsItJustMe]

22. Hmmm… my preference is to let the facts speak for themselves

Currently the largest, in essence the only producer of “rare earths” in the world is China. Why? Because the production of “rare earths” is a nasty business, generating http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/asia/july-dec09/china_12-14.html">toxic and even radioactive waste products, and China (as we’ve seen) is a little less particular about ecological concerns.


China has recently slashed exports of “rare earth elements,” explaining they need they need them domestically, effectively creating a shortage in other countries. This shortage is perceived by the US, EU, Japan and others as a serious problem. Companies are http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/25/business/global/chasing-rare-earths-foreign-companies-expand-in-china.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all">relocating manufacturing to China, simply to get access to “rare earths.”


You claim there is no problem:

• There is no shortage of the resources that will have any significant effect on the development and deployment of either battery electric vehicles or renewable energy extraction technologies.
• Current technologies, with or without the rare earths, are perfectly adequate to service our needs.

Your “free market” reasoning is:

• The production will increase as the value increases. (Ironically, you http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=115&topic_id=309324&mesg_id=309397">slammed a free market argument earlier today.)

In any case, while increased prices and demand will eventually lead to increased production, they will not do so rapidly. There are several obstacles to this. Among them:

1. While “rare earths” are “abundant,” minable concentrations of them are rare.
2. Although we (the US) have significant “rare earth” reserves, currently have no operating “rare earth” mines.
3. We have one, rather large, mine, previously closed due to ecological concerns, which will require some time to reopen.
4. It would take 10 years or more to start a new mine, assuming we had surveys to tell us where to dig.
5. Processing “rare earths” to produce metals is a nasty, messy task, and we are lacking in our ability to do it.

In the meantime, while worldwide demand is increasing, supply (outside of China) is decreasing. So, unless you’re counting on China to do the “deployment of battery electric vehicles” (and) “renewable energy extraction technologies,” we have a problem.

[kristopher]

23. That's more like it..

You claim that China is the only producer of rare earths because it is "a nasty business." That simply isn't true; China's position is strictly a result of historically low demand and China being the lowest cost producer.

-----------------------------------------

You wrote, "China has recently slashed exports of “rare earth elements,” explaining they need they need them domestically, effectively creating a shortage in other countries. This shortage is perceived by the US, EU, Japan and others as a serious problem. Companies are relocating manufacturing to China, simply to get access to “rare earths.”"

This tells us that demand is ramping up and that there is a lag in supply due to the time required to bring closed facilities for refining back on line.
There is no basis for any conclusion other than that this is a brief period (2-5 years) where demand is significantly outstripping supply. It in no way indicates a resource constraint that stands to derail electric autos or wind turbines.

Given the number of enterprises that have moved their manufacturing to China for other economic reasons, it is unconvincing to assert that access to rare earths is "the" reason for recent moves. Given the associated negative perceptions of outsourcing in these times of high unemployment any excuse is a welcome diversion from the fact that the hollowing out of manufacturing for labor costs is continuing unabated.

As far as it being "a serious problem" to certain companies and their supporting governments, I agree it is viewed that wayby them, but that is strictly a matter of competitive advantage, and has nothing to do with the overall viability of the entire EV or renewable industries and their success or failure at moving us away from the carbon economy.

------------------------------------------

You wrote, "In any case, while increased prices and demand will eventually lead to increased production, they will not do so rapidly. There are several obstacles to this. Among them:
While “rare earths” are “abundant,” minable concentrations of them are rare.
Although we (the US) have significant “rare earth” reserves, currently have no operating “rare earth” mines.
We have one, rather large, mine, previously closed due to ecological concerns, which will require some time to reopen.
It would take 10 years or more to start a new mine, assuming we had surveys to tell us where to dig.
Processing “rare earths” to produce metals is a nasty, messy task, and we are lacking in our ability to do it."

Google "mining rare earths" and you will see that your premise is not just wrong, but wildly wrong. There are a substantial number of places where rare earths have been mined in the past. They were closed not because of lack of rare earth elements, but because low prices from low demand did not justify the effort.

--------------------------------------------
And at last you tangentially address the main point that makes your entire take on this issue nothing more than propaganda -, In the meantime, while worldwide demand is increasing, supply (outside of China) is decreasing. So, unless you’re counting on China to do the “deployment of battery electric vehicles” (and) “renewable energy extraction technologies,” we have a problem.

RARE EARTHS ARE NOT ESSENTIAL TO THE DEVELOPMENT AND DEPLOYMENT OF EITHER ELECTRIC VEHICLES OR WIND TURBINES.

They are elements that provide a marginal improvement in productivity - in other words they enhance the bottom line and the competitive position of those that have incorporated them into their product design. Since I've pointed this out previously and you've ignored it, apparently you understand what it means. Let me point it out for others that might not.

Let's use an analogy - you posted about an improvement in wind turbine blades resulting from the use of carbon nanotubes and polyurethane.

What happens if that process were somehow to become the exclusive property of one maker and no one else in the world could duplicate it:
1) Would wind energy industry come to a grinding halt because this one company, with limited capacity, can make a better mousetrap?
2) Would all other makers without access to this marginal improvement in productivity go out of business?
3) Would the market adapt and the higher productivity turbine end up collecting a higher profit margin because it can deliver more power for less manufacturing costs?

Now according to your application of economic realities to the rare earths issue, either #1 or #2 is the answer.

Actually the correct answer is #3.

----------------------------------------

Lastly is your misreading of what is involved in my comments on "free markets" that I made on another thread.

Free market ideology is not the same as the application of of basic market principles. "Free market economics" posits that societies' normative values are adequately reflected strictly by individual purchasing choices and the economic effect of those choices on the behavior of corporations. It is in the realm of "normative economics".

I categorically reject that world view.

Econ 101 is has nothing to say about ideology, it is strictly about the basic, proven rules governing human behavior related to consumption and production. It is the realm of "positive economics".

[OKIsItJustMe]

24. The Chinese Rare Earths Industry

Moderators, please note, US Government sources. (Copyright concerns are nil.)

http://fmso.leavenworth.army.mil/documents/rareearth.pdf

…

Producing Rare Earth Oxides: No Small Task

A better appreciation of rare earth elements and the difficulty in acquiring them is attained by examining how they are processed. Dr. John Burba, Chief Technology Officer at Molycorp Minerals, the company that runs the only rare earth mining operation in the U.S., pointed out that, “a lot of people don’t quite understand why rare earth operations are different (from other mining operations).”⁴ Mining gold, for example, is a much simpler procedure than mining rare earth elements. One method in processing gold ore, simply put, is to mix the ore with sodium cyanide. The gold is then leached right out.

Rare earth elements are far more complicated and costly to extract. (See Diagram 1 below) First, ore containing minerals (for this example, we will look at bastnaesite), is taken out of the ground using normal mining procedures. The bastnaesite must then be removed from the ore, which generally contains a number of other minerals of little value. The bastnaesite is removed by crushing the ore into gravel size, then placing the crushed ore into a grinding mill. Once the ore is ground down through a mill into a fine sand or silt the different mineral grains become separated from each other. The sand or silt is then further processed to separate the bastnaesite from the other nonessential minerals. This is accomplished by running the mixture through a floatation process. During the floatation process an agent is added and air bubbles come up through the bottom of the tank. Bastnaesite sticks to those bubbles and floats to the top of the tank as a froth, where it is then scraped off.

The bastnaesite contains the rare earth elements, which must be further separated into their respective pure forms in a separation plant, using acid and various solvent extraction separation steps. Each element has its own unique extraction steps and chemical processes and at times, these elements will require reprocessing to achieve the ideal purity. Once the elements are separated out, they are in the form of oxides, which can be dried, stored, and shipped for further processing into metals. The metals can be further processed into alloys and used for other applications such as the neodymium-iron-boron magnet. These alloys and magnets are then assembled into hundreds of high tech applications. In total, the process takes approximately 10 days from the point when the ore is taken out of the ground to the point at which the rare earth oxides are actually produced. The mining and processing of rare earth elements, if not carefully controlled, can create environmental hazards. This has happened in China.

…

Severe environmental damage

A major concern surrounding China’s practice of mining rare earth elements is the negative impact it has to the environment due to lax mining practices. There are a number of potential environmental implications to mining rare earth elements if not done properly. Unfortunately, because of the revenue potential, many rare earth mines have been operating illegally, with no regulation, causing severe environmental hazards, which exacerbates the problem.

According to an article published by the Chinese Society of Rare Earths, “Every ton of rare earth produced, generates approximately 8.5 kilograms (18.7 lbs) of fluorine and 13 kilograms (28.7 lbs) of dust; and using concentrated sulfuric acid high temperature calcination techniques to produce approximately one ton of calcined rare earth ore generates 9,600 to 12,000 cubic meters (339,021 to 423,776 cubic feet) of waste gas containing dust concentrate, hydrofluoric acid, sulfur dioxide, and sulfuric acid, approximately 75 cubic meters (2,649 cubic feet) of acidic wastewater, and about one ton of radioactive waste residue (containing water).” Furthermore, according to statistics conducted within Baotou, where China’s primary rare earth production occurs, “all the rare earth enterprises in the Baotou region produce approximately ten million tons of all varieties of wastewater every year” and most of that waste water is “discharged without being effectively treated, which not only contaminates potable water for daily living, but also contaminates the surrounding water environment and irrigated farmlands.”

The disposal of tailings also contributes to the problem. Tailings are the ground up materials left behind once the rare earth has been extracted. Often, these tailings contain thorium, which is radioactive. Generally, tailings are placed into a large land impoundment and stored. In the U.S. strict controls are put into place and permits are required to store tailings. According to Wang Caifeng, China’s Deputy Director-General of the Materials Department of the Ministry of Industry and Information Technology, producing one ton of rare earth elements creates 2,000 tons of mine tailings. Wang said that China has sacrificed greatly in its extraction of rare earths.³⁴ While taking steps to solve the problem, China still has a long way to go before it achieves any semblance of control over the environmental damage that occurs from its mining and processing of rare earth elements. According to a representative of one Chinese factory in Baotou, Inner Mongolia, while companies will put some money toward more environmentally friendly mining processes, others opt to keep those expenses at a minimum to maintain their competitive edge in the market. The costs associated with environmental improvements are absorbed by the customers. Another factor within China’s industry is that the land belongs to the government and not to the factories. Therefore, if a rare earth producer pays a large sum of money for machinery or processes which are more environmentally friendly that investment could be suddenly lost because the government can choose to take back the land for any number of reasons such as building a new road through the property. This reduces the incentive to meet any type of environmental standards. Furthermore, the Chinese government does not provide any financial support to help companies meet environmental standards. The ore mined in Bayan Obo is transported to Baotou via open railway carts, where it is then processed. Unfortunately, with old, outdated technology, equipment, and little oversight, the waste finds its way into the Yellow River, which passes by the south side of Baotou and travels about another 1,300 miles, through mountainous terrain as well as through heavily populated areas before finally dumping into the Yellow Sea.

In 2005, Xu Guangxian wrote that thorium was a source of radioactive contamination in the Baotou area and the Yellow River.³⁵ According to a local source, who asked not to be identified, “In the Yellow River, in Baotou, the fish all died. They dump the waste – the chemicals into the river. You cannot eat the fish because they are polluted.” Some 150 million people depend on the river as their primary source of water.³⁶

Under traditional technology means, refining rare earth elements requires such chemicals as ammonium bicarbonate and oxalic acid. The potential health hazards of ammonium bicarbonate include: Irritation to the respiratory tract if inhaled, irritation to the gastrointestinal tract if ingested, redness and pain if it comes in contact with the eyes, and redness, itching, and pain if it comes in contact with the skin.³⁷ Oxalic acid is poisonous and potentially fatal if swallowed. It is also corrosive and causes severe irritation and burns to the skin, eyes, and respiratory tract, is harmful if inhaled or absorbed through the skin, and can cause kidney damage.³⁸ These and other chemicals often find their way into the Yellow River.

Safety standards in China are lax. “People in their 30s have died of cancer working around the mines, possibly from radioactive materials,” said one local source. “I visited a factory many times. When I visit a factory or workshop, I tell the director of the workshop, ‘would you tell the laborers to put their mask on when they are doing their job?’ He said, ‘Oh yeah. We do every time, but it’s too hot. They don’t want to keep their mask on.’ You can see that the air is dirty and they are breathing it all in.” The most common disease in Baotou is pneumoconiosis, better known as black lung. There are 5,387 residents in Baotou who suffer from black lung, which makes up more than 50 percent of the cases in the autonomous region.³⁹

While China might have general pollution control standards, the country has never actually worked out pollutant discharge standards for the rare earth industry. As the rare earth industry in China has rapidly grown, there has been no effective way to control the usual pollutants such as ammonia, nitrogen, and thorium dust, which are emitted during the production phase. Furthermore, general health and safety regulations are often ignored for a number of reasons, including:

• The industry is large and challenging to monitor.
• People and companies are not being held accountable. For example, in Western society, if an employee dies or becomes ill, repercussions could include a lawsuit or life-long pension which the company is obligated to fulfill. This is not the case in China.

…

[kristopher]

26. Back to hiding from discussion, eh?

Small wonder considering the way your attempt to directly state your intended meaning showed how false your framing is.
Your post #22:

Hmmm… my preference is to let the facts speak for themselves
Currently the largest, in essence the only producer of “rare earths” in the world is China. Why? Because the production of “rare earths” is a nasty business, generating toxic and even radioactive waste products, and China (as we’ve seen) is a little less particular about ecological concerns.
Image


China has recently slashed exports of “rare earth elements,” explaining they need they need them domestically, effectively creating a shortage in other countries. This shortage is perceived by the US, EU, Japan and others as a serious problem. Companies are relocating manufacturing to China, simply to get access to “rare earths.”


You claim there is no problem:
There is no shortage of the resources that will have any significant effect on the development and deployment of either battery electric vehicles or renewable energy extraction technologies.
Current technologies, with or without the rare earths, are perfectly adequate to service our needs.
Your “free market” reasoning is:
The production will increase as the value increases. (Ironically, you slammed a free market argument earlier today.)


In any case, while increased prices and demand will eventually lead to increased production, they will not do so rapidly. There are several obstacles to this. Among them:
While “rare earths” are “abundant,” minable concentrations of them are rare.
Although we (the US) have significant “rare earth” reserves, currently have no operating “rare earth” mines.
We have one, rather large, mine, previously closed due to ecological concerns, which will require some time to reopen.
It would take 10 years or more to start a new mine, assuming we had surveys to tell us where to dig.
Processing “rare earths” to produce metals is a nasty, messy task, and we are lacking in our ability to do it.

In the meantime, while worldwide demand is increasing, supply (outside of China) is decreasing. So, unless you’re counting on China to do the “deployment of battery electric vehicles” (and) “renewable energy extraction technologies,” we have a problem.

My response:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=115x309205#309435

Posted by kristopher on Tue Aug-30-11 08:19 PM
You claim that China is the only producer of rare earths because it is "a nasty business." That simply isn't true; China's position is strictly a result of historically low demand and China being the lowest cost producer.

-----------------------------------------

You wrote, "China has recently slashed exports of “rare earth elements,” explaining they need they need them domestically, effectively creating a shortage in other countries. This shortage is perceived by the US, EU, Japan and others as a serious problem. Companies are relocating manufacturing to China, simply to get access to “rare earths.”"

This tells us that demand is ramping up and that there is a lag in supply due to the time required to bring closed facilities for refining back on line.
There is no basis for any conclusion other than that this is a brief period (2-5 years) where demand is significantly outstripping supply. It in no way indicates a resource constraint that stands to derail electric autos or wind turbines.

Given the number of enterprises that have moved their manufacturing to China for other economic reasons, it is unconvincing to assert that access to rare earths is "the" reason for recent moves. Given the associated negative perceptions of outsourcing in these times of high unemployment any excuse is a welcome diversion from the fact that the hollowing out of manufacturing for labor costs is continuing unabated.

As far as it being "a serious problem" to certain companies and their supporting governments, I agree it is viewed that wayby them, but that is strictly a matter of competitive advantage, and has nothing to do with the overall viability of the entire EV or renewable industries and their success or failure at moving us away from the carbon economy.

------------------------------------------

You wrote, "In any case, while increased prices and demand will eventually lead to increased production, they will not do so rapidly. There are several obstacles to this. Among them:
While “rare earths” are “abundant,” minable concentrations of them are rare.
Although we (the US) have significant “rare earth” reserves, currently have no operating “rare earth” mines.
We have one, rather large, mine, previously closed due to ecological concerns, which will require some time to reopen.
It would take 10 years or more to start a new mine, assuming we had surveys to tell us where to dig.
Processing “rare earths” to produce metals is a nasty, messy task, and we are lacking in our ability to do it."

Google "mining rare earths" and you will see that your premise is not just wrong, but wildly wrong. There are a substantial number of places where rare earths have been mined in the past. They were closed not because of lack of rare earth elements, but because low prices from low demand did not justify the effort.

--------------------------------------------
And at last you tangentially address the main point that makes your entire take on this issue nothing more than propaganda -, In the meantime, while worldwide demand is increasing, supply (outside of China) is decreasing. So, unless you’re counting on China to do the “deployment of battery electric vehicles” (and) “renewable energy extraction technologies,” we have a problem.

RARE EARTHS ARE NOT ESSENTIAL TO THE DEVELOPMENT AND DEPLOYMENT OF EITHER ELECTRIC VEHICLES OR WIND TURBINES.

They are elements that provide a marginal improvement in productivity - in other words they enhance the bottom line and the competitive position of those that have incorporated them into their product design. Since I've pointed this out previously and you've ignored it, apparently you understand what it means. Let me point it out for others that might not.

Let's use an analogy - you posted about an improvement in wind turbine blades resulting from the use of carbon nanotubes and polyurethane.

What happens if that process were somehow to become the exclusive property of one maker and no one else in the world could duplicate it:
1) Would wind energy industry come to a grinding halt because this one company, with limited capacity, can make a better mousetrap?
2) Would all other makers without access to this marginal improvement in productivity go out of business?
3) Would the market adapt and the higher productivity turbine end up collecting a higher profit margin because it can deliver more power for less manufacturing costs?

Now according to your application of economic realities to the rare earths issue, either #1 or #2 is the answer.

Actually the correct answer is #3.

----------------------------------------

Lastly is your misreading of what is involved in my comments on "free markets" that I made on another thread.

Free market ideology is not the same as the application of of basic market principles. "Free market economics" posits that societies' normative values are adequately reflected strictly by individual purchasing choices and the economic effect of those choices on the behavior of corporations. It is in the realm of "normative economics".

I categorically reject that world view.

Econ 101 is has nothing to say about ideology, it is strictly about the basic, proven rules governing human behavior related to consumption and production. It is the realm of "positive economics".

[OKIsItJustMe]

28. You wrote

You claim that China is the only producer of rare earths because it is "a nasty business." That simply isn't true; China's position is strictly a result of historically low demand and China being the lowest cost producer.

I backed my position with an authoritative source.

[kristopher]

30. No, you disproved your own position yet again...

"Mountain Pass couldn’t compete on price alone..."

That's the beginning of the final paragraph in your post #25; and one must completely ignore it in order to find support for your prior assertion.

Your claim that you "let the facts speak for themselves" only works when you actually make an argument that "the facts" fit into.

As we can see, your use of inference and suggestion has totally failed to capture the complete content of your argument. It simply resulted in a string of pointless posts where you were clearly contradicting what someone else wrote without providing a "reason" that you were doing so. It is nothing more than hiding from actual discussion and is an unfortunate approach to intellectual honesty since the sole purpose of that strategy is a form of bullying as it doesn't allow the opponent a fair opportunity to address your complaints directly. Once you actually articulated your beliefs, it is very clear that they are not represented by "the facts" that you had been posting.

[OKIsItJustMe]

31. How about if you read the entire paragraph?

…

Mountain Pass couldn’t compete on price alone—especially given the mine’s growing ecological costs. In 1998, chemical processing at the mine was stopped after a series of wastewater leaks. Hundreds of thousands of gallons of water carrying radioactive waste spilled into and around Ivanpah Dry Lake.

…

[kristopher]

33. I did, that's why my statement is still the same - China is the lowest cost producer

"Mountain Pass couldn’t compete on price alone—especially given the mine’s growing ecological costs" is what your source says.

That means that they were in a noncompetitive position that was exacerbated by the associated cleanup costs. The noncompetitive position was, as I said due to low prices resulting from low demand. Note that as the price has increased, they are able to enter back into the market even though the clean up costs have not disappeared.

[OKIsItJustMe]

34. Lowest cost, at least in part, because of a relative lack of environmental controls

Please, don’t twist my words.

[kristopher]

35. China's competitive advantage goes far beyond their lack of environmental enforcement.

You clearly wrote that they are the only ones producing REEs strictly because it "is a nasty business". Your words were: "Currently the largest, in essence the only producer of “rare earths” in the world is China. Why? Because the production of “rare earths” is a nasty business, generating toxic and even radioactive waste products, and China (as we’ve seen) is a little less particular about ecological concerns."

You wrote that to CONTRADICT my assertion that China was the primary source of REEs because it was the least cost producer due to low prices from low demand. In fact, what I wrote is accurate and what you wrote - from the beginning of the thread onwards - is not.

[OKIsItJustMe]

36. This is going nowhere

Let me know when there’s a surplus due to increased US production.

[kristopher]

37. You're right

The discussion, such as it was, ended here:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=115&topic_id=309205&mesg_id=309435

[kristopher]

27. Addendum

It is interesting how some feel the 4 paragraph rule (copyright or not) doesn't apply to them.

[OKIsItJustMe]

29. Seriously?

If there is a “4 paragraph rule” as you suggest, you routinely flout it.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=register

5. Copyrights: Do not copy-and-paste entire articles onto this discussion forum. When referencing copyrighted work, post a short excerpt (not exceeding 4 paragraphs) with a link back to the original.

May I suggest you familiarize yourself with rule #3?

3. Civility: Treat other members with respect. Do not post personal attacks against other members of this discussion forum.

[kristopher]

32. Yes, seriously

The PTB on this forum have made very clear to me that no matter the source they do not like the posting of excerpts more than 4 paragraphs. If you would like to clarify that then be my guest. I didn't alert because I feel as you do.

I have been civil. Being shown to be wrong as you have been is not an exercise in rudeness. I would argue, however, that constant hectoring without actually making your point clear - as you are wont to do when you try to find excerpts that approximate what you want to say - is a very rude act.

[Nihil]

38. Watch out ...

Pointing out the mere rules of the forum - especially rule 5 - will trigger
demands from the spammer to put you on "mutual ignore" ...

There again, although this doesn't appear to inhibit his behaviour
in the least (as can be seen by the many one-sided conversations
like this that I've read since that event), the one benefit it provides
is that you don't have to continually beat your head against the brick wall
that exists in the place where most people have a sense of logic and an
ability to learn, so it isn't necessarily a bad thing.

Just a friendly warning.

:shrug:

[OKIsItJustMe]

39. Thanks

I eventually come to my senses.

[OKIsItJustMe]

25. The US Rare Earths Industry

Emphasis added by me.

http://www.epa.gov/region8/mining/ReportOnRareEarthElements.pdf

…

4.0 Mining and Refining Processes

Each rare earth element body is unique and requires deposit specific processing (USGS, 2010). If substantial rare earth element resources are discovered in a location, extensive analytical analysis of the deposit’s chemical composition is conducted to determine the rare earth element bearing minerals and individual rare earth element content. Analysis of this type is essential in determining the deposit’s profitability. Such analysis also determines how the ore will be processed and how difficult it will be to separate the individual rare earth elements from each other (Castor and Hedrick, 2006). Production costs vary from deposit to deposit based on the ore content and rare earth element mineralogy (USDOE, 2010). If the results of the studies show potential for profit, advancements towards mining operations can occur. Some of these advancements include mine plan development, pilot plant metallurgical testing, permit applications, and conducting economic feasibility studies (USGS, 2010).

The Mountain Pass mine remains the only rare earth element mine ever to be developed in the United States. Much of the knowledge surrounding rare earth element mining resulted from observing operations at Mountain Pass (Castor and Hedrick, 2006). Carbonatite dikes hold the rare earth element resource similar to the Bear Lodge deposit. Molycorp used open-pit mining to extract the rare earth element bearing mineral bastnasite (Figure 19). In order to extract the bastnaesite at the Mountain Pass mine, heavy equipment excavated an open pit to a depth of about 400 feet (USGS, 2010).

Rare Element Resources is proposing the same kind of mining procedures at the Bear Lodge property. Specifically, the company plans to mine rare earth element bearing minerals down to depths of about 500 feet. The weak nature of the rocks does not allow for the possibility of underground mining. If geologic conditions allow, minerals may be extracted even deeper until the company comes within 30 feet of reaching the deep sulfide rich zone. This leaves a carbonate rich reaction front in place to ensure an acidic pit lake does not develop (Pickarts, 2011).

…

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2009/05/clean-energy-apos-s-dirty-little-secret/7377/

Clean Energy's Dirty Little Secret

Hybrid cars and wind turbines need rare-earth minerals that come with their own hefty environmental price tag.

By Lisa Margonelli

Photo by Greg Vojtko/The Press Enterprise

The unincorporated community of Mountain Pass, California, has little to recommend it to tourists. A scraggly outcrop of rocks and Joshua trees alongside Route 15, it has no kitschy landmarks like the 134-foot-tall thermometer that nearby Baker, California, installed in the Mojave Desert, and no casinos like Las Vegas has an hour up the road. But behind a Band-Aid-colored industrial gate lies an attraction of sorts: a 55-acre open-pit mine created by a 21st-century gold rush, one result of the effort to keep the world from getting hotter than it already is.

Mountain Pass’s mine contains a rare-earth ore that yields neodymium, the pixie dust of green tech—necessary for the lightweight permanent magnets that make Prius motors zoom and for the generators that give wind turbines their electrical buzz. In fact, if we are going to make even a few million of the hybrid and electric cars that are supposed to help rescue the planet from global warming, we will need to double production of neodymium in short order.

…

Rare earths are actually fairly common. What’s rare is finding deposits that can be mined profitably, in part because most contain radioactive thorium. Relatively speaking, Mountain Pass—whose rare-earth deposits were discovered in 1949—is not too radioactive, and through the 1950s the ore was mostly used to make flints for lighters. In the 1960s, the pit grew deeper as demand increased for the rare-earth element europium, which was used to create the red tones in color TVs. In fact, until 1989, the expanding pit at Mountain Pass supplied most of the world’s rare earths.

…

Mountain Pass couldn’t compete on price alone—especially given the mine’s growing ecological costs. In 1998, chemical processing at the mine was stopped after a series of wastewater leaks. Hundreds of thousands of gallons of water carrying radioactive waste spilled into and around Ivanpah Dry Lake.

…