Study: Enough rare earth minerals to fuel green energy shift | AP News
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
The world has enough rare earth minerals and other critical raw materials to switch from fossil fuels to renewable energy to produce electricity and limit global warming, according to a new study that counters concerns about the supply of such minerals.
With a push to get more electricity from solar panels, wind turbines, hydroelectric and nuclear power plants, some people have worried that there won't be enough key minerals to make the decarbonization switch.
Rare earth minerals, also called rare earth elements, actually aren't that rare. The U.S. Geological Survey describes them as a "relatively abundant." They're essential for the strong magnets necessary for wind turbines; they also show up in smartphones, computer displays and LED light bulbs. This new study looks at not only those elements but 17 different raw materials required to make electricity that include some downright common resources such as steel, cement and glass.
A team of scientists looked at the materials — many not often mined heavily in the past — and 20 different power sources. They calculated supplies and pollution from mining if green power surged to meet global goals to cut heat-trapping carbon emissions from fossil fuel.
Much more mining is needed, but there are enough minerals to go around and drilling for them will not significantly worsen warming, the study in Friday's scientific journal Joule concluded.
"Decarbonization is going to be big and messy, but at the same time we can do it," said study co-author Zeke Hausfather, a climate scientist at the tech company Stripe and Berkeley Earth. "I'm not worried we're going to run out of these materials."
Much of the global concern about raw materials for decarbonization has to do with batteries and transportation, especially electric cars that rely on lithium for batteries. This study doesn't look at that.
Looking at mineral demands for batteries is much more complicated than for electric power and that's what the team will do next, Hausfather said. The power sector is still about one-third to half of the resource issue, he said.
A lot depends on how fast the world switches to green energy.
There will be short supplies. For example, dysprosium is a mineral used for magnets in wind turbines and a big push for cleaner electricity would require three times as much dysprosium as currently produced, the paper said. But there's more than 12 times as much dysprosium in reserves than would be needed in that clean energy push.
Another close call is tellurium, which is used in industrial solar farms and where there may be only slightly more estimated resources than what would be required in a big green push. But Hausfather said there are substitutions available in all these materials' cases.
"There are enough materials in reserves. The analysis is robust and this study debunks those (running out of minerals) concerns," said Daniel Ibarra, an environment professor at Brown University, who wasn't part of the study but looks at lithium shortages. But he said production capacity has to grow for some "key metals" and one issue is how fast can it grow.
Another concern is whether the mining will add more heat-trapping carbon emissions to the atmosphere. It will, maybe as much as 10 billion metric tons, which is one-quarter of the annual global carbon emissions, Hausfather said. Renewables require more materials per energy output than fossil fuels because they are more decentralized, he said.
But the increase in carbon pollution from more mining will be more than offset by a huge reduction in pollution from heavy carbon emitting fossil fuels, Hausfeather said.
Stanford University's Rob Jackson, who wasn't part of the study, said while multiple lines of evidence show there are enough rare earth minerals, balance is needed: "Along with mining more, we should be using less."
___
Tags
Who is online
44 visitors
But the increase in carbon pollution from more mining will be more than offset by a huge reduction in pollution from heavy carbon emitting fossil fuels, Hausfeather said.
Green technology will help us avoid boiling the planet.
The planet will not boil, what we are seeing is the runup to the next Ice Age, it is inevitable and we can't stop it. But that being said, the green energy push may even accelerate the warming. Solar panels take sunlight that normally would be reflected back to space and change it into heat both at the panel and at the end use and wind turbines also take heat from the atmosphere, this heat which is what causes the wind in its journey to be released to space, and through friction and induction produces heat at the generator and at the end use.
Just recently Sweden discovered a large deposit of rare earth minerals in the northern part of the country.
I saw something on the Science Channel last week of deep sea ocean mining of these black nodules that are 80% metal and 20% rare earth?
Hundreds of years old, usually formed around sharks tooth or bits of clam shell.
Seafloor Mining For Critical Metals – A Brilliant Idea Or Another Environmental Catastrophe? (forbes.com)
These tend to occur in ocean deserts but there are many objections due to some inadvertent
damage to marine life as evidenced in the Bahamas,
but Norway says they have the perfect situation with tens of thousands of hectares of lifeless ocean deserts covered in these nodules. Just a harsher environment.
"A lot depends on how fast the world switches to green energy."
That's not likely to ever happen. So called "green energy" is unreliable and not of sufficient quantity to power the "world"
The horseless carriage (motor carriage) will never replace horse-drawn carriages.
Too subtle.
A dream is a wish your heart makes...if only we wish hard enough fossil fuels will be abolished and humankind will live happily ever after!
Eventually they will. Reserves are not endless.
Some people have no ability to extrapolate into the future. They simply dismiss due to naïve incredulity.
To wit, if it has not yet happened they cannot comprehend it ever happening.
they've already synthesized the production of crude oil. all they have to do is dig a barrel sized hole down to the previously depleted oil fields, throw in some animals that can't adapt to change, add a little recycled oil and some grass clippings, wait a few millennium and then poof, pennzoil...
I say when people die when throw them in to the pits left over after oil extraction.
If we do that we won't be able to produce a sufficient supply of "Soylent Green".
Follow the laws of physics, look at the reality and limitations of power generation, the current uses of fossil fuels, and then be honest and admit that wind and solar can only supplement of small potion of the total energy demand. Perhaps someday hydrogen and nuclear technologies can economically be developed to supplement power capacity even more.
Where do you get the absurd idea that I do not see limitations in current technology?
Did you not notice that I spoke of the future? That it was extremely naïve for you to claim:
"Not likely to ever happen" ignores our history of improving proven technology. The limitations of today's engineering wither with time. And the fact that we have had our initial success with nuclear fusion achieving a net gain in energy shows that it is indeed possible in physics and that suggests strongly that we will be adding nuclear fusion to our list of green sources that will continue to improve as time goes on.
"Not likely to ever happen" is cynical and naïve.
"the human body cannot endure sustained speeds of over 25 mph without irreparable harm"
early anti-railroad propaganda...
We got hit with a storm yesterday , not so much where i am until late last night into today , been watching the road closures around the state due to weather , currently the entire I-80 corridor is closed with a rolling closure in place , what that means is that once they close the road at a specific point , they turn folks around because that point has no more room or space to park anything and all the services are spoken for . and thats a main east west route , the main north south , I-25 is about the same
Some folks are saying they have been stuck since tuesday due to road closures , i cant imagine being in a green vehicle of any kind in this type of situation .
If anyone has something due for delivery , to paraphrase some of my down east maine relatives , "It caunt get theyah from heah ..."
Hey, I was promised flying cars eighty years ago...
be patient , george jetson was only born last year in reality if you follow that shows timeline .
Meet George Jetson.
His Boy Elroy.
Daughter Judy.
Jane his wife.
Set in 2062.
yup and he was suppose to be about 40 years old .
That actually makes me feel old....Haha
Men will never fly.
Mankind will never land on the Moon
The space race is/was a waste of resources
Alternating current Electricity was once thought too dangerous for public consumption.
Fulton's Folly...
Didn't Edison or someone electrocute an elephant.
Consistent with your earlier comment, what does Edison have to do with this?
Tesla championed AC,
Edison championed DC
Supposedly, Edisons employees electrocuted Topsy the elephant to show how
dangerous AC could be.
Some say Tesla orchestrated it - its still on Utube
Edison also carried on a campaign against Tesla and
Westinghouse and equated being electrocuted to being "Westinghoused".
Tesla & Westinghouse won in the court of public opinion.
He was responding to my comment
in response to Greg Jones.
The sun is certainly reliable and has sufficient quantity to power the whole world for 100 million years.
The trick is storing energy for night time and cloudy days.
We've put Rovers on Mars.
We got this.
Damn right.
We have even flown a fucking helicopter on Mars!
If you say so....keep wishing and hoping.
What is with this negative attitude? Is it your desire for the world to NOT move to more renewable energy and thus lessen our use of fossil fuel energy?
100 years ago we were fighting wars with mounted cavalry.
Tanks and APCs pretty much ended cavalry in WWII.
Now drones of all sizes are changing the battlefield again.
Change is the only constant,
and change is what we are good at.
( but MAGA) /S
Perhaps some people are just overly pessimistic.
Change can certainly be good. But some people clearly have trouble accepting or adapting to change.
You just might be on to something, Gordy.
Until emerging countries like China and India hop on the bus, developed countries carbon reductions are like putting a thumb in the failed carbon dike. Their accelerations far outpace our reductions. That’s the current reality.
The best we likely can expect with green energy is partial load shedding. Which is better than nothing. It’s unlikely heavy commercial and industrial users will ever find enough demand capacity from green energy to go 100% green.
But hey, it sure makes some folks feel good saying that it will.
Solar power is a fast developing industry in India . [2] The country's solar installed capacity was 63.303 GW AC as of 31 December 2022. [3] Solar power generation in India ranks fourth globally in 2021. [4]
The Indian Government had an initial target of 20 GW capacity for 2022, which was achieved four years ahead of schedule. [5] In 2015 the target was raised to 100 GW of solar capacity (including 40 GW from rooftop solar ) by 2022, targeting an investment of US$ 100 billion. [6] [7] India has established nearly 42 solar parks to make land available to the promoters of solar plants. [8]
Rooftop solar power accounts for 2.1 GW in 2018, of which 70% is industrial or commercial. [9] In addition to its large-scale grid-connected solar photovoltaic (PV) initiative, India is developing off-grid solar power for local energy needs. [10] Solar products have increasingly helped to meet rural needs; by the end of 2015 just under one million solar lanterns were sold in the country, reducing the need for kerosene . [11] That year, 118,700 solar home lighting systems were installed and 46,655 solar street lighting installations were provided under a national programme; [11] just over 1.4 million (1.4 million) solar cookers were distributed in India. [11]
Solar power in China
China is the largest market in the world for both photovoltaics and solar thermal energy . China's photovoltaic industry began by making panels for satellites , and transitioned to the manufacture of domestic panels in the late 1990s. [1] After substantial government incentives were introduced in 2011, China's solar power market grew dramatically: the country became the world's leading installer of photovoltaics in 2013. China surpassed Germany as the world's largest producer of photovoltaic energy in 2015, [2] [3] and became the first country to have over 100 GW of total installed photovoltaic capacity in 2017. [4]
At the end of 2020, China's total installed photovoltaic capacity was 253 GW, accounting for one-third of the world's total installed photovoltaic capacity (760.4 GW). [5] Most of China's solar power is generated within its western provinces and is transferred to other regions of the country. In 2011, China owned the largest solar power plant in the world at the time, the Huanghe Hydropower Golmud Solar Park , which had a photovoltaic capacity of 200 MW. In 2018, it held the record again with the Tengger Desert Solar Park with its photovoltaic capacity of 1.5 GW. China currently owns the second-largest solar plant in the world, the Huanghe Hydropower Hainan Solar Park, which has a capacity of 2.2 GW. [6]
Beside the point. Annual CO2 emissions by country reinforces my point. Yours? Not so much.
I believe Wikipedia should be a banned source on here. It is a well known liberal cesspool, with only leftists allowed to monitor and allow for changes.
Not even the smallest community college allows Wiki to be used as a source for their students.
A Wikipedia report actually contains tons of links (in blue) to other sources.
If you care to dispute any of the specific information, please do, and include links to your sources.
No comment to my post I see.
Typical
Innovation and change need drivers. To get less costly / more available renewable energy, we need a global market that will consume it and encourage more research and development; we need a global market that is shifting (incrementally of course) from fossil fuels to renewable.
Commonsense and history tells us that China, India, etc. will continue to use carbon-dirty sources of energy as long as these are convenient and economical. So the challenge is to gather renewable momentum, develop technology that can deliver affordable renewable energy and, in result, reduce demand on fossil fuels (which will, in turn, have the economic effect of making them less affordable and renewables more affordable).
If the largest carbon emitters on the planet never play ball, then we are all screwed. So one can take a cynical position of "fuck it, my clean practices will not make a difference" or one can recognize that a strong momentum towards renewables and away from fossil fuels is our best course of action to mitigate anthropogenic factors adversely affecting the climate.
In the end, those who understand the problem and are willing to work on its solution will either drive critical mass to effect necessary global change (as described above) or we will all suffer the consequences of failure.
You just took four paragraphs to say what I said in one sentence. And no one said we shouldn’t be pursuing lower carbon output. Least of all me.
You then ignored the point I made. I agreed that China and India are the current 800lb gorillas (and apparently this is all you read) and then went on to make a point.
My point is that we (worldwide) need to continue growing the momentum of renewable (clean) energy rather than take a cynical position of "fuck it, my clean practices will not make a difference". Why? Because as we develop more effective (and cheaper) renewables, we change the economics and thus encourage China and India to follow suit (at least at a faster pace than now).
Paradigm shifts start with a small set of early adopters who create momentum that eventually shifts a practice from exception to norm. Automobiles started off as a wild-assed exceptions to horse-drawn carriages. The web was initially used for bulletin board services, etc. by a relatively tiny portion of the population. Cell phones began as novelties.
The claim "fuck it, the public will never abandon their horses for automobiles" was cynical and defeatist.
Not really but you did choose to ignore this comment:
So I guess we are even. Your brand of analysis is just too preachy for me. Especially when a lecture isn’t required.
If we are talking the present then yes green energy will take only a fraction of the load. Our worldwide infrastructure is still predominantly fossil-fuel based. So, yeah, that is true today. Now continue moving forward in time: I suggest that renewables will continue to replace fossil fuels. Getting to 100% renewable is unlikely since very few things are 100% but 9x% renewable energy in the future (past our lifetimes) is certainly probable.
You offered no rebuttal to my point. You continue to ignore it.
As usual, when challenged you deflect and go personal.
Again, that was my only point. To understand this issue one must have a firm grasp on the concept of Peak Demand. That is, the highest electrical demand called for in any 15 -30 time frame. Usually during the early afternoon in the hottest summer months. Peak demand can be 50-100% of normal demand. Therefore the grid must be capable of providing this as required, at any time. It’s just not realistic that solar/wind/etc will ever provide the required additional Peak when needed. Not without building massive battery storage banks fed by massive alternate energy sources. And I do mean massive. Which simply isn’t realistic.
Fossil or Nuclear fueled power plants fit this need very effectively.
Not ignore, just not interested or needing to rebut it. Not all of life is a debate tig.
I make a simple observation. You take it personal. Not much I can do about that.
Ever? As noted, that is akin to the cynics claiming the automobile will never replace the horse. Or that the personal computer is just a fad.
Consider, for example, fusion energy. You think we will NEVER develop nuclear fusion to the point where it is a major source of renewable energy?
Renewables will almost certainly continue to grow while fossil fuels will continue to wane. Our worldwide infrastructure will continue to evolve towards renewables. That is the trend today and there are great reasons for why we are motivated to continue in that direction.
It is foolish to bet against the progression of technology (science and engineering).
The way it looks now is, since we are now going to go all in on renewables, let's kill all the horses. Horses were still useful and needed until technology caught up, my grandparents were still using horses for farming and logging into the 60's. It takes time, but some places like CA seem to think 10-12 years is all that is needed.
Why do you take this to the ridiculous extreme? Especially since I suggested nothing like that.
Renewable (clean) energy will eventually be the dominant form (over fossil fuel). I stated a future of 9x% being probable. Not 100%. My comment also described an incremental approach. One where fossil fuel technology is waning. Not one where fossil fuel technology is abruptly stopped (much less at 100%).
Yes, but did I say you. Take CA, their talking about banning sales of gas/diesel vehicles by 2035 (I believe that is what was reported), at some point it would not be profitable to run a gas station in CA, therefore to travel in CA you would need an EV only, carry all your fuel with you, or just never travel to CA with your own fossil fueled vehicle. If CA follows through with this, the lack of fueling stations would be tantamount to "killing all the horses". For a state that many rely on the tourist industry that will probably suck.
You replied to me. That context has meaning.
I would not worry about our fossil fuel infrastructure disappearing anytime soon. Some things are simply too complex and too engrained to disassemble and discard no matter how much someone wishes to do so.
On top of that, economics is a dominant factor. To achieve widespread renewable use, the energy must be price competitive with fossil fuels.
Yes ever. Honestly I’ll be surprised if it completely replaces normal demand. Which we are not even close to right now and yet, to meet Peak Demand we’ll need to double it again. Not likely.
Horrible analogies. My comments are clearly not denying the viability alternate energies. Only their complete replacement of fossil fuels for energy generation. You feel they will. I disagree and have repeated the technical reasons why. You have offered no viable rebuttal for those reasons but only offer ridiculous analogies like horses. Horses are still in use so they have NEVER been replaced to date. Interesting.
I was clearly talking about wind/solar/etc and noted as such. You including Fusion in that conversation is ridiculous but okay. I’ve noted my position on Fusion more than once here as possibly the only carbon neutral/radioactive waste free option that could replace fossil fuels completely but the reality of Fusion implementation into our grid is decades away if not more. But it sure does make for a good magazine article read.
No one denies that, least all me so I fail to see your point.
True, in the developed world. In the underdeveloped world not so much. As illustrated in the link showing China and India’s carbon emissions exceeding the developed worlds carbon reductions. As noted, we are pissing up a rope until countries like that get on the bus.
Again, who here is saying we shouldn’t. Certainly not me.
After a long career as a practicing Engineer. Some of which involved power distribution and design, I agree with that. Problem is I wouldn’t have lasted that long had I promised pie in the sky results. Arm chair engineers have that luxury. Practicing engineers do not. Not if they want to keep their job that is. We have to be realistic. Which, no matter how hard you try to characterize it as something else here, is all I’m doing.
The movement toward renewables and away from fossil fuels is undeniable. I am sure that fossil fuels will exist for a very long time in some much more limited capacity, but the predominant energy source will eventually be renewable. Especially given the almost certain future availability of nuclear fusion energy.
Which tells me that they were indeed great analogies.
Never suggested you were denying their viability.
You would like to change your point from:
to: Renewables will never completely replace fossil fuels for energy generation.
If so, yes I think that is a sensible position. There will always likely be some usage of fossil fuels for energy. Just like there still exists a need for horses.
I took exception to your claim that renewables will never displace fossil fuels as the predominant source of energy. That notion of a time-independent dominance of fossil fuel defies facts, logic and commonsense.
What does the term "etc" mean to you? Nuclear fusion is part of 'etc' unless you explicitly exclude it. So what would be your grounds for excluding it?
I agree, it is decades away. But I was countering your claim of NOT ever.
Indeed. Realistically, the trend is towards renewables and away from fossil fuels. Realistically, science and engineering progress (improve). Thus if we get to a point where a solution is possible (i.e. where we are now with nuclear fusion energy), it is typically a matter of time when we cleverly make the solution feasible and practical and then enticingly economical.
It is unrealistic to claim: "It’s just not realistic that solar/wind/etc will ever provide the required additional Peak when needed. "
Not sure why I even try but I didn’t stutter.
Like most of our “debates” I stand by all of my comments here on this topic. Specifically the unrealistic expectation that fossil fuels will ever be replaced completely. [deleted]
Using your analogy of autos vs horses. Horses are still in use nearly 140 years after the first motor car. Fossil fuels will be like that but that’s okay. You won’t be alive to gloat if that doesn’t happen.
I never made any claim like that. You are ( big surprise ) still trying to move the goalposts.
This is illogical. ⇡
Your continued obfuscation (and snark) does not make those words correct.
Hydrogen is abundant and readily available. The oceans are full of hydrogen. And hydrogen used as fuel will naturally recycle itself without need for any intervention. Of course, the problem is that separating hydrogen from water requires a source of energy. The abundance of hydrogen doesn't tell the entire story.
Rare earths are not easily separated and refined, either. As with water, abundance can be a misleading measure. Rare earths are not a prerequisite for wind turbines, either. Wind turbines will produce electricity without rare earths but they wouldn't be as efficient (or profitable).
The green energy push is searching for a philosopher's stone, the alchemist's prize. But we should not be misled by phony moral justifications. The real motivation is money and not energy or environmental concerns. If these high minded con-artists were really serious about climate change then there would be demands to eliminate activities that simply waste energy. But those types of demands would adversely affect profit margins and passive investors would suffer.
Yes, there may be abundant rare earth minerals around the world, however, to get to most of them, strip mining is the required method. This will destroy many millions of acres over time to get to these minerals, and most of the left, who are environments and climate cultists, don't seem to care.
At least with oil and natural gas, the method of retrieval is to drill down, with very little damage to the environment.
IMNAAHO, the important point here is the extensive and intensive search and research going on all over the world to improve electricity generation, storage, transmission, and use... in EVs and... everything.
We're seeing batteries without lithium or cobalt, for just one example.
Never underestimate the power of money. In this case, there's a ton of money to be made in improving our brave new (electric) world.