These divisions have resulted in endless lists and explanations of which minerals are which, who thinks so and why. Indeed I was been party to this in the early days, however you know things have got silly when an article arrives that lists every element as critical and only excepts two. If it were written ironically I would let it pass.

What must be recognised is that ‘criticality’ is completely relative. It depends on the technology, who you are in the technology cycle and where (geographically and economically) you are speaking from. In fact as I argued in a short note to the UK’s Energy Research Council Network just before Parliament took representations from our learned societies on this topic, what you define as critical defines you.

Maybe these terms have use in policy-making circles, but having spoken to academics and NGOs on the topic I don’t think that’s true. They are generally more confused by the use of these terms than they were before. They can cope with specifics. They are not dumb.

We, in the mining industry, should not be complicit in confusing investors or legislators by wanton rebranding with meaningless jargon. It is difficult enough to persuade the non-mining world that mines are a necessary evil without obsfucation.

This trend appears to have started with the USA pre-occupation with energy independence and its false hope of controlling all elements of its energy cycle. It is a false hope because energy is global cycle not a national one. The separation of supply chains using national security as justification is the basest form of resource nationalism and not one becoming of the world’s biggest economy. It is not surprising that China reacts to this kind of posturing with a robust economic response. It knows that any comment from the WTO on this topic is bluster, at best.

Mining is an exercise in coping with living on a planet whose resources are not distributed evenly. Always has been. Always will be. The sudden realisation, from outside the industry, that the technological world would grind to a halt for the want of a iron nail should not deflect us from providing that nail and millions like it every day.

There is virtually no industrial metals mining left in the USA and those of us who operate outside that dysfunctional legislature should not be drawn into its often bizarre internal politics. Let us concentrate on supplying those nails at the best possible price and let the US increase its own transaction costs to the point where it has no industry left. Then maybe we can call a metal a metal.

PS. the two elements omitted from the ridiculous ‘critical’ list – iron & aluminium, the two most used metals in society today.

The piece in the Telegraph is so riddled with inaccuracies and false conflations that it should be used as some sort of example of how not to do it in journalism schools. Lets pick it apart and see what he got wrong.

Japan creates synthetic version of rare earth metal palladium

WRONG

AND THE JAPANESE SCIENTISTS DID NOT CLAIM TO CREATE A SYNTHETIC PALLADIUM, THOUGH THEY DO STATE THAT THEIR ACHIEVEMENT IS ‘AKIN TO MODERN ALCHEMY’
IN THEIR CONCLUSIONS THE GROUP SAYS
“we conclude that the Ag50Rh50 solid-solution alloy has an electronic structure similar to that of Pd (palladium)”.
THE USE OF THE WORD ‘SYNTHETIC’ BY RYALL IMPLIES A NEW MATERIAL WAS FORMED WHEN IN FACT WHAT WAS BEING CREATED WAS A VERY FINE MISTED MIXTURE THAT OTHER MOLECULES REACTED TO AS IF THAT MIXTURE WAS PURE SOLID PALLADIUM.

Japanese scientists have developed a synthetic version of the rare earth metal palladium, a breakthrough that it is hoped will eventually reduce industry’s reliance on exports from China.

WRONG

JAPANESE INDUSTRY IS NOT RELIANT ON CHINESE EXPORTS FOR SUPPLIES OF PALLADIUM. MOST PALLADIUM COMES FROM THE SAME DEPOSITS AS PLATINUM. RUSSIAN AND SOUTH AFRICAN MINES PROVIDE OVER 75% OF THE WORLD’S PALLADIUM. CHINA’S MAIN INTEREST IN PALLADIUM IS THROUGH RECYCLING OF WASTE CATALYTIC CONVERTORS. IT HAS NO MINES OF ITS OWN AND DOES NOT SIGNIFICANTLY INFLUENCE PALLADIUM PRICE OR AVAILABILITY.

By Julian Ryall in Tokyo 7:00AM GMT 03 Jan 2011

Researchers at Kyoto University achieved the world-first by uniting molecules of rhodium and silver, which do not naturally combine, through the fusion of ultramicroscopic particles of the metals after they had been reduced to a fine solution spray.

WRONG

THE USE OF ‘UNITING’ AND ‘FUSION’ IMPLIES THAT THERE WAS A FORCED BONDING BETWEEN THE METALS. IF YOU READ THE PAPER IT IS APPARENT THAT THE NANO-PARTICULATE SPRAY IS A SIMPLE MIX WITH A FEW ADDED CHEMICALS TO ALLOW THE NANO-PARTICULATE TO FLOAT TOGETHER WITHOUT STICKING TO THE CONTAINER. THE WIERD EFFECTS WERE SEEN WHERE NANO-PARTICLES HAPPENED TO SETTLE ADJACENT TO EACH OTHER. A TEMPERATURE OF 170C IS NOWHERE NEAR ENOUGH FOR NORMAL METALLIC ALLOYING TO TAKE PLACE, EVEN IF THE METALS USED WERE MISCIBLE, SO SOME SORT OF QUANTUM STATE DIFFUSION LOOKS A GOOD BET (NOT BEING A QUANTUM METALLURGIST THAT’S AS FAR AS I’M STRETCHING).
THE WORD ‘ULTRAMICROSCOPIC’ IS A TRANSLATION THAT HAS NO MEANING IN TODAY’S SCIENCE AND THE SCALE AT WHICH THIS WORK WAS BEING CARRIED OUT COMMONLY USES THE TERM ‘NANO’ TO DENOTE THE SMALL SCALE.

Each particle is a mere 10 nanometers in diameter, Professor Hiroshi Kitagawa told the Yomiuri newspaper, but the new alloy has the same properties as palladium.

WRONG – SEE ABOVE.
ALSO THE PAPER MAKES IT PLAIN THAT PROPERTIES SUCH AS HYDROGEN STORAGE ARE VERY DIFFERENT.

Exports from China of palladium – which is a crucial part of next-generation engines and serves to clean exhaust gases and absorb high levels of hydrogen – were abruptly halted in the wake of a territorial dispute between Beijing and China.

WRONG

THE DISPUTE HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH PALLADIUM AND THERE WAS NO CONFIRMATION FROM CHINA THAT ANY DISRUPTION OF MINERALS SUPPLY TOOK PLACE. JAPANESE OFFICIALS WERE PRE-EMPTING ANY SUCH MOVE BY CHINA BY LODGING A FORMAL DIPLOMATIC PROTEST AT THE RHETORIC BEING USED OVER THE BORDER DISPUTE AND THREATENED TO APPROACH THE WTO REGARDING ANY FUTURE DISRUPTION OF SUPPLY OF RARE EARTH ELEMENTS, NOT PALLADIUM. WHICH AS WE HAVE STATED IS NOT IMPORTED INTO JAPAN FROM CHINA IN ANY VOLUME.

In September, a Chinese fishing vessel operating within Japan’s exclusive economic zone around the Senkaku Islands, the very southernmost tip of Okinawa Prefecture, rammed a Japanese Coast Guard patrol vessel.
The captain of the trawler was arrested, causing an outcry in Beijing, which claims the uninhabited islands as sovereign Chinese territory.
The Chinese fisherman was eventually released without being charged, but not before Beijing imposed a ban on shipments to Japanese firms.

MOSTLY OK BUT A LITTLE WRONG

NO BAN WAS ISSUED. THE CHINESE WERE MORE SUBTLE AND SIMPLY DELAYED SHIPMENTS IN PORT AND CUSTOMS CLEARANCE.

As well as Japan’s automobile industry, rare earth materials such as yttrium, praseodymium and thulium are important for companies here producing everything from infrared lasers to alloys for aerospace components, batteries, ceramic capacitors and parts for computer memory chips.

OK – BUT PALLADIUM IS NOT A RARE EARTH ELEMENT. THE ERROR IS MADE THREE TIMES IN ORDER TO JUSTIFY THE STORY WITHOUT IT THE SCIENCE IS PROBABLY TOO ESOTERIC FOR TELEGRAPH READERS TO BE INTERESTED IN. LAZY AND GREEDY.

The scientists said the new alloy will be difficult to produce commercially at this point but the production process is expected to lead to the development of more synthetic alloys that can be used as alternatives to rare earth metals.

AND THIS IS THE WHILE POINT OF THE SCIENCE (SO LONG AS THE RARE EARTH THING IS IGNORED YET AGAIN) – IT IS A BREAKTHROUGH IN NANO-PROCESSING AND WAS NEVER INTENDED TO REPLACE NATURAL PALLADIUM. SCIENTISTS OFTEN PICK THE OPTIMAL COMBINATION OF VARIABLES TO TEST A NEW CONCEPT BEFORE THEY GET ON TO APPLYING THAT CONCEPT. IF YOU READ THE PAPER THE WORKERS STATE THAT THEIR HOPE IS THAT THE TECHNIQUE CAN BE USED TO MIX OTHER CURRENTLY UNMIXABLE METALS;
OR IN THEIR WORDS “Following on from the discovery of the Ag-Rh solid solution alloy, we envisage the development of new solid-solution alloys of immiscible Ag-Ni, Au-Rh, Cu-Ru, and others that exhibit phase-segregated structures, even in the high-temperature liquid phase.”
IN OTHER WORDS FORGET SILVER AND RHODIUM AND FORGET DELICATE MISTED SPRAYS, WHAT THESE GUYS ARE LOOKING FOR IS A QUENCHED SOLID THAT HAS THE SAME PROPERTIES BUT CAN WITHSTAND THE RIGOURS OF REAL-WORLD USE WHILST COMBINING RELATIVELY COMMON ELEMENTS. BASIC SCIENCE INVESTIGATING NEW IDEAS BUT WITH AN EYE TO THE FUTURE.

Joint research has already begun with car companies and Japanese electronics manufacturers, Prof Kitagawa said.

AT LAST SOMETHING THAT WE KNOW IS ALMOST CERTAINLY TRUE ! THE JAPANESE, THROUGH THEIR NATIONAL NATURAL RESOURCES STOCKPILER, JOGMEC, HAVE BEEN INVESTING IN ALL SORTS OF NATURAL RESOURCE PROCESSING TECHNOLOGY AND ALTERNATIVE MATERIAL DEVELOPMENT AS HAVE ALL THE MAJOR ECONOMIES.

(END)

If the journalist had actually read the original article (here translated from the original Japanese), clocked that some of the translation had some ambiguity, and then gone to the original scientific paper to address that ambiguity you wouldn’t have inane comment from all and sundry around the world aimed at a perfectly good piece of basic scientific research.

=======
A brief comment on the actual scientific paper which is visible on this link.
Its a really interesting piece of basic experimental science. Being able to spoof the properties of one metal by mixing adjacent metals together has all sorts of implications at a quantum level with regard to how molecules and atoms ‘decide’ which other molecules they can react with. In this case the fog of electrons appears to be fooling the incoming deuterium into acting as if something that isn’t there actually is. The really interesting bit is that only half the deuterium is acting that way and would love to know if this is a function of available storage sites or some other phenomenon.

Aluminium is a dull metal. Its uses are dull. Its geology is really dull. Its chemistry is dull. In fact its only really its processing that makes Al stand out and that’s because it is so energy intensive. You need vast amounts of electricity (for example Alcan Lynmouth has its own 420MW power station built adjacent to it) plus sources of sodium hydroxide and of fluorine (usually synthetic cryolite made from fluorspar these days) to get from the raw bauxite through semi-processed alumina to the metallic aluminium.

To give some scale; Alcan, probably the world’s single largest vertically integrated aluminium producer, ships 30 Million tonnes of raw ore a year to its refineries and it takes 4 tonnes of bauxite to produce 1 tonne of metallic Al. Global metallic Al production is between 35-40Mt depending on when you take the measurement which means that somewhere between 30 and 160Mt of material is shipped each year within the aluminium life-cycle before the metal even gets to the manufacturing stage. Of course the energy embodied in getting to metal is only one step.

UK estimates show that the difference in energy footprint between 1kg of primary production and 1kg of recycled production is 14kWh. The UK consumes around 1 million tonnes of Al per year representing an embodied energy of somewhere around 14M Mwh or 1.2M toe. Again to give some scale 4GW Drax produces around 25M MWh each year or 7% of the UK’s total consumption of electricity which implies that the amount of energy required to provide the UK with its Al needs is equivalent to roughly 4% of total electrical consumption (or 1 1/2 Sizewell B’s). Of course we don’t mine bauxite in the UK and much of the refined metal we use is produced elsewhere, so a lot of that energy is offshored to areas where we have no influence on the energy system employed. For example Australia, the world’s largest Al producer and exporter has grids dominated by coal, Guinea is a classic macro-hydro development story and former Eastern-bloc countries mostly use the Al smelter/nuclear power station combo that is also present at Wylfa on Anglesey. So we can pick our own baddies from that list
Currently the UK uses roughly 50% recycled Al, about half of which is old scrap (mostly packaging) and half industrial new scrap, but still landfills 3 billion drinks cans a year.

So that all gives some idea of the scale of the aluminium industry in the UK and the world. The thing is that there is a new technology available that could cut energy requirements of primary Al production by 40% and cuts out the Bayer pre-production process with all its nasty caustic wastes. It also allows a higher percentage of recycled Al to be used within primary production so removing a step in the recycling chain and allowing for a smaller modular smelter. Its inventors claim that Al costs would be roughly 25% of current costs (down from $2,000 to $500/tonne) if their system were commercialised. Its essentially a conventional smelting technology that uses a flux, instead of the complex Hall-Heurot process that uses electrolysis.

In itself 40% of 14Twh is not even a 1GW conventional power station, but that isn’t the point. If you can drop the cost of Al by 75% you can massively increase its use in the automotive sector effectively swapping all steel chassis parts for Al and reducing overall rolling weight by 20%+. This is where the investment really starts to kick in because you can now structure the supply chain in the same was as the steel mini-mills with manufacturing close to consumption and a high % of recycling without excessive pre-processing. All of a sudden over the life-time of a car you have dropped the embodied energy by 50% and the daily energy consumption by 20%. This is a multiplier when taken with the drop in primary processing cost. I can’t claim to know what that multiplier would be but the 1 1/2 Sizewell B’s are joined by many oil wells (or however you are powering you personal transport these days).

So swapping Al for steel in cars is a realistic prospect. It needs investment to get it going on a national scale because it requires both new car production facilities and new Al processing capacity but on an energy basis it looks a stone cold winner. The best thing is that the process is exothermic so you can recover energy off the back of the smelter and optimise the process even further than the inventors have as yet.

The process is called Thermical(tm) and is being promoted by Calsmelt and Australian company that I am not getting paid by.

Dear All,

By way of a reply to Jeff’s short piece on Rare Earth Elements and in the hope that the UK takes a rational view on mineral supply chain policy I bring the following points to the table.

1. REEs are found at economic grades on 5 continents. We let China mine them because they have a peculiar deposit that has very little associated radioactivity. Yes, labour is cheap, but the price differential compared with, for example Australian deposits is mainly in the processing. Chinese artisinal miners can mine and partially process the ore from the Baotau deposit without worrying about the uranium and thorium minerals that come with REEs almost everywhere else in the world. We in the west don’t like to mine REEs because the come from ‘hot’ granites and we have to deal with the waste accordingly.
2. There is a credible suggestion that China has only kicked up a fuss over REEs because Greenland was equivocating over whether to allow development of its world-class mixed REE/uranium deposits.
3. REEs are not alone in being of concern to policy-makers. The wider minerals supply chain is currently being viewed through the lens of what should probably be known as The Critical Minerals Discourse. The USA, the EU, Japan and China have all put in place policy or are in the process of putting in place policy with regard to the minerals that each economic bloc feels are most critical under their own definitions. For the US supplies of minerals that it feels are necessary for military superiority are key, for the EU its economic stability but with a special reference to nuclear technologies, for Japan its metals necessary to drive its auto export industry and for China there is a real mix of developmental metals and high tech metals. The UK’s report was carried out from completely the wrong perspective and has little relevance to the global minerals trade.
4. So far the world has listed 34 minerals as ‘critical’. REEs are only one group. If there is a bubble every time a new piece of technology comes to the fore then we should prepare for many, many more bubbles. My bet for the next good bubble, on the basis of the energy technologies that I know are in the pipeline, is ruthenium. It’s a by-product of platinum processing but is currently mostly poured away with waste. Bubbles are no good for the mining industry because they inject uncertainty into future pricing. It takes 5-50 years to develop a mine and its difficult enough convincing investors to take a risk on metals prices without hyperinflation of specific products due to policy intervention or media hype. Everyone in the business knows that bad decisions get made in bubble conditions and mines funded in those times close quickly.
5. Larger miners are generally not interested in the kind of materials that are currently considered critical because the products are low volume and so relatively low profit. The smaller miners that we are relying on to bring us these critical minerals are therefore higher risk investments as they are usually undercapitalised.
6. Every report published on critical minerals in the last 10 years is wrong. The EU’s report is least wrong. They are wrong because they concentrate on the minerals critical to advanced manufacturing and not the minerals necessary to support a basic public infrastructure. This means that we have the ridiculous situation whereby food is deemed less important than magnets and shelter is seen as less critical than night-vision goggles. We have used REEs for less than 100 years. In less than 10 years they have apparently become more critical to survival than phosphates or aggregates. They are not and never will be as important to long-term human survival as fertilizer or building materials, and they will never be as important as copper is in technological terms. So please, a sense of perspective. If you really want to get into a justifiable panic do it over being able to electrify the world using copper wire, because there is a genuine risk that we will not be able to bring electricity to everyone for lack of the red metal over the next 50-100 years, but we have policies in the UK that allow or even promote disposal of large amounts of copper in preference to recycling.

A final note on the energy efficiency of metals cycles; recycling of critical minerals is underdeveloped in most cases and impossible in some due to their mode of use. REEs for example are mostly used in alloy or in mixed oxide form, so present a difficult recycling target, while other critical metals such as tungsten and cobalt are already recycled to a high degree because their uses are constrained in high value sectors and relatively pure forms. But as a sector the volumes of critical minerals are so low that energy efficiency in their supply chains is not as big a deal as it is in, for example aluminium, zinc, copper or nickel. For example, while the UK may boast a headline copper recycling figure of 80%, the vast majority of that metal recycled never makes it into product before it is shipped back to copper smelters to be re-formed into ‘virgin’ forms for re-use. So an individual copper atom may be shipped back and forth across the world 4 or 5 times before it actually gets used in a technology and the chances that it gets recycled after it has been embodied in a product is virtually nil. Only around 10% of ‘old scrap’ copper is recycled in the UK and the figure is similar across Europe once you dig through the rhetoric.

The urban mining movement has a potential economic value of over $50bn per year in copper and gold alone and yet we export end-of-life products and e-waste to China by the shipload. Contrary to received wisdom China is currently the leader in e-waste recycling, both by value and technology, and is publishing paper after paper on the automation of that process. We are their mine for this raw material and they get it at knock-down prices because we have the wrong end of the stick with regards to its value. So in my mini-polemic I plead for a rational view on minerals, their supply chains and their use. Be concerned over mineral supplies, but be concerned over those supplies that actually matter not the ones where you have a choice over whether they matter or not. Your definition of ‘critical’ minerals defines you.

Update:
A Reuters piece on the same subject

Back in March I commented on the government loan guarantee of £80m to the Sheffield Forgemasters in order to build a world-leading 15kt forge press that would enable Britain to become a significant player in nuclear manufacturing for decades to come. The cost to the tax payer about £20m over 5 years in opportunity cost (things that we could have done with the cash).

Well the recent announcement that this loan guarantee is to be cut shows exactly what our new government thinks of UK manufacturing – it couldn’t care a toss. What Nick Clegg thinks of Sheffield – he’d rather kick them in the nuts than stand up to his public school buddy. How far our new chancellor looks when he tries to balance the books – no further than two years out. How much influence that DECC has on energy system planning – zero. And how bloody stupid partisan government can be when faced with a choice that involves long term thinking.

The argument is that this loan constitutes a subsidy to the nuclear industry and the new govt has said no public money to that industry. They are still quite happy to pile cash into windmills, solar panels for the top of your house and subsidise coal and CCS, but building an export capacity that would bring in millions every year from outside our shores. Apparently thats bad news. Not to mention how long it will take to wait for any new nuclear build within the UK with the only other forge press in Japan booked up years in advance.
Even Chris Goodall at Carbon Commentry thinks its a bad idea.

I’m not prone to swearing, but this is a bloody stupid idea and if I were in Sheffield (or staying at my Gran’s old house 10 miles away) I would be demonstrating outside Clegg’s front door irrespective of whether he’s now in his grace and favour mansion or not.

Last year was full of hope. Openness and interdisciplinarity was part of the deal. Media exposure was integral to the design of the event.
This year the doors closed. Chatham House rules were imposed (and this report is composed under those restrictions). No media were there to report (though some did attend).

So what did we discuss at this exclusive event ?

Well. It became apparent that attendees saw the exclusivity as part of a wider trend (though they didn’t apparently see themselves as contributary to that trend). The phrase ‘decisions made in smoke filled rooms’ was one that was heard in more than one session. Speakers seemed less open to suggestions and there was a definite sense of ranks closing.

Partly this was put down to the relative success of the climate skeptic movement and the failure of COP15, but also to the new government’s policy set and approach so far. However, as a newcomer to this ‘scene’ I can’t help feeling this is the way that the regulars prefer it.

Fuel poverty seems to be taking a back seat with some kind of diluted concept of equitable apportionment of cost taking over. A greater focus on real politique and economics rather than innovation was evident. Argument rather than advance you could say. Calls for quick action, some action, any action seemed like a call to spend money rather than a call to change systemic conditions. Gone was the rhetoric of radical progress. In came the mumbled apologies of compromise.

Apparently HVDC is the only viable transmission system for offshore wind (which its not) but it suffers from being too expensive at short distances (which it does) and apparently AC doesn’t work under water (?!?).

Now, news aggregators like REF can’t check everything. Its simply not economic to do so. But when a press release starts with a direct contradiction to existing reality (quote “Underwater electricity transmission is not possible with alternating current”) you have to at least have a flirt with checking the source.

I couldn’t get a hold of the report that this press release is publicising. Frost & Sullivan don’t give away their “research” for free, but if the report is of a similar quality to the press release I don’t want to read it !

For the record ALL the UK’s current offshore wind installations use AC transmission. HVDC is hampered by its expensive transformer/rectifier costs which mean that you need to have a cable run over about 30km before it’s better performance in terms of lower transmission losses outweigh the extra upfront expense in hardware.

Yes, its true that with more installations that cost will come down, but it will always remain as long as the onshore grid is AC. If you take the extreme example of Scroby Sands, 2.5km off Gt Yarmouth’s seafront. That wind farm just plugs straight into the grid through a small sub-station with no need for extra rectification kit. If it were forced to use HVDC you would need a rectifier at either end to gain virtually nothing in decreased transmission losses over 2,500m of cable.

So Mr Frost & Sullivan. Your report is wrong. Your press releases are misleading. How’s business ?

Until the 1900s it wasn’t uncommon to see women working in the tin and copper mines of Cornwall. These Bal Maidens all but ran the above ground operations taking the ore from the kibbles (ore buckets) and running it through hand sorting and processing, right up to the point of smelting. A combination of legislation, geology, automation and metals prices eventually smothered the Cornish mines, but we should remember that only 100 years ago virtually all hard-rock ores were hand processed everywhere in the world.

I was amazed by the resigned comments of US recyclers that it was simply uneconomic to recycle e-waste in the US and decided to take a look at the state of the art, because as the Bal Maidens demonstrate, time and technology do move on. It turns out that China is publishing scientific paper after scientific paper on industrial scale e-waste reprocessing. Some of the techniques, such as the dissassembly of printed circuit boards using ultrasound, are already operating at industrial scale. Others, like the use of super-critical methanol or water to boil the components off circuit boards, are still in R&D. But there is a definite and conscious technological effort going on to recover as much of the metal from e-waste as economically possible. Judging by the science the Chinese are having a great time mining these new deposits and are looking forward to the forecast increase in trade.

And it is potentially a very substantial trade. The figures quoted in the NYT do not do it justice. Using some of the more conservative grades reported in peer-reviewed journals, every year 50 million tonnes of e-waste could produce as much copper as 19 Bingham Canyons (4.7 Million tonnes) and as much gold as four AngloGold Ashantis (8 Million ounces). That’s around $50bn worth of refined metal, just in copper and gold. That is not to mention the millions of ounces of silver, thousands of tonnes of aluminium, steel, tin, nickel and lead and the possible extraction of some of the more specialist metals like gallium and cobalt. A back of the envelope calculation shows that if you had all the e-waste in one spot and efficient technology to exploit it you could build a company comparable in size to Rio Tinto or BHPBilliton.

When we hear about e-waste it is usually in terms of pollution due to mercury, lead and cadmium that is vented into the environment from small artisinal workshops. What we should also remember is that it is currently economic to have an estimated 700,000 Chinese employed in informal e-waste recycling. Right now there are around 7,000 people employed in the whole recycling sector in the US, similar to the number of Bal Maidens employed in the Cornish mines in the 1850s, and they are (were) all using similar manual techniques. China has started automating e-waste recycling and cleaning up the process as it does so. What is stopping the rest of us ?

Maybe we are waiting until we have to start mining our landfills. Its not as far fetched as it sounds. London hosted the first ever landfill mining conference in 2008. Any concentration of metals should attract attention as prices rise and landfill was no exception pre-crash. With advances in bacterial leaching, as well as an existing and substantial knowledge-base in both acid and alkali hydrometallurgy the only real technical issue holding back in-situ landfill mining is the grade, which in comparison to e-waste is low.

Which provokes the final question; why would you dilute high-grade e-waste with municipal solid waste and make metals recovery more difficult and less profitable in the future ? It seems to me that by exporting the raw material we have the e-waste business upside-down and it is waiting for the same kind of revolution that the mini-mills brought for steel.

As far as I can tell these are the main rhetorical positions for and against the development of the nuclear mini-reactor. If I’m missing anything let me know.

Lets take a look at each in turn.

They are a proliferation risk – the argument is that by multiplying the number of nuclear installations, the number of nuclear-savvy engineers and scientists, and the amount of nuclear material transported around the world you are multiplying the risks associated with that material or its derivatives becoming accessible to ‘the bad guys’.
That makes absolute sense from a numerical, risk-based approach. No system is 100% reliable (that includes security and accounting systems), so doubling the volume should increase the risk by a commensurate amount.
But there is the counter argument that by making these reactors one-shot, non-refuellable sealed units the degree of risk drops when compared to the current macro-reactors. We should also consider whether building 50-year life-span installations is inherently more or less secure than building multiple 10-20 year installations that employ a restricted set of technologies.
There appear to be two main, credible proliferation risk points; fuel enrichment and waste handling/reprocessing. By centralising both to the mini-nuke manufacturers surely you are bringing together those risk vectors and making them more manageable.
There are some benefits to building strong communities around our critical infrastructure rather than commoditizing it. After all its got to be better to have thousand families worth of eyes looking out for security risks rather than a thousand pairs of eyes, who frankly should be concentrating on the work itself. Whether that is best done by centralisation of reactor manufacture or centralisation of power production I couldn’t say, but what I do know is that community support is necessary for either and it carries benefits past simply providing the workforce.
I’m afraid that the argument that some bad guys will come along and rip a mini-reactor out of the ground and whisk it away to play with is simply not credible for the majority of designs that are around right now. Most of the installations are still 50 tonnes plus for the body of the reactor and they tend to be surrounded by thick concrete walls.

They’re a cost-effective, low-carbon, utility-scale alternative to coal.
Well that’s just wishful thinking right now. Until someone gets their design through the nuclear regulators and actually builds one we simply can’t know that for sure. Certainly the 10-50MW size is a really convenient bracket to sell within, but local conditions and regulations will have a massive say in whether they are cost-effective or not.
For example a 30MW reactor in the Australian outback might be just what the mining industry needs in order to get away from using diesel to extract nickel, so reducing the full-cycle emissions profile of electric vehicle using nickel-hydride batteries, but Australia doesn’t currently permit civil nuclear power generation so to be the first company to take that challenge on will probably not result in black ink on the bottom line.
Alternately if we look at somewhere like Japan, where the civil nuclear industry is very advanced, why would they bother with tiny reactors ? Their electricity grid is advanced and ubiquitous. They have decades of experience in all steps in the civil nuclear cycle. They might want to develop mini-nukes as an export route but I doubt that they will be using many themselves.
So we need to be careful about blanket statements regarding costs, but that’s the same for all power generation.
Low carbon ? Well, that depends on who’s life cycle assessment you believe, but I think that it is credible that our current 50-year lifespan reactors are low carbon when compared to most power generation technologies, including renewables.
An alternative to coal ? It depends on your application. If you are a blast furnace that can site next to a remote iron ore mine, yes that’s almost certainly true. Reduced transport emissions alone will make a big dent in the total emissions pattern. But for an urban centre where demand is cyclical a nuclear reactor is not a good fit on its own, irrespective of the size. Nuclear reactors work best to provide a steady base-load because they can’t be switched on and off and back on again in the same way as coal or gas. They’re not alone here. Renewables have a similar issue with intermittency and both would need some form of back-up or storage to provide electricity with a domestic demand profile.

They’re unproven and dangerous.
It depends which design you are talking about here. Certainly some of the new modular mini-nukes are unproven. Bill Gate’s travelling wave reactor certainly is, but you can’t simply equate unproven with dangerous. You can equate degree of proof with degree of risk and I’d back you on that, but a rhetorical position that lack of proof of safety is proof of lack of safety is just nonsense.

They are old technology and a known risk.
Again it depends on which technology we are talking about. But simply saying its old stuff isn’t actually that reassuring. For example the Russians are proposing a simple re-use of nuclear submarine reactor technologies with a lead-bismuth cooling system. Apart from the number of boats they lost, that’s a really toxic mix to be using as coolant and it doesn’t inspire confidence. Its old and known, but unacceptably high risk to many people. Of course just using the word nuclear implies an unacceptably high risk to some.

They produce radioactive waste that is just as bad as any big nuclear plant.
No denying that.
Well, unless the newer technologies are used. The problem is that the fuel cycles used in most current commercial reactors are variants of the cold war fuel cycles designed to produce plutonium for bombs. Not all nuclear reactions that can be used to produce excess heat in a controllable manner from readily available fuels produce plutonium as an end-product and even those that do can be tweaked to produce more or less.
This is essential a question of perception. If you believe that all radioactive waste is equal then it doesn’t matter about the efficiency of the fuel cycle, or what fuel it uses, or what the waste products are and there is no argument that the size of the reactor is about as relevant as its colour. If however you apply a risk-based approach, then not all waste is equal (the current situation under most legal jurisdictions) and there is a valid argument that fuel cycles designed for purely civilian uses can be less harmful than in the past.
But you can’t have both. You can’t argue that some power-generating techniques are less risky than others (on the basis of emissions or pollutants, or economics or whatever) except nuclear which is just plain bad.

They have the potential to bring fresh water to arid parts of the world.
The water argument is an interesting one and one that makes a lot of people very nervous. Nuclear reactors use vast amount of cooling water in their current form and what is being proposed is that they are used for desalination in order to take advantage of this Hey presto ! You have a double-edged sword against poverty and hunger. Power and fresh water provided in areas currently without either. The big problem being that areas without power & water generally don’t have effective government either.
There is no doubt in my mind that the world needs more of both, but whether dropping a mini-reactor onto the coast of Somalia is the best way of achieving that compared with more conventional development mechanisms. I dunno. Historically its been big hydro that carried out this function, but the number of rivers large enough to make a difference is going down compared with the amount of disputes between upriver and down-river water users which seems to be going up.

So what have we learnt ? Not that much because until someone actually gets through licensing with one of these things we’re just not going to get a good look at the economics. Apparently the licensing will cost over $100m in the US. Separate for the EU and anywhere else that might want to buy one. If they are $25m a unit with a 10 year life whoever builds them is going to need a hell of an order book to build a self-sustaining business.

For what its worth I don’t think that mini-reactors will be cost effective in ‘normal’ urban or industrial environments, areas that have grid power already. What they could be really good at is driving down costs of things like mining or oil refineries so that we don’t have to transport dead weight three times around the world before we use it. We make the product or a semi near the primary resource and ship those instead.

Here’s what it needs to be successful;
A strong research department.

That’s it. Nothing else. Just a set of market savvy investment analysts to make sure that the technologies and projects that are being invested in are not complete trash. It won’t be able to afford the best brokers or indeed the best analysts, but then its aim is not to outperform the market. It would be good for the country if it did, home-grown profits count double in this game, but there is no shareholder imperative to work against (or indeed with) so fiduciary responsibility is replaced by electoral responsibility.

The analysts need to have cross-sectoral visibility so that they are not working against each other but apart from that nothing special needs to be in place, except some independent oversight to build confidence in the market that these are kosher companies with realistic chances of commercial success.

Of course if the worst happens and all its investments come to nought, that could be a lot of cash that the govt has to refund to the ISA holders, but presumably there will be some form of hedge against catastrophic loss.

We’ll have to wait and see what Labour’s equivalent looks like when the last pre-election budget is announced on Wednesday, but Reuters is reporting a £2bn investment fund with half from assets sales and half from private investment. I’m sure that there will be more detail than that, but if Alistair Darling’s announcement conforms to the leak, sorry briefing, then it really isn’t very imaginative. Its just another pot of cash with another set of criteria. £2bn isn’t enough to kick-start any major infrastructure projects (the super grid is estimated at around £30bn, the high speed rail at £30bn and each of the 8-12 new nuclear reactors is supposed to be around £5bn (very roughly)), so you have to ask where is this money aimed at ? We’ll find out on Wednesday I suppose.