The supply and environmental impact of mining rare earth elements (REEs) and other critical minerals used in solar panels and renewable energy technologies vary across different elements:

Supply Constraints

1. Gallium and Indium: These elements are not rare in the Earth’s crust, but they are typically produced as byproducts of zinc and aluminum mining, which means their supply is limited by the production rates of these primary metals. Their availability is considered more constrained due to the specificities of their mining and production processes rather than their actual abundance in the Earth’s crust.

2. Tellurium: This element is one of the least abundant elements in the Earth’s crust. It is primarily obtained as a byproduct of copper refining. Its limited availability is a concern for the scaling of cadmium telluride (CdTe) solar panels.

3. Dysprosium and Neodymium: While these rare earth elements are relatively abundant, their economic deposits are concentrated in specific regions, particularly in China. This geographical concentration creates supply risks related to geopolitical factors, rather than actual scarcity in the Earth’s crust.

Environmental Issues

Mining and processing of rare earth elements and other critical minerals can have significant environmental impacts:

1. Water Pollution and Toxicity: The mining process for REEs often involves the use of toxic chemicals, which can lead to water pollution if not properly managed. The release of toxic substances can harm local water sources and affect ecosystems and human health.

2. Radioactive Waste: Some rare earth element deposits are associated with materials that contain naturally occurring radioactive elements such as uranium and thorium. The processing of these elements can result in radioactive waste, posing challenges for disposal and management.

3. Habitat Destruction: Mining activities can lead to significant alteration of landscapes, destruction of habitats, and loss of biodiversity. This is particularly concerning in areas of high ecological value.

4. Energy Consumption and Greenhouse Gas Emissions: The extraction and processing of these minerals are energy-intensive, contributing to greenhouse gas emissions, especially if the energy used is derived from fossil fuels.

Yes, there are thorium reactors currently in various stages of development and testing, though large-scale commercial deployment is still in progress. China is notably advancing in this field, moving closer to completing the world’s first thorium reactor. They have been working on an experimental molten salt reactor, which uses thorium as fuel, with construction on a 2-MW prototype reactor nearly finished. The first tests of this prototype were anticipated to begin as of my last update oai_citation:1,China moves closer to completion of world’s first thorium reactor – ANS / Nuclear Newswire.

In addition to China’s efforts, Copenhagen Atomics, a company based in Denmark, is making significant progress toward the mass manufacturing of thorium reactors. They have developed full-scale reactor hardware for molten salt thorium nuclear reactors and have announced plans to have their first reactor operational by 2028 oai_citation:2,Copenhagen Atomics Progress to Mass Manufacturing Thorium Reactors and First Reactor in 2028 | NextBigFuture.com.

These developments highlight the ongoing interest and investment in thorium technology as a potentially safer and more sustainable alternative to traditional uranium-based nuclear power.

You are anti-science. Modern nuclear is clean energy. The plant needed a lot of work, but nuclear energy is safe and the answer in the long-run. It strips the earth of far less resources and is the most abundant source of energy. Modern reactors like thorium and other designs with built in disipation of heat cannot melt down or have runaway reactions in general. Although “free” solar and wind require both habitat destruction en masse as well as mining for millions of tons of rare earth mineral. Nuclear requires a finite footprint where you can even just upgrade existing facilities and existing fissionable material can be used and the waste can even be recycled to make more reactor fuel. You fell for the doom and gloom of the mass media.

Its general definition means the national movement for the return of the Jewish people to their homeland and the resumption of Jewish sovereignty in the Land of Israel.

It’s important to distinguish between the political and ideological aspects of Zionism and the actions taken by individuals or groups in its name. The idea of Zionism itself does not inherently call for or imply ethnic cleansing. Zionism, like any national movement, has a range of perspectives within it, including those that seek peaceful coexistence and mutual respect between Jews and Arabs in the region.

The history of the region is complex and marked by conflict, and there have been instances where actions taken by some in the name of Zionism or Israeli statehood have been criticized and are a subject of ongoing debate and conflict. However, equating Zionism itself with ethnic cleansing oversimplifies the situation and does not accurately represent the intentions and beliefs of many who identify with Zionist ideals.

You’ll see from my history that I was on your side until recently, but I’ve pretty much done a 180. You can’t blame civilians for the government that they weren’t born to vote for and even if they did vote for them, you really can only engage combatants. If you starve out and kill civilians, that’s war crimes and it’s making Israel look bad and that unfortunately makes antisemitism worse globally since Israel is lauded as being the Jewish homeland. It’s totally problematic, and I am firmly against the current Israeli government and don’t feel that Zionism requires genocide. It is extremely counterintuitive and shows we have learned nothing from the past. History is repeating itself. You can’t generalize an entire population of being subhuman to make it easier to justify extermination. People forget that these were modern urban areas and a large portion of the population just want to live in peace.

I shave DE and this is an amazing idea. I currently use a sharps container, but this is so much more fun.

Is it possible though that they can just try harder. Sure, I was raised upper middle class, but I’ve been able to make it just fine. The best lessons that got me ahead were the ones where I had to suck it up and do real grinding work. That’s when I learned the most and got motivated to push my way up. You would assume that they would be forced into the grind, but I guess not. In all honesty, college was a joke and I could have just lied about it and gotten to where I am today. I think that having parents that gave a shit mattered the most. They didn’t even need to do much other than give me some basic morals. The work ethic even came later. In summary, capitalism is not responsible for poor peoe having a gazillion children and then not teaching them to be good people. It’s kind of just on them. If anything, the system should limit their ability to procreate by not providing unlimited aide. They should get punished for having children they can’t afford because that’s neglect.

Is it possible that the poor people can just try harder at capitalism?

People are just lazy. I love vegetating at home, but do make time now for travel and got to the gym early. When I was a kid, I would bike around my neighborhood. I can see that being more problematic now, but that is moreso because of all the criminals from the poor towns ruining our nice things. I know there are solutions for that, but I haven’t seen any, which is unfortunate. I blame poor people for having many children and then expecting the welfare state to pay for and raise them.

Yeah. I don’t want to live there, but if my company wants to tax shelter there and fly me in occasionally for Franklin brisket and La BBQ everything else, that would be perfectly fine. The state will hopefully improve in time.

I don’t like forced in-person work unless it’s just a quarterly on-site where they fly us in and pay for accommodations. I agree that Texas is fucked until they fix their abortion laws, however it is worth mentioning that Austin is a liberal city and does not function the same way as the rest of Texas in many regards. It is becoming a tech hub and would be cool if my company relocated there, as long as they flew me in quarterly and didn’t expect anything more than that. Really great BBQ. They do have a bad homeless problem though.

A strange game. The only winning move is not to play. How about a nice game of chess?

Even with fission, nuclear is a panacea of energy with almost no waste for modern reactors. I can see there being an initial rise in energy costs to get those projects built out though. If they are phasing out nuclear, that would be dumb.

Additionally, researchers at MIT recently found that you can evaporate water without heat, so that should hopefully be a thing in the near future.

I was about to write back that we are not far off the advances to make these affordable and then did a google search and found that you can get a distilled unit on Amazon for $180 that is capable of making a gallon in 5 hours for about $.45 worth of electricity. That is far less than what it costs to buy distilled water at the store, which is around $1 a gallon. If you look at this from a break-even analysis, you technically start to reap the rewards of ownership after about 800 uses since the first 400 uses basically cost you $1.45 per gallon, then the next 400 costs you $.45 per gallon, but you are recouping that extra cost over the $1 retail price, so by the 800th use, you are getting water at less than half the price of the store.

Not necessarily. It just requires excitation at a molecular level. You can get creative with your source. They have been playing around with low energy methods like LED or even just using the sun, geothermal, etc.

Distill water, then add minerals back into it, and bottle in glass, profit.

What if that tent was firing rockets though.

Shouldn’t we get their side of the story?

Just playing devil’s advocate, but is it possible that the resources existed for these people to leave their war zone homes and they chose to stay in a war zone where they were told that if they stay, they would be considered enemy combatants? It feels like this supposed ethnic community would come together and help each other out. I feel like there are two sides to every story. The IDF said that the homes that burned contained terrorist stuff. It’s possible for the bad guys to have families and still be bad guys. They put their own families in harms way for their ideology.

Well. If no one can claim land permanently, then it all becomes a negotiation of words and actions regarding who gets to live where. The people in Palestinian Territories are beholden to those that let them have their independence. They abused those freedoms granted to them. If they did not like settlers in their territory, then they should have treated the situation diplomatically instead of murdering and raping like savages. Hamas should surrender instead of hiding behind civilians.

They seem like they might do things like that.