We have tons and tons of Rare Earths, just sitting around

It turns out the US has tons of rare earths sitting around all over the country. They’re in the ashes from coal plants which have burned millions of tons of the stuff over the past century.

The hard part is extracting it, of course, but there are people working on that. If they could crack the code it would be quite a bonanza, especially considering the kinds of shortages that manufacturers of all sorts are facing right now.

And burning coal has only increased rare earth concentration, says Bridget Scanlon, Ph.D., a geology research professor at the University of Texas at Austin. This means coal ash contains [four to 10 times] the amount of rare earths than coal mined straight from the ground.
The way Bagdonas sees it, the U.S. faces two main hurdles to producing rare earths from coal ash. The first is a regulatory hurdle: Who is responsible for the waste after rare earths have been processed? It may be the original company that burned the coal on the hook for the final waste product. Or, the company that processes rare earths. Perhaps the government should assume responsibility. So far this question is unresolved.
While processing rare earths—whether from coal ash or hard rock—can be an environmentally nasty process, Bagdonas says, companies are quickly making advances to fully contain it within a closed-loop system that would prevent dangerous exposure. A closed-loop system would also help keep the costs down, because recycling acids or microbes could do the dirty work of cleanup.
Producing rare earths domestically will also require huge financial investments from the private sector and government, Young says. Taxpayers may not want the government bankrolling rare earth mining. Lawmakers could, however, take some of the risk out of the market by providing a floor on pricing.
16 Likes

Rare earths are not rare. They are available all over the world.
The challenge is in extracting them.

4 Likes

The point is burning coal might be part of that extraction process.

This counter argument for rare earths is heard too often and I think misses the point. “rare earths are not rare”. Yes that’s true. But Uranium is also not rare, with certain minimal concentrations in everyone’s running water.

There are certain ore deposits that have viable concentrations, and there are not that many of those. It is also very true that there are different challenges to extracting them.

One novel one I’ve read about is extremely fascination, akin to bio-mining.

read this: Enhanced rare-earth separation with a metal-sensitive lanmodulin dimer | Nature

Bio-mining.

8 Likes

Mining is always about the quality of the ore and the processing required to make it marketable. And in the U.S. often about how much waste you generate and what you do with it.

Low grade ore means lots of waste to deal with. Difficulty getting permits.

And especially for rare earths the ability to separate them from each other is critical.

All of this is possible but at added cost making competing with China profitably a challenge. Low cost competitor can easily undercut you on pricing. And short term focus in the U.S. often means U.S. producer folds. Long term commitment and solid contracts are required.

Keep in mind China is playing the long game and short term profits are not a priority. Their game is market share, large volume, and beating competitors.

2 Likes

Zeihan on that.

*The Chinese are dying out. They already have more people aged 54 and over than 54 and under, and within ten years they will not have enough people under age 60 to run an economy. So it doesn’t matter who you are, it doesn’t matter what your producer export or import. *

You need to assume that that trade relationship is going to go to zero. Doesn’t matter if you’re exporting soy or beef or semiconductors or ethane or anything. Zero zero is where this is going. It doesn’t matter what you import from China, whether it’s transformers or wire or process chemicals or fertilizer or anything. It doesn’t matter. It’s going to zero.

The only wiggle room here is the time frame. Either the Chinese die out over the next ten years and it goes to zero, or the Trump administration puts into place and owners tariffs. And by November 1st, or maybe even before it goes to zero, either way it is going to zero. So everyone needs to plan for that happening.

There appears to be a short window as to raw material processing-which is very dirty and polluting. So plans need to be made and implemented soon.

1 Like

Even in this time of AI stupidity and absurd claims from Donald and his minions, this statement takes the cake. The Chinese are not dying out. China’s population is approximately 1.4 billion. That’s more than 4x the USA. About 891m are currently under the age of 50. Even if you remove those in their 40s, the under 40 population is about 700m. So they will have plenty of humans to run an economy in 10 years.

Now China, as many other nations, does have a falling fertility rate, and if this continues, it will have a significant impact. As will a sub-replacement rate in South Korea, Japan, most European countries, Mexico, and the USA, among many others. The Economist had an excellent series of articles on this and possible consequences in September. But that’s a far cry from “the Chinese are dying out” and the “trade relationship is going to zero”.

10 Likes

There have been a suggestion that the official population data is suspect/bogus.

To start with, the raw data of China’s population figures were “adjusted”. China’s total fertility rate, or the number of kids per woman throughout her life, dropped below the watershed level of 2.1 in 1991, from which moment the population size of the next generation would be smaller than the current one, and the average total fertility rate was 1.36 in 1994-2018, according to data from census and surveys. However, the family planning authority in charge of the country’s population control refused to believe the numbers and “adjusted” the rate to 1.6-1.8 and, accordingly, the official population size.

And there are questions about China’s economic data also.

As China watchers call into question Beijing’s claimed GDP growth figure for last year, a Japanese financial reporter estimates the world’s second-largest economy not only expanded less than reported—but also contracted.

Last month, China’s National Bureau of Statistics said the country had surpassed its 5 percent economic target for 2023 with a rate of 5.2 percent GDP growth in inflation-adjusted terms.

This exceeded earlier expectations of the International Monetary Fund and other leading financial institutions. The Chinese economy is beset by a range of problems, including deflation, muted global appetite for exports, and a tumbling stock market.

Subject matter experts have long questioned the veracity of Beijing’s economic reports in general, including former Chinese premier Li Keqiang, who in 2007 dismissed his country’s economic data as “man-made.”

Also unknown is how much national debt China has. A wide variety of estimates of national debt to GDP exist. 124% to 312%. We really do not know what is true.

At best the view within China from the outside world is opaque.
We are pretty sure China’s population is shrinking and ageing. So the nation’s workforce is shrinking and those receiving old age retirement benefits are increasing. Both should be a drag on China’s well being.

2 Likes

If humanity wants to prosper long term, we need to figure out how to do it without endless population growth.

8 Likes

Agreed that all numbers from the authorities in China should be questioned. That’s usually the case with authoritarian regimes. There are serious doubts about the accuracy of the US 2020 census. Do we throw out those numbers and just make it all up? Obviously not. We adjust as best we can.

On the other side of the balance sheet, there have been questions about whether rural populations worldwide have been undercounted. Be that as it may, the original claims that the “Chinese are dying out” and that the trade relationship is “going to go to zero” continue to be risible.

Again, China is hardly the only nation with a sub-replacement fertility rate. This is the case in most of the industrialized world and a surprising number of developing countries. There will be consequences, and some of them may even be welcome.

1 Like

Re: population growth

Steady state population may be ideal. Population decline has to be economic disaster. Yes, less consumption of resources but also reduction in manpower and aging population.

Even with steady state population migration to places with jobs and higher standard of living is likely to continue. Doesn’t that imply continued increases in resources? More use of energy hungry robots? And more AI?