back to article EV world in serious trouble if China cuts off rare earth materials

China tightening its stranglehold on rare earth elements (REEs) makes now the perfect time for the automotive industry to start thinking about alternatives for EV motors, but not a single proposed solution appears ready for reality. A trio at Oak Ridge National Laboratory in the US – who've been working on EV blueprints that …

  1. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    >"it's perfectly feasible that REE-free motors will one day become mainstream."

    Remind me again when induction motors were commercialised?

    The main reason for the magnets is to eliminate rotor slip rings.

    My son did an interesting analysis of the relative cost of fancy magnets, or replacing some blocks of graphite every now and then when your car comes in for it's regular service.

    Interesting how anything that requires maintenance has become unthinkable.

    1. cyberdemon Silver badge

      No, the main reason for the magnets is to improve efficiency and low-speed torque. Induction motors are incredibly inefficient at low speeds compared to permanent magnet synchronous motors. They have better cooling too, with all the electric current being in the stator, not the rotor. Very hard to cool a rotor.

      That said, Synchronous Reluctance motors are very interesting. Better than induction motors and no rare earths

      You still need a lot of largely Chinese-controlled minerals for the batteries, though.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        It is more accurate to say that induction motors that are not designed for low speed operation are inefficient and have low torque at low speed.

        You will also notice that petrol motors also work quite poorly at zero rpm, but have apparently seen a little success in the market.

        While you put DC through the rotor, they are a EMSM i.e. electromagnet synchronous motor, the same as a PMSM without the permanent magnet part. (The line in the article about rotary transformers probably refers to transformer coupled rotors rather than just using brushes & slip rings)

        1. cyberdemon Silver badge

          Are you trying to say that an EMSM is an induction motor? It isn't..

          The only reason ICEs have maintained popularity is their ubiquitous and energy-dense power source. That and their price, as they are made out of steel and not much else. In most other respects EVs are better.

          If you had an electric motor with poor low speed torque, then you'd need a (selectable) gearbox, which adds to weight, inefficiency, cost, and further erodes any advantages your EV has..

          1. GloriousVictoryForThePeople

            Again, poor low speed torque is a function of design. Type A induction motors are designed for full speed operation and have low starting torque. That is because they are designed that way. You can design them for stall torque if you wish, and some IM's are. Or you can design for variable torque.

            Stationary use IM's are designed for operation direct from mains, with minimal control gear.

            They don't have to be, it's not inherent in the IM.

            Beyond already commercialised motors you can have active rotor motors with electronics on the rotor to eliminate slip rings, and quite a few other tricks that have not been needed much in the past for stationary motors.

            The referred paper was breathlessly suggesting that electric cars are in trouble without REE's for the motors, that is not even close to true. All the tricks that allow a petrol engine to work, can be used in an EV, and if they are economic for petrol cars they are still going to be economic with an electric motor.

            Actually they might be improved. My EV has one major failing (despite its PM motors): It has limited stall torque even with PM motors. It can (and has), get trapped by very steep hills, rocks and bits of wood, despite being a 4wd.

            This is caused by a design obsession with direct drive and no gear box. If they had even given it a 2 speed overdrive unit, it would have adequate torque.

            1. Muscleguy

              All railway engines have electric traction engines. They are wrapped around the wheel shafts. So direct drive. You need a lot of torque to start to move a long goods train but it happens. Trains also sometimes have to go up grades. All the diesel units are diesel electric. The diesel engines are in generator mode running at high revs.

              Car makers seem reluctant to wrap the motors around the axels.

              1. cyberdemon Silver badge

                > Car makers seem reluctant to wrap the motors around the axels.

                One reason for that is "unsprung mass" - the bearings in a motor take a lot of strain as it is. If you have motors on the axles (or in the wheels) then they take an extra bash with each pothole, if they are not protected by the suspension. This can crush the balls in the bearings if it's a particularly nasty bash.

                Trains have the rather wonderful advantage of a smooth rolling surface with no potholes. So they can put motors on the axles.

      2. jmansion64

        By Synchronous Reluctance do you mean the motors also termed EESM?

        eg mentioned https://www.valeo.com/en/catalogue/pts/high-voltage-rare-earth-free-electric-motor/ and https://www.reuters.com/business/autos-transportation/automakers-suppliers-pushing-cut-rare-earths-evs-2023-11-14/ ?

        1. cyberdemon Silver badge

          No, SynRM and EESM are different (but both new, interesting kinds of rare-earth free motor)

          Synchronous Reluctance (SynRM) use a ferromagnetic rotor (i.e. iron) which is specially shaped so that it polarises like a PMSM rotor with alternating poles. (Reluctance = ferromagnetism) it's similar to a Switched Reluctance motor in the same way that a PMSM is similar but better than a "brushless DC" motor. The difference being sinusoidal back-EMF and smooth electronic commutation.

          EESM might be what the OP was referring to? It uses induction to create a current and electromagnetic field in the rotor, but is quite different to a traditional (asynchronous) induction motor..

          As both EESM and SynRMs are fairly new (and afaik both need bespoke drive electronics) I can't really comment on their relative merits. But both have the advantage of being easy to maintain - it's quite difficult/perilous to disassemble and reassemble a large permanent-magnet motor

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            What is new is the pressing need, and the ability of today's electronics to control the motors economically and efficiently. The motors are not new at all. Pressing need and a large valuable market is seeing them further developed now.

    2. Kevin McMurtrie Silver badge

      You're not grasping the level of magnetic torque in EV motors. It would instantly destroy ceramic magnets or melt the core of an induction motor. A 3 motor SUV/truck may momentarily hit 1 MW total input power. This oversizing is not really for the sake of ludicrous acceleration, but minimizing losses during regenerative braking.

  2. Apprentice Human

    Another attempt at monoploy.

    I'll just reference an earlier article about why this is not an issue: https://www.theregister.com/2012/12/23/rare_earth_non_monopoly/ (and there are more in The Register than just this post).

    Or, "It would have worked, too, if not for you pesky kids."

    1. Yet Another Anonymous coward Silver badge

      Re: Another attempt at monoploy.

      China bans export if rare Earths, rest of world bans import of Chinese cars.

      Result:

      Rest of world starts up RE refining in other 3rd world countries

      China has to find another planet to export cars to

      1. IGotOut Silver badge

        Re: Another attempt at monoploy.

        Do you honestly think that outside of the "West" people giving a flying fuck about "world" bans.

        China, Africa, South America will happily buy them.

        1. CowHorseFrog Silver badge

          Re: Another attempt at monoploy.

          Sure they will. Just wait 5 years when major number sof chinese cars fall apart.

          1. Irongut Silver badge

            Re: Another attempt at monoploy.

            Most people do not keep their car for 5 years.

            Those that do will be still using petrol for some time to come.

            1. disgruntled yank Silver badge

              Re: Another attempt at monoploy.

              @irongut

              Which people are these that do not not keep their car for 5 years? Ours is a 2012 model, purchased in early 2013. I should judge that most of my neighbors have cars older than five years, including the Tesla owners.

              1. An_Old_Dog Silver badge

                Re: Another attempt at monoploy.

                I don't know whether or not "most" people swap cars more-quickly than every five years or not, but, those people who are obssessed with "new and shiny" simply lease their cars, and get a new one every year.

                1. CowHorseFrog Silver badge

                  Re: Another attempt at monoploy.

                  You forget this is america, where everyone is not a millionaire, but a trillionaire and everyone runs a fortune 100 company. Thats what the american media woul dhave you believe...

        2. Yet Another Anonymous coward Silver badge

          Re: Another attempt at monoploy.

          Yes China loses out on the USA, Japan and Europe markets but gets to sell its Tesla clones to Rwanda, Mozambique and Venezuela

        3. The Man Who Fell To Earth Silver badge
          FAIL

          Re: Another attempt at monoploy.

          Visit Costa Rica some time. Their previous government let China pave the major roads in the country about a half dozen years ago, and now those roads have fallen apart. A lot of the 3rd world has figured out that "Chinese Cheap" isn't a bargain.

        4. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: Another attempt at monoploy.

          According to google, all of Africa only bought ~800k cars in 2023. I don't this will overcome the U.S. ban, since the U.S. market alone was ~15500k cars in 2023.

    2. trindflo Silver badge

      Re: Another attempt at monoploy.

      Thanks for the link! (https://www.theregister.com/2012/12/23/rare_earth_non_monopoly/)

      Seems Tim Worstall has been talking about these issues for quite some time. We use sloppy extraction methods and turn other valuable things into toxic garbage that we dump somewhere. The rare earth elements are in some of what we call industrial pollution, but it isn't economically preferable to extract them from the sludge.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Another attempt at monoploy.

        But it soon will be...maybe.

    3. Not Yb Bronze badge

      Re: Another attempt at monoploy.

      Exactly, it's one of those monopolies that only exists as long as it's less expensive to get them from China than to open new mines and processing plants in the US/elsewhere.

  3. Conundrum1885

    Simple fix

    Dig out all the old 'redundant' magnets from HDDs and reprocess them.

    A friend here has literally thousands, waiting for the inevitable day when the price of neodymium makes it viable.

    Supposedly they have enough for about 10000 EV motors but it isn't quite that simple as air gets in and ruins

    the magnets so drives have to be left assembled ideally or at the very least the magnets put in with silica gel.

    Drives in landfill also have high grade metals inside that sealed casing, typically data isn't recoverable but when

    you're after valuable compounds like SmCo etc and to a lesser degree magnets in optical drives this is fine.

    Ideally the process involves chemically stripping the nickel and then plating that out (nickel is also valuable) and

    then making new magnets out of the heat treated NIB chips using a hybrid process with some new material.

    Requires some machine learning to get the domains lined up but that isn't a problem.

    For low field applications it doesn't matter if the NIB's aren't, replacing the ferrite magnets with these is viable.

    As a side effect red burner lasers can be recycled for uh, projects or just reused in other devices.

    1. Irongut Silver badge

      Re: Simple fix

      Easier just to dig 'em up in our own countries rather than China.

      Rare earth metals are not actually rare, just messy to extract so we shut down facilities in US, Europe & Aus to punt the problems to China.

      1. trindflo Silver badge

        messy to extract

        Exactly. Not In My Back Yard. The attitude is "I'm environmentally conscious", and the quiet part is: "but only for things within 100 miles of where I live."

    2. Not Yb Bronze badge

      Re: Simple fix

      You really should look up how they create Nd magnets.

      Neodymium spiked to $240/kg in 2022, but it's back down to $50/kg. If it wasn't cost-effective for your friend at $240/kg in '22, it will never be. Once it got that high, several new processing plants and mines were built or just re-opened.

  4. Dagg Silver badge

    Try Australia

    Australia mines a lot of rare earth elements, the big issue is these are sent to china to be refined.

    Maybe Australia could pull finger...

    1. Bonzo_red

      Re: Try Australia

      This may not work if the refining needs technology which the Middle Kingdom has export controls over.

      1. I ain't Spartacus Gold badge

        Re: Try Australia

        Rare earths have been processed before. It's just messy. It's possible, as China have been doing most of it recently, that they have an advantage in efficiency - but that's just a cost issue - the same as the current reason rare earths aren't processed - which is the cost of environmental regulations.

        The last time China banned exports (a decade ago), they crashed the price. Because processing came on stream in the US, and other places.

        The whole premise of the article is silly. The stuff isn't rare. The stuff isn't hard to extract. It can be extracted from existing mine tailings - or extra steps added to existing ore processing. It just isn't done, becuase its expensive.

        I think the correct answer here is probably to put tarrifs on China's exports of rare earth. That way, there's an incentive for companies to do the work locally - and not stop as soon as China relaxes the export restrictions. This is the umpteenth time China have threatened to do this, and they've actually done it a couple of times.

        1. codejunky Silver badge

          Re: Try Australia

          @I ain't Spartacus

          "I think the correct answer here is probably to put tarrifs on China's exports of rare earth."

          While agreeing with pretty much all of your post I do wonder if this bit is a good idea. Why make it more expensive now in case China cuts production and it gets more expensive in future? We can buy cheap unless it becomes unavailable and then make our own at a higher price.

          1. I ain't Spartacus Gold badge

            Re: Try Australia

            codejunky,

            China first banned exports sometime last decade. The price shot up, but within six months had collapsed to half the intial price, and stayed there for a few years. But a lot of the non-Chinese production that came on stream then, closed again. Because the Chinese quickly saw their trick had failed - and so began exporting again. I hadn't realised exports had actually stopped briefly last year (according to the article) - but they've regularly threatened to do this - and given that all minerals are already owned by the Chinese government (you pay for a license to mine them) this "change" in the rules is just another in a long line of threats.

            So, what to do?

            ignore the issue. The market will eventually correct, like it did last time, if China pull the trigger. Companies can also keep small stockpiles of the stuff they absolutely need. But this alllows China to disrupt our industry for no cost to themselves. And there will be short-term disruption every time they do it.

            Subsidise an industry. When the government pays for this, it's probably going to end up paying above the market rate. And there's no incentive to innovate to lower prices - from whatever companies we subsidise. But it's not actually a lot of money - so it's not a terrible idea. It's what the EU are doing - and I think maybe also Japan and South Korea?

            Stockpile. Have a G7 stockpile to tide us over for say 2 years, until production can ramp up. This is a one-off cost, unlike a subsidy.

            Or have a tariff. This stops it being an irregular problem, that the Chinese government can turn on-and-off when it suits them. It also punishes China directly - in a very minor way. But shows them that there are costs to dicking around - and that we're getting sick and tired of them causing so much trouble. China were invited into the WTO in order to incentivise them to join in the global economy, get rich and have their place in the world. But, particularly under Xi Xinping, they want to take more than their place. They don't just want to grow their economy, they keep trying to fuck up everyone else's. And it's clearly deliberate. In the way they subsidised their solar industry to kill off Europe's for example. Hence the EU tariffs on electric cars now. Plus they want to have the rare earth monopoly and exploit it to again, fuck with our electronics industries. The export ban last decade was to any company that didn't build its electronics in China - at which point they were fine with selling the rare earths. So what we need to do is impose costs on the Chinese economy for their government fucking about like this. In the hopes of disuading them. Also, because we need to have a sensible China policy. Hoepfully something less than the new (and even less stable) Cold War we're stuck in with Russia. If we can't get our governments to come up with sensible policies to show China that we are capable of action in defence of our own interests - then Xi Xinping will assume we're weak. And then we he goes too far, in a move threatening to destroy the global economy, and decides to invade Taiwan - he'll believe we won't try to stop him.

            So we need robust China policy now, to estblish a working relationship where both sides know how far they can go, and what might lead to war. Otherwise we risk miscalculating our way into a war with China in the next decade. Because China is now so vital to our economic interests we're going to be forced to rebuild some of the Cold War state that we've let atrophy. We clearly need more weapons production, to support Ukraine, but also the kind of export control regimes to hopefully slow down China's massive armaments build-up. And finally a bit of an industrial / supply-chain policy to allow us to cope when the Chinese start messing with our economies to deter our politicians from stopping them invading their neighbours.

            People whine about how the US is the self-appointed world's policeman - although they also often moan when the US doesn't step up to that role. But the world would be a much worse, and more dangerous, place if the Chinese became the dominant world power. So sadly I think we're going to have to have joined up military / security / industrial / supply-chain policies for the next few decades. The easy days of the 90s are gone - and international relations are expensive and important again.

            1. codejunky Silver badge

              Re: Try Australia

              @I ain't Spartacus

              Not your downvoter, I do agree.

              "ignore the issue. The market will eventually correct, like it did last time, if China pull the trigger. Companies can also keep small stockpiles of the stuff they absolutely need. But this alllows China to disrupt our industry for no cost to themselves. And there will be short-term disruption every time they do it."

              I think this is our only difference really, I would leave it to the market who would solve it themselves. Especially as you point out that the last time they tried the prices then halved after 6 months. I just dont think import tariffs work, it is putting a floor price on the product here that is higher than the value of the product.

              I agree with you about the military threat, but I am thinking our governments are throwing so much money away and so freely that come a real war we will be too skint to fight it effectively. It was concerning reading that the US agreed to send cluster munitions to Ukraine because they ran out of conventional artillery shells. The amount of covid spending was stupid and again leaves us in a bad place to react to global events.

              1. I ain't Spartacus Gold badge

                Re: Try Australia

                codejunky,

                Thanks for your post.

                I just dont think import tariffs work, it is putting a floor price on the product here that is higher than the value of the product.

                Markets are often the most efficient way to do stuff. But in this case we have a massive market distortion. In an ideal world I'd trust industry to realise there's a problem, and just have stockpiles. But modern corporate leadership doesn't seem to be doing well about coping with these kind of diplomatic caused supply chain disruptions. You'd hope the message would be getting through, and maybe it is? Governments do consult with business about this kind of thing - and often quite effectively - so I'd definitely let industry help choose the policy.

                But it's such an important area that I think government intervention is probably the best bet. And I like the idea of tariffs, because it also signals our displeasure to China. It's only a tiny cost to them - but it might signal that if they fuck with our economies, we might start to fuck with theirs.

                Our industry will need certainty to set up production. And subsidies or tariffs are probably equally bad policies - so why not take the one that also signals more to China?

                that come a real war we will be too skint to fight it effectively.

                Wars are really easy to afford, for a very long time. Look ar Russia in Ukraine or Germany in WWI. The costs come due afterwards. Because you can print money for quite a long time to sustain your internal economy - it's only when you're buying goods internationally that you have to have real cash. And even there you can often pay people at home to create exports to trade directly for what you want. Much better, if we can, to up military spending now and deter a war. In Europe we have to be able to support Ukraine solo, in case Trump wins - we don't want Russia getting ideas. Plus upping our defence-industrial base might make us some export cash - if we're not too squeamish about who we sell to. It's a dangerous world out there.

                It was concerning reading that the US agreed to send cluster munitions to Ukraine because they ran out of conventional artillery shells.

                This is because the US want to maintain huge artillery stockpiles, in case they end up in a war with China. Also partly because the Europeans were so fucking slow. To be fair the UK did put in a decent order to up shell production in 2020 - but a lot of Europe decided to do this at the EU level and then dithered until Summer last year! One reason why Ukraine are so short of shells this year. Personally I think we in the UK should have ordered more than we did.

                Also all of Europe should have been freer in reducing our stockpiles. Seeing as our main land-based threat is Russia, and their army is all bogged down in Ukraine. So we should have run our stockpiles to the bone, and ramped up production faster. But too much of Ukraine policy has been based on wishful thinking, that Putin might make a sensible decision to give up. Rather than preparing for the worst - and then using the upped production to recapitalise defence forces that we've allowed to shrink too far.

                1. Jellied Eel Silver badge

                  Re: Try Australia

                  Wars are really easy to afford, for a very long time. Look ar Russia in Ukraine or Germany in WWI. The costs come due afterwards. Because you can print money for quite a long time to sustain your internal economy - it's only when you're buying goods internationally that you have to have real cash.

                  Problem with trade & sanctions wars is you have to have real cash now. Globalisation meant assuming that someone, somewhere would have sufficient capacity to meet projected needs. And that someone, somewhere will remain friendly. And that there won't suddenly be competition for resources. Print all the money you like, but it's not going to help if nobody has the capacity to supply the stuff you need. We've run down our manufacturing industries. Take 2 contrasting stories from the Bbc-

                  https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/ckdg754zr1po

                  A book exploring the impact of climate change has been named Wales Book of the Year.

                  https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c8vdq6y56v0o

                  Loud noises and large plumes of steam will be visible above the Port Talbot steelworks as one of its historic furnaces is closed down by Friday.

                  Closure of steelworks is one impact of climate change. Thing is making artillery shells, artillery, tanks etc needs a lot of steel. Next year, maybe an electric arc furnace might open. Then maybe we can repeat the WW2 experience and cut up gates, fences etc to feed military production. But may be we could open up some production lines to cast, mill and insert drive bands into artillery shells. Then we just need to produce explosives, propellants, fuzes, electronics etc etc. The UK could decide to invest in our own defence manufacture again, the EU will have to figure out how much Germany can have, and how much every other EU member gets.

                  And along side that, the West also has to think seriously about avoiding supply-chain shocks and becoming more self-sufficient. Slight snag for Europe is we've already mined a lot of the easily accessable resources, although could probably recycle spoil heaps for minerals that weren't valuable at the time. Then we just have to refine and process into things we want. Or our 'leaders' tell us we want. And by 'want' I mean 'will have to put up with'. So things like EVs, solar panels, windmills, heat pumps, AI etc etc. Meawhile, our competitors will just mostly ignore sanctions and carry on selling to customers other than the West, and that's most of the world.

        2. Zolko Silver badge

          Re: Try Australia

          I think the correct answer here is probably to put tarrifs on China's exports of rare earth

          funny ... so for you, the answer to *ANY* problem is to boycott, sanction, forbid, tax ! May-be should you re-evaluate whether the entire Humanity thinks that way, or if the rest of Humanity has figured out that these Chinese restrictions are simply answers to US sanctions ? May-be the rest of the world has figures out that US is sanctioning every country not to dancing to its tune, and that not every country has the power to retaliate, and that in the future some countries might think twice to do *ANY* business at all with the US to begin with ?

          1. I ain't Spartacus Gold badge

            Re: Try Australia

            May-be should you re-evaluate whether the entire Humanity thinks that way, or if the rest of Humanity has figured out that these Chinese restrictions are simply answers to US sanctions

            Zolko,

            To some extent, I don't care what anyone thinks, or what these Chinese moves are an answer to. I think the Chinese Communist Party currently pose an unaccepable risk to wellbeing of my country and our allies. That Trump might have been an arse - and made relations with China worse, but that when he lost the election sanctions didn't disappear because there was a fundamental reason for them. And that the EU, having complained about the US doing this is now pursuing similar policies.

            By the way a quick search gives China's first ban on exports of rare earths to be 2010. When they banned exports to Japan for a couple of months over some kind of fishing dispute. That's long before Trump. China seems to have territorial disputes with most of its neighbours - although if you will claim the entire South China sea as territorial waters you will create some tension.

            Some people say our policians were naive to allow China into the international trading system on such a large scale. And maybe they were. But tensions with China have shot up since Xi Xinping took over. He's the one who's publicly talked about being read to invade Taiwan by 2027, for example.

            It would be better for the whole world to continue to trade freely with China. Globalisation in the last 30 years has improved more lives, and lifted more people in the world out of absolute poverty than any other development in human history. Continuing it would be great, and would be good for China too. But sadly for the Chinese people, they're lumbered with a Communist Party they have no easy way of getting rid of, and that Party is proving to be hostile to freedom in both China and outside it.

            As China broke a treaty with the UK over Hong Kong - I think it's vital that my government have a better policy on China - that recognises the Chinese Communist Party for the vicious imperialistic thugs that they are. And that Western politicians in general do a better job of dealing with people like Putin and Xi - both to deter them from geting too aggressive and therefore to reduce the risk of us sleepwalking into a war, 1939 style. Neither side wanted WWII - it happened because they misread each others' intentions so badly. I doubt Putin would have marched into Ukraine had he known how much support we'd have given them, and if our politiicans were half as clever as they thought they were they'd realise that the fastest way to get him to leave again is to convince him that they can keep increasing support for Ukraine until he finally loses - so he'll get a better deal for finishing early. Though that's hard to do with cunts like Trump around, undermining the whole policy, and making it look like just waiting might give Putin a chance of better terms.

            But it would be great if we tried to avoid the same deterrence failures with Xi Xinping. Then maybe Taiwan doesn't have to get destroyed and/or we can avoid a massive war.

            1. Jellied Eel Silver badge

              Re: Try Australia

              That Trump might have been an arse - and made relations with China worse, but that when he lost the election sanctions didn't disappear because there was a fundamental reason for them.

              This is one of the crazy bits of recent history. And I don't mean Trump, but the idea of 'Making American Great Again'. At least Trump seemed to recognise the dangers of off-shoring and outsourcing the means of production, blue collar jobs etc. Mike Rowe makes much the same arguments, although more coherently. Sadly, thanks to the way politics has become so polarised, MAGA's a dirty word an insult, even though it's necessary. The US and EU have become far too dependent on other nations, hasn't been investing in critical skills and industries and is now paying the price. We have thousands of coffee shops, we don't have factories. Reversing this is going to take time, and be painful, not least because of our higher cost base.

              Like it or not, the world is changing. We tell sovereign nations to do what they're told, or they'll be sanctioned. What, again? Ok. Thank you for your past business, and we wish you the best of luck finding new suppliers..

              1. Anonymous Coward
                Anonymous Coward

                Re: Try Australia

                America's still great. Just not in the way you want it to be.

  5. CowHorseFrog Silver badge

    Just build a bigger truck, something the size of a cement truck that will impress all those clever Americans driving trucks.

  6. Phil O'Sophical Silver badge

    So, at the same time as European governments are forcing us to buy EVs, those same governments are pissing off the countries which supply the materials needed to make them? No wonder elections are producing crazy results. Are there any politicians out there actually capable of logical, joined-up, thinking?

    1. 42656e4d203239 Silver badge

      >>Are there any politicians out there actually capable of logical, joined-up, thinking?

      Only when they are working out how to maximise their personal/famillial take of tax payers money... The other problem is that they are all short-term thinkers, worried about the next election, knee-jerk press reactions and "optics".

    2. Irongut Silver badge

      Tell me Nigel, in what way is Europe responsible for the USA trade sanctions that are pissing off China?

      1. I ain't Spartacus Gold badge

        Irongut,

        Did you notice that the EU put large tariffs on the import of Chinese cars just two weeks ago?

        Trade war with China is inevitable. Not because of bad policy by Western governments (though there's been plenty of that) but because of the way the Chinese government behave by subsidising their own export industries to try and destroy their rivals in other countries. Plus, under Xi Xinping, the Chinese government are getting increasingly aggressive, and the less reliant we are on them, the better.

      2. Jellied Eel Silver badge

        Tell me Nigel, in what way is Europe responsible for the USA trade sanctions that are pissing off China?

        Umm..

        https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cy99z53qypko

        The European Union has raised tariffs on Chinese electric vehicles, as Brussels takes action to protect the bloc's motor industry.

        The new tariffs on individual manufactures range from 17.4% to 37.6%, which is on top of a 10% duty that was already in place for all electric cars imported from China.

        This could raise the price of EVs across the EU, making them less affordable for European consumers.

        Exactly the kind of policy needed to get people to buy EVs! Easy financing terms available, especially when the ECB buys bonds/gives money to the finance arms of German automakers and keep production numbers up!

        But as Tim Worstall, lately of these parts kept pointing out, 'rare' earths just aren't that rare. Like the US, who's been stumbling over many skateboarding rhinoceri's worth of lithium rencently. Downside is of course miners (not minors, Joe) are the enemy, so opening up mines or refining sites is currently either very expensive, or impossible. But if we keep playing stupid games, we win the stupid prizes.

    3. I ain't Spartacus Gold badge

      Phil O'Sophical,

      The EU are also attempting to build a supply chain for rare earth production. I'm not sure how successful it's being mind, but China have been threatening to do this on-and-off for ages - and even did it for 6 months a decade ago.

      If China permanently cuts off the supply of rare earths it is a problem that would solve itself in a year or two. The issue is that the Chinese government know that - even if panicked Western journalists keep writing the same articles every few months, and clearly aren't. So the Chinese have to switch the supply on and off to make it financially unviable to process the stuff outside China. The answer is to ease the environmental regs (to reduce their cost advantage) - which is a bad idea - or to subsidise the processing of the stuff outside China, or to hold large stockpiles so we can rebuild the industry if it ever happens. I suspect if we put tariffs on China's exports of rare earths, the problem will solve itself. There's then a financial incentive to process them - and seeing as they're mostly not that expensive (and used in small quantities) it won't impose huge costs on industry.

      1. Phil O'Sophical Silver badge

        I agree, but if that's the plan it might be a little better to have the new supply chains in place before breaking the old ones. Unfortunately too many politicians prefer grandstanding gestures without proper planning, assuming that solutions will just appear. That's one of the reasons they're getting a kicking in elections, and a major force behind the worrying rise of left- and right-wing extremism.

  7. codejunky Silver badge

    Hmm

    So kick those stupid laws about net zero and forcing people to move to EV cars and problem solved.

    1. Steve Button Silver badge
      Coat

      Re: Hmm

      "start thinking about alternatives for EV motors, but not a single proposed solution appears ready for reality."

      Not a single one? I can think of two. Petrol and Diesel. In a short enough time other technologies will come along.

      1. Steve Button Silver badge

        Re: Hmm

        Sorry, read that as "alternative *to* EV motors" not "alternative *for* EV motors".

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Hmm

      Maybe someone should be watching all this net zero stuff. And then brief/lobby against it at every opportunity. They may even be able to get funding from people/organisations that are interested and fully vested in the status quo?

      1. CowHorseFrog Silver badge

        Re: Hmm

        Theres a far simpler answer, stop commuting... that would save at least 30% of all emissions. THere are many other similar wins that everybody is ignoring.

        1. Steve Button Silver badge

          Re: Hmm

          "that would save at least 30% of all emissions"

          That doesn't seem right. Are you just talking about from travel? Can you quote sources?

          1. CowHorseFrog Silver badge

            Re: Hmm

            I dont have sources, but a large portion of people are commuting crazy distances simply because they can.

            When i was a kid basically everybody walked to school, now the opposite is true. We have the stypid situation where kids and parents refuse to walk or travel to the other side of town for school.

            The other classical example is th eoffice worker, again most of these can work from home, its simply unnecessary to have all them office workers travelling jus tto turn on a computer they could turn on at home.

            1. Anonymous Coward
              Anonymous Coward

              Re: Hmm

              "I dont have sources, but a large portion of people are commuting crazy distances simply because they can."

              Because they *have to*. Which obviously is too complicated for you to understand: They can't afford to live near work, because mad housing costs. Only an idiot would even think that people commute *for fun*.

              "When i was a kid basically everybody walked to school, now the opposite is true. We have the stypid situation where kids and parents refuse to walk or travel to the other side of town for school."

              Has been illegal in UK in most places at least two decades. Blaming parents for that is pure ignorance. In US there aren't even sidewalks to walk on.

              "The other classical example is th eoffice worker, again most of these can work from home, its simply unnecessary to have all them office workers travelling jus tto turn on a computer they could turn on at home."

              .. and corporation middle management forces them 'back to the office'. Do you actually live in a barrel? Definitely you don't know *anything* about modern work life.

              1. CowHorseFrog Silver badge

                Re: Hmm

                AC: Because they *have to*. Which obviously is too complicated for you to understand: They can't afford to live near work, because mad housing costs. Only an idiot would even think that people commute *for fun*.

                cow:

                Do you really think i didnt know they have too ?

                Im simply pointing out the stupidity of this custom and Im also pointing out if we want to make changes to save the planet, we have to try different things.

                AC: They can't afford to live near work, because mad housing costs.

                cow: If a large number did remote work the housing cost is significantly reduced.

                AC: Only an idiot would even think that people commute *for fun*.

                cow: THey commute because they are idiots who dont ask simple questions like is it necessary ?

                Is it really necessary that office workers commute just to sit in front of a computer they could have at home ?

                IF we dont ask serious questions to try and change the problem will never be reduced.

                AC: Has been illegal in UK in most places at least two decades. Blaming parents for that is pure ignorance. In US there aren't even sidewalks to walk on

                cow: Fuck off. If there are no sidewalks how do they walk from their parked car to the school ?

                Its far easier to put in a sidewalk, than build MORE carparks.

                AC: and corporation middle management forces them 'back to the office'. Do you actually live in a barrel? Definitely you don't know *anything* about modern work li

                cow: Here we go. You dont realise no wanting to change IS the problem. YOu just accept stupid customs, these same customs are what caused a large part of the problem in the first place. YOu have zero brains to try and think a little different.

                Yes im sure everyone should be commuting 2 - 4 hours a day just too sit in front of a computer they could have at home is relally smart. There is no way we can fix or improve that.

  8. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Deja vu ?

    Haven't we been here before ? And all that happened was expanding non Chinese sources of the badly named "rare" earth metals caused a glut and price drop ?

  9. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    A new car

    Interesting concept.

    I wish there was something on the market that appealed to me.

    I’ll stick with my old banger thanks.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: A new car

      "New car" is the most stupid investment you can do: It loses value at breathtaking pace.

      'Normal' EV costs ~30k euros and it's worth less than half of that in 5 years, 3k euros per year, on average. Also you're losing ~5% interest on the capital, 1500e/year. A lot more if you had to take a loan for purchase.

      That's about 3* the amount of money I use in my old petrol car, including fuel and taxes and insurance and *everything*: 16c/km, ~10k km/year = 1600e. it also cost 3k, interest for that is comfortable 150e/year. Not perfect of course, but not insane either.

      Use 30k euros and buy a classic car. Mid-80s cars were already very good and do not depreciate at all.

  10. Bbuckley

    BEV transport was always the biggest pile of BS since someone said ' is that Greta Bumberg?'

  11. I could be a dog really Silver badge

    Really ElReg ? Bring back TW* and such an article would get put where it belongs - in the bin.

    As others have said, "rare earths" are not rare - they are really really abundant. The only reason it seems that they are rare is that China has had a policy of "pile 'em high, sell em cheap" so that other countries (or more correctly, businesses based elsewhere) have no financial incentive to compete. Thus we don't have the processing facilities elsewhere.

    What the answer is I don't know (a low level of import tariff might just provide the incentive for the markets to intervene), but pretending that the world will end if China cuts off supplies of "really not very rare at all" earth metals is just rubbish reporting.

    * Tim Worstall for those new around here. Used to write for ElReg and knows about this sort of stuff. But they got rid of him and a few others who "knew about stuff" a few years ago in what looked like a purge of people who could write interesting and factual pieces.

    1. MachDiamond Silver badge

      "but pretending that the world will end if China cuts off supplies of "really not very rare at all" earth metals is just rubbish reporting."

      Change isn't often a big deal, but rapid change can be. This problem has been left to grow like a tumor. The CIA and MI6 are supposed to be keeping track of these things and reporting them to politicians. Is the can just getting kicked down the road?

      If China where to put an embargo on Rare Earth metal exports next week, it would cripple many companies that rely on those supplies and have little to no alternatives. Many companies might come to a halt overnight and the financial markets would be in a state while people decide which way to jump.

      The US has a really good Thorium storage area in Nevada. It's already been made useless by exploding loads of nuclear weapons on the site so bringing in drums full of mixed debris with concentrated amounts of Th isn't going to be a huge thing. From satellite photos, they already have dug pits where 55gal drums are stacked up and dirt pushed over them. Some nominal import tariffs on Chinese materials can be applied to the government buying and storing Thorium from domestic RE mining companies. Over time, perhaps domestic companies will have the chance to amortize the capital cost of setting up mining operations and being relieved of the cost to do something with the excess Th might get investors interested.

      1. I could be a dog really Silver badge

        True, rapid change would cause disruption to some businesses, and to many for some time. But it's not the end of the world as the article tried to imply. As I read the article, it's suggesting that if China were to shut the door on "rare" earths, then we'd be stuck as they aren't found elsewhere. But that's not the case - we have the deposits elsewhere - it would just take time to convert that into usable metals.

        And yes, the answer to that problem would be to not start from there - but it seems the western world has ignored the risk and allowed us to drift to where we are now though lack of strategic thinking.

  12. ecofeco Silver badge
    Facepalm

    What elements?

    A list of the ores would have been nice.

    1. Not Yb Bronze badge

      Re: What elements?

      Neodymium is the main one in electric vehicle motors

      The exact list (of 17) is rather longer than they'd bother publishing here. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rare-earth_element

  13. MachDiamond Silver badge

    Political will

    "Rare Earth" metals aren't rare. They're all over. What isn't all over are governments that plan further in the future than the next election cycle. China solved the issue with having Thorium being present in ores containing REM's. The government buys up the Thorium (at cut rate prices, I'm sure) and stockpiles it. That removes the burden from companies having to find a way to legally dispose of a radioactive hazardous waste. What company is going to get investment with those last three words hanging over their operations? In the US, the government is responsible for waste from nuclear reactors and there's a good lesson there. Supposedly, the waste would be handled and stored correctly and there wouldn't be spent fuel bundles getting fly tipped all over the place by Bob's nuclear waste disposal and bait shop. There's the whole non-proliferation thing, but I think I'd rather start with raw Uranium ore than try to re-process spent fuel to extract some Pu.

    China has been moving up the value chain for many years now. NdFeB magnets base patents were once held by the Magnequench division of General Motors. Hitachi used to make ceramic magnets in Edmore, MI and General magnetics in Texas, both now shut. China once sold ingots of refined Si, moved to solar PV cells and then on to complete panels while limiting the component sales as each new level happened. I suppose that since most politicians are/were attorneys, they wouldn't have the knowledge to spot that.

    I see China's stranglehold in many arenas as an abdication of maintaining a diverse manufacturing base in other countries. The US hardly makes steel anymore. Electronics? Pullleese. There is a lot of corn and soy grown (with subsidies). Australia is exporting their natural resources in raw form for others to add value to making into useful forms.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Political will

      "Australia is exporting their natural resources in raw form for others to add value to making into useful forms."

      Yes, and there is a very good reason why it's done: Stock price goes up *a lot faster* when you use profits to buy back your own stock, instead of investing to *anything*.

      CEO pay is directly derived from stock price: Only a moron CEO would invest to anything: That's slow and uncertain, while stock buyback is immediate and absolutely sure method.

  14. Spherical Cow Silver badge

    I don't see what the problem is.

    "One such design, a spoke-ferrite magnet motor, ends up about 30 percent heavier than comparable REE motors."

    The motor of a Tesla 3 is about 2% of the car's total weight. Switching to a motor that is 30% heavier increases the car's total weight by only 0.6%. So what! Nobody would notice the difference.

    1. MachDiamond Silver badge

      Re: I don't see what the problem is.

      "The motor of a Tesla 3 is about 2% of the car's total weight. Switching to a motor that is 30% heavier increases the car's total weight by only 0.6%. So what! Nobody would notice the difference."

      The Curie point of ceramic magnets is significantly higher than NdFeB. That's the temperature where the magnets become demagnetized due to temperature. It might be interesting to see if there are designs that can take advantage of that spec. The downside in addition to weight is size. NdFeB magnets are much stronger so motors using them can be smaller as well as lighter. Not a big deal for a bus, but a problem for a small passenger car.

  15. StargateSg7 Bronze badge

    I will chime in here that we have a MORE THAN DECENT solution by using a high magnetic eddy material (i.e. cheap Aluminum!) OR a high-attenuating EM field shield that is the containment matrix for clumps of highly-oriented mono-crystaline iron flakes that have one pole highly attenuated by the eddy currents induced by the aluminum matrix and the other pole extends quite a distance outwards forming a very high-torque, high-strength motor that is ALSO highly heat-resistant and Ruggedized similar to motors using Cobalt-Samarium.

    This proposed design was tested on a powerful supercomputer and is basically a Permanent Magnet Synchronous Motor (PMSM) but instead of using iron in its entirety, highly-oriented clumps of iron (or other ferromagnetic material) is embedded in a high-eddy current inducing encasement such as Aluminum OR by a glass-like metal-ceramic to ensure one pole's EM field is specially shaped in a specific manner OR is attenuated as much as possible very much like a shielded cup magnet (i.e. like the magnet setup that you see in loudspeakers but much smaller!).

    Any heat produced by eddy currents or EM field attenuation/re-shaping is sucked away by using microchannels of cooling fluid (i.e. usually long-lasting but still cheap-to-buy silicone oil!) or other high performance thermo-transfer fluid that is continuously circulated within the supporting material matrix to ensure long-life and high-performance. Even though more complex to manufacture, the motor materials are much cheaper and easier to obtain, the motor is also much more rugged and can easily withstand higher-heat environments such as the 50+ Celcius temperatures of the major worlds desert cities. It also works in the -40+ Celcius of deep winter cold cities in Alaska and Northern Canada. This means overall pricing is much cheaper than Neodymium/Boron-magnet based motors and is still the same size AND has higher torque!

    I think I explained this correctly but our engineers at NCA (North Canadian Aerospace) will correct me later if I got it wrong!

    P.S. Plus they are GIVING AWAY ALL the technology as described above as Worldwide, Fully Free and Open Source under GPL-3 Licence Terms!

    V

    1. Jimmy2Cows Silver badge

      Is it expensive and/or difficult to make a motor like this? Seems like if the technology is free and known about globally, and is so superior to other options, that motor manufacturers would be all over it already.

      1. StargateSg7 Bronze badge

        Using a high eddy current inducing material or a metallic-glass ceramic as the encasement material for magnetically shielded clumps of highly-pole-oriented mono-crystalline iron requires FAAAAAST metal and ceramic powder 3D-printing technology (aka laser sintering) which is ONLY NOW just becoming financially doable for large scale manufacturing runs. I have a few such motors in our Ford F450 Superduty Limited Edition Test vehicles which have had their engines and fuel-tanks removed for a large 5 Megawatt/Hour block of Boron Nitride Nanotubes-based supercapacitor system that can drive for 1600 miles (2574 km) on a single charge with 5 people on-board who each weigh 250 lbs (113 kg) AND is towing 25,000 lbs (11,229 kg) worth of trailer and cargo up and down 12% super-hilly grades in -40 Celcius Winter temps up to 40+ Celcius summer temps. The supercapacitors are rated for 10,000 full 0% empty to 100% full and back down to 0% empty charge/discharge cycles or about 25 years of HARD USE without degradation. The new type of motors are also rated for high impulse currents allowing for super-high torque, high horsepower, high heat and deep-cold-below-ZERO temperature ratings in every weather suitable for ground vehicles, marine, aerospace, submersible and outer-space-rated use for 25 years of no degradation. Plus, the supercapacitors can be charged from 0% empty to to 100% full in less than an hour at 7200 volts at 1000 amps (i.e. a typical small warehouse electrical connection) for 1600 miles (2574 km) of driving range on a single charge!

        We did a LOT of work on this technology since the mid-1990's which is just now coming to fruition and is just now being readied for public announcement and release. In fact, the parent company NCA (North Canadian Aerospace - aka a pseudonym for a large under-the-radar Canadian aerospace firm) will be GIVING AWAY ALL OF THE TECHNOLOGY as part of its commitment to worldwide, fully free and open source under GPL-3 licence terms. They intend to jump-start modern technology ahead by quite a large amount in the next few months!

        We also have a 128-bits wide combined-CPU/GPU/DSP/Vector processor superchip that is a full 2 THz clock speed at 50 PetaFLOPS sustained for all 128-bits wide operations under various benchmarks that will ALSO have its FULL tape-out design made world-wide FULLY FREE AND OPEN SOURCE under GPL-3 licence terms!

        MANY worldwide vehicle, marine and aerospace manufacturers will be CHOMPING at the bit to download, build and sell our designs which we will ALSO be manufacturing and selling ourselves to the public at a standardized MSRP to ensure price-gouging and technology hoarding WILL NOT TAKE PLACE! Keep watching the mainstream news as we slowly come online this year 2024 with many of our scientific discoveries and highly-advanced technologies put into public view and demonstration!

        V

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Other stories you might like