Rare earth elements on their way out of EVs?

[placeholder]

Scientific breakthrough with mysterious cosmic metal could solve major crisis on Earth: ‘There’s been an urgent search’

Rick Kazmer
Sun, October 29, 2023 at 5:15 PM GMT+7·2 min read

Cambridge researchers are working to recreate an outer space magnet on Earth

If successful, the work could give the West renewable tech independence from China, while also securing a more planet-friendly material to help power electric vehicles and other tech.

The researchers call tetrataenite a “cosmic magnet” that could revolutionize how we power cleaner technology.

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/scientific-breakthrough-mysterious-cosmic-metal-190000695.html

[placeholder]

This material is almost as strongly magnetic as magnets made with rare earth elements. If this is successful, that would drastically reduce, if not eliminate, the use of rare earth magnets in EVs, wind turbines, and lots of other applications.

[Bandersnatch]

I regularly see posts here claiming that REES are used in large quantities in modern EV batteries but that is incorrect. They were is used in Nickel–metal hydride batteries in older hybrid cars, but that is no longer the case.

 

“ 'rare-earth' is a misnomer because they are not actually scarce, although historically it took a long time to isolate these elements.

 

rare-earth elements are technically relatively plentiful in the entire Earth's crust, cerium being the 25th-most-abundant element at 68 parts per million, more abundant than copper

 

Ce and La are important as catalysts, and are used for petroleum refining and as diesel additives”

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rare-earth_element

 

 

 

[placeholder]

On 10/31/2023 at 6:50 AM, Bandersnatch said:

I regularly see posts here claiming that REES are used in large quantities in modern EV batteries but that is incorrect. They were is used in Nickel–metal hydride batteries in older hybrid cars, but that is no longer the case.

 

“ 'rare-earth' is a misnomer because they are not actually scarce, although historically it took a long time to isolate these elements.

 

rare-earth elements are technically relatively plentiful in the entire Earth's crust, cerium being the 25th-most-abundant element at 68 parts per million, more abundant than copper

 

Ce and La are important as catalysts, and are used for petroleum refining and as diesel additives”

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rare-earth_element

 

 

 

Thanks for the info. I wasn't aware the rare earths were used in petroleum refining.

[thaibeachlovers]

On 10/31/2023 at 12:50 PM, Bandersnatch said:

I regularly see posts here claiming that REES are used in large quantities in modern EV batteries but that is incorrect. They were is used in Nickel–metal hydride batteries in older hybrid cars, but that is no longer the case.

 

“ 'rare-earth' is a misnomer because they are not actually scarce, although historically it took a long time to isolate these elements.

 

rare-earth elements are technically relatively plentiful in the entire Earth's crust, cerium being the 25th-most-abundant element at 68 parts per million, more abundant than copper

 

Ce and La are important as catalysts, and are used for petroleum refining and as diesel additives”

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rare-earth_element

 

 

 

I understand they are used in many components in an EV, or any modern car, just as they are used for mobile phones etc.

 

The problem with rare earths isn't that they are hard to find, but that they are extremely polluting to refine, which is apparently why western countries don't want them refined in their countries.

[placeholder]

On 12/4/2023 at 2:36 AM, thaibeachlovers said:

I understand they are used in many components in an EV, or any modern car, just as they are used for mobile phones etc.

 

The problem with rare earths isn't that they are hard to find, but that they are extremely polluting to refine, which is apparently why western countries don't want them refined in their countries.

Chinese scientists discover new way to mine rare earth metals that is faster, and causes less pollution

A team of Chinese scientists has developed a new process they say significantly reduces the time needed to extract rare earths from ore, and it could also cut industry pollution. Extracting the trace metal elements is difficult and takes days to complete, but researchers at the Chinese Academy of Sciences in Fuzhou say they have found a way to shorten the process to minutes.

https://www.scmp.com/yp/discover/news/asia/article/3055491/chinese-scientists-discover-new-way-mine-rare-earth-metals

 

And there are lots of western companies developing methods to safely extract rare earths from ore

https://www.reuters.com/sustainability/climate-energy/western-start-ups-seek-break-chinas-grip-rare-earths-refining-2023-12-04/#:~:text=Startup Aether is developing nanotechnology,be operational by late 2024.

[thaibeachlovers]

On 12/5/2023 at 8:33 PM, placeholder said:

Chinese scientists discover new way to mine rare earth metals that is faster, and causes less pollution

A team of Chinese scientists has developed a new process they say significantly reduces the time needed to extract rare earths from ore, and it could also cut industry pollution. Extracting the trace metal elements is difficult and takes days to complete, but researchers at the Chinese Academy of Sciences in Fuzhou say they have found a way to shorten the process to minutes.

https://www.scmp.com/yp/discover/news/asia/article/3055491/chinese-scientists-discover-new-way-mine-rare-earth-metals

 

And there are lots of western companies developing methods to safely extract rare earths from ore

https://www.reuters.com/sustainability/climate-energy/western-start-ups-seek-break-chinas-grip-rare-earths-refining-2023-12-04/#:~:text=Startup Aether is developing nanotechnology,be operational by late 2024.

Good news.  Now all we have to do is make evs affordable enough for everyone on the planet to be able to replace their ICE vehicles.

 

Oh dear, how do we then produce enough electricity to power them all? Nuclear? Yup, that'll do the trick.

[placeholder]

11 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Good news.  Now all we have to do is make evs affordable enough for everyone on the planet to be able to replace their ICE vehicles.

 

Oh dear, how do we then produce enough electricity to power them all? Nuclear? Yup, that'll do the trick.

"According to data from Cox Automotive, parent of Kelley Blue Book, the average transaction price for electric cars was $53,469 in July 2023, vs. gas-powered vehicles at $48,334. Tesla contributed to a substantial drop in EV prices since late last year as it cut prices."

https://www.kbb.com/car-advice/how-much-electric-car-cost/

 

On the one hand, you cite the higher cost of EVs, but on the other you propose insanely costly nuclear power as the solution? Of course, maybe you're being ironic. Hard to tell in your case.

[thaibeachlovers]

On 12/7/2023 at 8:54 PM, placeholder said:

On the one hand, you cite the higher cost of EVs, but on the other you propose insanely costly nuclear power as the solution? Of course, maybe you're being ironic. Hard to tell in your case.

Next generation of nuclear power will probably cost less and be safer. No other means of producing non polluting electricity in sufficient amounts to power the 20 billion people expected in the near future.

( that's a guess, but we jumped from 3 billion to 8 billion in my lifetime so 20 billion is entirely possible ).

[placeholder]

1 hour ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Next generation of nuclear power will probably cost less and be safer. No other means of producing non polluting electricity in sufficient amounts to power the 20 billion people expected in the near future.

( that's a guess, but we jumped from 3 billion to 8 billion in my lifetime so 20 billion is entirely possible ).

Got any actual facts to back that up? Both your claim that nuclear power will be cheaper and then it's the only way to provide enough power.

[thaibeachlovers]

11 hours ago, placeholder said:

Got any actual facts to back that up? Both your claim that nuclear power will be cheaper and then it's the only way to provide enough power.

Plenty of info out there on the next generation of nuclear power. I'm surprised you haven't seen it. As you seem to be into non polluting means of power production I didn't think I needed to provide a link. Did it for you now. Note the reference to CHEAPER.

https://www.vox.com/science/23702686/nuclear-power-small-modular-reactor-energy-climate-change

Smaller, cheaper, safer: The next generation of nuclear power, explained

 

it's the only way to provide enough power for all the extra billions coming soon.

Short of nuclear fusion, what else could provide enough electricity? The wind doesn't always blow, the sun doesn't always shine, big windmills cost too much for poor countries ( or they'd have them already ), and have recycling problems; solar takes too much space and are also expensive for poor people. It's fine if all they use them for is the internet and a couple of lights- a small one will do. try charging a truck with a small solar panel.

[placeholder]

On 12/10/2023 at 4:31 AM, thaibeachlovers said:

Plenty of info out there on the next generation of nuclear power. I'm surprised you haven't seen it. As you seem to be into non polluting means of power production I didn't think I needed to provide a link. Did it for you now. Note the reference to CHEAPER.

https://www.vox.com/science/23702686/nuclear-power-small-modular-reactor-energy-climate-change

Smaller, cheaper, safer: The next generation of nuclear power, explained

 

 

Well. good on you for providing a link. Did you read the entire article?

"Balancing the books may prove to be a bigger obstacle for nuclear power than splitting the atom.

A new report from the National Academy of Engineering says the economics of nuclear power “is perhaps the largest challenge to the commercial success of advanced reactors.” Advanced nuclear reactors are especially tricky to game out.

“Let me just say that anyone making estimates of what it will cost to produce electricity from these power plants has got to have a whole series of embedded assumptions, there’s a lot of uncertainty,” said Richard Meserve, a former chair of the nuclear regulatory commission and a co-author of the report, during a briefing about the report."

https://www.vox.com/science/23702686/nuclear-power-small-modular-reactor-energy-climate-change

 

And there's this:

Deal to build pint-size nuclear reactors canceled

A plan to build a novel nuclear power plant comprising six small modular reactors (SMRs) fell apart this week when prospective customers for its electricity backed out. Utah Associated Municipal Power Systems (UAMPS), a coalition of community-owned power systems in seven western states, withdrew from a deal to build the plant, designed by NuScale Power, because too few members agreed to buy into it. The project, subsidized by the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), sought to revive the moribund U.S. nuclear industry, but its cost had more than doubled to $9.3 billion.

“We still see a future for new nuclear,” says Mason Baker, CEO and general manager of UAMPS, which planned to build the plant in Idaho. “But in the near term, we’re going to focus on … expanding our wind capacity, doing more utility-scale solar, [and] batteries.” 

https://archive.ph/hsGlU

 

There's a saying that the Brazilians have about their nation that I'm going to alter to apply here:

Nuclear energy is the power of the future and always will be.

 

Edited December 11, 2023 by placeholder

[billd766]

On 12/7/2023 at 2:54 PM, placeholder said:

"According to data from Cox Automotive, parent of Kelley Blue Book, the average transaction price for electric cars was $53,469 in July 2023, vs. gas-powered vehicles at $48,334. Tesla contributed to a substantial drop in EV prices since late last year as it cut prices."

https://www.kbb.com/car-advice/how-much-electric-car-cost/

 

On the one hand, you cite the higher cost of EVs, but on the other you propose insanely costly nuclear power as the solution? Of course, maybe you're being ironic. Hard to tell in your case.

The problem as I see it and I agree with TBL here, is that if you replace ALL the ICE cars alone, currently there will not be enough generating capacity in many countries to maintain current supplies of electricity, let alone to add all the EV charged vehicles.

 

Therefore more electricity generation will be required< It could be nuclear which is relatively clean (until you have to dispose pf the nuclear waste), solar generation, hydro electric plants, gas power, and of course the dirty old coal fired system.

 

In addition to generate it, the electricity has to be transmitted, to all the houses, businesses, charging units nation wide etc which in many cases may include revamping MUCH of the existing networks nationwide, adding new networks, replacing transformers etc.

 

The price of electricity will rise world wide and those people who are having a problem paying their electricity billd now will have bigger problems in the future.

 

Then you come to the next problem. which is what to do with all the hundreds of millions of ICE vehicles which will have to be scrapped?

[thaibeachlovers]

On 12/11/2023 at 7:51 PM, billd766 said:

Then you come to the next problem. which is what to do with all the hundreds of millions of ICE vehicles which will have to be scrapped?

Go hydrogen and that isn't a problem as ICE cars can apparently be converted to run on hydrogen, like they can on LPG.

EVs are a dead end IMO.

[placeholder]

7 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Go hydrogen and that isn't a problem as ICE cars can apparently be converted to run on hydrogen, like they can on LPG.

EVs are a dead end IMO.

IMO should be revised to IMUO namely "In My Uninformed Opinion." Or maybe I've got that wrong. Maybe you can share with me the reason why you think batteries are a dead end. What evidence have you got to offer?

As for hydrogen, transport is a huge problem. Current pipelines that transport gas aren't suitable to transport hydrogen. Last time I looked it would take 14 tanker trucks to transfer the equivalent amount of hydrogen.

Ammonia has been proposed as a way to transport the stuff, but ammonia is highly toxic. Some chemical powders also show promise but that's still tentative

Not just that, but using hydrogen will most likely contribute to global warming. Not because it, in itself, is a greenhouse gas, but because it will outcompete methane for oxygen in the atmosphere. So methane will degrade more slowly. And methane is a far more potent greenhouse gas than CO2 even though its lifespan is a lot shorter. And because hydrogen is the smallest molecule, it escaped easily from even the cracks and imperfections. I doubt that automobiles will be burning 100% of the hydrogen they consume.

[billd766]

1 hour ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Go hydrogen and that isn't a problem as ICE cars can apparently be converted to run on hydrogen, like they can on LPG.

EVs are a dead end IMO.

And IMO also.

[placeholder]

5 minutes ago, billd766 said:

And IMO also.

IYUO. Unless you can provide evidence otherwise

Edited December 13, 2023 by placeholder

[billd766]

1 hour ago, placeholder said:

IYUO. Unless you can provide evidence otherwise

That is simply my opinion, as your comment is simply your opinion.

[placeholder]

1 hour ago, billd766 said:

That is simply my opinion, as your comment is simply your opinion.

The thing is,  I regularly provide evidence to back up my opinions. Those are what are called informed opinions. Now, you may believe that an uninformed opinion is no less valuable than an informed one.  I don't.