The Chinese have been appropriating our technology with our full approval (remember IBM selling Lenovo their PC business?) due in large part to our policies developed to increase profits for corporations. We're our own worst enemy, the Chinese simply take advantage of our lack of foresight and greed. Also, our colleges make money catering to foreign students and I doubt that they'd not send lobbyists to Congress if there were any such attempt to send Chinese students home.
The fact is that REE in China are the property of the Chinese, and as they are their resource, they have a good argument as to controlling their export and we chose to send our technology to China because it brought a few well connected people more wealth. Perhaps we'd have more trade leverage had we not given China so much in the first place.
Maybe it's time to re-engineer our society to be far more efficient such that we don't require REE and conventional magnets can produce what we need. Oh, and reconsider our trade and business policies such that they don't benefit only a few. As far as I'm concerned this is all about sustainability.
I can't speak for Warren, but in an earlier post, I mentioned that there are about 110,000 or more Chinese students here at any given time taking our technology to China. It would be fair to send these students home until China opens up thier rare earth markets again.
Good point, ChasChas. I would imagine a craft could be build in orbit, much like the space station was. Then rockets would only be necessary to ferry passengers back and forth to the craft. Getting the payload from the craft down to earth could be tricky.
Speculators do not stabilize prices, they create bubbles. Markets stabilize prices only when those bidding on the commodity have an actual stake in the commodity and not merely whether others will pay more for the commodity later than they did.
Sorry but RE motors are not close to many times smaller than other types. They won't be replaced by ferrite magnets but by far better tech like Telsa's and the EV-1's motors that use no RE and smaller than a similar RE motor. No?
So much hype and little substance here.
The article on UC's is far worse, just pure hype by the manufacturer. I can't wait to see his response. It should be enlightening for all of us.
Our missing link to successful space mining is that we have no space drive like all the science fiction crafts and what has been observed in "UFO's". We need something to replace the rocket to break earth's gravity before real economic feasibility is here.
Where are we at on the carbon nanotube ribbon hooked to a geosynchronous satellite?
As a user of rare-earth magnets I hear there are large quantities of the resources necessary here in the USA but for the cost of getting it out of the earth. I guess the "rare" part is the permits, etc.
China broke international agreements in withholding this material from the world. I think it is a brilliant maneuver to raise prices. Saudi Arabia, et al, do it with oil. I do it with my vast mental capacity and my stunning good looks. So, the solution is an engineering one. How can we get around China? We got around the buggy whip cartel with the automobile. We can find ways to extract it from our own soil effectively, safely, and cleanly (unless the government has another hidden agenda in agreements with China). Or we can find substitutes. Maybe there is a substance we can use like "I Can't Believe It's Not Neodymium!"
I don't know if I buy the "hoarding" excuse. Speculators tend to stabilize prices. I think dark-side politics are at play, Mr. Watson.
Engineers at Fuel Cell Energy have found a way to take advantage of a side reaction, unique to their carbonate fuel cell that has nothing to do with energy production, as a potential, cost-effective solution to capturing carbon from fossil fuel power plants.
To get to a trillion sensors in the IoT that we all look forward to, there are many challenges to commercialization that still remain, including interoperability, the lack of standards, and the issue of security, to name a few.
This is part one of an article discussing the University of Washington’s nationally ranked FSAE electric car (eCar) and combustible car (cCar). Stay tuned for part two, tomorrow, which will discuss the four unique PCBs used in both the eCar and cCars.
Focus on Fundamentals consists of 45-minute on-line classes that cover a host of technologies. You learn without leaving the comfort of your desk. All classes are taught by subject-matter experts and all are archived. So if you can't attend live, attend at your convenience.