The End of the Age of Metals
Robert Silverberg, famed science fiction author and novelist, has finally let the caterwauling cat out of the bag. In his detailed and thought-provoking piece in Asimov's, he gives a rundown on what metals are running out, why, and when.
For years I've been advocating investing in metals based simply on what every high school chemistry teacher should know: most metals are consumed faster than they are produced, and some are actually pretty rare - even common-sounding ones like lead, tin, zinc and copper. Well, here we go.
Let's begin with the metal prices as of 1998. These are available at the US Geological Survey website, here. Let's take copper for example. Copper is somewhat of a benchmark metal for the economy. The price of copper in 1998 was US$0.7864 per pound; the highest price had been in 1995 with US$1.3833. (1995 was something of a high water mark for metal prices in the 20th century.) Presently, copper is trading for about $3 (or more) a pound. You can't really stockpile it, but demand is high, and copper is used everywhere by everybody for many things. With power industries eating copper by the kilometre, you can bet on a copper nett demand and steady increases in the value of copper mining shares.
But copper has a few advantages that gallium, ruthenium, and many other less critical but more specialist metals don't have. It is easy to find, easy to extract, and we know where most of it is (Chile, with about one-third of world production). More reactive and comparatively rare metals are running out right now; there was little or no use for gallium in the early 20th century, but semiconductors and computer interfaces use a lot of it now. Dr Armin Reller at Augsburg has been giving estimates for such materials; he thinks many of them will be gone between 10 to 30 years from now.
The bad news is that this is old news. By the time the media got hold of it, it was already last year's news. And not many people bothered. Back in 2003, my forecast was that certain heavy metals (zirconium, hafnium; niobium, tantalum; molybdenum, tungsten; rhenium; ruthenium, rhodium, and palladium; osmium, iridium and platinum) should be held in reserve. Do these names look familiar? They would be to former students who have seen me draw Periodic Tables all over their whiteboards in various classrooms.
Maybe that's what a chemical education is useful for, after all!
For years I've been advocating investing in metals based simply on what every high school chemistry teacher should know: most metals are consumed faster than they are produced, and some are actually pretty rare - even common-sounding ones like lead, tin, zinc and copper. Well, here we go.
Let's begin with the metal prices as of 1998. These are available at the US Geological Survey website, here. Let's take copper for example. Copper is somewhat of a benchmark metal for the economy. The price of copper in 1998 was US$0.7864 per pound; the highest price had been in 1995 with US$1.3833. (1995 was something of a high water mark for metal prices in the 20th century.) Presently, copper is trading for about $3 (or more) a pound. You can't really stockpile it, but demand is high, and copper is used everywhere by everybody for many things. With power industries eating copper by the kilometre, you can bet on a copper nett demand and steady increases in the value of copper mining shares.
But copper has a few advantages that gallium, ruthenium, and many other less critical but more specialist metals don't have. It is easy to find, easy to extract, and we know where most of it is (Chile, with about one-third of world production). More reactive and comparatively rare metals are running out right now; there was little or no use for gallium in the early 20th century, but semiconductors and computer interfaces use a lot of it now. Dr Armin Reller at Augsburg has been giving estimates for such materials; he thinks many of them will be gone between 10 to 30 years from now.
The bad news is that this is old news. By the time the media got hold of it, it was already last year's news. And not many people bothered. Back in 2003, my forecast was that certain heavy metals (zirconium, hafnium; niobium, tantalum; molybdenum, tungsten; rhenium; ruthenium, rhodium, and palladium; osmium, iridium and platinum) should be held in reserve. Do these names look familiar? They would be to former students who have seen me draw Periodic Tables all over their whiteboards in various classrooms.
Maybe that's what a chemical education is useful for, after all!
Labels: Chemistry, History, Metallurgy
etched with acid at 10:35:00 am
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home