China takes charge of keys to technologies' future

[Jaegermeister + Red Bull]

China takes charge of keys to technologies' future (http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/natural_resources/article5870223.ece)

Leo Lewis, Asia Business Correspondent

China has triumphed in a 15-year quest to become the “ultimate monopolist” in the supply of rare earth metals — a dominance that industry experts say could give Beijing control over the future of consumer electronics and green technology.

Industry sources believe that with China dramatically cutting its annual rare earth export quotas, the time may be rapidly approaching when it will be impossible for any company to produce a wind turbine or hybrid electric car outside the communist country.

After a long, relentless campaign of price wars and export quota reductions, more than 95 per cent of the global supply of rare earth metals — a group of 17 “lanthanide” elements employed in hundreds of technologies ranging from mobile phones and BlackBerrys to lasers and aviation — is produced by China.

Although China has the resources and refinery capacity to produce enough lanthanum, terbium, neodymium and dysprosium to satisfy a global demand that is rising at 10 per year, its rare earth export allocation for the whole world this year is expected to be about 38,000 tonnes — less than the quantity required by Japan alone.

Furthermore, as the world tries to make itself more energy-efficient, China's dominant position will become more strategically critical because of the wide range of cutting-edge environmental technologies, such as wind turbines, low-energy light bulbs and hybrid cars, that depend heavily on the rare earth metals.

Jack Lifton, an expert on rare earths, said: “Deng Xiaoping's comment in 1997, where he said that China would be for rare earth metals what the Middle East was to oil, has become a very stark reality. The world has to wake up and start thinking of this group of elements as the ‘technology metals' without which there will be no technology. China is already working out how these metals are going to give its companies a competitiveness that the rest of the world will find very difficult to match.”

China's rising strength in rare earth supply and its apparent willingness to use that as “a 21st-century economic weapon” have triggered what government sources in Tokyo told The Times was an invisible tsunami of panic in Japanese industry, which in turn has called on the Government to fight its corner with Beijing. Japan, which imports nearly 100 per cent of its rare earths from China, sees the group of elements as a probable battleground for future trade wars.

Toyota and other big carmakers are hurrying to secure alternative supplies in Vietnam and Malaysia. Mines in the United States that were forced out of business by price wars may be brought back into use. Yet many industry observers believe that Beijing may engineer a global supply crunch before any serious rival sources become available.

China's strategy, said Yoichi Sato, head of the rare earth division of Mitsui, suggested a complex game being played between Beijing and the world's rare earth consumers. The perceived idea behind China restricting its rare earth exports is twofold. First, it gives its own high-tech industries a chance to flourish and gain a huge competitive edge over rivals in Asia, Europe and the US — a politically useful gambit by a Government whose legitimacy lies in the provision of jobs and economic growth. Second, it may force foreign companies to move their high-tech factories and research centres to China to circumvent quotas, a move that Japanese companies will resist for fear of losing industrial secrets.

Mr Sato also believes that China will seek to use its existing monopoly status to crush any competition that emerges. Although about 42 per cent of worldwide reserves of rare earth ores lie outside China, very few places have significant refinery capacity.

Mr Sato said: “Of course many people are looking at establishing alternative refineries and sources outside China, but the investment is not necessarily a sound one because of the threat of price revenge by China. If new projects emerge, as they have recently in Malaysia and Australia, China could just drop its prices and force rivals out of business.”

Prospects of developing the industry outside China have been hit by a sudden decision by investors in Lynas, the Australian group, to pull funding for a project under which a big refinery would have been built in Malaysia for operation by the end of this year. A company source said that the project, which would have given companies such as Toyota and Honda a welcome diversity of supply, is unlikely now to open as scheduled.

Moreover, China's push to remain the globally dominant player appears to have intensified. Within the past fortnight, a Chinese investment company has acquired 25 per cent of Arafura Resources, an Australian rare earth miner, and last month China Minmetals Rare Earth Company laid out plans to invest $300 million (£212 million) to cement its position as the globally dominant corporate force in the field.

[Jaegermeister + Red Bull]

Geology: Rare earths geology, deposits and economic assessment (http://www.resourceinvestor.com/pebble.asp?relid=49169)

By Jack Lifton
05 Mar 2009 at 09:39 AM GMT-05:00

Laissez-faire capitalism is alive and well in the rare earth mining sector of the United States, Canada, Australia, and South Africa.

Laissez-faire capitalism is alive and well in the rare earth mining sector of the economies of the United States, Canada, Australia, and the Republic of South Africa. None of these top tier industrial economies issues or funds government mandates for the exploration for, production of, or production of end-use products of the rare earth elements and/or thorium. Thus the world’s most competent, experienced, and educationally qualified mining exploration and engineering groups, have only the “free” marketplace to look for funding for such endeavors. The governments of some other nations, particularly, China, but also now including Korea and Japan as well as, most recently, the central governmental regulatory bodies of the European Union take a more pro-active role in securing for themselves, for their domestic use, supplies of materials that they consider critical to their heavy and high tech industries and to their military-industrial complexes. The rare earth elements and thorium are at the top of everyone’s list in the pro-active countries. The same is true for the “reactive” countries, such as today’s USA, Canada, and Australia, but the strength of the reaction has not yet been effective in producing civilian or military sector funding for rare earths or thorium.

The National Academies, www.nationalacademies.org (http://www.nationalacademies.org/), the current name for the combined single successor to the former United States’ National Academies of Science, Engineering, and Medicine is responsible to the U.S. Congress, from which it receives its funding, for advising the legislative branch and any other branch it, the legislature, designates on matters within its purview as requested by members of the House or Senate most often in regard to legislation being proposed to regulate an area of science, engineering, or medicine.

In October of 2007 the National Academies published a book entitled “Minerals, Critical Minerals, And The U.S. Economy,” http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=12034 (http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=12034), which was an analysis of a two year long study by a group consisting mostly of academics but which also included some selected representatives of the U.S. mining and manufacturing industries. The study identified not only which minerals and metals were critical, i.e., which ones were the bases of technologies that could not be actualized as practical devices without them, but also set out criteria for assessing the impact of the interruption of their supply on U.S. industry, the general economy, and, in an additional volume, “Managing Materials for a Twenty First century Military,” http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=12028 (http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=12028), on the capability of the U.S. military to be effective in the event of the interruption of the supply of critical materials. For today’s discussion I want to reproduce the Mission Statement designated as the “Statement of Task” for the first study:

“Statement of Task
Understanding the likelihood of disruptive fluctuation in the supply of critical minerals and mineral products for domestic applications, and making decisions about policies to reduce such disruptions, requires thorough understanding of national and international mineral sources, mineral production technology, the key uses of minerals and mineral products in the United States economy, and potential impediments to the mineral supply.

This study will: Identify the critical minerals and mineral products that are essential for industry and emerging technologies in the domestic economy (addressed in Chapters 1 (http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=12034&page=19#p200140369970019001)-3 (http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=12034&page=71#p200140369970071001) and in culminating discussion in Chapter 4 (http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=12034&page=109#p200140369970109001));
Assess the trends in sources and production status of these critical minerals and mineral products worldwide (addressed in Chapters 3 (http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=12034&page=71#p200140369970071001) and 4 (http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=12034&page=109#p200140369970109001));
Examine the actual or potential constraints, including but not limited to geologic, technological, economic, and political issues, on the availability of these minerals and mineral products for domestic applications (addressed in Chapters 3 (http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=12034&page=71#p200140369970071001) and 4 (http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=12034&page=109#p200140369970109001));
Identify the impacts of disruptions in supply of critical minerals and mineral products on the domestic workforce and economy (addressed in Chapter 2 (http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=12034&page=39#p200140369970039001));
Describe and evaluate the current mineral and mineral product databases and other sources of mineral information available for decision making on mineral policy issues (addressed in Chapter 5 (http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=12034&page=169#p200140369970169001)); and
Identify types of information and possible research initiatives that will enhance understanding of critical minerals and mineral products in a global context (addressed in Chapter 5 (http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=12034&page=169#p200140369970169001)).”

I want to address item 3 above, because when it is analyzed in further detail, it exposes a serious flaw in strategic planning, which is that prior to assessing the impact of geological, technological, economic, and political issues on the availability of critical minerals it is first necessary to assess the credibility of the numerical data, which is the basis of your analysis. In layman’s terms it comes done to:
Is the data accurate,
Is it complete,
Is the provider truthful, or
Is the provider truthful but incapable of being correct due to ignorance, lack of the appropriate scientific background, incompetence, or inability to assess or measure the credibility of either the data or its provider of that data, and
In any of the cases above is there any hidden agenda coloring the transparency of the data?

In the case of the rare earth metals the simple fact that, as of this writing, it is commonly stated, and it is true, that more than 95% of their total global supply today is produced in the People’s Republic of China should be enough to set off alarm bells in the strategic planning offices or departments of governments and private businesses, because even if you ignore, for the moment, the issue of whether or not the world of trade is “flat,” i.e., whether or not China will always sell and deliver its resources to the highest bidder, which is the free market capitalist ideal, transparency has never been a hallmark of China’s dealings with outsiders, and when we accept data on resources and reserves from the PRC not only are we facing an unknown degree of data filtration for reasons of commercial competitive advantage, with which we are all, or at least should be, familiar, but also we are facing the filtering imposed by a government that mandates that if a resource level has been declared to be present by a mining operation then that operation will be required to either produce a certain minimum amount or be faced with losing its access to markets and finance through a reduction in its next production allocation. The simple fact of life that failure to meet government imposed production allocations may lead to loss of position without any hope of redeeming one’s economic (job) status or social status is far more important to a Chinese manager than accuracy in reporting the reserves upon which that allocation was based.

In China if you set your goals lower by fudging what you think you have, or can actually produce, and then meet your goal, set for you by and in the five year plan, you have been successful.

As recently as 1993 today’s situation, China as a the ultimate monopolist in rare earths, was far from obvious, and was not even considered likely by western observers.

In a joint survey of the rare earth’s industry published in 1993 as “International Strategic Minerals Inventory Summary Report- Rare-Earth Oxides, U.S. G.S. Survey Circular 930-N it was stated after a detailed analysis of the then known data on rare earth resources and reserves that:
“The country having the greatest potential for REO (rare earth oxides-the commonly used identifier for this category) production is South Africa, which could produce 41,280 metric tons per year as compared to an actual production (1993) of 700 metric tons per year; this would be an increase of approximately 59 times the present production. The United States has the capacity to produce about 32,764 metric tons per year, which is a 50% rise over the 1989 actual production of 21,875 metric tons per year. China could undoubtedly produce more REO than is reported, especially if Bayan Obo steel slag could be successfully treated. Australia could produce 11,462 metric tons per year, about half again the present rate, if Olympic Dam and some of the placer operations introduced REO mineral recovery plants. REO output in Brazil could be raised by a factor of five with little trouble.”

The difference in the quality and credibility of the data apparently was enough to cause the authors of this study, financed by the UN and the most credible commodity mineral data reporting agencies in the USA, Canada, Australia, The UK, and Germany to not state or estimate, quantitatively, their conclusions about future Chinese production in 1993.

But even before that it was clear to western educated and trained geologists familiar with mining in the Soviet Union that China was far too unsophisticated to provide reliable data on its potential mineral resources. A geologist colleague of mine told me that as he traveled across that part of the Soviet Union’s mining landscape which it was permitted for a foreign, Canadian, visitor to see he was struck even thirty years ago by the quality of the data being obtained as deposits were mapped meticulously while, in stark contrast, his conversations with Russian and other Soviet mining exploration personnel revealed that plate tectonics was not “officially” taught in Soviet universities that were training geologists. Soviet era geologists were thus not very good at the theoretical bases for exploration, he said, and to advance in the political hierarchy one did not disagree with official geological “doctrine.” Those who advanced the use of new or foreign ideas rarely got the resources to test those ideas. No one could benefit officially for example from discovering or developing a gold mine, so those mining cooperatives that did find easily fungible resources were engaged in a constant battle with bureaucrats and corrupt officials for scarce equipment, supplies, and skilled labor for all of which they traded with other similarly situated enterprises outside of the official economy. It goes without saying that “official” data on Soviet mineral resources and reserves were a total fabrication produced in Moscow to showcase Soviet “progress” frequently with scant regard to the data even for proven resources.

When Mao Zedong succeeded in overthrowing China’s literally mandarin bureaucracy and its last outright autocratic successor to the Ming dynasty, Chiang Kai-Shek in 1949, It stands to reason then, and it was true, that in the much more unsophisticated and sparsely populated Chinese mining space, as we would now call that industry, data on resources and reserves was non-existent on a public or survey level. Mao welcomed “fraternal” Soviet geologists who came to “help.” In fact we now know that these Stalin-era geologists were thoroughly politicized and that they came to map out Chinese resources as a source of cheap raw materials for Soviet industry.

In surveying the iron ores of Bayan Obo for the purpose of setting up a contained, vertically integrated, and thus hidden from prying Western eyes, steel industry it seems that Soviet geologists familiar with deposits in the Kola peninsula of the Soviet Union noted and brought to the attention of the fraternal colleagues they were training in Soviet style exploration drivers that the Bayan Obo iron was a rich source of bastnaesite, the most common hard rock ore of the rare earth elements. The rest is a convoluted history of fraternal cooperation and is best left for a spy novel featuring Chinese students at Kola trying to fit Russian mining, extraction, and separation techniques from there to the operations at Bayan Obo, where rare earth production was primitive, labor intensive, and subject to the whims of the commissars overseeing the planning and operations of the Baotou Steel Works, a great showcase of the strength of the people and the party under Chairman Mao and not to be interfered with lightly.

By 1997 when Deng Xiaoping’s dictum that “The middle east has oil, we have rare earths” had filtered to the local level in Bayan Obo a short lived cooperation allowed an American survey team from the USGS in concert with China’s Ministry of Metallurgical Industry, to go to Bayan Obo and issue for public consumption:
“The Sedimentary Carbonate-Hosted Giant Bayan Obo REE-Fe-Nb Ore deposit of Inner Mongolia, China: A Cornerstone Example For Giant Polymetallic Ore Deposits of Hydrothermal Origin. I am certain that this title was first written in Chinese to emphasize that theirs was a lot bigger than any of ours; it is traditional in the orient to write like this.

That 1997 study concluded that:
“on the basis of reported estimates of total reserve(s) of 48 million metric tons (average grade 6 wt. percent Re2O3 , Drew and others, 1990) to as much as 100 million metric tons of Re2O3 of unspecified average grade (unofficial estimate from Chinese colleagues, oral comm.., 1987), Bayan Obo is the world’s largest known REE deposit.

The report continues that “although the [total] size has not been disclosed in the Chinese literature… [it has been acknowledged based on unreported drilling data] that Bayan Obo is China’s largest niobium deposit.”
What don’t we know about Chinese resources and reserves of REOs? We’re on the way to finding out.

I will continue this discussion in the coming year. The point I am making is that western businessmen who base their long term supply requirements for rare earths not only on continued access to Chinese production of rare earths but on Chinese produced studies of resources and reserves as well as the idea that Chinese miners and refiners economically competitive with western operations are walking on thin ice.

Recent Chinese actions in the non-Chinese rare earth mining space make it suspiciously likely that China itself needs rare earths from the outside. Next week I’ll discuss what this means for the future of technology based products in the west.

[Jaegermeister + Red Bull]

The Potential For An Electrified Future For Ford Depends On Lanthanum and Lithium The Supply Of Which To Ford, In The Quantities Required, of Neither Of Which Is Assured. (http://www.glgroup.com/News/The-Potential-For-An-Electrified-Future-For-Ford-Depends-On-Lanthanum-and-Lithium-The-Supply-Of-Which-To-Ford-In-The-Q-35195.html)

March 9, 2009


Analyses are solely the work of the authors and have not been edited or endorsed by GLG.

Implications

The CEO of the Ford Motor Company doesn't seem to worry about supply or value chain dynamics for the critical raw materials for the batteries or the electric motors that his company, Ford, would need its suppliers to have access to in order for Ford's future to be electrified
Analysis

The total global new production of lithium, stated as metallic lithium, in 2008 was 21,000 metric tons of which, perhaps, as much as 5,000 tons was surplus for which there was no demand.

Of the 16,000 tons, which was produced and consumed, some 25%, 4,000 tons, were used to manufacture lithium-ion batteries for personal electronics, power tools, and mass storage; Only a negligible amount was used to hand build battery power packs for vehicular electrification. It is stated often by lithium-ion battery vehicle electrification proponents that the use of lithium for batteries is increasing by 25% a year. What is left unstated is that this growth is in the first categories mentioned above not in the building of vehicular electrification battery packs.

A battery pack such as is proposed for the Chevrolet Volt by LG would contain, perhaps, one kg of lithium, so that there was enough surplus lithium produced in 2008 to manufacture 5,000,000 Chevrolet Volt sized battery packs without interfering with the supply of lithium for other existing uses.

It is likely that lithium production for 2009 will be less than it was in 2008, because demand for all existing uses of lithium is going to be less in 2009 than it was in 2009 and this will mean that marginal operations will cease production as prices drop towards or below fixed costs.

New lithium production from brine, which was well underway at the world's largest producer of lithium from brine, Chile's SQM, was set to increase SQM's production from 9,000 to 14,000 tons, calculated as lithium metal, by next year,2010. It is unlikely that this timetable will be kept by SQM in a severely depressed market already in oversupply, and even if new production is planned for other brine sources such as those in Nevada, Argentina, and Bolivia, as well as in China, none of this production can begin in less than 2 to 6 years even if it were completely financed today, which is extremely unlikely in this market.

Ford at the moment offers no hybrids, plug-in hybrids, or electric cars utilizing lithium-ion batteries, and even if the company should immediately choose a lithium technology for development it will be years before the market has indicated whether or not short range plug-in hybrids have any hope of significant share or whether or not the cost and performance of a lithium-ion battery technology can be justified well enough to be attractive to buyers.

Ford today, because of the above reasons has chosen to go forward with mass produced hybrid vehicles utilizing proven, durable, long lived nickel metal hydride batteries, the costs of which today have tumbled to less than $3,000 at retail, less than 1/3 of the most optimistic projections for a mass produced lithium-ion battery!

Ford, however, although it is lightyears ahead of GM and Chrysler in vehicle electrification is only third in the global race to produce hybrids based on nickel metal hydride battery technology, and its purchasing group has nowhere near the sophistication of global leaders, Toyota and Honda, when it comes to sourcing the rare earth metals lanthanum and neodymium, which are critical for the manufacturing of nickel metal hydride batteries and of the large electric motors needed to propel electrified cars.

The basic problem is that the global production of lanthanum and neodymium, both, are today entirely in China. In 2008 about 25,000 tons of neodymium and 31,000 tons of lanthanum were produced. Neither metal is in surplus and supply equaled demand in 2008.

Current production nickel metal hydride battery packs for the Toyota Prius use at least 12 kg of lanthanum each., perhaps as much as 15. But let's simply use the 12 kg figure to illustrate Ford's dilemma.

Toyota announced in 2008 that it intends to triple its production of nickel metal hydride battery packs for a Prius size vehicle, of which it will also triple production, by the end of 2011. This will bring Toyota's production of battery packs and Prius size vehicles to 1,000,000 annually by the end of 2011. Honda has begun selling its Honda Insight "Prius fighter," and says it hopes to sell 500,000 a year by the end of 2011. Ford will as of this May have four nickel metal hydride battery using vehicles in its lineup, and projects total sales of these hybrids at 250,000 annually by the end of 2011.

Assuming the lower end figure of 12 kg per nickel metal hydride battery pack is correct this means that there will be new additional production in 2011 of nearly 1.5 million hybrid vehicles using nickel metal hydride battery packs-there were about .5 million sold in 2008 most of them being Toyota Priuses.

The additional production of nickel metal hydride battery packs in 2011 for the additional vehicle production will require an additional production of 18,000 metric tons of lanthanum, which could only be done today by increasing Chinese total rare earth production by 72,000 metric tons per year, since lanthanum constitutes only an average of 25% of the total of rare earths mined today in China's Bayanobo region. This would mean that Chinese production of total rare earths in 2011 would be nearly 37% higher than 2008 total production, the highest rare earth total production for one year in history.

Even if such an increase were possible it is very unlikely that it would be done in China simply for the salvation of the product plans of Japanese and American vehicle makers.

It is possible that enough production could be brought on line outside of China so that along with the expected Chinese increase such a production goal, 18,000 metric tons of new lanthanum production, could be reached, but this would require that recent events in Australia and California, which have halted production in Australia and slowed done a restart in California, could be reversed almost immediately. This shows no likelihood of happening.

Those who argue that lithium-ion batteries will obviate the need for any increase in nickel metal hydride batteries seem to have ignored the fact that even if this silly conjecture were true in the short term there would still need to be an increase in the production of neodymium for the permanent magnets of the electric motors to be used to propel electrified cars which such increase is as unlikely in the near term as is the needed increase of the production of lanthanum for nickel metal hydride batteries and for exactly the same reasons-the massive increase in total output of rare earths necessary would in any case take many years to achieve and without non Chinese production being brought on line is most likely impossible in less than a decade.

The conclusion is that electrified cars in large enough numbers to impact the market could not be produced until at least the 2020s and then only if large non Chinese sources are developed.

Lithium production increases for vehicle battery use is possible if and when the demand is there, but the production of sufficient nickel metal hydride batteries and electric motors not only for vehicle propulsion but also for wind generators is and always will be limited by the peak of rare earth metals annual production.

Notwithstanding Mr. Mulally's bold and unsupported by any facts prediction of a majority of Ford's vehicles being electrified in 10 years time it is not possible for this to occur unless the Ford Motor Company were to obtain for its exclusive use all of the increased production of rare earths in the next ten years as well as most of the increase of the production of lithium in the case that lithium-ion batteries prove to be generally useful in vehicle electrification.

Those who disagree with me usually use appeals to emotion and other such logical fallacies to do so rather than quantitative information about total production and end use figures for rare earths and lithium.

I welcome debate on this topic, because I think that predictions such as those by Mr. Mulally are causing enormous amounts of money and time to be wasted and are contributing to the downfall of the American OEM automotive industry. We need to understand that the overwhelming majority of motor vehicles which will be produced in the next 15 years will be powered by internal combustion engines using gasoline and diesel fuels.

The elctrification of the private passenger carrying vehicle, unless it is by lead-acid battery technolgy, is a resource limited fantasy if currenlt understood technologies are all taken into account.

[Blue_0]

Idiots. They have far more to lose with this type of silly game then they could ever possibly win.

------------------

<fake breaking news>
The US cuts off the supply of genetically engineered seeds to China, resulting in a depopulation of China of biblical proportions do to simple starvation.


In short they are dependant on us for survival. We are dependent on them for raw materials for our green revolution. If it comes down to immaturity they must realize we have the strong hand of cards by far.

-- Bluelight

[Daft Ego]

Idiots. They have far more to lose with this type of silly game then they could ever possibly win.

------------------

<fake breaking news>
The US cuts off the supply of genetically engineered seeds to China, resulting in a depopulation of China of biblical proportions do to simple starvation.


In short they are dependant on us for survival. We are dependent on them for raw materials for our green revolution. If it comes down to immaturity they must realize we have the strong hand of cards by far.

-- Bluelight

Dude, are you for real? Have you the slightest clue of how the world market works? I'm no economist, but high demand = high price. And since rare earth metals are an asset to the Chinese, they will use it to the best of their advantage in today's market driven world. For you to even hypothetically propose that US will retaliate by cutting off the supply to genetically engineered seeds to China indicates to me that you've completely missed the point of the article. There is no need to project that kind of hostility.

[Jaegermeister + Red Bull]

Idiots. They have far more to lose with this type of silly game then they could ever possibly win.

------------------

<fake breaking news>
The US cuts off the supply of genetically engineered seeds to China, resulting in a depopulation of China of biblical proportions do to simple starvation.


In short they are dependant on us for survival. We are dependent on them for raw materials for our green revolution. If it comes down to immaturity they must realize we have the strong hand of cards by far.

-- Bluelight



If you are looking to win "Dumbarse of The Week" award you are definitely on the right track:

Taking the time to create "fake" news headline, check.
Using terminology with religious overtone, check.
Poor spelling & grammar, check.
Making asshat assumptions without knowing any facts, check.
Actually bothering to sign off own post with avatar name, check (its only a sin when all of the above is committed).
As for GM seeds and biotech, do some research, only ~4% of total global output of GM crops were grown in China. Its effects are minimal.

China is among leaders of agriculture R&D. It is one of the areas where China does not rely on foreign technology and actively contributes to the field and assist other developing countries.

As well China is self sufficient in food production most years due to a policy of maintaining national food security, only importing during down turns. You would know all that if you had done your homework.

Lay off the hashish. Please.

[Adux]

High demand = high price? Fvck! ombre now that is some good ****!

Demand is inversely propertional to price, considering all other factors are constant!

[Adux]

India is the only country which has the largest number of research projects matched to that of the US.

[ayanami_tard]

you forgot the japs and south korean

[Daft Ego]

High demand = high price? Fvck! ombre now that is some good ****!

Demand is inversely propertional to price, considering all other factors are constant!

That's both right and wrong, but in this case wrong since there will be obvious external factors acting on it. For example, China can create an artificially low supply to which a high demand will drive up the price.

When was the last time you paid for gas?

[JoaMei]

Im just a stupid engineering student but could somebody point out what exactely in wind turbines cant be made from of the shelf components not containing these materials?

Perhaps they need slightly bigger electronic components and efficiency drops a few percent but its not like its essential.

[Adux]

Thats just brilliant, chicom economics!

[Adux]

Im just a stupid engineering student but could somebody point out what exactely in wind turbines cant be made from of the shelf components not containing these materials?

Perhaps they need slightly bigger electronic components and efficiency drops a few percent but its not like its essential.

metallurgy!

[Daft Ego]

Thats just brilliant, chicom economics!

Is that all you got?

Oh and please do remind me how I became a chicom, is it because I disagreed with your narrow-minded views? That must be it isn't it?

Once again, I suggest you start taking some hints from this guy:

http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/showpost.php?p=3880279&postcount=656

But hey then again in retrospect, Chicom economics has worked pretty well so far. rofl

[pave_hawk]

India is the only country which has the largest number of research projects matched to that of the US.
2007/2008 Human Development Report

13Technology: diffusion and creation
Research and development expenditure (% of GDP)
...
81 China
...
128 India

http://hdrstats.undp.org/indicators/128.html

please note: this is the rank of R&D as the % of GDP, not net R&D investment. GDP of China is almost triple that of India. Now you can do your math. :)

[Adux]

% of money translates to number of research projects? GDP spending = the private sector?

[Jaegermeister + Red Bull]

Im just a stupid engineering student but could somebody point out what exactely in wind turbines cant be made from of the shelf components not containing these materials?

Perhaps they need slightly bigger electronic components and efficiency drops a few percent but its not like its essential.

Magnets.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rare-earth_magnet

First time I am hearing an engineer promoting reverse miniaturization and lower efficiency as a goal of R&D.

Its all about efficiency and reducing waste energy/heat/work. Get more out of less.

[Jaegermeister + Red Bull]

High demand = high price? Fvck! ombre now that is some good ****!

Demand is inversely propertional to price, considering all other factors are constant!

Adux, you are a troll. Please dont turn all threads into some twisted IndiaSTRONG!!! post especially when its regarding China.

Your claim above is laughable at best. You have made a very infantile assumption - that the demand curve line is representing different levels of demand.

Please read up on "Vertical Supply Model" and reassess your statement. I have included a link for your convenience.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supply_and_Demand

I hope you dont make your living providing economic advice.

[Jaegermeister + Red Bull]

Thats just brilliant, chicom economics!

Adux, India succeeds not only inspite of the government, but also you.

[Jaegermeister + Red Bull]

% of money translates to number of research projects? GDP spending = the private sector?

Number of research projects = quality of research?

The private sector = automatically more efficient use of R&D investment than state sponsored R&D?

Money (funding/investment) is perhaps the most neutral yardstick to measure with, as it takes the "number of", "quality of", "value of" etc out of the equation and let everyone compare apples ($) against apples ($).

If this concept is foreign to you please let us know.

[Adux]

Adux, you are a troll. Please dont turn all threads into some twisted IndiaSTRONG!!! post especially when its regarding China.

Your claim above is laughable at best. You have made a very infantile assumption - that the demand curve line is representing different levels of demand.

Please read up on "Vertical Supply Model" and reassess your statement. I have included a link for your convenience.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supply_and_Demand

I hope you dont make your living providing economic advice.


Cant believe you havent heard about the word context!

[Adux]

Number of research projects = quality of research?

In terms of India and China "YES".


The private sector = automatically more efficient use of R&D investment than state sponsored R&D?

Yes



Money (funding/investment) is perhaps the most neutral yardstick to measure with, as it takes the "number of", "quality of", "value of" etc out of the equation and let everyone compare apples ($) against apples ($).

If this concept is foreign to you please let us know.

No.But in context of the above said countries, it is not the proper yardstick!

[ggk]

India is the only country which has the largest number of research projects matched to that of the US.

well mister businessman this thread is about china... and not India.

[Rudolph]

In a joint survey of the rare earth’s industry published in 1993 as “International Strategic Minerals Inventory Summary Report- Rare-Earth Oxides, U.S. G.S. Survey Circular 930-N it was stated after a detailed analysis of the then known data on rare earth resources and reserves that:
“The country having the greatest potential for REO (rare earth oxides-the commonly used identifier for this category) production is South Africa, which could produce 41,280 metric tons per year as compared to an actual production (1993) of 700 metric tons per year; this would be an increase of approximately 59 times the present production.

Glad to see we'll be a proxy AGAIN in the next Cold War... :roll: On second thought, at least it means we'll have friends.

[Jaegermeister + Red Bull]

Cant believe you havent heard about the word context!

Keep digging yourself a deeper hole...I cant believe you dont understand simple demand and supply graphs.

Using your own context, considering all other factors are constant: ie. supply is constant, and quality doesnt comes to play, explain how demand is inversely proportional to price?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demand_and_supply#Vertical_supply_curve_.28Perfectly_Inelastic_Supply.29


When demand D1 is in effect, the price will be P1. When D2 is occurring, the price will be P2. The quantity is always Q, any shifts in demand will only affect price.

[Jaegermeister + Red Bull]

In terms of India and China "YES".



Yes



No.But in context of the above said countries, it is not the proper yardstick!

Lol, China and India must exist in a sterile environment playing in a sandbox for "special" kids. I mean that is why the UNDP.org decided to rank China and India together with the REST OF THE WORLD using a method that isnt the PROPER YARDSTICK.

Jesus, they (the UNDP) must not know their stuff, good thing Adux is here to point out their mistake...wait a second, has he? Since you are a "context" man, care to explain ANY of your context/reasoning? So far you have only stated your disagreement, but not the reasoning.

You would be a damn good comedian if not for the fact that you actually take your statements and claims seriously.