‘Renewable’ energy requires huge increase in rare earth minerals
The recent threats by Beijing to cut off American access to critical mineral imports has many Americans wondering why our politicians have allowed the United States to become so overly dependent on China for these valued resources in the first place.
Today, the United States is 90% dependent on China and Russia for many vital “rare earth minerals.”
The main reason for our over-reliance on nations like China for these minerals is not that we are running out of these resources here at home. The U.S. Mining Association estimates that we have at least $5 trillion of recoverable mineral resources.
The U.S. Geological Survey reports that we still have up to 86% or more of key mineral resources like copper and zinc remaining in the ground, waiting to be mined. These resources aren’t on environmentally sensitive lands, like national parks, but on the millions of acres of federal, state and private lands.
The mining isn’t happening because of extremely prohibitive environmental rules and a permitting process that can take five to 10 years to open a new mine. Green groups simply resist almost all new drilling.
What they may not realize is that the de facto mining prohibitions jeopardize the “green energy revolution” that liberals are so desperately seeking.
How’s this for rich irony?: Making renewable energy at all technologically plausible will require massive increases in the supply of rare earth and critical minerals. Without these valuable metals, there will not be more efficient 21st-century batteries for electric cars or modern solar panels. Kiss the Green New Deal and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Sen. Bernie Sanders’ utopian vision of 100% renewable energy goodbye.
Yet, for decades now, environmentalists have erected every possible barrier to mining here in America for critical minerals — which we have in great abundance.
Search far and wide through the grandiose Green New Deal plans and you will not find any call for additional domestic mining for battery-operated electric vehicles and electrified mass transportation systems, nor the underlying energy infrastructure.
Thanks to the extreme environmentalists, we import from unfriendly and repressive governments the critical minerals needed to produce rechargeable batteries (lithium and cobalt), wind turbine motors (dysprosium), thin films for solar power (tellurium) and miniature sensors that manage the performance of electric vehicles (yttrium).
Another irony in the left’s anti-mining crusade is that these same groups have long boasted that by eliminating our need for fossil fuels, America won’t rely on cartels like OPEC that have in the past held our nation hostage to wild price swings and embargoes. Greens also complain that fossil fuel dependence requires a multibillion-dollar military presence in the Middle East and around the world to ensure supply. Now we can substitute OPEC with China and Russia.
Here is one simple but telling example of the shortsightedness of the “no mining” position of the environmentalists. Current electric vehicles can use up to 10 times more copper than fossil fuel vehicles. Then, additional copper wire networks will be needed to attach convenient battery chargers throughout public spaces and along roads and highways. Do we really want this entire transportation infrastructure to be dependent on China and Russia?
Of course, it is not just green energy development that will be imperiled by our mining restrictions folly. Innovation and research on new lightweight metals and alloys, such as those used in life-saving medical devices and tiny cameras in smartphones, could also become stalled if foreign prices rise prohibitively.
Also, because our mining laws — the ones that don’t outright prohibit mining — protect the environment far more than those in nations like China and Africa, by importing these minerals, we are contributing to global environmental degradation.
So, there you have it. The keep-it-in-the-ground movement environmentalists demand against the use of almost all of America’s bountiful energy and mineral resources is blocking a green future and a safer planet. Do they know this? Do they care?
Stephen Moore is a senior fellow at the Heritage Foundation and an economic consultant with FreedomWorks. He is the co-author of “Trumponomics: Inside the America First Plan to Revive the American Economy.”
Read more at www.bizpacreview.com
PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL, legally registered in the UK as a company incorporated for charitable purposes. Head Office: 27 Old Gloucester Street, London WC1N 3AX.
Please DONATE TODAY To Help Our Non-Profit Mission To Defend The Scientific Method.
Trackback from your site.
Joseph Olson
| #
It take enormous Carbon energy to mine, refine, manufacture and distribute wind and solar eco trinkets that never produce a fraction of this investment energy. Biofuels are another net energy losser.
“Green Prince of Darkness” > the photovoltaic scam
“Fossil Fuel is Nuclear Waste” > Hydrocarbons are renewable
both at FauxScienceSlayer(.)com
Reply
Charles Higley
| #
Wait, won’t all this mining be done with battery-powered heavy equipment? The enviros are going to be so upset. Wind and solar power to drive the drills and mining equipment. Sounds like a true non-starter.
Reply
Pierre D. Bernier
| #
Wind energy needs a turbine containing a magnetic material like iron or nickel. The problem is that iron and nickel are too dense and heavy to put up there in the wind. That’s why we use rare earth metals that are magnetic and lighter. But the environmentalists have succeeded to have the mining of these minerals banned for it is too polluting to mine them. The result is that China produces 95% of all the rare earth metals the world consumes. The environmentalists have succeeded in exporting all that pollution to China, and the jobs that go with it, so as not to see it here. Also, we need copper wire to bring that wind energy to the markets. Problem… The environmentalists are against copper mines also. You see, the environmentalists are all for wind power but against what is needed to produce it and transport it. What a conundrum !!!
The environmentalists are for solar energy, another source of energy that does not work. It does not work when there is no sun and it does not work either when there is 6 inches of snow on the panels.
To produce solar panels, we need silver. The environmentalists are against silver mines just like they are against copper mines. Yet again, they are for solar energy but against what is needed to produce it. Another conundrum !!!
Reply
Toto's Fan
| #
Well ain’t this a little ray of sunshine reality check?
Reply