4 ms·

"rare earth metals" aren't "rare" to the USA They are "rare" per ton of earth in general So it's just that mining them is so labor intensive and so toxic (ura

by ck2 2y ago

"rare earth metals" aren't "rare" to the USA They are "rare" per ton of earth in general So it's just that mining them is so labor intensive and so toxic (uranium and other radioactivity) that it is expensive outside of places like China. Automate that with bots or whatnot and maybe we don't have to invade Canada and Greenland and start WW3

analog31 2y ago
I think we could just regulate the industry properly and then find out what the actual cost is. It may have to be subsidized. With that said, I wouldn't want any new mining operations started in my state.
XorNot 2y ago
I know you're being facetious but it's also worth spelling out somewhat explicitly as well: the US has never had a supply problem like that because through effective diplomacy and alliances it has commanded an excellent position to negotiate as a preferred trade partner through its world leading expertise in many areas and the export of its military spending as a security partner which up till very recently ensured alliances like NATO would prioritise these sorts of issues in its favour. The very recent turn of "we must literally own this territory" has been the surest possible way to create a crisis where none existed.
- Gibbon1 2y ago
  My dad said there were a couple of countries that produced bauxite who thought they could be the OPEC of aluminum. And found out very quickly that bauxite isn't rare.
- perihelions 2y ago
  The PRC is a near-monopoly on rare-earths production; the US is neither an ally nor security partner of China (to put it mildly). The US doesn't source these mineral from allies.
  - lazide 2y ago
    It used to, and used to have significant mines of it’s own.
foota 2y ago
Fun fact: rare earth metals are actually not the rarest metals per ton in the earth's crust, it's just that they only very rarely form into deposits in the form of minerals, and so they're very disperse.
- defrost 2y ago
  From the PoV of Alchemists they rarely (ie. never for the most part) appear as unbound elements in nature. They are elements that require a lot of chemical processing to seperate and isolate. The downside is that many of those processes generate a lot of toxic waste that requires (but often never receives) after treatment to neutralise. Hence reports of dams of low level radioactive waste and so forth associate with rare earth processing (not so much mining as the concentrates are often mined and then shipped elsewhere for processing). eg: https://www.benarnews.org/english/news/malaysian/rare-earths-10242023150651.html https://www.benarnews.org/english/news/malaysian/rare-earths... has been an on again, off again relationship for a decade and a half now due to the waste piling up.
- s0rce 2y ago
  I had some of element Tm in the lab the other day (not pure form), had to go look up the name as I had never come across it before.
jillesvangurp 2y ago
I think the word 'rare' in rare earths here is merely implies expensive. That's why having cheap alternatives is such a big deal. Interesting to note that there is quite big movement towards rare earth free electrical motors in the last few years that rely only on cheap, readily available materials. Some expect that to grab up to 30% of the market in about a decade. Similar technology is also being used for creating wind generators that don't depend on these expensive/rare materials.
- jjk166 2y ago
  No, 'rare' in this case means dilute. They were named this back at a time when there were few uses for the substances and they were generally considered worthless.

by ck2 2y ago

analog31 2y ago

I think we could just regulate the industry properly and then find out what the actual cost is. It may have to be subsidized. With that said, I wouldn't want any new mining operations started in my state.

XorNot 2y ago

I know you're being facetious but it's also worth spelling out somewhat explicitly as well: the US has never had a supply problem like that because through effective diplomacy and alliances it has commanded an excellent position to negotiate as a preferred trade partner through its world leading expertise in many areas and the export of its military spending as a security partner which up till very recently ensured alliances like NATO would prioritise these sorts of issues in its favour. The very recent turn of "we must literally own this territory" has been the surest possible way to create a crisis where none existed.

Gibbon1 2y ago
My dad said there were a couple of countries that produced bauxite who thought they could be the OPEC of aluminum. And found out very quickly that bauxite isn't rare.
perihelions 2y ago
The PRC is a near-monopoly on rare-earths production; the US is neither an ally nor security partner of China (to put it mildly). The US doesn't source these mineral from allies.
- lazide 2y ago
  It used to, and used to have significant mines of it’s own.

foota 2y ago

Fun fact: rare earth metals are actually not the rarest metals per ton in the earth's crust, it's just that they only very rarely form into deposits in the form of minerals, and so they're very disperse.

defrost 2y ago
From the PoV of Alchemists they rarely (ie. never for the most part) appear as unbound elements in nature. They are elements that require a lot of chemical processing to seperate and isolate. The downside is that many of those processes generate a lot of toxic waste that requires (but often never receives) after treatment to neutralise. Hence reports of dams of low level radioactive waste and so forth associate with rare earth processing (not so much mining as the concentrates are often mined and then shipped elsewhere for processing). eg: https://www.benarnews.org/english/news/malaysian/rare-earths-10242023150651.html https://www.benarnews.org/english/news/malaysian/rare-earths... has been an on again, off again relationship for a decade and a half now due to the waste piling up.
s0rce 2y ago
I had some of element Tm in the lab the other day (not pure form), had to go look up the name as I had never come across it before.

jillesvangurp 2y ago

I think the word 'rare' in rare earths here is merely implies expensive. That's why having cheap alternatives is such a big deal. Interesting to note that there is quite big movement towards rare earth free electrical motors in the last few years that rely only on cheap, readily available materials. Some expect that to grab up to 30% of the market in about a decade. Similar technology is also being used for creating wind generators that don't depend on these expensive/rare materials.

jjk166 2y ago
No, 'rare' in this case means dilute. They were named this back at a time when there were few uses for the substances and they were generally considered worthless.