Geologists have found deposits in Australia, Canada, Mongolia, Vietnam and even Greenland, and efforts are also underway to begin mining the deposits in the legions of discarded electronics available today. "There is a lot of rare earth material out there in used products; extracting from that urban mine will be viable," argues King of Ames Lab, which also has scientists working on better extraction methods for, say, neodymium from ores or old generators. "Recycling is definitely going to be a big part of the solution to this problem."
But for the foreseeable future China will continue to dominate rare earth production—and it holds the world's largest reserves, nearly twice as much as its neighbors to the north and west in the Commonwealth of Independent States (an organization of former Soviet republics formed after the dissolution of the U.S.S.R.) and three times as much as U.S. reserves. And China is the only producer of dysprosium—vital for the heat-resistant magnets favored by the U.S. military and hybrid car–makers.
Materials squeeze
The perils of that dominance became evident to the world this fall when China reportedly shut off rare earth supplies to car manufacturers and other users in Japan as a result of a diplomatic imbroglio. After all, by 2005, all U.S. manufacturers of the neodymium iron boron magnets—invented by General Motors researchers in the early 1980s—had shut down. But even before China flexed its market-dominating power a slew of scientific researchers had been investigating how to use less rare earths—or even none at all—by fabricating better magnetic materials.
Magnetism arises from the electrons orbiting the atomic nuclei of some elements. When atoms align in a certain fashion a strong magnetic field results. Magnetic elements like iron or neodymium typically arrange themselves this way, thus generating a permanent magnetic field.
But by tinkering with that alignment—spacing it out with other materials or embedding it in a lattice composite at the nanoscale (a nanometer is one billionth of a meter)—scientists can potentially exponentially increase the strength of these magnets: The stronger the magnet, the fewer of them you need. "There have been theories around for 15 years that if you had a very controlled nanostructured magnet, you could as much as double" its strength, GE's Iorio says. "If you can double the strength you can use a much smaller magnet and get the same performance—or have the same size and get much more performance." That also means GE could spend less on the metal materials; the company currently spends some $4 billion annually on the purchase of metals and alloys.
GE was awarded $2.2 million by DoE's ARPA–E program to develop bulk quantities of such nanocomposite magnets in a bid to cut by 80 percent the rare earth elements used. The challenge is to make such a tiny microstructure stable—and reproducible on a much larger, bulk scale. But, within two years, Iorio says, "we'll have a magnet big enough to sit in the palm of your hand. Something that's useful [to stick on] your refrigerator."
ARPA–E also gave $4.4 million in October 2009 to a group led by physicist George Hadjipanayis of the University of Delaware to create a nanostructured version of the neodymium iron boron magnet that eliminates the need for as much neodymium. The secret: mixing it with softer magnetic materials that remain magnetic only when exposed to a magnetic field. "Neodymium iron boron nanoparticles are difficult to make because they are very reactive," Hadjipanayis says, in addition to being hard to align within a given nanostructure. "It's very difficult to obtain an aligned magnetic material," he adds. "My challenge is to make larger amounts of these nanoparticles, make sure I protect them, and find a way to assemble them."
See what we're tweeting about
16 Comments
Add CommentComputers, cell phones, and compact fluorescent bulbs are constantly being discarded. There should be a systematic recycling of these appliances for their rare earths. Hybrid automobiles will also soon be a significant discard. They also should be mined for rare earths. It is sort of diabolic that the greener you want to be, the more processing there has to be of the necessary rare earths.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThank goodness solar materials are mostly made from sand.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisVery odd to see a big shell oil advertising emblem posted to an article criticizing an alternative energy.
http://www.publicintegrity.org/investigations/global_climate_change_lobby/
Economic recycling of rare earth elements (REEs) -- as well as increased production -- both will be critical if we are to meet rapidly rising global REE demand. Our company (Molycorp, Inc.) is now looking at recycling in two areas: REEs used in compact fluorescent lighting, and REE alloy left over from permanent magnet manufacture. Both areas offer great promise. In fact, we have designed our new, soon-to-be-built, state-of-the-art REE processing facility in California with eye toward maximizing recycling opportunities, with a highly flexible circuit design; an ability to co-process recycled material with primary production; and the lowest cost operation in industry.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThere are considerable diposits of neodymium in our
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMojavi Desert in southern California. However, our senator, Diane Feinstein, saw to it that the desert be
made off limits to all mining there through having it declared a National Monument. Interestingly, her husband, Richard Blum, has vast business interest China, which has the only other known deposit of neodymium.
The comments identifies the need for reprocessing and recycling of those items that utilize these rare earths. This should be a given for all technologic processes to harvest all reuseable products used in their construction. The 'losses' that occur in reprocessing can be readily acquired from China but may not remain a market of suitable size to warrant China continuing to produce these rare earths for American manufacturing opeations.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMarket demand will drive the Federal government to remove certain areas from 'protected' status. This may also be accomplished by allowing limited extraction of these rare earths for American markets. Public opinion will usually overcome greed factors that surround political figures in their actions for the 'public good'.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisJust to play the devil's advocate, we should now invest heavily into wind and EV technologies that make us dependent on foreign resources whose extraction produced horrible ecological destruction? Isn't this essentially the same formula that produced gasoline price increases from $0.25/gal. in the 1960s to several dollars per gallon in a few short years?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt's a sucker's play: when our infrastructure is eventually dependent on diminishing foreign resources their costs will rise accordingly.
By the way, I'd wager that if the discrete costs of producing these rare Earth elements were identifiable in an auditable accounting (even ignoring any eventual environmental reclamation costs), we'd find that they are currently being sold at a loss on the producer's bet to 'develop markets'. Suckers.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI wish I shared your optimizm. I see no sign of opening the Mojavi to mining. When do you think it will happen.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI wish I shared your optimizm. I see no sign of opening the Mojavi to mining. When do you think it will happen.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWe might remember that powerful electric motors were once made using just iron laminations and copper wire. They were heavier and larger, but they worked very well. In fact, capability to control the field strength gave them better speed control.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe best thing to do is quit installing Wind Turbines. Wind MUST be complemented by Fossil Fuel power generation. It is most practical, and in most cases unavoidable to use fast spooling NG power plants to complement Wind. MOST of the total Wind/NG system energy - 80 to 90% will come from the NG - and cycling inefficiencies induced in that 80-90% will waste as much fuel as the Wind Energy would theoretically save. A Total SCAM to increase consumption of the temporary glut in NG supplies.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWind Energy DOES NOT reduce emissions:
http://www.masterresource.org/2009/11/wind-integration-incremental-emissions-from-back-up-generation-cycling-part-i-a-framework-and-calculator/
Emissions INCREASE, due to Wind Energy in Colorado:
http://www.wind-watch.org/documents/wp-content/uploads/BENTEK-How-Less-Became-More.pdf
We BADLY need those high strength Neodymium magnets for Electric Vehicles, E-Bikes, E scooters & HEV's. The Prius uses two PMSM/G's. An 18 kw & a 33 kw. They are especially needed for the flat pancake Wheel Hub Motors, which I believe is the best way to make E-vehicles. The vastly improved efficiency of Electric Vehicles over ICE Vehicles is a much more important use of Neodymium magnets than way-too-costly Wind Turbines. Examples, the Crusher UGV and UQM high efficiency 150 kw wheel motors:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o2Kh7FVgDCU&feature=related
http://www.uqm.com/pdfs/powerphase%20150%20spec%20sheet%20update%209-21-09.pdf
Afghanistan has rare earth element (REE) concentrations. First discovered by the Soviets after their invasion, it was more completely mapped out by our USGS.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisScientists at Leeds University in the UK found that they could extract neodymium out of Titanium Dioxide processing waste water.
China thought that their demand for REEs would match their exports by 2012, until the recession hit and they projected 2014. But then the taxpayer subsidized demand for wind turbines moved the equilibrium forward to 2012. China is flexing its power to force manufacturers to relocate to China.
Can you say MADE IN CHINA?
Wind power is extremely expensive, and it is driving up the price of the REE commodities. We should slow down the subsidizing of wind turbines so as to ensure we have enough REE supply for more critical uses.
Coincidentally, rare earth mining (REE) and processing in China is creating a huge environmental pollution problem. Some of the waste water ponds are flushing poisons into the Yellow River and into the Pacific. And Chinese REE processing air pollution drifts over North America.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhile environmentalists pretend their solutions are 'green' the reality is they're forcing an increase of source pollution.
For more, read China’s Rare Earth Elements Industry:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhat Can the West Learn? March 2010
Institute for the Analysis of Global Security (IAGS)
http://www.iags.org/rareearth0310hurst.pdf
Cindy Hurst is an analyst for the U.S. Army’s Foreign Military Studies Office,
Fort Leavenworth, KS.
Mountain Pass is in the Mojave.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe water (needed in quantity for extraction)out west, is overallocated among AZ, NV, and vastly overpopulated CA.
Commentators ignore the immense military use of materiel better used for peaceful purposes.
The military since Iraq/Afgh, has taken 44% of US tax dollars (although military budget is about 1/4 of national spending, many other programs pay for themselves, resultiing in the 44% figure of waste, through fear and manipulation of other peoples and nations).
Should US citizens awaken, such materials & research could be increased immensely by cutting military budgets by 80%. The US spends 50% of all money spent in the world for military purposes.
Ignored in commentary is the impact of continuing and increasing energy use. Global warming appears to be accelerating faster than predictions.
It is simplistic to presume that mining every possible source of anything is a viable answer to economic or supply problems.
Without a living, breathing biological world that feeds us, technology will not improve, or far less, support each of our lives.
The Mojave does not automatically exist for extractive industry or wasteful destructive activity of any kind. As much is tied up by military as by preservation.
It is a home to myriad species, a part of a mysterious universe which exploration (scientific AND that basic to our original nature) and knowledge opens up a broader, more fulfilled life, rather than miserable dependence on evermore miniscule applications of technology.
To limit impacts on the environment and atmosphere,while ceasing to live in a universe in which one perceives constant lack, here is aclear order of priorities to consider:
1. Reduce the overbloomed human population (I suggest through reduced number of offspring, rather than the catastrophic methods which will occur absent this)
2. Reduce demand - e.g. the bloated US military. Depend less on constant use of technologies nonexistent before late 20th century. Magnets to reintroduce electrical power through hybrid braking are more important than the latest throwaway cell phone with tricks. Humans lived full and rich lives for well over 100,000 yrs without those.
3. I understand that fast breeder nuclear reactors can use and reuse many radioactive materials associated with rare earths.
3. Recycling military equipment for peaceful purposes will free vast quantities of materials of all kinds. Do you recycle as much as you can? Recycling without fail is this priority.
Technologies vital to preservation of biodiversity are priority 1.