Re: [Marxism] A Different Environmental Threat: Peak Rare Minerals, China, and Green Technology
Earlier in this thread someone said: Another claim I hear a lot is that the war in the Congo is driven by minerals, which I don't deny... ... and then refuted a more specific claim about a particular mineral. As far as I know this is the only time Africa was mentioned in this thread (I've admittedly only skimmed it). But it's enough of a hook to ask for others' opinions about a book review in the latest Against the Current on the war in the Congo: http://www.solidarity-us.org/node/2377 ... which argues that claims that the conflict was fueled by Western imperialist interests in the region's resources are bunk and that it is rather down to intra-African imperialism. I'm inclined to disbelieve this (I'm more inclined to believe the latter was fueled by the former), but haven't followed the conflict closely enough to say. YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. Send list submissions to: Marxism@lists.econ.utah.edu Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Marxism] A Different Environmental Threat: Peak Rare Minerals, China, and Green Technology
Hi Michael, This is what comes up when I click on the link you gave: You are not allowed to edit this post. --- Dogan Göcmen (http://dogangocmen.wordpress.com/) Author of The Adam Smith Problem: Reconciling Human Nature and Society in The Theory of Moral Sentiments and Wealth of Nations, I. B. Tauris, LondonNew York 2007 YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. Send list submissions to: Marxism@lists.econ.utah.edu Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Marxism] A Different Environmental Threat: Peak Rare Minerals, China, and Green Technology
I got it Michael, it is on the front page of your web site. - Dogan Göcmen (http://dogangocmen.wordpress.com/) Author of The Adam Smith Problem: Reconciling Human Nature and Society in The Theory of Moral Sentiments and Wealth of Nations, I. B. Tauris, LondonNew York 2007 YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. Send list submissions to: Marxism@lists.econ.utah.edu Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Marxism] A Different Environmental Threat: Peak Rare Minerals, China, and Green Technology
At 19:54 05/09/09 -0700, michael perelman wrote: One of the keys to Green Technology may be buried in China. Just responding to the alarmist title of this post Peak Rare Minerals, I don't see that there is a peak anything. When you point out that China produces ... 95 percent of neodymium that does NOT mean that there would ever be a shortage of it if it weren't exported by China. According to Wikipedia, the earth's crust contains 38 ppm of neodymium, a huge amount considering its limited use. If they aren't mining much of it elsewhere, I'm sure that is just because it is cheaper to obtain from China. Another claim I hear a lot is that the war in the Congo is driven by minerals, which I don't deny, but then the narrative goes on to say that Mobile phones are dependent on Coltan (tantalum) mined in the Congo as if this were a critical source for the mineral. Actually only a small amount of the world's tantalum is mined from that region. What's more, tantalum isn't necessarily required to manufacture modern electronics, it is only used to replace old fashioned electrolytic capacitors with the smaller variety made from tantalum. Those capacitors are just a tiny portion of the volume of a telephone and you'd never know the difference if tantalum weren't used. I don't think that there will be a peak of any mineral, because when the price goes up, they just find ways of obtaining it from methods which cost more. For instance, the production of oil from the tar sands in Canada becomes profitable with the rise in the price of oil, but then will become a large extra source of oil whenever the price exceeds that point. Same goes, I believe, for every mineral: it will be mined wherever and whenever it is profitable. And although I always hear about Peak Oil being some sort of disaster, I don't understand that because it would be a VERY GOOD thing if it were real! It would force a shift to greener energy BEFORE the CO2 level rises too high. Unfortunately there is little evidence of peak oil and it appears that the CO2 level WILL rise greatly because of the availability of oil and coal. Unless there is a different force for shifting energy production, but that clearly won't be the free market as long as there is an economic advantage in relying on fossil fuels. I'm not aware of any mineral that is reaching a peak in production as long as there is increasing demand, and I think that such headlines are alarmist and inaccurate. - Jeff YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. Send list submissions to: Marxism@lists.econ.utah.edu Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Marxism] A Different Environmental Threat: Peak Rare Minerals, China, and Green Technology
Jeff, I agree with everything you said except your point about the word, peak. Mathematically, as long as a fixed supply exists, there will necessarily be a peak point in extraction. The debates about peak oil revolve around the question of the size of that fixed supply. You obviously understand that when you suggest that new methods of extraction might exist. Here are another problem arises because the extraction, as I understand it, requires removing an immense quantity of earth, then using solvents of some kind to separate out the minerals. In the case of gold, 1 ounce requires 30 tons of rock to be moved and then treated with cyanide. -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail michael at ecst.csuchico.edu michaelperelman.wordpress.com YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. Send list submissions to: Marxism@lists.econ.utah.edu Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Marxism] A Different Environmental Threat: Peak Rare Minerals, China, and Green Technology
At 09:04 06/09/09 -0700, Michael Perelman wrote: Jeff, I agree with everything you said except your point about the word, peak. Mathematically, as long as a fixed supply exists, there will necessarily be a peak point in extraction. Well you've obviously studied the economics of this, but what I have seen about peak oil seems oversimplified in several ways. For instance, it is often said that the peak occurs when half of the fixed supply has been depleted, but there is no reason to assume that that should even be approximately true. The production might well just increase to meet demand right up to the exact end of the supply, if it were simply like emptying a big can of oil that suppliers had. I would imagine that a peak in production will occur at the point where the cost of producing energy using oil exceeds the costs of energy from other sources (which are coming down) so it would have as much to do with other forms of production (and energy demand), not just how much oil is left in the ground. But my main point was that there might NOT be a fixed supply to speak of, but rather a supply which just becomes more and more expensive to tap, so that the ultimate amount available doesn't really enter into it. That is even more true for minerals, since I believe the supply is virtually endless if you're willing to dig deeper and bigger mines (not that I want them to!). Here are another problem arises because the extraction, as I understand it, requires removing an immense quantity of earth, then using solvents of some kind Yes, that's not nice, but I thought you were originally addressing the economics of the matter. And in particular the implication that the Chinese might obtain a stranglehold on minerals needed for technological progress (in this case neodymium used for making the strongest permanent magnets for the most efficient and lightest motors and generators). If that were really a threat, then they would just gear up for mining it elsewhere. If they aren't doing that, it's because they trust the Chinese to continue supplying it at a better price. I think the discussion of such shortages has to do with the short-term price fluctuations that may concern industry and speculators, but the specter of any one country (or even a few countries) having long-term control of one essential resource doesn't seem like a real problem. They would find alternatives if and when they had to. to separate out the minerals. In the case of gold, 1 ounce requires 30 tons of rock to be moved and then treated with cyanide. Yes that's disgusting, especially when you consider how much of that gold will be used only for its symbolic value (rather than the utilitarian value gold has in plating contacts for electrical connectors etc.). Note that the proportion you just gave of 1 ppm of gold in the ore they mine, is much lower than the 38 ppm of neodymium over the entire earth (not to mention its abundance where they actually mine it), and the yearly production (again according to Wikipedia) is only 7000 tons (but surely rising rapidly). Also, there may be a semantic confusion involved. Neodymium is classified as a rare earth according to its position on the periodic chart, but that is just the name for elements of atomic number 57 to 71. It isn't nearly as rare as gold or platinum. Its production being dominated by China doesn't seem to be of long-term significance, as far as I can tell, and it certainly isn't facing any peak in production due to depletion. - Jeff YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. Send list submissions to: Marxism@lists.econ.utah.edu Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Marxism] A Different Environmental Threat: Peak Rare Minerals, China, and Green Technology
On Sun, Sep 06, 2009 at 08:39:16PM +0200, Jeff wrote: I think the discussion of such shortages has to do with the short-term price fluctuations that may concern industry and speculators, but the specter of any one country (or even a few countries) having long-term control of one essential resource doesn't seem like a real problem. They would find alternatives if and when they had to. Yes, but to do so can require a decade or more. Note that the proportion you just gave of 1 ppm of gold in the ore they mine, is much lower than the 38 ppm of neodymium over the entire earth (not to mention its abundance where they actually mine it), and the yearly production (again according to Wikipedia) is only 7000 tons (but surely rising rapidly). You learn something everyday. Thanks. Also, there may be a semantic confusion involved. Neodymium is classified as a rare earth according to its position on the periodic chart, but that is just the name for elements of atomic number 57 to 71. It isn't nearly as rare as gold or platinum. Its production being dominated by China doesn't seem to be of long-term significance, as far as I can tell, and it certainly isn't facing any peak in production due to depletion. As Sartesian noted, the peak can come at any point. It cannot be known to have occurred unless the output in the last period exceed all the existing [not necessarily known] supply. Even then, you can redefine the peak by measuring it in terms of output per second rather than output per year. But a peak will occur nonetheless. I guess with all the baggage associated with peak, I could have used another term. -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail michael at ecst.csuchico.edu michaelperelman.wordpress.com YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. Send list submissions to: Marxism@lists.econ.utah.edu Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Marxism] A Different Environmental Threat: Peak Rare Minerals, China, and Green Technology
Agreed. On Sun, Sep 06, 2009 at 12:02:33PM -0700, nada wrote: Don't confuse rare earths elements and compounds with precious metals. One can say that all precious metals are rare earths but not all rare earths are precious metals. Most rare earths are sold by by the lbs/kilo and all precious metals are sold by the ounce. China does in fact have most *known* rare earths, other countries notwithstanding. -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail michael at ecst.csuchico.edu michaelperelman.wordpress.com YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. Send list submissions to: Marxism@lists.econ.utah.edu Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Marxism] A Different Environmental Threat: Peak Rare Minerals, China, and Green Technology
If Sartesian means that the extraction rates need not conform to the bell curve. I agree, but extraction must reach a peak before the supply is exhausted. -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail michael at ecst.csuchico.edu michaelperelman.wordpress.com YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. Send list submissions to: Marxism@lists.econ.utah.edu Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
[Marxism] A Different Environmental Threat: Peak Rare Minerals, China, and Green Technology
One of the keys to Green Technology may be buried in China. It has only recently begun to appear in the media, but for very different reasons. A couple of years ago, the New Scientist published a piece about the risks of the scarcity of rare minerals. Cohen, David. 2007. Earth's Natural Wealth: An Audit. New Scientist Issue 2605 (23 May): pp. 35-41. Three facts are bringing this looming shortage to the attention of mainstream media. First, the US is dependent on exports of these minerals, while China is the main exporter. Second, these minerals are crucial for high technology, including both military and so-called Green Technologies. My next encounter with the rare earth problem came in David Cay Johnston's wonderful book. Here are my notes: Johnston, David Cay. 2007. Free Lunch: How The Wealthiest Americans Enrich Themselves at Government Expense (And Stick You With The Bill) (New York: Portfolio). 37: In 1982, competing groups of scientists around the world found a way to combine iron and boron with a somewhat rare earth called neodymium to make extremely powerful and lightweight magnets. These magnets quickly found a market in computer hard drives, high-quality microphones and speakers, automobile starter motors, and the guidance systems of smart bombs. 38: General Motors created a division to manufacture these magnets, calling it Magnequench Then in 1995 the automaker decided to sell the division. Because the deal was for only $70 million it attracted little attention. The buyer was a consortium of three firms but the real parties behind the purchase were a pair of Chinese companies -- San Huan New Material High-Tech Inc. and China National Nonferrous Metals. Both firms were partly owned by the Chinese government. The heads of these two Chinese companies are the husbands of the first and second daughters of Deng Xiaoping, then the paramount leader. 38: At the time, GM was trying to get a toehold in China. One of the Goddard's was at the time vice minister of the Chinese State Science and Technology Commission, which had the responsibility for acquiring military technology by any means. 39: The Clinton administration agreed the sale under the condition that the new owners keep the production and technology in the United States. The new owners began to buy factories in the United States including GA Powders, an Idaho firm that used government money to develop a monopoly on the production powerful methods. Then the Chinese company shut down American production and moved everything to China. The reference to Deng is interesting, as you will see in a moment. More at: http://michaelperelman.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post.php?action=editpost=1245message=6 -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 530 898 5321 fax 530 898 5901 http://michaelperelman.wordpress.com YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. Send list submissions to: Marxism@lists.econ.utah.edu Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
