An anonymous reader writes with this excerpt from The Australian: "Japan's increasingly frantic efforts to lead the world in green technology have put it on a collision course with the ambitions of China and dragged both government and industry into the murky realm of large-scale mineral smuggling."
Except the Chinese government is trying to control the market and shut down competition, and the Japanese government is... doing something, presumably, but what isn't exactly clear from TFA. They could try to promote competition, but unsurprisingly, it doesn't sound like they're doing it.
Agreed, but in any case, this is better than no attention being paid to it at all. The problems will get worked out in the long run because, after all, "green technology" is needed to solve world-wide problems. We are all in this together.
So how is it green technology when the resources needed to develop it are so scarce that the major players are already arguing over them? Isn't that by definition not sustainable?
Nope. Japan and China are "competing" for different things, presumably only one of which most westerners will support.
China is trying to own the supplies/means of production for rare earth metals. Apparently they own most of the existing supply/production, and are moving to own supplies and/or the mining companies that produce the supplies elsewhere in the world.
Japanese auto manufacturers are giant consumers of rare earth metals, presumably to make batteries for their hybrids, and so Japan is competing for a larger supply to consume.
The BAD thing here (to most westerners) is that China is locking down the market for rare earth metals, which are apparently important for many renewable energy technologies. This is bad because western countries are being very aggressive about renewable energy, but China can either frustrate those efforts or make them really expensive.
The GOOD thing here (to most westerners) is that there is apparently a huge black market for these materials, which means that China can't control its own producers very well. This could lead to market reform in China - the market may be freed up as Chinese producers, seeking more profits, fight the political actors in China who favor export quotas. Freer Chinese markets = less power of the Chinese government on world trade.
Japanese auto manufacturers are giant consumers of rare earth metals, presumably to make batteries for their hybrids, and so Japan is competing for a larger supply to consume.
Japan is a puny island with a huge industry. They're competing for resources. This isn't news since 1930.
Geography isn't always the best power indicator. Japan may be small, but they have a great deal of control in the world economy. China won't let them at rare earth metals? They'll find a way to use metals that *are* available to them, or to get the metals they need.
I imagine its not for batteries, but for permanent magnets. The strongest permanent magnets all rely on "rare earths", most of which come from china, as the article implies.
The GOOD thing here (to most westerners) is that there is apparently a huge black market for these materials, which means that China can't control its own producers very well. This could lead to market reform in China - the market may be freed up as Chinese producers, seeking more profits, fight the political actors in China who favor export quotas. Freer Chinese markets = less power of the Chinese government on world trade.
You just might be surprised at how fast the producers fall in line with the Chine
You just might be surprised at how fast the producers fall in line with the Chinese government after one or two are executed.
Unless you're implying China is going to assassinate foreign industrialists, you're apparently confused. Most of the known reserves of rare earth metals aren't in China - the problem, for Japan, is that China has negotiated exclusive trading rights with several developing countries over their stocks of rare earth metals. So the local governments may even be in on this 'black market' - the problem is that if they openly sell directly to Japanese companies, China will bring suit against them in the WTO.
by Anonymous Coward
on Sunday May 31 2009, @03:46AM (#28156597)
You can't just subsititute "citation needed" for "I disgree with you."
If the parent actually said something of doubtable factual accuracy, then it would be at least a little appropriate. He's just stating that he thinks this situation may be helped by competitive forces.
Are you expecting everyone to footnote their opinions with "1. My Brain. A couple minutes ago."?
If the parent actually said something of doubtable factual accuracy, then it would be at least a little appropriate.
If someone disagrees, then it's doubtable. As to whether it's factual:
Are you expecting everyone to footnote their opinions with "1. My Brain. A couple minutes ago."?
At least on Wikipedia, you're not supposed to post original research, including original syntheses. You can post opinions if you cite a reliable source stating that someone else holds that opinion.
But of course, Slashdot is not Wikipedia. Is this what you were trying to get at?
Even on Wikipedia you're posting an opinion. An opinion of what citations are appropriate, and if you do it right, in other people's opinion, by "self professed expert's" opinion, then it's left there. It's like the collective body of human knowledge has to fit in everyone's head, in similar ways, as a coherent whole, and my thoughts reflect your thoughts reflect Pete's thoughts over there so we're on the same page. Even experts have to join in into this collective understanding of things, and unless they c
I'm sorry, but as a native English speaker I had no problems reading the sentence and understanding that it was a point of view. It doesn't even look like a fact.
Or maybe I should rephrase that as:
I think I'm sorry, but as I believe I'm a native English speaker I didn't perceive that I had any problems in understanding that it might have been a point of view. In my view, it didn't look like a fact.:-)
1) China's government is trying to lock up rare earth metals so that they can profit off of it politically. Since these are used in green technologies, this is bad environmentally.
China is going to profit off of it economically. They have been pursuing a decades long mineral aquisition policy. And they're beating the USA. Capitalism just can't compete with (Chinese) government financed companies. Who in their right mind wouldn't want to do everything in their power to monopolize a limited natural resource?
You don't even really know that it's bad for the the environment... yet. If it makes sense, someone will break the monopoly. More on this later.
2) This isn't really affecting the market, because there's a huge black market for the stuff. As shown by drugs, Prohibition, embargoes... black markets usually breed a lot of crime.
I'm not sure you make sense. "not really affecting the market" and "huge black market" are contradictory. Not to mention that black markets are by definition illegal; claiming that they breed crime is tautological.
1) "Ginya Adachi, from the Japanese Rare Earth Association, said that China's dominance of rare earths would serve the developed world with a rude shock about global trade: Japan, America and Europe must now realise that some markets are not real, but political."
Pure hyperbole. China's lock on rare earth metals isn't recent news. They've had it for >20 years. And there are dozens of markets whose prices are set because of political considerations. If I wanted to be pedantic, I could argue that every tariff and subsidy qualifies.
Last but not least, that article was shit. It leaves out tons of back story and doesn't even mention why people are talking about this again. 1. An Australian group called "Lynas" couldn't get the funding to build a refinery in Malaysia or develop a new mine in Australia until they sold 51% of their ownership to China for 500 Million. 2. A Chinese invesment company just bought 25% of a major Australian rare earth mining corp
Looks like this strategic resource isn't all that strategic since nobody is willing to fork over the cash to build refineries outside of China, without Chinese cash. Maybe Canada will since they're pretty much the only player left.
Last but not least, that article was shit. It leaves out tons of back story and doesn't even mention why people are talking about this again. 1. An Australian group called "Lynas" couldn't get the funding to build a refinery in Malaysia or develop a new mine in Australia until they sold 51% of their ownership to China for 500 Million.
I don't usually quote myself, but I was reading more and this is just rich: Goldman Sachs is the company that pulled financing from Lynas' processing plant. An American investment firm allowed the Chinese to take over the world's largest rare earth mineral processing plant.::epic facepalm::
All currency is backed by trust, even gold/oil. Gold has little intrinsic worth and oil's intrinsic value is that is can be burnt to do usefull work, with any currency you are simply trusting that your fellow man will see it as a token that can be swapped for something with intrinsic value such as food, shelter, oil, etc. China is the modern equivalent of the Medici family, they may well end up printing the default currency one day but that will be because the huge government deficits around the globe are largely funded by China's massive trade surplus. They have not yet threatened to derail the gravy train but Hu has stated several times that he will only continue to fund deficits in the west while it's "economically sustainable" to do so.
There is no such thing as intrinsic worth, at all, for anything, including food. There are only desirable properties, and the desire for those properties changes on a second by second basis for each individual and their circumstance. If I own a dozen palaces, then the "intrinsic value" of an additional hovel for shelter is close to zero for me.
Gold is scarce; it is difficult to counterfeit and difficult to mine. Gold doesn't oxidize or otherwise degrade. Gold is easily divisible. Gold is easily moved and hidde
Aside from the moral issue of literally stealing the life's savings of millions of chinese peasants?
No, this money comes from the Chinese government not Chinese citizens. Sure at one point, Chinese peasants might have had some of this money, but it isn't theirs any more.
Having said that, defaulting on hundreds of billions or trillions of debt ultimately won't help the US's reputation or financial condition. It'd just be another nail in the coffin. Chinese could always sell its debt to another party (like Japan or the UK) in order to damage the US further. Will the US continue its default when the UK ow
I didn't mean it was completely useless, what I was trying to say is that you can't eat it. I agree Issac Newton's "gold standard" was a brilliant step forward in economics, he understood that gold was usefull as a token because it's hard to come by and because everyone has trust in the idea that it will always be hard to come by and can be swapped for food, etc. However it's value collapses when it occasionally becomes easier to obtain, take a look at what occured across Europe when Spain doubled the avail
Actually, it was all said tongue in cheek. Having gotten that out of the way... As someone else pointed out, they're only considered "rare-earths" for historical reasons. I believe some of the platinum groups are less abundant; but, equally necessary to support our technology. In either case, the relative abundance of elements on Earth should be relatively similar throughout the inner solar system, with some tendancy for sorting by mass as the original cloud condensed to form the Sun and planets.
You do understand, of course, the astronomic (pun intended) price of the resources mined in the asteroid belt?
It's very high. Most of the cost is in launching the equipment and supplies needed. Then there's manpower and support. Consider NEO 433 Eros, a relatively easy target to which we have sent a robotic probe. It has a metal content which, by one estimate, is worth $20 Trillion (US) at current market prices. The technology and marketplace might not support a mining expedition to Eros right now; but, it's conceivable that in the near future a business case could be made for such an effort. Now consider that 433 Eros is only 3% metal content. Another example with higher metal content is 4660 Nereus. There are hundreds more which have orbits that bring them near Earth.
by Anonymous Coward
on Sunday May 31 2009, @02:34AM (#28156373)
Lithium (presumably for lithium-ion electric car batteries) is not a rare-earth metal. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rare_earth_element
Which element(s) are we fussing about? Why are they useful for green tech?
Lanthanum: very useful for green tech. Hydrogen fuel cell-related. Hydrogen sponge alloys can contain lanthanum. These alloys are capable of storing up to 400 times their own volume of hydrogen gas in a reversible adsorption process. Heat energy is released
Cerium: maybe useful for green tech. Maybe motor magnets. Cerium is used in alloys that are used to make permanent magnets.
Praseodymium: maybe marginally useful for green tech. Lightweight cars. As an alloying agent with magnesium to create high-strength metals that are used in aircraft engines
Neodymium: very useful for green tech. Strong motor magnets. Neodymium magnets are the strongest permanent magnets known.
Promethium: probably not useful for green tech. Light sources.
Samarium: probably not useful for green tech. Headphone magnets. Alloys.
Europium: probably not useful for green tech. Red color in CRTs.
Gadolinium: probably not useful for green tech. Garnets. CDs. MRIs.
Terbium: marginally useful for green tech. Solid state devices. Alloys that respond strongly to a magnetic field. Sensor, actuator applications. "Green" phosphors. Ha.
Dysprosium: very useful for green tech. Strong motor magnets. * Neodymium-iron-boron magnets can have up to 6% of the neodymium substituted with dysprosium[15] to raise the coercivity for demanding applications such as drive motors for hybrid electric vehicles. * This substitution would require up to 100 grams of dysprosium per hybrid car produced. * Based on Toyota's projected 2 million units per year, the use of dysprosium in applications such as this would quickly exhaust the available supply of the metal. The dysprosium substitution may also be useful in other applications, as it improves the corrosion resistance of the magnets * Currently, most dysprosium is being obtained from the ion-adsorption clay ores of southern China.
Holium: maybe useful for green tech. Very strong magnets. Cubic zirconia. Lasers.
Erbium: useful for green tech, but probably not in the article's context, which was automotive. Nuclear control rods. Cubic zirconia. Lasers. Cryocoolers.
Thulium: scarce; probably not useful for green tech. Superconductors. Microwave equipment. X-ray devices, in a nuclear reactor.
Ytterbium: useful for green tech, but probably not in the article's context, which was automotive. Convert infrared light to electricity in solar cells. X-ray source. Steel dopant. Optics, lasers.
Lutetium: scarce; useful for green tech, but probably not in the article's context, which was automotive. Catalyst in process of making OLEDs (organic light-emitting diodes).
It turns out China (and to some extend Australia) are rich in these ores that contain lanthanum, neodymium, terbium, and dysprosium: * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bastnasite * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monazite Other ores: * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xenotime * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fergusonite * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gadolinite * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euxenite * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polycrase * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blomstrandine
The Australian News article is probably worrying over China controlling bastnasite and monazite, which notably have neodymium and dysprosium, which are used for magnets, which go in motors, which go in electric cars, which is a green tech. A car is pictured in the article.
Working the lanthanum angle wrt fuel cells seems less likely.
Also, an AC on/. that read Wikipedia is not a reliable source:)
Interestingly enough, there is a major chinese financial stake in both major Aussie rare earths companies trying to develop Australian located deposits. ARU and LYC respectively. In LYC's case its a controlling interest. Haven't looked in depth into ARU as I don't hold.
The issue has seemed to be too far beneath the radar for the govt to get involved unlike say OzMinerals (where the federal govt moved to restrict how much stake the incoming Chinese companies were allowed to buy and specifically excluded the
there are now a lot of [green] technologies that can't work without rare earths, and China is currently in effective control of the global supply.
So I am thinking to myself: 1) The U.S. is amassing trillions and debt, much of it held by the Chinese, and 2) The Chinese own the key elements required by certain Green technology - which the U.S. government is pushing toward.
Did I just catch a glimpse of the slow arc of the decline of the U.S.? Is the U.S. grabbing its own ankles, or what!?
All you people that think china has america by the balls have it back to front.
China is SHITTING itself that america might not be able to pay back all those debts, they recently became nervous about this and it's seen in them asking for reassurance that their investments are safe. After all america still has a military that could easily repell any hostile advances, so exactly what recourse do you think china is going to have if america really starts to pack it in? the USA will just tell china to wait for i
From what I understand from the article, China only holds 95% of the supply because they are able to provide the metals for cheaper. If these Chinese companies took advantage of their "monopoly position" by raising prices significantly, then other countries/companies would simply mine their own rare earth metals. Right now, there's simply no economic incentive to increase the mining capacity.
From what I understand from the article, China only holds 95% of the supply because they are able to provide the metals for cheaper.
It's a poor article. China holds 97% of the output, mostly because they own the processing plants. China only has ~50% of the global supply, but has bought control of even more.
If these Chinese companies took advantage of their "monopoly position" by raising prices significantly, then other countries/companies would simply mine their own rare earth metals.
It isn't about mining, it is about refining. Almost all roads lead to Chinese processing plants.
BACKGROUND: From 1930's until 1945 Imperial Japan and Nazi-Germany were engaged in a militaristic expansion of their Lebensraum (lit. german expression meaning "living space for their own ethnicity") while attempting to grab foreign countries' natural resources to feed their industries (including the important military-industrial complex). This was in fact a "modern" replay of age-old imperialism and something that the most recent dominant empires, such as Britain, Russia and China had been at until then.
After WWII, (Soviet) Russia emerged as the greatest beneficiary in terms of imperial territory, while the recently democratized Britain had to begin surrendering the sovereignty of most of their empire's territory back to their native peoples.
Meanwhile the secretive and reclusive Chinese empire of Middle Kingdom, with its age-old imperial view of its neighbouring countries (of non-Chinese and non-sinicized peoples) as mere vassal states, was being taken over by Mao's communist dictatorship which uniquely combined the Marxist doctrines (like internationalism) with its own Han-Chinese chauvism (racial and cultural superiority akin to Nazi ideology).
Thus after the 1949 takeover of China by Mao the Soviet-backed "people's liberation" communist army was quickly sent to "liberate" and annex the vast territories of China's historical western neighbours, Mongols, Tibetans and Uighurs. Manchus in the north had at that point mostly been demographically assimilated already, despite Manchuria's widely recognized declaration of independence in 1932.
The sparsely populated and non-Chinese Central-Asian nations of Tibetans, Mongols and Uighurs, however, were soon put under systematic colonial exploitation, including the sinister policy of settling massive numbers of uprooted Chinese settlers into the occupied territories in order to consolidate de facto Chinese imperial rule there for eternity.
TODAY: The territories of Tibetans, turkic Uighurs and (South) Mongols (as Northern Mongolia regained its independence from Soviet Union in 1991) have been integrated into the centrally-planned industrial system of the (formerly communist) nazional-socialist Chinese empire by the virtue of their massive exploitable natural resources such as oil, gas, water and vast deposits of precious and industrial minerals of all kinds. Native people are still an annoyance to be dealt with, mainly through policies of Han-chauvinist propaganda and systematic sinicization enforced through strict military control.
Here is one example article detailing China's ongoing industrial exploitation of the occupied territories. While this particular article doesn't refer to rare earth metals specifically, both South Mongolia and Tibet [highlandmining.com] are being mined for them.
The railway link to Tibet now appears to have been part of a broader plan to exploit vast deposits of metals in the disputed region, explains Fortune's Abrahm Lustgarten.
When China opened its controversial new railway to Tibet last July, international critics howled at the prospect that the region's culture and environment would be ravaged in search of resources. China repeated a solemn refrain, its officials insisting that the $4 billion project was aimed not at plundering the disputed territory but at bringing prosperity and economic development to Tibetan society.
So much for that. Now China's Ministry of Land and Resources is disclosing monumental new resource discoveries all across Tibet, and it turns out the findings are the culmination of a secret seven-year, $44 million survey project which preceded the railway construction in the first place.
In 1999 more than 1000 researchers divided into 24 separate regiments and fanned out across the Qinghai-Tibet Plateau, geologically mapping an area the s
My sister's work has offices in China. It's become clear to them (and the Chinese will tell you this to your face, if you ask) that China's REAL motivation with all this new "capitalism" is in sucking all the wealth out of the West.
Which goes right along with what you said. (Interesting post, BTW.)
Great! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Great! (Score:4, Informative)
Except the Chinese government is trying to control the market and shut down competition, and the Japanese government is ... doing something, presumably, but what isn't exactly clear from TFA. They could try to promote competition, but unsurprisingly, it doesn't sound like they're doing it.
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Great! (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Great! (Score:5, Insightful)
Nope. Japan and China are "competing" for different things, presumably only one of which most westerners will support.
China is trying to own the supplies/means of production for rare earth metals. Apparently they own most of the existing supply/production, and are moving to own supplies and/or the mining companies that produce the supplies elsewhere in the world.
Japanese auto manufacturers are giant consumers of rare earth metals, presumably to make batteries for their hybrids, and so Japan is competing for a larger supply to consume.
The BAD thing here (to most westerners) is that China is locking down the market for rare earth metals, which are apparently important for many renewable energy technologies. This is bad because western countries are being very aggressive about renewable energy, but China can either frustrate those efforts or make them really expensive.
The GOOD thing here (to most westerners) is that there is apparently a huge black market for these materials, which means that China can't control its own producers very well. This could lead to market reform in China - the market may be freed up as Chinese producers, seeking more profits, fight the political actors in China who favor export quotas. Freer Chinese markets = less power of the Chinese government on world trade.
Parent
Re:Great! (Score:5, Insightful)
Japanese auto manufacturers are giant consumers of rare earth metals, presumably to make batteries for their hybrids, and so Japan is competing for a larger supply to consume.
Japan is a puny island with a huge industry. They're competing for resources. This isn't news since 1930.
Parent
Re: (Score:3)
Japan is a puny island with a huge industry.
Geography isn't always the best power indicator. Japan may be small, but they have a great deal of control in the world economy. China won't let them at rare earth metals? They'll find a way to use metals that *are* available to them, or to get the metals they need.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Geography isn't always the best power indicator. Japan may be small, but they have a great deal of control in the world economy.
We are talking about Japan, after all. You know, the ones who already invaded China once, and the ones who needed nuclear bombs to surrender.
Re:Great! (Score:4, Interesting)
Parent
Re:Great! (Score:5, Informative)
Gallium for LEDs ....
Germanium for optics
Indium for LCDs
Rhodium for ???
Tantalum for Cellphones
These are the rare earth metals manufacturers are after, and they're running out.
http://cache.gawker.com/assets/images/gizmodo/2009/04/26051202.jpg [gawker.com]
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The GOOD thing here (to most westerners) is that there is apparently a huge black market for these materials, which means that China can't control its own producers very well. This could lead to market reform in China - the market may be freed up as Chinese producers, seeking more profits, fight the political actors in China who favor export quotas. Freer Chinese markets = less power of the Chinese government on world trade.
You just might be surprised at how fast the producers fall in line with the Chine
The supplies aren't in China (Score:4, Interesting)
Unless you're implying China is going to assassinate foreign industrialists, you're apparently confused. Most of the known reserves of rare earth metals aren't in China - the problem, for Japan, is that China has negotiated exclusive trading rights with several developing countries over their stocks of rare earth metals. So the local governments may even be in on this 'black market' - the problem is that if they openly sell directly to Japanese companies, China will bring suit against them in the WTO.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
They do, but there's still more outside of China than inside.
Re:Great! (Score:5, Insightful)
If the parent actually said something of doubtable factual accuracy, then it would be at least a little appropriate. He's just stating that he thinks this situation may be helped by competitive forces.
Are you expecting everyone to footnote their opinions with "1. My Brain. A couple minutes ago."?
Parent
Original research (Score:3, Insightful)
If the parent actually said something of doubtable factual accuracy, then it would be at least a little appropriate.
If someone disagrees, then it's doubtable. As to whether it's factual:
Are you expecting everyone to footnote their opinions with "1. My Brain. A couple minutes ago."?
At least on Wikipedia, you're not supposed to post original research, including original syntheses. You can post opinions if you cite a reliable source stating that someone else holds that opinion.
But of course, Slashdot is not Wikipedia. Is this what you were trying to get at?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
I'm sorry, but as a native English speaker I had no problems reading the sentence and understanding that it was a point of view. It doesn't even look like a fact.
Or maybe I should rephrase that as:
I think I'm sorry, but as I believe I'm a native English speaker I didn't perceive that I had any problems in understanding that it might have been a point of view. In my view, it didn't look like a fact. :-)
Re:Great! (Score:5, Interesting)
1) China's government is trying to lock up rare earth metals so that they can profit off of it politically. Since these are used in green technologies, this is bad environmentally.
China is going to profit off of it economically.
They have been pursuing a decades long mineral aquisition policy. And they're beating the USA.
Capitalism just can't compete with (Chinese) government financed companies.
Who in their right mind wouldn't want to do everything in their power to monopolize a limited natural resource?
You don't even really know that it's bad for the the environment... yet.
If it makes sense, someone will break the monopoly. More on this later.
2) This isn't really affecting the market, because there's a huge black market for the stuff. As shown by drugs, Prohibition, embargoes... black markets usually breed a lot of crime.
I'm not sure you make sense.
"not really affecting the market" and "huge black market" are contradictory.
Not to mention that black markets are by definition illegal; claiming that they breed crime is tautological.
1) "Ginya Adachi, from the Japanese Rare Earth Association, said that China's dominance of rare earths would serve the developed world with a rude shock about global trade: Japan, America and Europe must now realise that some markets are not real, but political."
Pure hyperbole. China's lock on rare earth metals isn't recent news. They've had it for >20 years.
And there are dozens of markets whose prices are set because of political considerations.
If I wanted to be pedantic, I could argue that every tariff and subsidy qualifies.
Last but not least, that article was shit.
It leaves out tons of back story and doesn't even mention why people are talking about this again.
1. An Australian group called "Lynas" couldn't get the funding to build a refinery in Malaysia or develop a new mine in Australia until they sold 51% of their ownership to China for 500 Million.
2. A Chinese invesment company just bought 25% of a major Australian rare earth mining corp
Looks like this strategic resource isn't all that strategic since nobody is willing to fork over the cash to build refineries outside of China, without Chinese cash.
Maybe Canada will since they're pretty much the only player left.
Parent
Re:Great! (Score:4, Interesting)
Last but not least, that article was shit.
It leaves out tons of back story and doesn't even mention why people are talking about this again.
1. An Australian group called "Lynas" couldn't get the funding to build a refinery in Malaysia or develop a new mine in Australia until they sold 51% of their ownership to China for 500 Million.
I don't usually quote myself, but I was reading more and this is just rich: ::epic facepalm::
Goldman Sachs is the company that pulled financing from Lynas' processing plant.
An American investment firm allowed the Chinese to take over the world's largest rare earth mineral processing plant.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Is it really flamebait when the post is so absurd that no one can take it as anything other than a joke?
WOW! (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
2) Still no name for these rare-earth metals even with RTFA.
Wikipedia for the win. [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Re:WOW! (Score:4, Funny)
Parent
Re:WOW! (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Iridium RMB anyone? (Score:2)
The US used to have a currency backed by the barrel of oil. $20 bought a barrel. Or so the tin-foil-hat-wearing gold-bugs say.
Now that oil has more or less peaked, perhaps renewable resources will take off. Maybe China will get to print the world currency.
Re:Iridium RMB anyone? (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
The intrinsic worth of Gold (Score:3, Insightful)
Gold has little intrinsic worth
There is no such thing as intrinsic worth, at all, for anything, including food. There are only desirable properties, and the desire for those properties changes on a second by second basis for each individual and their circumstance. If I own a dozen palaces, then the "intrinsic value" of an additional hovel for shelter is close to zero for me.
Gold is scarce; it is difficult to counterfeit and difficult to mine.
Gold doesn't oxidize or otherwise degrade.
Gold is easily divisible.
Gold is easily moved and hidde
Re:Iridium RMB anyone? (Score:4, Insightful)
Well, then good luck borrowing money from anybody ever again, after a default on that scale.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Aside from the moral issue of literally stealing the life's savings of millions of chinese peasants?
No, this money comes from the Chinese government not Chinese citizens. Sure at one point, Chinese peasants might have had some of this money, but it isn't theirs any more.
Having said that, defaulting on hundreds of billions or trillions of debt ultimately won't help the US's reputation or financial condition. It'd just be another nail in the coffin. Chinese could always sell its debt to another party (like Japan or the UK) in order to damage the US further. Will the US continue its default when the UK ow
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Shame... (Score:5, Funny)
OP and TFA (Score:2)
rare-earths (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:rare-earths (Score:4, Funny)
You do understand, of course, the astronomic (pun intended) price of the resources mined in the asteroid belt?
You know what? [thebestpag...iverse.net]
Parent
Re:rare-earths (Score:5, Informative)
are only rare on Earth. Citation, please?
Actually, it was all said tongue in cheek. Having gotten that out of the way... As someone else pointed out, they're only considered "rare-earths" for historical reasons. I believe some of the platinum groups are less abundant; but, equally necessary to support our technology. In either case, the relative abundance of elements on Earth should be relatively similar throughout the inner solar system, with some tendancy for sorting by mass as the original cloud condensed to form the Sun and planets.
You do understand, of course, the astronomic (pun intended) price of the resources mined in the asteroid belt?
It's very high. Most of the cost is in launching the equipment and supplies needed. Then there's manpower and support. Consider NEO 433 Eros, a relatively easy target to which we have sent a robotic probe. It has a metal content which, by one estimate, is worth $20 Trillion (US) at current market prices. The technology and marketplace might not support a mining expedition to Eros right now; but, it's conceivable that in the near future a business case could be made for such an effort. Now consider that 433 Eros is only 3% metal content. Another example with higher metal content is 4660 Nereus. There are hundreds more which have orbits that bring them near Earth.
Parent
"large-scale mineral smuggling"? (Score:4, Funny)
Why is this news? (Score:2, Informative)
Rare-earths aren't only in China. China is simply making rare-earths available cheaper than it would be for countries to mine them themselves.
News flash: Japan imports nearly everything.
the 1950's called (Score:4, Funny)
China's bastnasite and monazite supply for magnets (Score:5, Informative)
Lithium (presumably for lithium-ion electric car batteries) is not a rare-earth metal. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rare_earth_element
Which element(s) are we fussing about? Why are they useful for green tech?
Lanthanum: very useful for green tech. Hydrogen fuel cell-related.
Hydrogen sponge alloys can contain lanthanum. These alloys are capable of storing up to 400 times their own volume of hydrogen gas in a reversible adsorption process. Heat energy is released
Cerium: maybe useful for green tech. Maybe motor magnets.
Cerium is used in alloys that are used to make permanent magnets.
Praseodymium: maybe marginally useful for green tech. Lightweight cars.
As an alloying agent with magnesium to create high-strength metals that are used in aircraft engines
Neodymium: very useful for green tech. Strong motor magnets.
Neodymium magnets are the strongest permanent magnets known.
Promethium: probably not useful for green tech.
Light sources.
Samarium: probably not useful for green tech.
Headphone magnets.
Alloys.
Europium: probably not useful for green tech.
Red color in CRTs.
Gadolinium: probably not useful for green tech.
Garnets.
CDs.
MRIs.
Terbium: marginally useful for green tech.
Solid state devices.
Alloys that respond strongly to a magnetic field. Sensor, actuator applications.
"Green" phosphors. Ha.
Dysprosium: very useful for green tech. Strong motor magnets.
* Neodymium-iron-boron magnets can have up to 6% of the neodymium substituted with dysprosium[15] to raise the coercivity for demanding applications such as drive motors for hybrid electric vehicles.
* This substitution would require up to 100 grams of dysprosium per hybrid car produced.
* Based on Toyota's projected 2 million units per year, the use of dysprosium in applications such as this would quickly exhaust the available supply of the metal. The dysprosium substitution may also be useful in other applications, as it improves the corrosion resistance of the magnets
* Currently, most dysprosium is being obtained from the ion-adsorption clay ores of southern China.
Holium: maybe useful for green tech.
Very strong magnets.
Cubic zirconia.
Lasers.
Erbium: useful for green tech, but probably not in the article's context, which was automotive.
Nuclear control rods.
Cubic zirconia.
Lasers.
Cryocoolers.
Thulium: scarce; probably not useful for green tech.
Superconductors.
Microwave equipment.
X-ray devices, in a nuclear reactor.
Ytterbium: useful for green tech, but probably not in the article's context, which was automotive.
Convert infrared light to electricity in solar cells.
X-ray source. Steel dopant.
Optics, lasers.
Lutetium: scarce; useful for green tech, but probably not in the article's context, which was automotive.
Catalyst in process of making OLEDs (organic light-emitting diodes).
It turns out China (and to some extend Australia) are rich in these ores that contain lanthanum, neodymium, terbium, and dysprosium:
* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bastnasite
* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monazite
Other ores:
* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xenotime
* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fergusonite
* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gadolinite
* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euxenite
* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polycrase
* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blomstrandine
The Australian News article is probably worrying over China controlling bastnasite and monazite, which notably have neodymium and dysprosium, which are used for magnets, which go in motors, which go in electric cars, which is a green tech. A car is pictured in the article.
Working the lanthanum angle wrt fuel cells seems less likely.
Also, an AC on /. that read Wikipedia is not a reliable source :)
Re:China's bastnasite and monazite supply for magn (Score:4, Funny)
[citation needed]
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Interestingly enough, there is a major chinese financial stake in both major Aussie rare earths companies trying to develop Australian located deposits. ARU and LYC respectively. In LYC's case its a controlling interest. Haven't looked in depth into ARU as I don't hold.
The issue has seemed to be too far beneath the radar for the govt to get involved unlike say OzMinerals (where the federal govt moved to restrict how much stake the incoming Chinese companies were allowed to buy and specifically excluded the
Lead? (Score:2)
NOW China really has the US by the balls (Score:5, Insightful)
What really stood out to me in TFA:
there are now a lot of [green] technologies that can't work without rare earths, and China is currently in effective control of the global supply.
So I am thinking to myself: 1) The U.S. is amassing trillions and debt, much of it held by the Chinese, and 2) The Chinese own the key elements required by certain Green technology - which the U.S. government is pushing toward.
Did I just catch a glimpse of the slow arc of the decline of the U.S.? Is the U.S. grabbing its own ankles, or what!?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
China is SHITTING itself that america might not be able to pay back all those debts, they recently became nervous about this and it's seen in them asking for reassurance that their investments are safe. After all america still has a military that could easily repell any hostile advances, so exactly what recourse do you think china is going to have if america really starts to pack it in? the USA will just tell china to wait for i
What's the big deal? (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
From what I understand from the article, China only holds 95% of the supply because they are able to provide the metals for cheaper.
It's a poor article.
China holds 97% of the output, mostly because they own the processing plants.
China only has ~50% of the global supply, but has bought control of even more.
If these Chinese companies took advantage of their "monopoly position" by raising prices significantly, then other countries/companies would simply mine their own rare earth metals.
It isn't about mining, it is about refining.
Almost all roads lead to Chinese processing plants.
China's military expansion of Lebensraum (Score:5, Informative)
BACKGROUND: From 1930's until 1945 Imperial Japan and Nazi-Germany were engaged in a militaristic expansion of their Lebensraum (lit. german expression meaning "living space for their own ethnicity") while attempting to grab foreign countries' natural resources to feed their industries (including the important military-industrial complex). This was in fact a "modern" replay of age-old imperialism and something that the most recent dominant empires, such as Britain, Russia and China had been at until then.
After WWII, (Soviet) Russia emerged as the greatest beneficiary in terms of imperial territory, while the recently democratized Britain had to begin surrendering the sovereignty of most of their empire's territory back to their native peoples.
Meanwhile the secretive and reclusive Chinese empire of Middle Kingdom, with its age-old imperial view of its neighbouring countries (of non-Chinese and non-sinicized peoples) as mere vassal states, was being taken over by Mao's communist dictatorship which uniquely combined the Marxist doctrines (like internationalism) with its own Han-Chinese chauvism (racial and cultural superiority akin to Nazi ideology).
Thus after the 1949 takeover of China by Mao the Soviet-backed "people's liberation" communist army was quickly sent to "liberate" and annex the vast territories of China's historical western neighbours, Mongols, Tibetans and Uighurs. Manchus in the north had at that point mostly been demographically assimilated already, despite Manchuria's widely recognized declaration of independence in 1932.
The sparsely populated and non-Chinese Central-Asian nations of Tibetans, Mongols and Uighurs, however, were soon put under systematic colonial exploitation, including the sinister policy of settling massive numbers of uprooted Chinese settlers into the occupied territories in order to consolidate de facto Chinese imperial rule there for eternity.
TODAY: The territories of Tibetans, turkic Uighurs and (South) Mongols (as Northern Mongolia regained its independence from Soviet Union in 1991) have been integrated into the centrally-planned industrial system of the (formerly communist) nazional-socialist Chinese empire by the virtue of their massive exploitable natural resources such as oil, gas, water and vast deposits of precious and industrial minerals of all kinds. Native people are still an annoyance to be dealt with, mainly through policies of Han-chauvinist propaganda and systematic sinicization enforced through strict military control.
Here is one example article detailing China's ongoing industrial exploitation of the occupied territories. While this particular article doesn't refer to rare earth metals specifically, both South Mongolia and Tibet [highlandmining.com] are being mined for them.
China mines Tibet's rich resources [cnn.com]
MOD PARENT UP -- good historical points! (Score:3, Interesting)
My sister's work has offices in China. It's become clear to them (and the Chinese will tell you this to your face, if you ask) that China's REAL motivation with all this new "capitalism" is in sucking all the wealth out of the West.
Which goes right along with what you said. (Interesting post, BTW.)