3 ms·
Apologies for the nitpick, but I think you mean 300x and 1000x (90000g / 300g). I don’t know whether there’s 1000 times as much coal available as rare-earth or
by tomalpha 9y ago
Apologies for the nitpick, but I think you mean 300x and 1000x (90000g / 300g).
I don’t know whether there’s 1000 times as much coal available as rare-earth ores, but it might skew the argument a little compared to 100x.
- evgen 9y agoYeah, conversion fail on my part. OTOH, I would not be surprised at all if the difference in known deposits was more than 1000x in favour of coal, if only because we have been looking for it for so long. 300-1000x does make process throughout and efficiency a bit harder to match though.