General Musing

I told a friend of mine, who is a chemist working with catalysts to produce new compounds, about the rare earth elements being exhausted by 2017. (See previous article) She asked me what the problem would be in creating new elements from other elements. She’s teaching me a lot about Chemistry, so I thought I’d look up her idea and examine it.

The process of changing one element into another is Transmutation, which comes from alchemy. It is actually possible, which we know from Nuclear Transmutation or Nucleosynthesis. From what I understand this is easier with radioactive elements, although you can correct me if I’m wrong.

“Changing the element requires changing the atomic (proton) number. The number of protons cannot be altered by any chemical means. However, physics may be used to add or remove protons and thereby change one element into another.”¹

We learn when we further read the article, in nature it is easier to create “… new elements [...] by adding protons and neutrons to hydrogen atoms [...] producing increasingly heavier elements, up to iron (atomic number 26). [...] Elements heavier than iron are formed in the stellar explosion of a supernova.” Meaning it requires a large amount of energy, such as a nuclear reaction or particle accelerator. “[T]he accelerated particle impacts a target material, potentially knocking free protons or neutrons and making a new element or isotope. Nuclear reactors also may used for creating elements, although the conditions are less controlled.“

So we go one up or one down in the periodic table. Both Gallium and Zinc are problematic being that they are both running out. Gallium could potentially be made from Germanium, but Zinc sits next to Copper which we also know is running out, albeit over a slightly longer period. Even Nickel which sits next to Copper is running low. This would make Zinc far more difficult to produce.

Indium, which sits between Cadmium and Tin would be easier. Although Cadmium is commonly found in Zinc ore and Ni-Cd batteries where three-quarters of it is used. Tin is already a scarce metal in the earth’s crust at 2 parts per million, compared with Zinc (94 ppm) and Copper (63 ppm).

Hafnium sits next to Lutetium and Tantalum. Wikipedia states that it is “[f]ound with almost all other rare-earth metals but never by itself, lutetium is very difficult to separate from other elements. Consequently, it is also one of the most expensive metals, costing about six times as much as gold.” Which, in my eyes, pretty much puts it out of the running. I couldn’t really find much on the availability of Tantalum by 2005 the price was below US$40/lb, but it is now up to US$68/lb. Not as bad as the US$240/lb it was once at, but still expensive. However as Lutetium is at approx. $100 per gram, Tantalum is still a better bet and could also be produced from Tungsten, which might still work out cheaper than Lutetium.

Terbium sits next to Gadolinium and Dysprosium. “Gadolinium is never found in nature as the free element, but is contained in many rare minerals such as monazite and bastnäsite. It occurs only in trace amounts in the mineral gadolinite.” And “… most dysprosium is being obtained from the ion-adsorption clay ores of southern China. In the high-yttrium version of these, dysprosium happens to be the most abundant of the heavy lanthanides.” Which might make Dysprosium a good candidate.

Lastly with Platinum sitting between Iridium and Gold, and Gold prices being what they are Iridium is a best bet. However “… Iridium is one of the rarest non-radioactive, non-noble gas elements in the Earth’s crust, but it is relatively common in meteorites.” Which makes Osmium a better bet.

It looks like we’re in trouble.

technorati tags: gallium, indium, hafnium, terbium, zinc, platinum, chemistry, nuclear, reaction, proton, nucleosynthesis, synthesis, transmutation