China Plans To Ban Exports of Rare Earth Magnet Tech (yomiuri.co.jp) 133
China is considering banning the export of technologies used to produce high-performance rare earth magnets deployed in electric vehicles, wind turbine motors and other products, citing "national security" as a reason, it has been learned. From a report: With the global trend toward decarbonization driving a shift toward the use of electric motors, China is believed to be seeking to seize control of the magnet supply chain and establish dominance in the burgeoning environment sector.
Beijing is currently in the process of revising its Catalogue of Technologies Prohibited and Restricted from Export -- a list of manufacturing and other industrial technologies subject to export controls -- and released a draft of the revised catalog for public comment in December. In the draft, manufacturing technologies for high-performance magnets using such rare earth elements as neodymium and samarium cobalt were added to the export ban. The solicitation of comments ceased late January and the revisions are expected to be adopted as early as this year.
Beijing is currently in the process of revising its Catalogue of Technologies Prohibited and Restricted from Export -- a list of manufacturing and other industrial technologies subject to export controls -- and released a draft of the revised catalog for public comment in December. In the draft, manufacturing technologies for high-performance magnets using such rare earth elements as neodymium and samarium cobalt were added to the export ban. The solicitation of comments ceased late January and the revisions are expected to be adopted as early as this year.
Huh? (Score:5, Informative)
I don't think the technology needed to make rare-earth magnets is particularly secret. Although North America and Europe have limited manufacturing capacity now, I'm sure they could ramp up if necessary. And there are some manufacturers in the United States [duramag.com] already.
"High Performance" (Score:3, Interesting)
I don't think the technology needed to make rare-earth magnets is particularly secret.
It sounds from the article like it's equipment related to making high-performance rare-earth magnets that would be targeted, limiting production of such magnets to mostly inside China until the countries built up the same technology for factories... so more like magnet construction equipment.
Re:"High Performance" (Score:5, Informative)
It sounds from the article like it's equipment related to making high-performance rare-earth magnets that would be targeted
Yeah this is the case. Many of the countries around the world do not produce the machinery to increase the performance of rare-earth magnets. The means by which it is done isn't a massive secret, but the required forges for processing, say, neodymium to increase it's total magnetic field just do not exist in the United States or other countries and construction of them takes quite a few years to do. There are particular processes required to pass the semi-liquid metal through high power magnetic coils and the process by which the metal is allowed to cool to maximize strength. None of these are hush-hush kinds of things, it's just a matter of building the damn thing and then having a very competent crew/well calibrated and maintained equipment. All of that being things that take time to get going. Which is entirely the point of what China is doing here. It is not that "the US will NEVER figure this out!" It is more "well if the US is going to be petty then we can be just as petty back."
Because as "smart" as the US would like to think it is, the US is massively lagging behind in actual "producing" things that are not food. And I do not want to get into the whole discussion of domestic production and why we are in the position we are in. That's been talked to death. Point being is China is right, the US does not have the factories there and that's the advantage they are going to press in this whole thing. Is that insurmountable? Absolutely NOT. The US will easily build the required factories (unless China gets going in social media with a lot of stoking the NIMBY attitude that pervades the US) to get past this within the next two decades and one decade if they can get everyone behind it. But the entire point is that the US HAS to build them. There is no long term strategy here from China. It is just China taking their ball home with them for the mere fact that now the US will have to go buy a ball.
Re: (Score:2)
no chip factories are being built in the U.S
What are you talking about? Fab 52 - 62 from Intel just broke ground on their 20A fab in Arizona [slashdot.org]. This is one of their newest GAAFETs fabs to be built. They are also doing a PowerVia production line there as well. The plant is scheduled to come online late 2024 for their first phase of IDM 2.0. Additionally, Intel is expanding their current fabrication in Ohio. The first gains of this being sometime in 2026 but the plans stretch all the way out to 2037.
TSMC is also building a 5nm fabrication line out
Re: (Score:3)
I stand corrected, I had read the U.S. was having trouble getting chip companies to build new plants.
Thanks for the correction, and I'll review a few more news sources before I post about that in the future.
Re: "High Performance" (Score:2)
10/10 for reviewing your stance when presented with facts, and 11/10 for doing so politely in the face of a know-it-all asshole.
Re:Huh? (Score:5, Insightful)
It's just a punitive response in an escalating trade war. I say "good", let's stand up our own manufacturing technology and expertise. We'll be better off in the long run if we're not dependent on China for anything important.
But let's also revoke their Most Favored Nation trade status too, huh? It's a complete farce by now, if that isn't obvious to everyone. That way we can more effectively counter any dumping strategies they employ.
the usa can "national security" to by pass the EPA (Score:3)
the usa can "national security" to by pass the EPA delays for our own mines and plants.
Re: (Score:2)
the usa can "national security" to by pass the EPA delays for our own mines and plants.
You a verb in that sentence.
So you
[normally a "whoosh" would here, but "whoosh" could as a verb so I it out]
Re:Huh? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
That's up to China. [abc.net.au]
Re: (Score:2)
That is stupid. And it is non competitive with local businesses that have to actually pay to use our own mail service. That article also supports that the WTO is a farce.
Re: (Score:3)
i see you do understand why all the silly us sanctions and bigotry against china were a losing strategy: it just motivated them to ramp up their own infrastructure and bring the overtake even closer. i think they're paying in kind just for trolling (i.e.: appease the domestic public, just like the u.s. does). popcorn anyone?
Re: (Score:2)
i see you do understand why all the silly us sanctions and bigotry against china were a losing strategy: it just motivated them to ramp up their own infrastructure and bring the overtake even closer. i think they're paying in kind just for trolling (i.e.: appease the domestic public, just like the u.s. does). popcorn anyone?
LOL. You think they're building up their local industry and technology only because of sanctions, and were it not for them they'd still be perfectly happy assembling iphones for a bowl of rice?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Protectionism rarely works out well for anyone.
Re: (Score:2)
Don't tell us. Tell them.
Re: Huh? (Score:3)
The US is totally into protectionism. China has avoided it until now.
Re: Huh? (Score:4, Informative)
The US is totally into protectionism. China has avoided it until now.
Hollywood falls all over itself for fear of angering Chinese censors and losing out on the few limited and highly profitable foreign film slots allowed per year. Software sold in China must be published through Chinese owned and operated publishers. Those are two examples of Chinese protectionsim I happen to know about.
In the meantime, there seem to be very few restrictions on Americans buying whatever they want from China (with a few relatively recent prohibitions now). And Chinese firms are still allowed to buy substantial interests in US companies. Look at how much of the US and global game market Tencent has an interest in, as an example.
Do you have any counter-examples, beyond our recent trade restrictions? I'm not going to claim to be an expert in this topic, but everything I've heard seems to point in the opposite direction as what you said. I'm open to learning differently though.
Re: (Score:2)
The US is totally into protectionism. China has avoided it until now.
You mean anyone can just go buy land in China, found a corp, and start doing business, like they can do everywhere else in the world?
What's that? No? And that's in direct violation of WTO rules?
Well fuck me, it looks like China is more protectionist than anyone else.
Re: Huh? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Honestly, I'd prefer the world where big screen tv costs $8k and people retire with a full pension at 65.
What would they retire from? Because there is no way a company making $8k TVs would stay in business long enough for you to get a pension...
Re: (Score:2)
I'd prefer the world where big screen tv costs $8k and people retire with a full pension at 65.
Pensions suck because you're relying on the company to manage your money for you. And the company can't even manage its own money, it will probably go out of business.
Re: (Score:2)
>"but free markets have not delivered what was promised."
What, exactly did free markets "promise" that wasn't delivered? Tons of products and services with lots of innovation, variety, and choice with low cost? Delivering what consumers want? Optimizing efficiency? Because it kinda does all that. It isn't magic, and it isn't perfect, but.... it is a great way of doing business, nothing is perfect, and anything else sucks badly.
Ought to ... (Score:2)
... free markets have not delivered what was promised.
Yeah. We ought to try them sometime.
Re: Huh? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
says the ones that operate a blocus of chip tech
Re:Huh? (Score:5, Insightful)
Just repeating what the politicians say on TV does not make it true. There never was a country that industrialized without protectionism. Yes, even the US did it.
Growing your industry is like growing a child. You need to protect it from the cruel real world until it is able to face it. You do not put a toddler on the streets and tell it to make money. You need to keep an eye on it and allow it to take on bigger and bigger challenges if and when it is able to face them.
Once your industry is able to survive on it's own, then you go out and start to preach against protectionism in other countries, so that you can be sure no industry is going to grow up there and eat your lunch, neither there, nor here.
Re:Huh? (Score:5, Insightful)
There never was a country that industrialized without protectionism.
It is worth remembering that prior to free trade agreements tariffs on goods existed to level the playing field that resulted from one country having a better quality of life than another.
The USA could compete with China if it wanted to. Just dump toxic sludge wherever you want, allow children to work, remove the requirements that your employees health and safety is taken care of, and any other race to the bottom required.
Free trade only makes sense between like companies. It makes no sense between the likes of China and any western nation ... if you want to preserve your jobs and industry that is. If you instead want to feel good because someone else's citizens are dying to make your product cheaper then by all means free trade away.
Re: Huh? (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Where we screw up, is we need automate the shit out of manufacturing.
Automation isn't the answer here. A lot of the manufacturing that the US should be doing today was off-shored decades ago to get people out of their factory jobs. Essentially, The US has already "automated" their manufacturing by having people in other countries do it for fractions of what USians were paid.
On-shoring that factory with automation just means reducing the costs of labor even further. (Bare minimum, otherwise no modern US shareholder / C-level exec would ever agree to it.) At that point the
Re: Huh? (Score:4, Informative)
Actually, we do NOT have to pollute, screw labor etc. Look at Canada, Germany, Belgium, etc. ALL of their environmental AND labor regs are tighter than America's.
Not sure why you think this is a counter point. What are you suggesting? Canada Germany and Belgium have all lost considerable manufacturing to China as well. All three countries have higher costs of production than America and higher retail prices too. They are very much a continued example of what I was saying.
Re: (Score:2)
China is leading when it comes to a lot of EV tech, especially batteries. They have some very good motors too, more than competitive with anything in the West.
There are plenty of Western countries doing it too.
Re: (Score:2)
They have some very good motors too, more than competitive with anything in the West.
*laughs in Koenigsegg*
Re: Huh? (Score:2)
LFP is a poor choice for transportation. It will never have energy density of NMC or the solid state, etc.etc.etc.
You need to let Xi zip back up. He is done with useful idiots like you.
Re: (Score:3)
This is untrue. CATL developed high end batteries in China, using home grown technology. They currently produce the best quality cells in the world, favoured by many manufacturers including American ones.
We can actually compare them directly because Tesla builds the same cars with both Chinese and American/Japanese made batteries. The Chinese ones perform better. More range, faster charging, less degradation.
Re: Huh? (Score:2)
Re:Huh? (Score:4, Interesting)
Protectionism rarely works out well for anyone.
Sure, this protectionism won't get the Chinese very far. However, while I agree with your statement, I find myself wondering: Does this also apply to the ongoing US attempts to lock out competition from Chinese businesses with protectionist sanctions? .. or is that one of those convenient exceptions that proves the rule?
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think the US or anyone else should be blocking Chinese tech in that way, except on very narrow and carefully evaluated national security grounds. GCHQ actually looked into Huawei's gear, found no evidence of backdoors or other spying, and recommended that it was safe to use in all but the very core parts of secure networks.
The government blanket banned it anyway, for economic reasons.
Re: Huh? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I wouldn't advocate protectionism, actually. I think it would also be fine to rely on another friendly nation with whom we have actual normalized trade relationships and are more or less politically and socially aligned - like the UK, Australia, Japan, So Korea, the EU, Canada, Mexico, etc. I simply don't think it's a smart idea to rely on China too much as a reliable trading partner.
But I think it's totally reasonable to apply selective tariffs that are in the national interest. China has long put many,
Re: (Score:2)
We're mostly just moving it to India (Score:2)
Re: We're mostly just moving it to India (Score:2)
Who is India's closest ally?
Re:Huh? (Score:5, Informative)
I would say it's not so much about technology or even manufacturing capacity. Where are you supposed to get the raw materials for manufacture? China is the number one producer of them, and they are not selling rares in raw material form for quite some time now, opting to move up in the value chain and sell finished products instead. While the rare earths are not as rare as the name would suggest, it takes decades to add mining capacity. In the mean time, any industry that needs magnets is going to have zero growth in the West, all the while facing cheap imports from China. This is going to be fun, for some values of $fun at least.
And this is yet another area where the west has demonstrated it's short-sightedness in this stupid trade war. The west had an absolute advantage in basically two sectors: aerospace and semiconductors. But China has endless money and brains to throw at the problem, and they are catching up fast, to the contrary of every our good dog journo and their make believe shcandenfreude. On the other hand, China has an absolute advantage in natural resources - they have everything available in abundance on their side of the New Iron Curtain the west has just recently drawn up. The West has spent most of their resources already a long time ago, and is dependent on countries that hate the US for the constant meddling in their affairs. Instead of doing damage control, the West is more and more locking themselves out of any imports with sanction wars. Especially the US is also just bleeding mindshare outside the west right now, going about their international relations like a full-fledged Karen on a temper tantrum. Sic transit gloria mundi...
Re:Huh? (Score:5, Insightful)
China has a lot of rare earths, but so do Vietnam, Brazil, Russia (well, that's too bad...), Australia and the US. China dominates production currently, but has a much less dominant reserves position.
China also has only 1.5% of the world's oil reserves, so it is dependent on others for oil imports.
The situation in Ukraine has showed that it is a fundamental security risk for the West to rely on authoritarian regimes for critical supplies. So we have no choice but to reduce or eliminate that reliance.
Re: (Score:3)
"China dominates production currently"
Yep. And the fastest way to encourage other countries to ramp up production is to play games like this. Any gains they make by trying to limit exports will probably be short term.
Re: (Score:2)
Like I said, rares are not as rare as they sound, but ramping up mining takes decades. And it does not help if 7/8 of the 4 countries you list are most definitely going to sell their rares to China.
And concerning oil, onto which side of the Iron Curtain are the oil exporting countries going to be? The lions share of dead dinosaurs are found outside the West, and are increasingly sanctioned off the West. The US has made even their long time ally Saudi Arabia go their own way. The sad truth is that outside au
Re: Huh? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
USA was the major source of rare earth mining from 1950 to 1990, mostly from the Mountain Pass Mine in California.
It was closed, not because there was nothing left to extract, but because it was cheaper to offshore the mining to a country like China where labor and environmental laws were basically non-existent. This is actually the dirty truth behind the green & electronic revolution: we just put the mess far from us, and pretend this is clean.
Anyway, the West seems to slowly wake up, but this awakenin
Re: Huh? (Score:2)
Re: Huh? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The Fairphone 4 does, but ask non-tech people around you, most of them don't care about that.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes. I guess what happened is that in 1980 some anti-nuclear people got the U.S. and IAEA to reclassify thorium as a "nuclear source material", which meant it would now be regulated like uranium and plutonium.
But rare earth ores are always found together with thorium. So after this happened, U.S. companies were no longer willing to mine rare earths because they couldn't legally throw away the unused thorium that was left over after the rare earths were removed from the ore.
This, together with some stra
Re: (Score:2)
Call me a visionary but 12 years ago I published this:
Neodymium, the new oil? [aardvark.co.nz]
It was only a matter of time :-)
Re: Huh? (Score:2)
Re:Huh? (Score:5, Interesting)
You think "The West" is out of natural resources? Do you have any idea how vast the reserves of virtually everything the North American continent has?
The United States didn't cede its status as the dominant manufacturing powerhouse in the world because it ran out of resources, it did it because some idiots 50 years ago decided they could effectively "Americanize" the world by letting 3rd world nations poison their land and sacrifice the health and safety of their workers. The naïve assumption was that as those nations gained wealth they'd shift culturally to be more like the US, and as a bonus politicians and the wealthiest 1% in the US could claim great strides in environmentalism and quality of life not by actually solving the issues of the time but by exporting them.
As it turns out, virtually none of it worked. The ailing dictatorships of the world got a new shot in the arm from American wealth flowing in, with little appreciable social or cultural movement away from what they were. Meanwhile virtually all the "benefits" of this arrangement flowed to the very top, where wealth increasingly became trapped in tremendously high asset prices and exclusive (expensive) social constructs (like MBAs and the increasingly ridiculous chase for Ivy League degrees).
That's not to say free trade is a bad thing entirely: amongst countries of like mind and with strict adherence to both competitive principles and agreed social expectations (like not using forced labor, or dumping waste in a hole) free trade can make all nations involved stronger. But that isn't what happened with China. The US strengthened an authoritarian ethno-state without regards to consequence.
Now, as the Chinese build bunkers and invasion infrastructure across from Taiwan and military islands throughout the water of Southeast Asia it's become clear that they intend to make war while they still have the initiative. When that finally materializes everyone should understand that either the US will be forced to capitulate to continue the flow of critical goods, or it will have to rapidly rebuild its industrial capacity and eschew Chinese goods entirely. To believe that the US will be able to "deter" the Chinese indefinitely and maintain trade relations is to ignore pretty frank communication from the Chinese government that they will not be deterred. We should take them at their word.
Re: Huh? (Score:2)
Re: Huh? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Do you really think that if push comes to shove, the West will care about respecting Chinese patents?
Re: Huh? (Score:2)
Re: Huh? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The West *currently* does respect these laws, but there are always bad actors in the patent world. Notably China
Re: (Score:2)
since fucking when does china respect western patents
Re: Huh? (Score:2)
Re: Huh? (Score:2)
Re: Huh? (Score:2)
Iron Filings.
The price is going up
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think the technology needed to make rare-earth magnets is particularly secret. Although North America and Europe have limited manufacturing capacity now, I'm sure they could ramp up if necessary. And there are some manufacturers in the United States [duramag.com] already.
"We could absolutely beat China in the game of global economy, we're just deliberately not doing so to ummm... I dunno, show our superiority I guess. Or something.". Is that the excuse now?
Re: (Score:2)
Rare earths aren't particularly rare. We have some promising mine sites in places like California. But what we have that China does not are things like the Furbish Lousewort.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, they assuredly have things like the Furbish Lousewort. They also have the Malakoff Diggins.
What they don't have is Phoenix Tailings.
Re: Not about the tech so much (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
A former engineering professor [wikipedia.org] of mine was a pioneer in the development of magnets used in EVs, so I'm pretty sure the knowledge exists in North America. As to the manufacturing practicalities, I think we can come up to speed reasonably quickly.
Re: Huh? (Score:5, Insightful)
Knowledge exists in the US. It's not clear it's the exact same knowledge. Blindly assuming China doesn't know anything the US doesn't isn't a good idea. China copies a lot, but it doesn't copy everything.
Re: (Score:2)
Why don't we just (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Sadly, China doesn't have a lot of tech worth stealing, except maybe for what they've already stolen from us.
Re: Why don't we just (Score:2)
Past manufacturing was junk. Current is a mixture of junk and some damn good stuff ( scary amount).
I've said for a long time that the west is headed for trouble on this. I've even pushed for a long time for Australia to process their own ores by bring
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Why don't we just (Score:2)
However, China WILL be starting a major war in the next 5 years and have threatened to nuke all of their neighbors that help Taiwan.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Concerning international laws on IP, I'm not sure they are such a good thing for humanity and not respecting IP is clearly not worse than stealing contracts... I bet a good share of users here don't respect IP so much either at a smaller scale.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Why don't we just (Score:2)
Yeah okay Mr Jinping, whatever you say
Re: Why don't we just (Score:2)
repeat (Score:3)
In 2010, as part of a diplomatic dispute, China cut off the rare earth supply to Japan [qz.com], who was almost entirely dependent on China for rare earths. The result was that Japan diversified their suppliers of rare earth metals, to avoid being dependent on a single source.
Rare earths are a short term negotiating leverage, not a long term negotiating leverage.
Re: (Score:2)
China has been planning this since the 80s,
China has been planning a complete and pointless token gesture in response to being cut off from chip making tech since the 80s?
Let's be clear about this, China isn't cutting off any supply of rare earths to the west. Their announcements just now was a ban on something that isn't happening, to protect a technology they are not the exclusive expert in. You don't need Chinese tech to build things in the West, the West *is* Chinese's tech.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yep. China does not have particularly large amounts of rare earths, and large amounts of rare earths are not actually required for most of the stuff people think it is. And in the bargain, the difference in efficiency between a motor with and without permanent magnets is continually shrinking over time.
Re: (Score:2)
And in the bargain, the difference in efficiency between a motor with and without permanent magnets is continually shrinking over time."
Yep, I was looking to see if anyone was going to finally post that. We are specifically designing new tech now to NOT require permanent magnets.
https://tech.slashdot.org/stor... [slashdot.org]
hahaha (Score:2, Insightful)
in diplomatic terms this is called "reciprocation".
this is obviously the answer to the west's blocus on chip tech...
China absolutely rules rare earths (Score:2)
https://www.visualcapitalist.c... [visualcapitalist.com]
And make most of the end products as well:
https://www.visualcapitalist.c... [visualcapitalist.com]
Tomorrow's headline:
clean energy finally embraces with loving arms: nuclear power
Re: (Score:2)
Haaa, China magnet Tech (Score:2)
Re: Haaa, China magnet Tech (Score:2)
Re: Haaa, China magnet Tech (Score:2)
What is funny (Score:2)
Not rare (Score:2)
There is nothing rare about rare earth minerals... We just need to build refineries. I hope China does ban their own exports, killing their own industry. It was not long ago that Nothing was made in China and everything was fine, even better in many ways. It's time to move on.
Re:Rare form (Score:5, Interesting)
Very good, what was the prompt you used to generate that?
Re: (Score:2)
Very good, what was the prompt you used to generate that?
Yeah, there was a very showy-but-flat didactic tone that, by the time my eyes came to the end of the first line of the first sentence, my textual-criticism brain had already hit the red button to sound the "probable LLM word salad" alarm.
So far, all the bot-produced text I've seen comes off not as conceptual communication, but merely a somewhat more polished assemblage of phrases. Like if a college macroeconomics professor wrote their main lesson notes on index cards, then gave Sarah Palin 20 minutes to sca
Re: another reason (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
you don't get it do you?
this is china saying they'll cut off the US from their source of magnets...