Precious Earth Metals

I'm definitely not for big government--Overcentralization is destructive. I am for each level of government (national, state, local) limited to just the functions needed. Proper regulation is an essential and critical function of government.

 

Rare earth supply was discussed on EnergyNow.com TV show this morning.
One quote: the biggest wind turbines require up to 2-tons of rare earth metals for a single turbine.
Another concern, about depedence on China, as discussed.

Rare Earths and Green Gadgets - 12.3.2011 | Energy Now

 

If the workers in China are not forced to work under gunpoint, then they obviously think working in dangerous mine is worth the risk to improve their life.

We all take risks in our life. When you decide to buy a Prius, you might already know that in accident small cars have bigger death rate than SUVs. But you made your decision based on all priorities matter to you. What's wrong with that?

If rare earth metal are depleted, price will go up and demand will go down. Toyota will develop other tech to make hybrid cars. The market is regulating the demand/supply balance all the time. Why we need someone or a group of people to make decision for all others?

 

Or I might know the opposite. Prius has the highest crash rating possible. SUVs are often exempt from testing.

 

Now that we have defined all the other terms in this question, let's discuss 'using up'. We are talking about elements here. They don't just go away, unless you happen to have a supernova handy. So, we dig up Neodymium, process it, purify it, and make magnets out it, which we put in our cars. When the car is totaled, someone can pull out the motor and reuse it. When the motor dies, someone can pull out the magnets and reuse them. When the magnet dies, it can be remelted and remade. Nothing here needs to be 'used up'.

There are, of course, ways of using up these elements. Loss, poisoning, dispersal, and unpurifying, being the major ones.

 

F = ma, simple physics.

 

Bigger cars have more momentum and more energy in a crash. SUVs roll over far more often than sedans. Not all big cars have the best safety features, such as crumple zones.

You're more likely to be killed in an SUV than in a Prius, or other high-rated sedan, because you're more likely to have a roll-over accident or other type of accident in which the SUV does not properly protect its occupants.

If head-on two-car collisions were the only accidents, and if all cars had the same degree of safety engineering, the heavier car would be safer. But real-world situations are not so simple.

OTOH, Allan is right that we all take risks. Just getting in any car and going on the road with it is a risk. But most of the world's population has no choice about their job. They don't have to be forced at gunpoint when the choices are work or starve, and most people do not have choices of available jobs.

 

And this applies how?

If you are in an accident the force to you from the being in a massive car will be greater?

We had this discussion a few months ago. Basically, the NHTSA knows that some cars are heavier than others. Yet the Prius gets all 5 stars, many SUVs get less. Prius is therefore a safer car. Simple test data.

 

OK.
MSUV*aSUV=mPrius*APrius
Or, M/m=A/a Clear?

Also, please don't compare the best rating small car to worst rating big cars. In general, M/m determines A/a, Prius or not.

In other words, Lexus LX vs. Prius, both 5 stars, which car is safer?

My point is obvious. We should determine our priorities based on our own needs. What will you think if a billionaire claim that you are stupid, or your boss is so evil not to pay you enough to afford a Lexus, risking your life on the way to work?

 

it is not that obvious; it is the driver/passenger, acceleration, neck whiplash, seat/restrain/airbag and cramping zone design which matters.

besides, SUVs do roll over.

Read more: Before You Buy An Suv... | Rollover | FRONTLINE | PBS

 

IIHS suggest that fatalities are lowest in large 4WD (note the bold) SUVs and (all) minivans. That includes single vehicle accidents where the relative mass of cars is irrelevant. The rollover problems have been fixed or at least worked around by improved pillar strength.

According to the IIHS fatalities are more likely to result from crushing in a small vehicle the organization suggests that manufacturers could help reduce the number of fatalities, by building out light, empty bodywork instead of reducing vehicle size.

Of course, 85% of people wear seat belts but over half of all vehicle occupants who died in traffic accidents were not wearing a restraint. The manufacturers can only do so much.

 

The physics in this thread is being over-simplified. One has to know all of the details about a crash before physics can be applied. For example, in every crash we know that momentum is conserved, but energy is conserved only in an elastic collision. In a plastic collision some of the energy is converted to heat. Most car collisions are somewhere between elastic and plastic.

Likewise penetration is an issue. Having a small average change in velocity is small comfort if some small but important part of your body suffers a large change. For example, let's take an extreme example: the collision between a large SUV and a 30-06 rifle bullet. The mass of the bullet is insignificant when compared to the SUV. The speed of the SUV will be virtually unchanged after the collision. The driver's speed will also be virtually unchanged, but he might not be doing so well if the bullet has passed through his heart or head. Penetration is a significant risk in a collision.

Tom

 

Reminds me of...

A scientific theory should be as simple as possible, but no simpler. -- AlbertEinstein

 

According to the best minds, with the best knowledge, they are equally safe. If those best minds with the most data thought otherwise, the ratings would be different.

 

...let's just say it: the mass of a Prius is not too shabby.

 

Bottom line - EVERYTHING we want/need for energy is finite. From uranium, to oil, to rare earth, natural gas, wood, eventually all the stuff will get used up, at our present rate. Our hope is that we die at a nice, ripe old age, and then let it become someone else's problem. It's the human way.
.

 

Rare earths are elements, there is no particular reason they will be destroyed by use. 85% of all the gold extracted ever is still in use. If it is valuable enough, we don't throw it away.

Bob Wilson (I still miss Bob) once calculated that Prius owners had 1/2 the fatalities per million miles as the US fleet average. This does not really mean that the Prius is twice as safe as other vehicles, it may mean Prius drivers are twice as safe as other drivers. (or they are WAY luckier than the population at large)

If you only measure safety once a vehicle is in a crash, you are not measuring how it avoids crashing at all, fatalities per million miles driven is a better gauge.

 

Basically I agree with you. But there is a difference in that gold is mostly used in a relatively pure form, and much, if not most, is kept in vaults as backing for paper currency. This makes it much easier to conserve. Even the nut jobs who hoard gold with a view to armageddon, mostly do not actually use it as a medium of exchange, but keep it somewhere against a time of need. A relatively small amount is actually circulated. And where used in electronic circuits, it's typically a very thin film or coating.

Excellent point!!! SUVs, being larger and less maneuverable, have a harder time avoiding a crash in marginal situations. So you are more likely to have an accident if you're driving an SUV than if you're driving a Prius.

 

I did a quick search for rare earth recycling. It seems be to in it's infancy. Perhaps China did the world a favor by tightening up the supply so that recycling became more viable.
New Push to Recycle Rare Earth Minerals.

Rare earth metals may be in a mixed rather than pure form in magnets, but they are far purer than when they are mined.