4 ms·

RE elemets mining/refining is ~80% China dominated, even US and other producers mined ores go to China for refinement.The concentrations are ridiculous for the

RE elemets mining/refining is ~80% China dominated, even US and other producers mined ores go to China for refinement.The concentrations are ridiculous for the process, think several tons to extract some kilos. Then theres the heavy RE and light , with some being produced as byproducts of other refinement/industrial processes where once again the top producer is China , who due to their scale have essentailly commoditized the production. Thats why magnets at cents instead of several dollars or tens of dollars. As for all those EV/consumer and Mil products its not raw RE being utilised but speciality alloys that are worked to produce whatever the material science requires , where once again there one industrial producer. Thats what the whole chain part of supply chain comes in , similar to why its easier and cheaper to manufacture iphones in Schenzen; all the refining/alloys/smelting is in one location with the skilled workforce and advanced methods that have been iterated over the last 30 years. As to what % go into mil products, several kilos of this several of that forged into speciality alloys at commodity prices vs doing it at artisinal mining prices and those billion dollar weapon systems become tens or hundred billion dollar systems.

keepamovin 1y ago
Yes, the mines are not in China, but the refining is. Is it impossible to onshore refining for supply security?
- baq 1y ago
  It’s possible but it’ll take a decade or two if you start today.
  - jandrewrogers 1y ago
    It only takes a decade or two if there is zero urgency and you give every rando with an axe to grind, both imaginary and real, veto power over the project. The other option is to just build things that need to be built.
    - john_the_writer 1y ago
      If it's one thing the US gov has down, it's how to move super slow. No way it gets done in a 10 years.
      - ethbr1 1y ago
        There's two parts to this: 1. US government contracting preferentially selecting over the last 75 years for people who are used to working slow and dotting every i / crossing every t -- i.e. business as usual 2. Regulations during business as usual slowing down the maximum throughput of processes That isn't to say that other people don't still exist in the US, just that they're not currently at government contractors, because the government hasn't prioritized their core competencies (speed). It's entirely possible that, similar as was done to military command staff at the outbreak of WWII, the US rewrites its regs, fires people who are incompetent at working at a faster pace, and recognizes and elevates talent. Unfortunately the current executive branch, while tearing down regulations, then has more interest in profiteering and nepotism than truly pushing exceptional engineers.
    - AnthonyMouse 1y ago
      > It only takes a decade or two if there is zero urgency and you give every rando with an axe to grind, both imaginary and real, veto power over the project. The issue is the vetoes are layered and entrenched. Some EPA rules makes it effectively impossible but are to varying extents actually protecting the environment, so you'd want someone who knows what they're doing to rewrite them in a way that can do both things at once. Zoning rules prohibit anyone from operating a mine there or building housing for the workers near the mine and local NIMBYs control the local zoning boards. Various OSHA regulations, state and federal mining rules, transportation rules, etc. are in the same state as the EPA ones. There isn't any one place you can go to unbotch it all at once but getting them each to do it individually is non-trivial unless your plan is to just vaporize them all simultaneously.
      - beAbU 1y ago
        If the political will is there, anything is possible, rules, regulations and laws be damned. NASA put a human on the moon in less than 10 years in the 60s, and today it's taken then a little longer than 10 years to get a single unmanned launch up with SLS.
  - refurb 1y ago
    Maybe if the environmental reviews are typical. But if the project is fast tracked as a national security issue? This was identified as national security issue over a decade ago.
YZF 1y ago
> As to what % go into mil products, several kilos of this several of that forged into speciality alloys at commodity prices vs doing it at artisinal mining prices and those billion dollar weapon systems become tens or hundred billion dollar systems. I am very skeptical. The cost of buying from non-chinese sources is not going to be billions of dollars for some kilos of magnets. There are other options e.g. https://mpmaterials.com/ https://mpmaterials.com/ or https://www.neomaterials.com/ https://www.neomaterials.com/ . Sure. There's magnets everywhere. In speakers, in EVs (motors, actuators), pumps, wind turbines whatnot. Military use has to be a tiny tiny fraction. Like less than 1% or even less than 0.1%. These are not expensive bits- it's just China makes them cheaper. China seems to own about 90% of the market. So for sure we're not going to be able to replace 90% of the market in a blink. But that 90% isn't going away, China is still selling EVs and other products. The 10% is plenty for military use, even if the prices go up a lot (military bits are usually mil-spec and expensive anyways). There's definitely economic leverage there but I call bs on the military angle.
- nine_k 1y ago
  I'm afraid that for certain special magnets (and not only magnets) China may represent 100% of production capacity, concentrated in a couple of factories. The cost of an alternative would be the cost of building an onshore version of these factories, and maybe a few more up the supply chain. Think about much bigger chunks of semiconductor industry where TSMC represents 100% of world's capacity for certain most advanced production nodes.
  - mjanx123 1y ago
    Or you redesign the part without use of neodymium magnets.
  - hilbert42 1y ago
    "The cost of an alternative would be the cost of building an onshore version of these factories, and maybe a few more up the supply chain." Why hasn't this been done? We first knew China/rare earths was a security and strategic issue at least 15 years ago. One has little sympathy for the US when it's been sitting idle on its hands doing SFA for all that time.
hilbert42 1y ago
"RE elemets mining/refining is ~80% China dominated, even US and other producers mined ores go to China for refinement." If this is a problem now then tough. Decades ago this would have been seen as a major strategic/security issue. One can have little sympathy when security is deliberately traded away for a few dollars extra profit. BTW, rare earths aren't exactly rare and the US has enough chemical knowhow how to refine them. Sorry, any shortage is of the US's own making.
- lucketone 1y ago
  Technically RE are abudant, what makes them “rare” is that extraction is costly, capital intensive and environmentally unfriendly.
  - hilbert42 1y ago
    Gold and platinum group elements are far less abundant than REs and "extraction is costly, capital intensive and environmentally unfriendly", and yet we still engage in mining and refining them. We've now reached the point where the strategic and economic importance of REs is enough to overcome those impediments/objections. As I mentioned earlier, this was very predictable at least 15 years ago. It's not lack of foresight but rather lack of political will—thus there's been no cogent or effective forward planning policy in place.

keepamovin 1y ago

Yes, the mines are not in China, but the refining is. Is it impossible to onshore refining for supply security?

baq 1y ago
It’s possible but it’ll take a decade or two if you start today.
- jandrewrogers 1y ago
  It only takes a decade or two if there is zero urgency and you give every rando with an axe to grind, both imaginary and real, veto power over the project. The other option is to just build things that need to be built.
  - john_the_writer 1y ago
    If it's one thing the US gov has down, it's how to move super slow. No way it gets done in a 10 years.
    - ethbr1 1y ago
      There's two parts to this: 1. US government contracting preferentially selecting over the last 75 years for people who are used to working slow and dotting every i / crossing every t -- i.e. business as usual 2. Regulations during business as usual slowing down the maximum throughput of processes That isn't to say that other people don't still exist in the US, just that they're not currently at government contractors, because the government hasn't prioritized their core competencies (speed). It's entirely possible that, similar as was done to military command staff at the outbreak of WWII, the US rewrites its regs, fires people who are incompetent at working at a faster pace, and recognizes and elevates talent. Unfortunately the current executive branch, while tearing down regulations, then has more interest in profiteering and nepotism than truly pushing exceptional engineers.
  - AnthonyMouse 1y ago
    > It only takes a decade or two if there is zero urgency and you give every rando with an axe to grind, both imaginary and real, veto power over the project. The issue is the vetoes are layered and entrenched. Some EPA rules makes it effectively impossible but are to varying extents actually protecting the environment, so you'd want someone who knows what they're doing to rewrite them in a way that can do both things at once. Zoning rules prohibit anyone from operating a mine there or building housing for the workers near the mine and local NIMBYs control the local zoning boards. Various OSHA regulations, state and federal mining rules, transportation rules, etc. are in the same state as the EPA ones. There isn't any one place you can go to unbotch it all at once but getting them each to do it individually is non-trivial unless your plan is to just vaporize them all simultaneously.
    - beAbU 1y ago
      If the political will is there, anything is possible, rules, regulations and laws be damned. NASA put a human on the moon in less than 10 years in the 60s, and today it's taken then a little longer than 10 years to get a single unmanned launch up with SLS.
- refurb 1y ago
  Maybe if the environmental reviews are typical. But if the project is fast tracked as a national security issue? This was identified as national security issue over a decade ago.

YZF 1y ago

> As to what % go into mil products, several kilos of this several of that forged into speciality alloys at commodity prices vs doing it at artisinal mining prices and those billion dollar weapon systems become tens or hundred billion dollar systems. I am very skeptical. The cost of buying from non-chinese sources is not going to be billions of dollars for some kilos of magnets. There are other options e.g. https://mpmaterials.com/ https://mpmaterials.com/ or https://www.neomaterials.com/ https://www.neomaterials.com/ . Sure. There's magnets everywhere. In speakers, in EVs (motors, actuators), pumps, wind turbines whatnot. Military use has to be a tiny tiny fraction. Like less than 1% or even less than 0.1%. These are not expensive bits- it's just China makes them cheaper. China seems to own about 90% of the market. So for sure we're not going to be able to replace 90% of the market in a blink. But that 90% isn't going away, China is still selling EVs and other products. The 10% is plenty for military use, even if the prices go up a lot (military bits are usually mil-spec and expensive anyways). There's definitely economic leverage there but I call bs on the military angle.

nine_k 1y ago
I'm afraid that for certain special magnets (and not only magnets) China may represent 100% of production capacity, concentrated in a couple of factories. The cost of an alternative would be the cost of building an onshore version of these factories, and maybe a few more up the supply chain. Think about much bigger chunks of semiconductor industry where TSMC represents 100% of world's capacity for certain most advanced production nodes.
- mjanx123 1y ago
  Or you redesign the part without use of neodymium magnets.
- hilbert42 1y ago
  "The cost of an alternative would be the cost of building an onshore version of these factories, and maybe a few more up the supply chain." Why hasn't this been done? We first knew China/rare earths was a security and strategic issue at least 15 years ago. One has little sympathy for the US when it's been sitting idle on its hands doing SFA for all that time.

hilbert42 1y ago

"RE elemets mining/refining is ~80% China dominated, even US and other producers mined ores go to China for refinement." If this is a problem now then tough. Decades ago this would have been seen as a major strategic/security issue. One can have little sympathy when security is deliberately traded away for a few dollars extra profit. BTW, rare earths aren't exactly rare and the US has enough chemical knowhow how to refine them. Sorry, any shortage is of the US's own making.

lucketone 1y ago
Technically RE are abudant, what makes them “rare” is that extraction is costly, capital intensive and environmentally unfriendly.
- hilbert42 1y ago
  Gold and platinum group elements are far less abundant than REs and "extraction is costly, capital intensive and environmentally unfriendly", and yet we still engage in mining and refining them. We've now reached the point where the strategic and economic importance of REs is enough to overcome those impediments/objections. As I mentioned earlier, this was very predictable at least 15 years ago. It's not lack of foresight but rather lack of political will—thus there's been no cogent or effective forward planning policy in place.