Power Hungry

by Robert Bryce

  While all of the lanthanides are important, neodymium has particular significance. Neodymium-iron-boron magnets are powerful, lightweight, and relatively cheap—at least they are when compared to the magnets they replaced, which were made with samarium (another lanthanide) and cobalt. The Toyota Prius uses neodymium-iron-boron magnets in its motor-generator and its batteries. Analysts have called the Prius one of the most rare-earth-intensive consumer products ever made, with each Prius containing about 1 kilogram (2.2 pounds) of neodymium and about 10 kilograms (22 pounds) of lanthanum.12 And it’s not just the Prius. Other hybrids, such as the Honda Insight and the Ford Fusion, also require significant quantities of those elements.13

  The American wind sector is almost wholly dependent on neodymium-iron-boron magnets, which are used inside wind turbines. General Electric reportedly buys all of the neodymium-iron-boron magnets used in its wind turbines from China. Other metals, including europium (a lanthanide) and yttrium (a non-lanthanide), are essential elements in video displays. As David Trueman, a Canadian geologist who has spent more than three decades finding, mining, and exploiting rare metal deposits, explained to me, “without rare earths, you wouldn’t have color TV.” Trueman said that China is not only cutting its exports of rare earths but also reducing exports of other key elements, including tungsten, antimony, and indium. The Chinese, said Trueman, “are the world’s oldest capitalists. They’d rather build the TV for you than sell you the metals” needed to make the unit.14

  China’s increasing grip on the rare earths is coming at the same time that the Chinese are capturing a bigger and bigger share of the global high-tech manufacturing business. Between 1985 and 2005, China’s export volume of high-technology goods went from near zero to about $450 billion.15 During that same period, China’s share of global high-tech manufacturing grew from about 1 percent to about 16 percent.16

  China’s low-cost labor, lax environmental policies, and abundance of rare earths have allowed it to surpass both Japan and the United States in terms of the export value of high-tech manufactured goods. According to data from the National Science Foundation, China surpassed Japan as a leading high-tech manufacturer in about 2001. And by 2005, China’s high-tech exports were twice as valuable as Japan’s.

  Non-lanthanide rare elements are also essential in the solar power sector. For instance, Arizona-based First Solar (2008 revenues: $1.2 billion), one of the biggest producers of photovoltaic cells in the United States, relies on the compound cadmium telluride. First Solar’s business hinges on the availability of tellurium (atomic number 52) which is usually produced as a by-product of the copper-refining process. In its 2009 annual report, First Solar says that if its suppliers could not obtain adequate supplies of tellurium, those suppliers “could substantially increase prices or be unable to perform under their contracts.” If such a shortage happened, First Solar admits, it could get squeezed, “because our customer contracts do not adjust for raw material price increases and are generally for a longer term than our raw material supply contracts. A reduction in our production could result.”17

  FIGURE 18 World Share of High-Tech Manufacturing Exports, by Region/Country, 1985 to 2005

  Source: National Science Foundation, “Science and Engineering Indicators 2008: Presentation Slides,” January 2008, http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/seind08/slides.htm.

  FIGURE 19 Export Volume of High-Tech Manufactured Goods, by Region/Country, 1985 to 2005

  Source: National Science Foundation, “Science and Engineering Indicators 2008: Presentation Slides,” January 2008, http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/seind08/slides.htm.

  Though copper refining may be able to produce enough tellurium for First Solar and other producers of photovoltaic panels, it’s apparent that China, once again, has an advantage. According to experts on rare metals, the Chinese have the world’s only tellurium mine.18 And the Chinese are using their access to rare metals to pump out large quantities of solar panels. Several Chinese solar-panel factories have recently boosted their output of panels. The result: Between mid-2008 and mid-2009, the price of solar panels in the United States fell by about 40 percent.19

  This is a critical issue for the United States when it comes to competitiveness: If U.S. policymakers decide to support an indigenous rare earths business as a way to hedge against Chinese supplies, China could simply drop the price of their rare earths, and in doing so make any upstart mining operation unprofitable.

  At the moment, the only hope for the United States when it comes to domestic lanthanide production appears to be Molycorp Minerals, which owns America’s only operable rare earths mine, located near Mountain Pass, California. In 2008, Molycorp was sold to a group of private investors, including Goldman Sachs. The mining outfit was purchased from Chevron, which took control of Molycorp when it bought Unocal. (By the way, the other suitor for Unocal was the Chinese National Offshore Oil Company.) Molycorp has begun processing some of the ore that was stockpiled at the mine, but the company says it won’t be able to resume mining operations until 2011 or 2012. Even if the Molycorp mine can return to full output, company officials believe it will only be able to capture perhaps 15 percent of the world market.20

  The availability of rare earths is not just about balance of trade, it’s also about national security. The U.S. military is heavily reliant on high-tech weaponry, which means navigation systems, guidance systems, radios, and computers—all of which require rare earths. Now, suppose the United States decided to impose trade sanctions on China, perhaps due to some type of dispute over carbon emissions. What might China do in retaliation? Well, one obvious way to retaliate would be to cut off the flow of rare earths to the United States and other countries, thus pinching the U.S. Defense Department’s ability to obtain the high-tech equipment it needed.

  China’s near-monopoly control of the green elements likely means that most of the new manufacturing jobs related to “green” energy products will be created in China, not the United States. Chinese companies have made it clear that—thanks to huge subsidies provided by the Chinese government—they are willing to lose money on their solar panels in order to gain market share.21 And the government is subsidizing more solar-panel manufacturing capacity, which will likely allow the Chinese to undercut the prices of panel makers all over the world. Consider a deal that the city of Austin’s municipal utility, Austin Energy, made in early 2009: The utility agreed to build a solar farm that will use 220,000 solar panels. All of them will be made in China.22 Or consider wind turbines: In late 2009, the backers of a $1.5 billion wind project in West Texas announced that they were planning to install 240 wind turbines on the 36,000-acre site. The project backers were seeking $450 million in federal stimulus money to make the deal happen. All of the wind turbines for the project are to be built in China.23

  Environmental activists in the United States and other countries may lust mightily for a high-tech, hybrid-electric, no-carbon, super-hyphenated energy future. But the reality is that that vision depends mightily on lanthanides and lithium. That means mining. And China controls nearly all of the world’s existing mines that produce lanthanides. These facts demonstrate, once again, the need to accept the interconnectedness of the global economy. Simply trading one type of strategic commodity import (such as oil) for another (lanthanides and lithium) makes little sense. The reality is that the United States, like every other country, will continue to depend on the global marketplace to obtain the commodities it needs.

  Of course, the United States will need more of the green elements. But the good news is that even without huge increases in imports of the lanthanides, the U.S. economy is steadily becoming more efficient in its energy use. In fact, over the past three decades, the United States has been among the best nations in the world when it comes to improving the efficiency of its economy.

  FIGURE 20 The “Green Elements” and the Periodic Table

  CHAPTER 14

  The United States Lags in Energy Efficiency

  YOU�
�VE HEARD IT a thousand times: The United States wastes energy. Americans are energy hogs. Our cars are too big. Our houses are too big. And, of course, our collective butts are too big, too.

  Aside from the last one, which can likely be verified with a tape measure, those claims are largely wrong. Over the past three decades or so, the United States has been as good as—or better than—nearly every other developed country on Earth at improving its energy efficiency. It has been among the best at reducing its carbon intensity, its energy intensity, and its per-capita energy use. And here’s the most important thing to remember when considering those facts: The United States has achieved these reductions without participating in the Kyoto Protocol (which would have set targets for reductions in carbon emissions) or creating an emissions trading system like the one employed in Europe. In fact, the United States has been better than nearly every other country on the planet at reducing its carbon intensity and its energy use without doing any of the things that environmental groups and renewable energy lobbyists contend are essential.

  Nevertheless, Americans are being steamrolled with claims that the United States is a laggard—and Congress has latched on to the idea. In 2007, it passed the Energy Independence and Security Act, a 310-page bill in which the word “efficiency” appears 331 times and “efficient” appears 111 times.1 In 2009, the original version of the cap-and-trade bill (also known as Waxman-Markey or the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009) contained the word “efficiency” 218 times and the word “efficient” 44 times.2 Environmental groups such as the Sierra Club, Greenpeace, and the Environmental Defense Fund, repeatedly say that America’s first priority on energy policy should be greater efficiency. For decades, Amory Lovins, the Colorado-based energy pundit, has been claiming that efficiency is the essential solution to all of America’s energy challenges.

  Though nearly everyone is convinced that the United States is lagging on energy efficiency, the numbers, as usual, tell a different story.

  Let’s look first at the carbon intensity of the U.S. economy—that is, the amount of carbon dioxide per unit of economic output, measured in metric tons of carbon dioxide per $1,000 of GDP. Between 1980 and 2006, U.S. carbon intensity fell by 43.6 percent. That’s far better than the performance of the EU-15, which managed a reduction of 30.1 percent over that same time period. The U.S. reduction in carbon intensity over that period nearly matched that of Western European countries that are often held up as models of aggressive national energy policy implementation, namely, Denmark and France, which managed to reduce their carbon intensity by 47 percent and 50.2 percent, respectively. Somewhat surprising is the performance of China, which, thanks to improvements in the efficiency of its machinery, reduced its carbon intensity by 64 percent.3

  The United States is reducing its carbon intensity because it continues to become more efficient in how it uses energy. Despite bingeing on SUVs and ever-faster cars with ever-increasing numbers of cupholders and seat heaters, the United States has become far more efficient in how it consumes oil and natural gas. And that efficiency is occurring in myriad ways, from more efficient cars to better home furnaces and more efficient power plants that are able to wring more electricity out of a molecule of natural gas.

  Now let’s consider energy intensity. (Note that carbon intensity and energy intensity, while closely related, are not the same thing. A given country may have greater carbon intensity than its neighbors if it relies more heavily on coal. Conversely, it may have lower carbon intensity if it relies more heavily on nuclear power or hydropower.) Between 1980 and 2006, America’s energy intensity—the amount of energy needed to produce $1 of gross domestic product (GDP)—fell by about 42 percent. Among the major countries of the world only one did better: China, where energy intensity fell by 63 percent. Over that same time period, Britain matched the United States, seeing its energy intensity fall 42 percent. The reduction in U.S. energy intensity is particularly notable given that it bested countries such as France and Japan, which saw their energy intensities decline by 20.4 percent and 17.4 percent, respectively. Meanwhile, in some developing countries, energy intensity actually increased. For instance, in Indonesia, the amount of energy needed to produce $1 of GDP increased by 5.4 percent, and in Brazil, energy intensity increased by 33.3 percent.4

  FIGURE 21 Change in Carbon Intensity of Major World Economies, 1980 to 2006

  Source: Energy Information Administration, “World Carbon Intensity—World Carbon Dioxide Emissions from the Consumption and Flaring of Fossil Fuels Per Thousand Dollars of Gross Domestic Product Using Market Exchange Rates, 1980–2006,” http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/international/iealf/tableh1gco2.xls.

  The decline in U.S. energy intensity becomes even more interesting when you consider that between 1980 and 2006, the U.S. GDP more than doubled, going from $5.8 trillion to about $12.9 trillion.5 (Those figures are in constant year 2005 dollars.)6 Furthermore during that same period the U.S. population increased by about 31.5 percent, going from about 228 million people to about 300 million.7 Put another way, between 1980 and 2006, the U.S. economy grew by 122 percent, its population grew by 31.5 percent, and yet the total amount of energy needed to produce $1 of GDP fell by about 42 percent. Why did that happen? Much of it can be explained simply by the fact that consumers, engineers, and entrepreneurs are always working to do things more efficiently, not because it is better for the environment, necessarily, but because it saves them money and increases profits. In other words, it’s just good business.

  FIGURE 22 Change in Energy Intensity of Major World Economies, 1980 to 2006

  Source: Energy Information Administration, “World Energy Intensity—Total Primary Energy Consumption Per Dollar of Gross Domestic Product Using Purchasing Power Parities, 1980–2006,” http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/international/iealf/tablee1p.xls.

  Now let’s look at one of the most important energy metrics: per-capita energy consumption. From 1980 through 2006, the average per-capita energy consumption in the United States fell by 2.5 percent. That decline was greater than in any other developed country in the world except for Switzerland and Denmark, which saw their per-capita energy use fall by 4.3 percent and 4.2 percent, respectively.8 During that same time period, per-capita energy use in major European countries rose significantly. For instance, per-capita energy use in France rose by 18.8 percent. Spain’s per-capita energy use jumped by 93.4 percent, and Norway’s increased by 25.1 percent. (Britain’s per-capita energy use increased by 3 percent.) During that same time period, the world average for per-capita energy use rose by 13.7 percent.9

  While it’s true that the United States uses significantly more energy on a per-capita basis than the rest of the world (334.6 million Btu in 2006 versus a world average of 72.4 million Btu), that difference is largely a function of America’s higher standard of living as well as the much greater distances that Americans have to travel. For instance, the state of Texas sprawls over an area covering some 268,000 square miles.10 That means it’s bigger than France, the largest country in Western Europe, which encompasses 220,000 square miles.11 Or consider the area displaced by everyone’s favorite banker and chocolatier: Switzerland, which covers less than 16,000 square miles.12 Though few people would swap Zurich for Enid, you could fit four Switzerlands inside Oklahoma’s friendly confines and still have enough space left over to squeeze in Puerto Rico.13

  FIGURE 23 Change in Per-Capita Energy Use, Major World Economies, 1980 to 2006

  Source: Energy Information Administration, “World Per Capita Total Primary Energy Consumption, 1980–2006,” revised December 19, 2008, http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/international/iealf/tablee1c.xls.

  So what’s going on? Why is America doing so well on these measures of carbon intensity, energy intensity, and per-capita energy use?

  There are several answers to those questions. Among the most important is that the U.S. economy has moved toward more service-based production. It may be lamentable for some people, but significant segments of Am
erica’s heavy industry have moved overseas where labor and raw materials are cheaper. Energy-intensive businesses such as steel making, aluminum smelting, and auto manufacturing have become far more globalized than before, and that has resulted in the loss of factory jobs to China, Mexico, the Middle East, and other countries that have certain advantages, such as lower labor costs or cheaper energy.

  Another key factor: Engineers keep doing what they do best, making products that are faster, cheaper, and produce more horsepower, more efficiently, than the ones they made the year before. Modern refrigerators use far less energy than the ones that were made back in the 1970s and 1980s. Modern personal computers use processors that are far more powerful and efficient than the ones made just three or four years ago. The proliferation of programmable thermostats has allowed consumers to better manage the cooling and heating of their homes. The integration of microchips into automobiles has helped to make modern cars faster, more luxurious, and more powerful while allowing them to achieve better fuel economy than the ones produced thirty years ago. Modern longhaul trucks are more efficient thanks to better aerodynamics and engines. The same is true of modern jet airplanes.

  Similar trends are discernible in America’s oil consumption. In 1973, there were about 130 million registered vehicles in the United States and Americans were driving about 1.3 trillion miles per year.14 That year, the United States was using 17.3 million barrels of oil per day.15 By 2007, the United States had 254 million motor vehicles on the road and they were being driven 2.9 trillion miles per year.16 Thus, between 1973 and 2007, the number of miles driven in the United States increased by 123 percent, but the amount of oil needed to do that driving had increased by just 20 percent, to 20.7 million barrels per day.17