| ▲ | MisterTea 4 days ago |
| Well not thrown away, but discarded as tailings. Otherwise, that would be quite the garbage pail and matching truck to collect it! :-D Though it doesn't address the issue of waste from the refining process which currently looks like this: https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20150402-the-worst-place-... |
|
| ▲ | sandworm101 4 days ago | parent | next [-] |
| And, just as how old gold tailings are revisited decades later, that pile of discarded material will one day be a resource. https://www.ctvnews.ca/northern-ontario/article/company-work... https://www.jxscmineral.com/blogs/gold-tailings-impacts-and-... |
|
| ▲ | alephnerd 4 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| > Though it doesn't address the issue of waste Either you eat the cost of the externality or you accept that countries that can will end up dominating the industry, and hold entire sectors like automotive or semiconductors hostage. This is what China did and what Vietnam [0] and India [1] are attempting to do as well. It's like packaging for grid batteries - someone has to do the dirty work because manufacturing is inherently dirty. The only rule that matters even in a "rules based order" is might makes right. If we don't want to do it, then we need to cultivate partners who can - but the only countries who are not China and open to eating the externalities are Vietnam and India, which is why South Korea and Japan depend on them after China weaponized REE imports to both in 2016 (THAAD) and 2012 (Senkaku) respectively. [0] - https://en.mae.gov.vn/Pages/chi-tiet-tin-Eng.aspx?ItemID=811... [1] - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45093322 |
| |
| ▲ | xnx 4 days ago | parent [-] | | Would outsourcing the dirty production combined with a strategic stockpile of processed materials (and some processing capacity) be a smart solution? Let China process the materials under normal circumstances, but keep 6 months of processed output on hand in case trade is disrupted (trade disagreement, pandemic, war, etc.). | | |
| ▲ | kelnos 4 days ago | parent | next [-] | | Six months feels insufficient. You'd want several years, at minimum. I think there are two ways to effectively mitigate this risk: 1) have mining and manufacturing of your own that covers most of your needs, or 2) balanced trade where you get something critical from another country, but they also get something critical from you (and can't easily get it somewhere else). (Of course when you have very solid allies, you can relax a bit more and rely on them, but you still have to be prepared for a situation where that ally has a shortage and prioritizes their own use.) | |
| ▲ | XorNot 4 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | China plans in 5 year increments and actually follows through on that. Waiting out 6 months of production would be easy. And even the threat of interruption would drastically mess with prices. | |
| ▲ | alephnerd 4 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | > Let China process the materials under normal circumstances, but keep 6 months of processed output on hand in case trade is disrupted (trade disagreement, pandemic, war, etc.) That's not enough of a leeway when dealing with a country who has active land disputes with 2 countries we have a defense treaty with (Japan, Phillipines) and 1 with whom we have an ambiguous defense commitment (Taiwan). And even the Chinese government knows that countries like the the US will try to stockpile. Almost all processing, mining, and exporting in China for REEs is managed by SoEs and under close monitoring from state regulators. This is why the Biden admin initiated the Minerals Security Partnership with Japan, India, and Australia. |
|
|
|
| ▲ | bdamm 4 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| The BBC piece is an interesting attempt at garnishing attention. The reporter provides the google maps link to show how large and disgusting the process is. But it is actually a very small lake, if you compare it to things such as oil extraction.
Take a look at the oil sands of Fort Mcmurray, Alberta; and at the same zoom level as the reporter uses, you'll see this is absolutely massive and diminishes the "massive" rare earths waste lake by orders of magnitude: https://www.google.com/maps/@57.0304073,-111.55372,6025m/dat... I don't think it is good, but let's be reasonable in comparing environmental harm. |
| |
| ▲ | soperj 4 days ago | parent | next [-] | | I don't think that lake tailing pond even exists any more. https://www.google.com/maps/place/Mildred+Lake,+AB+T9K+2Z1/@... Check the previous dates. 2018 yes, 2022, no. | | | |
| ▲ | MisterTea 4 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | That is a whataboutism. This isn't about China or the size of the lake, but the fact that there is a lake because the effluent is difficult to dispose of and currently has no use. Edit: to further clarify, I am not against refining them in the USA. Just that we have to also address the consequences of doing so. | | |
| ▲ | bdamm 4 days ago | parent [-] | | "Difficult to dispose of and has no use" is the very definition of a tailings pond, and you'll find them all over the place if you care to look. Environmental catastrophies are happening all over the globe on a massive scale. My point is exactly that; yeah it's toxic, but so is basically every mine and many oil refineries too. Check out the rate of cancer around coal mines or refining hubs, you might be surprised. |
|
|
|
| ▲ | _DeadFred_ 4 days ago | parent | prev [-] |
| "These minerals are being use to fortify our water supply." |
