« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

FRONT PAGE CONTRIBUTOR

One Step Toward Energy Independence (And Three Steps Back)

'Get Ready, 'Cause Here I Come' - Rare Earth, the rock band

The emotional appeal of the New Green Economy rests on its promise to free us from our addiction to oil. Our carbon-free future envisions a land of Rainbows, Unicorns and Magic Windmills, with a Prius in every garage. Our energy will be as free as the wind; no more will our thirst for petroleum make us slaves to foreign regimes.

There’s just one hitch.

Green technology is dependent on magnets, big magnets. Those magnets must be lightweight and high-performance for optimum efficiency.

A utility scale wind turbine uses more than a ton of heavy-duty and lightweight magnets, 700 pounds of which is neodymium. Rare earth magnets are still crucial in the electric motors that control the guidance vanes on the sides of missiles. And they are essential in hybrid cars, the manufacturers of which are already reeling from issues with rare metal availability.

Issues? Well, then, just open up the neodymium mines. The problem with that, though, is that 95% of the world’s neodymium comes from a single country. That country is China.

Neodymium, dysprosium and terbium are members of a class of elements called “rare earth metals”. The word “rare” is part of their name for a reason. On the periodic table, the rare earth metals occupy that region labeled the “Lanthanide Series”, which most of us avoided studying in high school chemistry. The rare earths tend to be soft, lightweight, silvery metals with properties that make them particularly valuable: they are strongly magnetic, and retain their magnetism at high operating temperatures.

About 100 tonnes of dysprosium are produced worldwide each year, with 99% of that total produced in China. Dysprosium prices have climbed nearly sevenfold since 2003, to $53 a pound. [Source.]

By comparison, neodymium is more abundant. Some 7,000 tonnes a year are mined worldwide, 95% of that in China.

There’s nothing I like about being dependent on Middle Eastern and Venezuelan oil, but trading that dependence for an exclusive dependence on China is insane.

For one thing, the passage above notes the rising price of the metals. China’s growing economy puts them in direct competition with the West for resources worldwide, and they have become increasingly aggressive in their self-interest.

The concern about supply is not abstract handwringing. Just last year, China threatened to curtail exports:

China’s government started to curb output and exports in 2006. China may stockpile the rare dirt in a strategic reserve. Chinese exports of rare earths fell 35 percent in 2008 from 53,300 tons in 2006, all the while demand grows in areas of military defense, missiles, electronic information and green energy. China needs 70,000 tons of rare earths a year. They already cut 2009 output quotas of rare earths by 8.1 percent. They also encourage their industrialists to export processed products rather than just shipping the rare dirt abroad. Liang Shuhe, deputy head of foreign trade at the Ministry of Commerce said his government would “encourage exports of high value-adding, high-end products instead of the raw materials.” [Source. Emphasis added.]

Translation: We won’t be building wind turbines in the U.S. We’ll be importing the finished product from China.

Another concern: the environment. Progressives seem to think that if we farm out a difficult issue to another country it somehow absolves us from responsibility for the consequences. (Can you say rendition?) The environmental record of totalitarian regimes is universally appalling, and China is no exception.

Of course, China’s extensive mining has taken a heavy toll on the environment; it was the country’s tolerance for quick and dirty extraction that made it the global leader. To get at the rare earth, powerful acid is pumped down bore holes, where it dissolves some of the earths. The slurry is then pumped into leaky artificial ponds with earthen dams. Much of this occurs at small, under-regulated or unlicensed mines. [Source.]

Last September, an article in the New York Times highlighted the nervousness of Western economies when a bureaucratic reshuffling in China left the future of rare earth exports in doubt:

Wang Caifang, deputy director general of China’s Ministry of Industry and Information Technology, tried on Thursday to allay concerns that the draft rules would become the final policy, saying the regulatory review was still under way. …

During an interview after her speech, Ms. Wang said that China would continue to set an annual quota for the export of each mineral, adding, “I don’t think it will be zero.”

Well, that’s certainly comforting.

What should we do about it? There’s not much we can do about it, if we’re committed to a wind energy future.

On the other hand, one responsible reaction to this set of facts would be to look for a domestic, secure, proven technology as an alternative to wind: might I recommend oil and natural gas?

Cross-posted at VladEnBlog.

COMMENTS

  • lukematthews

    What we really need is a nice perpetual motion machine to create our energy. Perhaps Obama can jump right on that idea next. If we just sat at home quietly staring at our blank television screens and eating organic kale, we wouldn’t need more energy. Of course, we wouldn’t have to worry about Al Quaeda either since there would be nothing for them to attack. We can all just dance in circles singing Kumbaya to our Dear Leader.

    • eastbaylarry

      to develop a perpetual motion machine. I’ll *claim* that all I need is a few million now and a couple of billion later.

      Both the waste of money and the eventual sound bites should fit right in with Obamas’ tactics.

  • ccd6116

    For about four years after I received my Engineering degree I worked for DOE as a consulting Engineer. It was a division that generated and controlled very high voltage generation and their transmission lines. So I speak with some idea of this issue. Wind mills will never ever be more then a tiny fraction of the energy generation capability no matter what they say. When they say “these wind mills will generate X amount of power” it is only theoretical. Like solar cells (which only work when the sun is out) it only works when the wind is blowing (at a very small range of speeds). The wind is not constant !! What the dim wits do not understand is electrical generation MUST be constant at a very tight freq and voltage ranges. So in the end no matter how many windmills are added it is useless!! In fact can be a problem for the utilities. But those issues are way to technical for this forum..

    • 6eorge Jetson

      Donald Knuth chimes in from the past with timeless advice.

      There is no doubt that the grail of efficiency leads to abuse. Programmers waste enormous amounts of time thinking about, or worrying about, the speed of noncritical parts of their programs, and these attempts at efficiency actually have a strong negative impact when debugging and maintenance are considered. We should forget about small efficiencies, say about 97% of the time: premature optimization is the root of all evil.

      Yet we should not pass up our opportunities in that critical 3%. A good programmer will not be lulled into complacency by such reasoning, he will be wise to look carefully at the critical code; but only after that code has been identified.

    • fairtaxguy

      and I have always said there will never be any green jobs. Energy can neither be created nor destroyed. There is not enough energy in the wind to transfer.

  • http://www.skiloveland.com skicougar

    Al Gore will not be happy with you about this.

  • DefendUSA

    One step forward and two steps back
    I raise my gun and I take my aim…
    I’m just a pawn in the gov’t's game.

    (Secret of the Association album)

  • Jonas Parker

    The current generating capacity of the US is about 470 MW, only 3% of which is ‘alternate’ energy. That’s 470 1000MW generating plants. This is just to put in perspective the following excerpt from an artical by William Tucker. I’d recomend reading the entire article. It is a strong dose of realism. Remember, we need 470 100 MW plants… NOW.

    http://www.energytribune.com/articles.cfm?aid=2469

    Most of what we are calling ?renewable energy? is actually the kinetic flows of matter in nature. Wind and water are matter in motion that we harness to produce energy. Therefore they are measured by the formula for kinetic energy.

    Let?s start with hydroelectricity. Water falling off a high dam reaches a speed of about 60 miles per hour or 80 feet per second. Raising the height of the dam by 80 or more feet cannot increase the velocity by more than 20 miles per hour. The only way to increase the energy output is to increase the mass, meaning we must use more water.

    The largest dams ? Hoover and Glen Canyon on the Colorado River ?stand 800 feet tall and back up a reservoir of 250 square miles. This produces 1000 megawatts, the standard candle for an electrical generating station. (Lake Powell, behind Glen Canyon, has silted up somewhat and now produces only 800 MW.)

    Environmentalists began objecting to hydroelectric dams in the 1960s precisely because they occupied such vast amounts of land, drowning whole scenic valleys and historic canyons. They have not stopped objecting. The Sierra Club, which opposed construction of the Hetch-Hetchy Dam in Yosemite in 1921, is still trying to tear it down, even though it provides drinking water and 400 megawatts of electricity to San Francisco. Each year more dams are now torn down than are constructed as a result of this campaign.

    Wind is less dense than water so the land requirements are even greater. Contemporary 50-story windmills generate 1-? MW apiece, so it takes 660 windmills to get 1000 MW. They must be spaced about half a mile apart so a 1000-MW wind farm occupies 125 square miles. Unfortunately the best windmills generate electricity only 30 percent of the time, so 1000 MW really means covering 375 square miles at widely dispersed locations.

    Tidal power, often suggested as another renewable resource, suffers the same problems. Water is denser than wind but the tides only move at about 5 mph. At the best locations in the world you would need 20 miles of coastline to generate 1000 MW.

    What about solar energy? Solar radiation is the result of an E = mc2 transformation as the sun transforms hydrogen to helium. Unfortunately, the reaction takes place 90 million miles away. Radiation dissipates with the square of the distance, so by the time solar energy reaches the earth it is diluted by almost the same factor, 10-15. Thus, the amount of solar radiation falling on a one square meter is 400 watts, enough to power four 100-watt light bulbs. ?Thermal solar? ? large arrays of mirrors heating a fluid ? can convert 30 percent of this to electricity. Photovoltaic cells are slightly less efficient, converting only about 25 percent. As a result, the amount of electricity we can draw from the sun is enough to power one 100-watt light bulb per card table.

    This is not an insignificant amount of electricity. If we covered every rooftop in the county with solar collectors, we could probably power our indoor lighting plus some basic household appliances ? during the daytime. Solar?s great advantage is that it peaks exactly when it is needed, during hot summer afternoons when air conditioning pushes electrical consumption to its annual peaks. Meeting these peaks is a perennial problem for utilities and solar electricity can play a significant role in meeting the demand. The problem arises when solar enthusiasts try to claim solar power can provide base load power for an industrial society. There is no technology for storing commercial quantities of electricity. Until something is developed ? which seems unlikely ? wind and solar can serve only as intermittent, unpredictable resources.

  • neomom

    That the eco-people have this complete mental block when it comes to where the materials for all these “green” techologies come from. It isn’t like rare metal mining is any more “green” friendly than coal mining or drilling for oil.

    Idiots.

  • dennism

    Boone Pickens is all FOR it…

  • http://truthupfront.blogspot.com jsanzone

    Good points all around.

    Oil, natural gas, nuclear–these are the future, not mountaintop-stripping windmills, scrubland-stomping solar panels, or corn-based ethanol.

    Simple enough.