7 ms·
Deposit of rare-earth minerals off Japan could supply world for centuries (2018)
- daodedickinson 7y ago30 December 2018
- utopcell 7y agoStill within the centuries time window. :-)
- senectus1 7y agoThis was found years ago. This "finding keeps popping up as a new finding... My understanding is that its huge, but underwater and dredging/vacuuming it up would be massively damaging to the ocean environment not to mention so expensive it's not really cost effective. Yet. It depends on what China does with their huge reserves...
- mrpopo 7y agoThe article is 6 months old and the study it's based on is more than 1 year old. How is the project? There are rare earth minerals everywhere. Even when they are economically viable to extract, most countries are unwilling to, because of the environmental costs associated with mining and refining. As well as the human health costs for workers. I'm not sure Japan will be willing to pay that price.
- 0n34n7 7y agoThe nice thing about this specific resource is that it is under water, negating many of the problems you mention.
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- Renaud 7y agoMaybe you meant to be sarcastic but being underwater doesn't negate any of the environmental concerns linked with pollution, treatment of by-products and their effect on the ecosystem.
- throwawaycanada 7y agoIf it is in the ocean that would be a disaster.
- bubblewrap 7y agoDoesn't most pollution end up in the oceans, anyway? If mining pollutes rivers, those rivers spill into the ocean eventually.
- C14L 7y agoIs there no way to mine them in a way that has less impact on the environment? I imagine that a tech country like Japan could come up with viable solutions.
- A2017U1 7y agoOf course there is. Do you think many are willing to pay the price though? Apart from some publicised exceptions virtually every person on Earth prefers to externalize costs onto the environment when purchasing products.
- 9nGQluzmnq3M 7y agoOriginal story, which dates from April 2018: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-018-23948-5.pdf https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-018-23948-5.pdf
- _bxg1 7y agoI'm sure this is wildly naive, but I'm a little surprised we haven't figured out how to synthesize these minerals. Maybe it's just not economically worthwhile.
- zamfi 7y agoIndeed. Rare earths are specific elements in the periodic table. The only way we could "synthesize" these elements is atomically -- by bombarding other elements with nucleons and hope they stick or split. "Not economically worthwhile" is a massive understatement. :) A similar process is required to turn lead into gold!
- burfog 7y agoWe're doing it already, in every nuclear power plant. We might as well harvest the results. Many won't be radioactive, with the problematic isotopes disappearing quickly, and anyway we know how to separate isotopes. Particularly common: yttrium, lanthanum, cerium, neodymium, and samarium. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fission_products_(by_element) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fission_products_(by_element) For political reasons, the USA is one of the few nuclear countries that does not reprocess fuel. Besides missing out on rare earths, we're discarding about 95% of the uranium as waste. (discarding about 90% of the energy, with overhead taking a bit) Russia, China, France, India, and Pakistan all have reprocessing plants.
- zamfi 7y agoIs this actually a significant source of rare earth elements? My understanding is that they’re rare compared with things like carbon, nitrogen, etc. Cerium, one of the rare earths, is apparently more common than copper, even. Seems like extracting them from spent nuclear fuel would be much less economic than just grinding them out of rocks, but IANANE.
- tesseract 7y agoThe main value of the minerals is in the rare-earth elements they contain. If you already had access to those elements in a different form, synthesizing the minerals is of little value. (And of course nuclear synthesis of the rare-earth elements, to the extent it's possible, is very very far from being economically viable.)
- zamfi 7y agoMy understanding is that the challenge is in the refining & processing, not the existence of mineral deposits.
- adventured 7y agoThat's essentially it. China made it a strategic goal to become globally dominant in rare earths. It was a position the US held previously. China's share of the market eventually climbed into the high 90% range. It's now back down to closer to 70% to 75% depending on the source. Between their state subsidies for the sector, meant to maintain their position, and their willingness to ignore the environmental disaster that the rare earth metals industry often is, they can simply do it cheaper than everyone else. Japan's moves after China used rare earths against them a decade ago, were extremely successful. They were largely responsible for the drop in China's market share. The US has been very irresponsible about this. It's pretty wild that the military industrial complex has not been forcing the issue extremely aggressively. It would not be difficult for the US to be entirely self-sufficient on rare earths. If the US were not so circus-like on matters of strategic importance (too many clowns focused on everything that isn't actually important), it would immediately put $10-$20 billion to work with the Army Corp of Engineers and whatever US mining companies were necessary (the US has several of the world's largest miners), and it'd nationalize the Mountain Pass mine as an issue of extreme national security. There would be no niceness, no pleasantries. All environmental reviews would be ignored as a matter of national security, it would be a violent rush to production no matter the initial cost. It would then ramp up production enough to deflate China's position down toward 50% globally (through a combination of domestic production and working with foreign partners eg in Australia and elsewhere to boost their production further asap), and ensure the US has a lever it can always use if China tries to pull this again. It's simply taking the club out of China's hands on this issue. And as far as stupid spending goes, this would not be all that expensive. The US would further use the nationalized mine (ideally do this with multiple mines) - in a modestly subsidized fashion over time - to build up an enormous stockpile of rare earths, exactly like and for the same reason as the strategic petroleum reserve. The US has a small version of this now, it should increase that drastically.
- 7y ago
- j16sdiz 7y agoSimiliar deposits have been found for decades. All these "news" pop up because the China trade war
- gpvos 7y agoThanks for adding that context. But without this post, I would have missed that bit of information, like I missed this news the previous times it came around.
- sgt101 7y ago2018?
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- sytelus 7y agoOne of the things I worry about is how much of raw materials we have left for various compounds. As a civilization we are consuming enormous amount of stuff and dumping them in sea or underground every year. Things like iron, silicon, aluminium are abundent and we easily have supply for probably few 10s of thousands of years (at current rate of consumption) however what about everything else like gold, iridium, rhodium, platinum etc which are required to make many many things we treasure dearly. When might this party end?
- Isinlor 7y agoW can mine asteroids: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asteroid_mining https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asteroid_mining
- ryanmercer 7y agoBut saying "mine asteroids" is like walking up to a stone age man and saying "why are you walking, just build a Bugatti Veyron and drive there dummy". Even if we do develop technology to mine asteroids (note that several of the companies that were attempting this in recent years have gone out of business or been acquired extremely cheaply) it's still a relatively short term solution. The asteroid belt only contains material equal to (roughly) 4% of the mass of the Moon. That 4% mass of the Moon is spread out over mind boggling distances that doesn't even start untill roughly beyond the orbit of Mars. At those distances, PV power is going to be worthless, even at Mars the maximum solar irradiance is only about 59% of that on Earth so you're going to need to either build massive solar arrays and use wireless transmission to get the power down to the mining craft/drones (which will have to have considerable batteries in the event they get out of line of sight) or power them with some sort of nuclear solution. Now, you'll be pulling a good deal of material off that you use purely for reaction mass. You'll also be pulling off a lot of stuff that won't really be worth sending back to Earth in any appreciable quantity like nickel and iron (although could be useful for construction in space and possibly worth sending to Mars) so when you do actually get to rare earths/precious metals you'll likely be able to mine more in a decade (if not a year) than earth has ever of say gold or platinum metal groups, but by even assuming you develop all the technology you need to do this, by the time you safely land it back on Earth it'll still be fantastically expensive to get to point of first delivery and a very very time consuming process purely due to the distances and practical limit on reaction mass for accelerating and decelerating. Then you're still only talking 4% the mass of the Moon, if you were making a decent effort at mining the asteroids you might pull worthwhile material out for a century or two before you've exhausted the bulk of it and then it is "well, I hope we've developed FTL travel or generation ships!"
- vanderZwan 7y agoEver since I learned of Jevon's Paradox[0], headlines like this make me a bit anxious. Between the lines I tend to read "don't worry, we can pretend that we don't have to actually own up to our wastefulness for a little while longer, and make the problem even worse in the process!" I'm fully aware that that is just how I interpret things, and maybe I'm being too cynical, but it does feel like we are focusing on the wrong long-term solution if we just keep looking for new ways to extract resources, if you know what I mean. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jevons_paradox https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jevons_paradox
- anovikov 7y agoI can't see any problem with it. This is just how markets work. There is no way to bend the market forces without crippling the whole economy, so better not try.
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- ptah 7y agomarket forces get bent all the time in order to keep the economy healthy. it's like a garden that needs to be tended
- comboy 7y agoI wouldn't worry about resources being finite. There's a nice negative feedback loop. The less we have of them left, the higher the price and more incentive to develop alternative solutions. I have no idea about environmental impact of mining these.
- jayalpha 7y ago"The less we have of it left, the higher the price and more incentive to develop alternative solutions." Does not work like this for oil. The price the most people can pay for gas is very limited. The people who say we will never run out of oil are correct. We will indeed never run out of oil. Most of the oil that is still left in the ground will likely stay there. https://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-General/Oil-Is-Unlikely-To-Return-To-80.html https://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-General/Oil-Is-Unlikely-T...
- jayalpha 7y agoBullshit https://cassandralegacy.blogspot.com/2018/05/rare-earth-depletion-non-solution-for.html https://cassandralegacy.blogspot.com/2018/05/rare-earth-depl...
- ngcc_hk 7y agoThought there are two tactic resources that threatening USA - rare earth which china news agent starting to voice about. But that may slowdown economy but unlike chip probably can really be stored. The second one is antibiotics. Not sure about that one. It can kill as it is now t easy to replace in short term and demand is inelastic to a certain extent. Wonder more about that more.
- Merrill 7y agoThe rare earth oxides are in mud on the seafloor in 18,700 feet of water. The concentration is only 0.66%, which is a lot lower than other known ore bodies on land. Mountain Pass in California is about 8.9% rare earth oxides. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minami-Tori-shima#Minami-Tori-Shima_area_rare_earth_deposits https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minami-Tori-shima#Minami-Tori-... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mountain_Pass_rare_earth_mine#Geology https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mountain_Pass_rare_earth_mine#...
- samirm 7y agoThose numbers are from sources in 2013/4, this latest report was done in 2018.
- Merrill 7y agoTo quote from the 2018 Nature article: "During these cruises, Rare Earth Yttrium-rich mud having a maximum of almost 8,000 ppm of total REY content (ΣREY) was confrmed." 8000 ppm would be 0.8% concentration. Most of the samples are poorer than that. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-018-23948-5.pdf https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-018-23948-5.pdf
- samirm 7y agoThanks for finding the new numbers.
- klodolph 7y agoThe reason why China is the source of all of our rare-earth metals is because they are aggressively mining & processing it. There are a variety of reasons why China is doing the mining and processing, including factors like proximity to supply chains, China's strategic goals, different environmental & labor laws, land use laws, etc. As soon as it gets more expensive to source rare-earth metals from China, other sources will come online. Other countries could ramp up mining & processing, perhaps as a "matter of national security", but for whatever reason that hasn't happened yet. This is done in other areas, there are a fair number of industries that only exist in the US because the military-industrial complex is interested in keeping supply chains independent of influence by foreign powers.
- LifeLiverTransp 7y agoI sometimes wonder if you could strategically gamble this mechanism as a state actor. You drive the prize up, other companys invest heavily to enter the market, you drive the prize down, buy the bankrupt remains, rince and repeat until you bought all the montan-companies.
- shdh 7y agoProblem is China artificially deflating the price of their metals when other facilities do come online, forcing those newly opened operations to shut down.
- klodolph 7y agoI understand that this is a problem for the operators, but this not a problem for consumers. Those other facilities will just come online when the price goes back up.