4 ms·

In mining parlance a resource is a function of economic demand as well as geology. Elements with limited demand may have "resource" levels far lower than those

In mining parlance a resource is a function of economic demand as well as geology. Elements with limited demand may have "resource" levels far lower than those in regular industrial use, even if ore bodies of comparable grades actually exist for both. Uranium was produced at a level of only hundreds of tonnes per year before the development of nuclear weapons and reactors. Now it is produced in quantities of tens of thousands of tonnes per year. Obviously the terrestrial geology of uranium did not change quickly; industrial demand is what changed. Uranium's crustal abundance is comparable to that of beryllium. Despite cumulative production of more than 2.2 million tonnes uranium through 2003, additions to resource totals have kept pace with production so that overall resource levels have remained level or have increased over time. The ratio between Known Conventional Resources and reactor-related uranium requirements in 2003 was 52 compared to an average of 47 since 1985. ... Uranium production in 1945 is estimated to have totaled 507 tonnes uranium. By 1965, when the first Red Book was published, production totaled 31,564 tonnes. Production peaked in 1980 at 69,692 tonnes from 22 countries. In 2003, uranium production was reported by 19 countries with output totaling 35,492 tonnes. Cumulative worldwide uranium production between 1945 and 2003 totaled 2,204,732 tonnes... "Forty Years of Uranium Resources, Production and Demand in Perspective: The Red Book Retrospective" https://www.oecd-nea.org/ndd/pubs/2006/6096-40-years-uranium.pdf https://www.oecd-nea.org/ndd/pubs/2006/6096-40-years-uranium... It's a fair point that beryllium exploration and extraction would have to increase tremendously for routine construction of these reactors. But putting 100,000 tonnes of beryllium in ARC reactors would not mean that the Earth has then run out of beryllium.

pfdietz 8y ago
However, expanding the total resource of Be by a factor of 100 would likely mean a large increase in the price of the element.
- starbeast 8y ago
  Wouldn't economies of scale push in the opposite direction?
  - AnimalMuppet 8y ago
    No. At price X, there are Y tons that are economically extractable; at price 2X there are more than Y tons that are economically extractable. If you want more than Y tons of it, the price is going to have to be more than X.
    - starbeast 8y ago
      If there is low demand for something, then there is low production and the production costs are high per unit. High demand will at first push the price up, but if there is ability to scale production of the resource, the price per unit should then come down, as the production costs per unit will drop due to economies of scale.
      - AnimalMuppet 8y ago
        True, but in resource production, that rarely is what dominates. The problem is that, as you try to produce more, you're having to process ore that has lower and lower concentrations of whatever you're trying to extract. You can get a more efficient facility if you have the volume, but the lower concentration (usually) dominates, and so the cost goes up rather than down.
        starbeast 8y ago
        I don't think your analysis here is right. If you look at the history of the price for aluminium, it has steadily dropped as production has risen, which is the opposite of what you are saying. And to pick another metal, the lowest copper price of the last 100 years was around the year 2000.
        philipkglass 8y ago
        I upvoted you, pfdietz, and AnimalMuppet because you are all correctly describing different phenomena that can increase and decrease the prices of a mineral commodity. Increasing demand pushes up the price, which spurs searches for additional resources and improved extraction techniques. Improved techniques and the discovery of more resources can push the price down again, sometimes even below the price before major industrial demand started. Uranium is cheaper in the 21st century than prior to its large scale industrial use. Platinum remained more expensive after demand shot up from catalysts, despite huge investments in improved extraction and the discovery of new resources. I'm not trying to make predictions about the price movement of beryllium following a very successful ARC demonstration. I'm just pointing out that you can't look at current resource levels and divide by annual production rates to learn when resources will fall to 0. Making predictions about future prices is particularly hard when an element currently has only niche uses (e.g. beryllium, thorium, thallium, rubidium).

pfdietz 8y ago

However, expanding the total resource of Be by a factor of 100 would likely mean a large increase in the price of the element.

starbeast 8y ago
Wouldn't economies of scale push in the opposite direction?
- AnimalMuppet 8y ago
  No. At price X, there are Y tons that are economically extractable; at price 2X there are more than Y tons that are economically extractable. If you want more than Y tons of it, the price is going to have to be more than X.
  - starbeast 8y ago
    If there is low demand for something, then there is low production and the production costs are high per unit. High demand will at first push the price up, but if there is ability to scale production of the resource, the price per unit should then come down, as the production costs per unit will drop due to economies of scale.
    - AnimalMuppet 8y ago
      True, but in resource production, that rarely is what dominates. The problem is that, as you try to produce more, you're having to process ore that has lower and lower concentrations of whatever you're trying to extract. You can get a more efficient facility if you have the volume, but the lower concentration (usually) dominates, and so the cost goes up rather than down.
      - starbeast 8y ago
        I don't think your analysis here is right. If you look at the history of the price for aluminium, it has steadily dropped as production has risen, which is the opposite of what you are saying. And to pick another metal, the lowest copper price of the last 100 years was around the year 2000.
        philipkglass 8y ago
        I upvoted you, pfdietz, and AnimalMuppet because you are all correctly describing different phenomena that can increase and decrease the prices of a mineral commodity. Increasing demand pushes up the price, which spurs searches for additional resources and improved extraction techniques. Improved techniques and the discovery of more resources can push the price down again, sometimes even below the price before major industrial demand started. Uranium is cheaper in the 21st century than prior to its large scale industrial use. Platinum remained more expensive after demand shot up from catalysts, despite huge investments in improved extraction and the discovery of new resources. I'm not trying to make predictions about the price movement of beryllium following a very successful ARC demonstration. I'm just pointing out that you can't look at current resource levels and divide by annual production rates to learn when resources will fall to 0. Making predictions about future prices is particularly hard when an element currently has only niche uses (e.g. beryllium, thorium, thallium, rubidium).