DOE releases 2nd RFI on rare earth metals
22 March 2011
The Department of Energy released a second Request for Information (RFI) soliciting information from the public on rare earth metals and other materials used in the energy sector. Responses to this RFI will inform an update to DOE’s Critical Materials Strategy , released in December 2010 (earlier post).
The report found that several clean energy technologies—including wind turbines, electric vehicles, photovoltaic cells and fluorescent lighting—use materials at risk of supply disruptions in the short term. The report assessed five rare earth metals (dysprosium, neodymium, terbium, europium and yttrium), as well as indium as most critical in the short term. (“Criticality” here is a measure that combines importance to the clean energy economy and risk of supply disruption.)
This year, DOE will update its analysis in light of rapidly-changing market dynamics. DOE will analyze the use of critical materials in petroleum refineries and may examine the use of critical materials in other applications not addressed in last year’s report. Finally, DOE may identify specific strategies for materials identified as critical, including strategies with respect to substitution, recycling and more efficient use.
The purpose of the new RFI is to solicit feedback from industry, academia, research laboratories, government agencies, and other stakeholders on issues related to demand, supply chain structure, financing, R&D, energy technology transitions and recycling of rare earth metals and other materials used in the energy sector. DOE is specifically interested in information on rare earth elements (e.g., yttrium, lanthanum, cerium, neodymium, terbium, europium, samarium, and dysprosium), gallium, lithium, cobalt, indium and tellurium, as well as other materials of interest identified by the respondents to this request.
They mine the metals in California then send them to China for refining because insufficient investment exists here. So much for the invisible hand of the "free" market providing everything we need.
Posted by: SJC | 22 March 2011 at 10:48 AM
SJC has a point, plus articles/Feds saw China's rare earth monopoly coming for years - like OPEC oil prices..
Posted by: kelly | 22 March 2011 at 02:03 PM
Sjc I unlike you have followed this.... it has nothing AT ALL to do with free market. It has to do with regulations.. namely pollution regs. But also worker safety regs.
Its simple far too expensive to refine anything messy in the us anymore so it gets shipped to whereever you can refine cheap thats close enough by ship.. china happens to be just such a place. But go ahead go to the refineries in china and stand outside and take in a great big whiff.... drink the water... go ahead.
Posted by: wintermane2000 | 22 March 2011 at 02:05 PM
You made my point, rather than do it here and comply with laws, they send it somewhere else. I guess the "free" market would do away with all those laws and they might do it here. I don't consider breathing and drinking pollution freedom at all.
Posted by: SJC | 23 March 2011 at 06:43 AM
SJC, you miss the real point. The US has pollution control standards as a component of free market. A free market that is supposed to deliver products without damaging the common good (that's the idea.)
IF all nations followed such standards there would be no third world to ship it to - like China. But China gives a rats azz about toxic pollution and the resulting one million deaths in their country annually. Like suckers they take the quick money and end up with pollution and healthcare issues that cost them ten times the income.
Posted by: Reel$$ | 23 March 2011 at 11:34 AM
Other than barter, there IS no "free" market and never was. If auto makers have to pay more for materials from countries that play by the rules, then that is what they have to do. The WTO and others can prevent a race to the bottom where the most polluting third world gets the contracts.
I am not sure that the willingness to pollute is the whole picture anyway. It is like oil companies selling their refineries 10 years ago, they said it was not the most profitable part of their business and they were right. The same for mining and refining. In the article I saw, the mines in California were getting a HUGE price for the ore, but to turn the ore into metal was not that profitable.
Posted by: SJC | 23 March 2011 at 07:38 PM