5 ms·

I don't know why your comment is being invalidated. Even in the best of cases when we try to protect wildlife preserves, there is undoubtedly collateral damage

I don't know why your comment is being invalidated. Even in the best of cases when we try to protect wildlife preserves, there is undoubtedly collateral damage, and it ebbs over 40-90 years.

JumpCrisscross 3y ago
It’s an existing coal mine. In east Wyoming, well away from critical habitats. And rare-earth mining isn’t dirty, it’s the refining that pollutes.
- mtnGoat 3y ago
  Correct the mining itself isn’t too terrible. But is it not likely a local refinery will follow? I don’t think shipping ore to Australia or Malaysia will be cost effective.
  - rocqua 3y ago
    It might be cost effective if you can export the externalities of rare earth refining. It is a deeply toxic process. The only reason we don't want to rely on China is geopolitical. Besides that everyone would be happy to have China take the pollution it takes for the rest of the world to transition to electricity.
  - samtho 3y ago
    There are a bunch of steps in the refining process. One of the first step is pulverizing/grinding where you can separate out the constituent components based on density. This step can done locally and will cut the volume of the ore by 75-90 percent. However, given the regulatory environment in the US surrounding refinement, there is likely a huge opportunity for innovation in this space.