U.S. Risks Running into Rare Earth Metal Supply Problems, China Controls 97% of Market

December 15th, 2010 by Zachary Shahan

The United States may run into major supply disruptions of rare earth metals, metals which are used in many clean tech products (i.e. wind turbines, electric vehicles, and solar cells), unless it finds a way to diversify where it gets these minerals from, according to a report being released today by the U.S. Department of Energy.

Currently, China controls 97% of world trade in rare earth metals. Of course, the concern (which we’ve covered on here a few times) is that China could use its monopoly on rare earth metals to bully other countries on political or trade issues.

U.S. Energy Secretary Steven Chu is releasing the report in coordination with a rare earth metals conference at the Center for Strategic and International Studies today. Additionally, the report is coming out in the midst of broader China-U.S. trade negotiations.

“The release of the report coincides with trade talks in Washington between the United States and China,” Tom Doggett of Reuters reports. “U.S. officials are expected to push Chinese officials to loosen export restraints on rare earth elements.”

China recently cut exports of some rare earth metals. While it said it did so due to environmental concerns, many have conjectured that it was actually due to political reasons.

The report is urging further development of rare earth metal mining and production in the U.S., Europe, and Japan to diversify the supply side of this market.

While the clean tech sector is especially reliant on rare earth metals, the report also notes that traditional energy sources rely on some rare earth metals as well. So, basically, no matter where we are getting out energy from, getting more of our rare earth metals domestically or from other countries is going to be important to make sure we are not too vulnerable to China.

Read more about this topic on Reuters: U.S. at risk of rare earths supply disruptions

Photo Credit: Thorius

Keep up to date with all the hottest cleantech news by subscribing to our (free) cleantech newsletter, or keep an eye on sector-specific news by getting our (also free) solar energy newsletter, electric vehicle newsletter, or wind energy newsletter.

Tags: China, rare earth, rare earth minerals, rare-earth metals, US

About the Author

Zachary Shahan spends most of his time here on CleanTechnica as the director/chief editor. Otherwise, he's probably enthusiastically fulfilling his duties as the director/editor of Solar Love, EV Obsession, Planetsave, or Bikocity. Zach is recognized globally as a solar energy, electric car, and wind energy expert. If you would like him to speak at a related conference or event, connect with him via social media. You can connect with Zach on any popular social networking site you like. Links to all of his main social media profiles are on ZacharyShahan.com.

William Ernest Schenewerk, Ph.D

Rare earth metal shortage will be followed by shortage of just about everything else if “renewable energy” deployment occurs. If 10 billions are to live like 1 billion now do, World energy has to go from 5 TWe equivalent to 50 TWe equavalent (1 Je ~ 3 Jt). We will run out of steel and concrete, if we find everything else we need.
Coal, atomic piles, oil and natural gas each need ~0.1 kg-Fe/W. 5 TWe translates into 5 years of World steel production. Dispatchable wind and solar need ~ 1.0 kg-Fe/W. That translates into 50 years of iron productio up front. Planet is immediately destroyed.

Wind energy is particulary bad. Windmills hit ~0.1 kg/W nameplate but only run 1/4 of the time. Machines last ~ 20 y versus ~100 y for a coal or atomic power plant. Energy storage by vapor-compression NH3-H2O separation loses half the energy. NH3-H2O produces power by recombination in an absorption column that drives a steam turbine. Toss in line loss and effective utilization is 10%. 0.1 kg-Fe/W nameplate translates into ~1 kg-Fe/W.
Windmill power density is ~ 3 W/m^3 nameplate. With above dispatchable 10% utilization, this translates into 0.3 W/m^2. 50 Twe requires entire earth’s land area to be covered by windmills. Not going to happen
Solar with NH3-H20 separation/recombination results in ~20 W/m^2 averaged over time. 50 TWe requires 3 times the area of Texas. Just 2 mm sheet metal that size represents ~30 years Fe production. Toss in the 400 ft NH3 storage sphere per GWe and planet is destroyed producing the materials.
So you are starting to run out of stuff already. It will get worse if continued. Give it up. Real choice is: do atomic piles, do coal or do without. Energy “conservation” is really doing without. Human race remains starving mud suckers in the dark.
- Bob Wallace
  
  “Wind energy is particularly bad. Windmills hit ~0.1 kg/W nameplate but only run 1/4 of the time. Machines last ~ 20 y versus ~100 y for a coal or atomic power plant.”
  
  So much incorrect stuff in this post. Let me tackle just a little piece.
  
  The writer confuses average annual output of nameplate rating with the amount of time the wind blows. The wind blows about roughly 80% of the time in good wind sites. Rarely does it blow hard enough to produce 100% of nameplate output, just like you seldom drive your car at full speed. Over time turbines in average places produce 1/3 of their nameplate rating. In excellent sites they can produce an average of 50% of nameplate.
  
  Some turbines will need to be replaced after 20 years, mostly because the soil structure in those areas permit more tower movement and result in tower/footing damage. Right now about 2,400 30 year old turbines at Altamont wind farm are being replaced. Being replaced not because they are worn out, but because the space could be better utilized by taller, higher output models.
  
  Coal plants do not last 100 years. If a coal plant continues to operate in that location for 100 years it is because it has been rebuilt over the years. Same with nuclear, except we can’t rebuild them in the same way. Our forty year old plants are pushing their lifetime limits. Some will make it to 60 years, perhaps further, but the weakest are already dropping off the grid. Oyster Creek, for example, is now going to be shut down ten years earlier than was anticipated because it’s just worn out.
  
  So much misinformation in this post. Area required for solar is just silly. Material needs for construction are fantasy.
  - http://www.zacharyshahan.com Zachary Shahan
    
    Thanks for this quick follow-up, Bob.
http://www.dimensionbuildlv.com lvremodeling

This does not surprise me, China and Japan are buying all of our scrap. America still doesn’t seem to care, we need to somehow get back to the basics, mining, manufacturing and maintain our recycled materials.
Bob Wallace

This sounds like lithium and solar-silicon all over again – a confusion between current production levels and occurrence (the amount in the ground and where it’s located).

China monopolized both lithium and rare-earth minerals because they were able to produce refined quantities of each and forced existing plants in other countries out of business. Now that demand is up and pushing the limits of what China can produce we’re opening/reopening mines and plants.

Here are a couple of articles which explain why China does not have us by the short and curlies….

http://www.technologyreview.com/energy/26655/?p1=A1

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/12/091215101708.htm
- mds
  
  Thanks for the links Bob, esp the second one. Very interesting. Have you seen this one:
  http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/mining-energy/china-may-lose-rare-earth-metals-monopoly-with-greenland-development/story-e6frg9df-1225782794299