Energy-critical elements for sustainable development

Abstract

Energy-critical elements (ECEs) are chemical and isotopic species that are required for emerging sustainable energy sources and that might encounter supply disruptions. An oft-cited example is the rare-earth element neodymium used in high-strength magnets, but elements other than rare earths, for example, helium, are also considered ECEs. The relationships among abundance, markets, and geopolitics that constrain supply are at least as complex as the electronic and nuclear attributes that make ECEs valuable. In an effort to ensure supply for renewable-energy technologies, science decision makers are formulating policies to mitigate supply risk, sometimes without full view of the complexity of important factors, such as unanticipated market responses to policy, society’s needs for these elements in the course of basic research, and a lack of substitutes for utterly unique physical properties. This article places ECEs in historical context, highlights relevant market factors, and reviews policy recommendations made by various studies and governments. Actions taken by the United States and other countries are also described. Although availability and scarcity are related, many ECEs are relatively common yet their supply is at risk. Sustainable development requires informed action and cooperation between governments, industries, and researchers.

Full text

405
MRS BULLETIN • VOLUME 37 • APRIL 2012 • www.mrs.org/bulletin
© 2012 Materials Research Societ y
ENERGY & WATER • CRITICAL ELEMENTS
Introduction
The term “energy-critical elements” (ECEs) was coined by
a joint committee of the American Physical Society (APS)
and Materials Research Society (MRS) assembled in 2009 to
investigate the material resources available to support emerging
energy technologies
1 (see Figure 1 ). By the time the APS–MRS
study was published in 2011, several countries had already
started acting on concerns about the supply risk of critical
minerals and materials.
2
In the United States, congressional committee hearings,
legislation, and administration studies were initiated. The U.S.
Department of Energy released an important report in late 2010
3
and a comprehensive follow-up in late 2011
4 that identifi ed 14
critical elements: cerium, cobalt, dysprosium, europium, gal-
lium, indium, lanthanum, lithium, neodymium, praseodymium,
samarium, tellurium, terbium, and yttrium (see Figure 1 ). These
materials were selected based on supply risk factors, includ-
ing small global market, lack of supply diversity, and market
complexities caused by coproduction and geopolitical risks. The
APS–MRS and Department of Energy reports are foundational
to U.S. policy and legislative fl ow.
Also in 2010, Korea and Japan undertook broad programs in
research and recycling of rare metals,
5 and the European Union
(EU) issued memoranda establishing a critical-materials list.
6
The sudden concern over ECEs was touched off by inter-
national events occurring over at least a decade. As described
below, the United States lost its leadership of the rare-earth
markets and by 2002 was effectively out of the business. In
its place, China rapidly fi lled the market niche by tapping
underutilized deposits using new mining technology. However,
on July 8, 2010, China formally announced a 40% reduction in its
export quota for rare-earth (RE) elements, which sent a shock
wave through the markets. By that time, China accounted
for more than 95% of worldwide production of rare-earth
oxides. Within weeks, the export price of neodymium, a rare-
earth metal used in high-strength magnets for windmills and
electric-car motors, nearly tripled, and in November 2011, it
was some seven times higher than it had been in July 2010
Energy-critical elements for sustainable
development
Alan J. Hurd , Ronald L. Kelley , Roderick G. Eggert ,
and Min-Ha Lee
Energy-critical elements (ECEs) are chemical and isotopic species that are required for
emerging sustainable energy sources and that might encounter supply disruptions. An
oft-cited example is the rare-earth element neodymium used in high-strength magnets,
but elements other than rare earths, for example, helium, are also considered ECEs. The
relationships among abundance, markets, and geopolitics that constrain supply are at least
as complex as the electronic and nuclear attributes that make ECEs valuable. In an effort to
ensure supply for renewable-energy technologies, science decision makers are formulating
policies to mitigate supply risk, sometimes without full view of the complexity of important
factors, such as unanticipated market responses to policy, society’s needs for these
elements in the course of basic research, and a lack of substitutes for utterly unique physical
properties. This article places ECEs in historical context, highlights relevant market factors,
and reviews policy recommendations made by various studies and governments. Actions
taken by the United States and other countries are also described. Although availability and
scarcity are related, many ECEs are relatively common yet their supply is at risk. Sustainable
development requires informed action and cooperation between governments, industries,
and researchers.
Alan J. Hurd, Los Alamos National Laboratory, Los Alamos, NM, USA ; ajhurd@lanl.gov
Ronald L. Kelley, MRS Washington Offi ce and The Livingston Group, Washington, DC, USA ; rkelley@livingstongroupdc.com
Roderick G. Eggert, Colorado School of Mines, Golden, CO, USA ; reggert@mines.edu
Min-Ha Lee, Korea Institute of Industrial Technology, Cheonan, South Korea ; mhlee1@kitech.re.kr
DOI: 10.1557/mrs.2012.54

406 MRS BULLETIN • VOLUME 37 • APRIL 2012 • www.mrs.org/bulletin
ENERGY & WATER • CRITICAL ELEMENTS
(see Figure 2 ). Regardless of the reason for China’s quota
action, its effect was to reinforce international concerns about
rare-earth elements.
In the wake of these events, the APS–MRS committee pub-
lished its report on the raw-materials supply risk to emerging
energy technologies, including recommended actions. This
article reviews that APS–MRS report and others, as well as
responses by governments to ECE supply risks. (The article by
Graedel and Erdmann in this issue also discusses supply limita-
tions, but of a broader spectrum of metals for manufacturing
technologies.) After defi ning ECEs, we discuss some aspects of
their supply chains and markets, U.S. and international policy
developments, factors specifi c to REs and helium, critical-materials
lists from selected countries, and the recommendations of the
APS–MRS study.
Energy-critical elements are not just
rare earths
As noted earlier in this issue by Graedel and
Erdmann, there are many defi nitions of critical
materials or elements. We confi ne our com-
ments to energy -critical elements as defi ned in
the APS–MRS study,
1 unless stated otherwise.
ECEs are chemical elements that are necessary
for emerging or transformative energy tech-
nologies but whose supply risk could limit
research, development, or deployment of a
technology. Typically, ECEs have not been
widely extracted, traded, or utilized in the
past and lack a well-established, regulated, or
stable market. Non-rare-earth examples include
indium for solar cells and energy-effi cient dis-
plays, tellurium for solar cells and detectors,
platinum for novel catalysts, and rhenium for
energy-saving superalloys. It is important
to appreciate the study’s inclusive scope for
energy research: research materials such as
helium for cryogenics can also be “critical” because they are
required to develop transformative energy technologies.
ECE lists are neither universal nor constant over time. In
1940, the emerging energy technology was nuclear fi ssion;
hence, the ECEs of the day were natural uranium, deuterium,
and highly purifi ed graphite, the last two for neutron modera-
tion. Indeed, at that time, committees recommended policies for
these then-ECEs, but world events prompted the classifi cation
of nuclear policies as national secrets.
8 Today, uranium, car-
bon, and deuterium are still critical elements, but they are not
energy-critical elements, as they are now governed by highly
regulated markets, national security considerations, and public
concerns. By 2050, one hopes that progress on sustainable
development will likewise have moved some elements off
today’s ECE lists, perhaps to be replaced by other elements.
By analogy to nuclear power in 1940,
today’s new or anticipated markets in sus-
tainable energy involving hydro, wind, sea,
geothermal, and solar power require a new set
of raw materials. Not to be forgotten, however,
advanced nuclear reactors are considered
by many as a sustainable technology. (See
the article in this issue by Englert et al.) Low
environmental impact throughout a material’s
life cycle is a key to sustainability for any
ECE supply.
Rare earths
Despite their name, rare-earth elements are
not rare; they are just rarely used. If society
is able to adopt new, contemplated energy
infrastructure, as well as improved processes
for extracting and recovering rare earths, this
will change.
Figure 1. Critical elements chosen by the American Physical Society (APS)–Materials
Research Society (MRS) energy-critical element study panel
1 and by the U.S. Department
of Energy Of ce of Energy Policy.
3
,
4 Selection criteria differed in the two studies, leading to
29 elements for the APS–MRS and 14 elements for the U.S. Department of Energy.
Figure 2. Recent price history of neodymium oxide (2007–2011), as an example of
supply risk. Chinese domestic prices (blue line) are less than the Chinese export price for
customers outside of China. (From Reference 7 courtesy of the U.S. Geological Survey.)

407
MRS BULLETIN • VOLUME 37 • APRIL 2012 • www.mrs.org/bulletin
ENERGY & WATER • CRITICAL ELEMENTS
The special electronic and optical properties that make
REs useful derive from their unique 4 f electrons, which cause
the “lanthanide contraction” of ionic radii due to compara-
tively ineffective screening of the nuclear charge. Because the
4 f electrons hug the nucleus, higher-shell electrons in the 5 s
and 6 s orbitals are left to interact with other atoms. Therein
lie the complex electronic behaviors that endow neodymium
with powerful magnetism and europium with unique optical
interactions, indispensible for lightweight electric motors and
energy-effi cient lighting, respectively.
Crustal abundance is one factor in the economics of ele-
ment extraction, and enrichment into ore bodies is another
(see Figure 3 ). Owing to their unique chemistry, rare earths
are not effi ciently mineralized by geological processes into
concentrated ores. However, when geologically concentrated,
they occur together (often partitioned into “light” and “heavy”
rare-earth ore bodies) and sometimes with more lucrative com-
modity metals, such as iron, uranium, and niobium; therefore,
they are mostly coproduced as byproducts of the mining of
those metals. Because they are diffi cult to separate from host
minerals, often including radioactive uranium and thorium, REs
can have high environmental impacts in mining and extraction.
The near-monopoly in RE mining achieved by China by
2009 was enabled in part by the invention of an innovative
separation technique requiring low capitalization that opened
low-grade ion-absorbed clays to economic production.
9 Numer-
ous small mines practiced this hydraulic mining process under
previous regulations, and even now, it accounts for about 35%
of China’s RE production.
10 Using hydraulic water pressure in
vegetation-cleared hills, the whitish-colored clay is washed into
pits lined with plastic. Sulfuric acid or ammonium sulfate is
added to dissolve the desired minerals, and then the fl uids are
siphoned downhill into a concrete pool where they are treated
with oxalic acid. Rare-earth oxalates precipitate out and are cal-
cined to oxides in a kiln. In an important fi nal step, the depleted
fl uids are washed into rivers (in unregulated operations). Thus,
river contamination and erosion are two impacts of mining
ion-absorbed clays.
9 Minimizing environmental impacts was
a contributing factor in China’s revised RE export policy, as
noted in the section Actions in Europe and Asia.
Afghanistan reportedly contains rich sources of REs.
11 Pros-
pecting by Soviet geologists during their intervention in the
early 1980s established several promising sites in the country’s
rugged interior. Over the period from 2004 to 2011, under heavy
security provided by the U.S. Armed Forces, geologists from
the U.S. Geological Survey confi rmed the Russian fi ndings and
estimated resources when possible. A Chinese company had
already contracted in 2011 to invest $2.4 billion in a copper mine
in Afghanistan and associated transportation infrastructure. Fur-
ther development by mining entities awaits political stabilization.
Helium
Because helium has utterly unique physical attributes, it could
be considered an ECE solely by virtue of its value to energy
research as a cryogenic fl uid. Helium has technological uses
important to emerging energy technologies as well. In some
advanced nuclear reactor concepts, helium offers unmatched
heat conduction while resisting nuclear activation. It serves as
a shroud gas for welding, an inert processing
gas in semiconductor manufacturing, a cryogen
for medical magnetic resonance imaging, and an
indispensible fl ushing agent for liquid-oxygen
lines in rocket motors.
Contradictorily, helium is the second most
common atom in the universe, but it is among the
rarest (by weight) of all elements in the Earth’s
crust. It has been stockpiled by the United States
since 1925, yet helium is so inexpensive that it
fi lls party balloons. The APS–MRS study panel
concluded, however, that the helium supply is
dangerously at-risk within the time frame for
attaining global energy sustainability. In addi-
tion, helium serves as a useful cautionary tale of
government market interventions. Hence, it was
identifi ed as an ECE by the panel even though
no other similar study considered it in the energy
context. 1 , 12 , 13
The issue with helium is that it is not gravita-
tionally bound to Earth. Generated as a radioac-
tive decay product in Earth’s interior, helium is
mobile enough to collect, conveniently for our
uses, in natural gas reservoirs. However, once
released to the atmosphere, helium escapes into
space and is essentially lost to humanity. Most
Figure 3. Price–abundance plot for many elements, speci cally those for which
there is a market. Energy-critical elements are circled in red. (From J. Price, personal
communication, who derived the data from various sources, including the CRC Handbook
of Chemistry and Physics , the U.S. Geological Survey, and the U.S. Energy Information
Administration.)

408 MRS BULLETIN • VOLUME 37 • APRIL 2012 • www.mrs.org/bulletin
ENERGY & WATER • CRITICAL ELEMENTS
of the time, it is simply released during natural gas recovery
processes as unwanted waste.
In 1925, anticipating strategic military uses such as diri-
gibles, the United States created the Federal Helium Reserve
in a natural structural dome under Amarillo, TX. During the
Cold War, the U.S. strategic-missile fl eet required ample
helium fl ushing gas to be ready at all times. By 1970, the
stockpile exceeded one billion cubic meters—a projected
50-year supply—hence, the government ceased buying more
gas. After the demise of the Soviet Union, the U.S. Congress
decided in 1996 that the full reserve was no longer needed,
so it enacted legislation to sell off almost all federally owned
helium gas by 2015 to repay the costs of the reserve itself.
Unexpectedly, prices rose after the federal selloff began owing
to unanticipated demand from the high-technology sector in
developing countries and to increased production and compli-
ance costs in the United States. The selling of federal helium,
even at prices signifi cantly higher than private helium stocks,
depressed U.S. helium prices relative to foreign gas and, in
combination with higher production costs, disadvantaged
U.S. producers.
The helium case was the prime stockpiling example the
APS–MRS study panel encountered in which government
market intervention created market instabilities. Because of
this example, the panel recommended against market inter-
ventions in general, including stockpiling. However, because
helium has unique physical properties that are indispensible
in research, medicine, and, for now, in national security, the
panel felt that helium should be stockpiled despite market
instabilities.
At this writing, a bill is working through U.S. Senate
committees to prescribe steps for a sustainable future in
U.S. helium supplies. The bill encourages private devel-
opment of new sources while ensuring ample supplies for
research needs.
Actions taken by governments
Even before China formally announced its intent to cut exports
of REs in the summer of 2010, U.S. government agencies were
monitoring the supply risk. The heightened attention to REs in
energy, defense, and electronic applications increased aware-
ness by the public and the press of U.S. dependency on other
countries for specifi c critical elements.
The APS–MRS energy-critical elements policy study panel
convened workshops and interviews with stakeholders in
the fi eld. Meanwhile, the Washington, DC, offi ces of both
APS and MRS monitored, and later directly participated in,
the development of some of the legislative bills, and these
offi ces provided their respective society’s federal interface.
This section also discusses actions taken by several Euro-
pean and Asian countries.
U.S. legislation
During 2011, a variety of related bills were drafted and intro-
duced to relevant congressional committees for consideration.
At this writing, none of these bills have passed their full
respective chambers. This pattern is very common when more
than one congressional cycle is required to pass authoriza-
tion bills.
Of the various minerals- and materials-related bills to be
drafted and considered by Congress, RE legislation is the most
common type. The issues covered by the broad term “critical
minerals and materials” have not yet been fully recognized as a
high priority. In part, this is because the media have discussed
concerns regarding price, availability, and foreign control pri-
marily with respect to REs without noting that ECEs of all types
face similar supply risks.
Broad di erences in bills
Some of the proposed legislation calls for studies for addi-
tional information, for example, H.R. 1314 and H.R. 2011.
A few of the bills support a particular interest by a member
of Congress on behalf of his or her constituents and, in some
cases, the desire to impact the mining or rare-earth industry,
including H.R.1388, H.R.618, S.383, and S.1113. The closest
bill that contains a legislative agenda similar to the recom-
mendations of the APS–MRS energy-critical elements study is
H.R.2090. A broader bill, H.R.952, addresses a previous min-
erals and materials act while adding updates that are needed
to address current concerns. Interested readers can review the
details in any of these specifi c bills by going to the Library of
Congress “Thomas” web site
14 and searching for the 2011 bills
by their respective numbers. Each of the bills will need to be
reintroduced with a new bill number in 2012 and essentially
restarted through the legislative process.
Some of the bills emphasize substitution research, recy-
cling, and improved information gathering and dissemination
for ECEs and REs. Other bills or components of some bills are
focused on revitalizing the mining industry in specialty miner-
als and materials. Some of the legislative efforts are directed
at encouraging investment by government and industry in the
value-added chain of products that use ECEs and REs such as
magnets, solar cells, wind turbine blades, and batteries.
Legislators have recognized that centers of expertise and
professional talent in these diffi cult scientifi c areas are critical
to sustainability success. The U.S. administration has proposed
an energy center devoted to critical minerals and materials as
a portion of its fi scal year 2012 Department of Energy budget
request. As recommended in the APS–MRS study, a number
of bills acknowledge the critical and unmet need of having
the federal government more involved in providing credible
information on the rapidly changing availability and applica-
tions for REs and ECEs. Which specifi c agency should purvey
this information and expertise is a point of debate.
Interest in APS–MRS policy study and outlook for 2012
One of the most interesting outcomes of the APS–MRS study
1
has been the attention paid to it by senior leaders in both the leg-
islative and executive branches of the U.S. federal government.
In 2011, a number of briefi ngs and meetings were arranged

409
MRS BULLETIN • VOLUME 37 • APRIL 2012 • www.mrs.org/bulletin
ENERGY & WATER • CRITICAL ELEMENTS
for the co-chairs of the policy study, Dr. Robert Jaffe of the
Massachusetts Institute of Technology and Dr. Jonathan Price of
the University of Reno, NV, who is also the State Geologist for
Nevada. They testifi ed directly to House and Senate committees
in hearings on REs and critical materials. Staff crafting legisla-
tion used the resources of professional societies and asked for
input from the ECE study panel. Other members of the study
panel provided congressional testimony, including Dr. Karl
Gschneidner, of Ames Laboratory and Iowa State University,
and one of us (Eggert).
Remarkably, one recommendation from the APS–MRS
study was implemented within weeks of the study’s February
2011 publication. The study recommended that a high-level
formal group, beyond a task force, be established in the National
Science and Technology Council to follow issues related to
ECEs.
Members of the study panel also made presentations to the
White House Offi ce of Science and Technology Policy, Depart-
ment of Defense, Department of Energy, and other groups
within the administration interested in these topics. In addition
to briefi ngs with staff from all of the relevant committees in
the House and Senate, the ECE report gave MRS and APS an
opportunity to interact with many groups in Washington that
had policy interests in ECEs, including the MIT Washington
Offi ce, American Enterprise Institute, TransAtlantic Business
Dialogue, and Heritage Foundation.
The topic will continue to gain attention in Washington,
DC, in 2012, even in an election year. As with many topics
that are of interest to Congress and Washington, however, the
amount of priority time given to the subject will depend on
evolving market and global conditions, China–U.S. relations,
and general export control of China’s REs. If producers and
suppliers continue to make supply-risk mitigation a priority for
the 112th Congress in the second session, the issue of ECEs
will continue to gain momentum in 2012, and fi nal legislation
will result.
Actions in Europe and Asia
China’s publicly stated motives for restricting exports of REs
were to regulate domestic mines, to encourage development of
foreign resources, to control illegal mining, to reduce environ-
mental impacts, and to evolve China from an external supplier
to an internal supplier.
15 Some in the West have speculated
that China also wishes to stockpile some ECEs.
16
The European Union established the Raw Materials Initia-
tive and named 14 mineral groups as critical.
6 Canada adopted
the EU report as well. In addition to sharing most of the
elements in the ECE list except helium, tellurium, silver,
rhenium, and lithium, the EU list includes antimony, beryllium,
magnesium, tungsten, tantalum, and niobium and the minerals
fl uorspar (fl uorite, CaF
2 ) and graphite. The EU list is based on
an analysis of projected demand for emerging technologies
in 2030 compared to 2006. Gallium and indium are expected
to exhibit the largest increases, according to the EU analysis.
The EU initiative calls for updating the critical raw-materials
list every fi ve years, improving statistical information about
resources in an annual yearbook, and researching life-cycle
assessments and demand for emerging technologies. Additional
research is recommended in mineral engineering, exploration,
and substitution.
A novel supply-risk analysis with an emphasis on insta-
bility underwrites South Korea’s list of 56 elements required
for domestic use, microelectronics manufacturing, and energy
technologies. This large list covers most of the ECEs, but like
the EU report, it omits helium as critical. The South Korean
analysis 5 considers rarity, geopolitical supply factors, and recent
price variations. In 2007, the platinum-group metals were rated
as most rare, REs as most unstable in supply, and selenium as
most unstable in price.
The South Korean program emphasizes research in rare-
metal science; in fact, the Korea Institute for Rare Metals in
Incheon was created for this very purpose. In addition, Korea
has reached out to the international community to co-develop
strategy and perspectives for rare metals.
In Japan, a comprehensive program of recycling, reuse,
replacement, reduction in consumption, and stockpiling is
underway. Having been the apparent targets of China’s reduced
export quotas in 2010, Japan
5 emphasizes new sources of min-
erals and their concomitant diplomatic relationships.
Recommendations and outlook
This article draws on studies of critical materials and programs
established by governments to ensure stable supplies of elements
required to achieve global sustainability in energy. Because the
necessary technologies require a great deal of research, we
have adopted the APS–MRS study on energy-critical elements
as a baseline.
The recommendations by the study panel, paraphrased
below, speak to both governments and the international research
community.
• Federal agency coordination. The Offi ce of Science and
Technology Policy should create a subcommittee within the
National Science and Technology Council to examine the
production and use of ECEs within the United States and to
coordinate the federal response. This action was completed
in early 2011.
• Information collection, analysis, and dissemination. The
U.S. government should gather, analyze, and disseminate
information on ECEs across the mineral supply chain, from
cradle to grave, as a “Principal Statistical Agency” with sur-
vey enforcement authority. The federal government should
regularly survey emerging energy technologies to identify
critical applications and shortfalls.
• Research, development, and workforce enhancement.
The federal government should establish a research
and development effort focused on ECEs and possible
substitutes.
• Effi cient use of materials. The government should establish
a consumer-oriented “Critical Materials” designation for
ECE-related products and a recycling program.

410 MRS BULLETIN • VOLUME 37 • APRIL 2012 • www.mrs.org/bulletin
ENERGY & WATER • CRITICAL ELEMENTS
• Market interventions. With the exception of helium, gov-
ernment should avoid interventions in markets including
non-defense-related economic stockpiles.
Helium is unique even among ECEs. Measures should
be adopted that will both conserve and enhance the nation’s
helium reserves. Draft legislation for helium was circulated
in October 2011.
Supply risks of ECEs involve geopolitical factors.
China’s near-monopoly in 2011 and Afghanistan’s prom-
ise as a future supplier imply precarious supply for some
consumers. Sustainable supply is not guaranteed to all soci-
eties involved in creating the future energy infrastructure.
Publicly, at least, major stakeholder countries now strive to
balance natural and urban mining to achieve approximate
sustainability.
Although REs are far from the whole story of ECEs,
society’s industrial pressure for REs has led to a useful
paradigm in new supply-chain development as illustrated by
California’s Mountain Pass mine (see Figure 4 ). Although
discovered as a uranium deposit in 1949, the Mountain Pass
mine was opened as an RE mine in 1952 and was the domi-
nant RE producer through the 1980s. However, by 2002,
the overwhelming price advantage of Chinese suppliers—
along with regulatory compliance issues associated with
the mine’s faintly radioactive tailings and process water—
forced closure. By 2011, owner Molycorp became licensed
to handle radioactive trace thorium and uranium associated
Figure 4. Global production of rare-earth oxides. The Mountain Pass Mine in the U.S.
state of California dominated world production of rare earths through 1985, when
Chinese production, particularly at the Bayan Obo Mine in Inner Mongolia, became a
factor. In 2010, China supplied 97% of the market. (From Reference 17 courtesy of the
U.S. Geological Survey.)
with the mine’s RE ores. Processing of leg-
acy tailings started in 2009, along with new
mining production in 2011. Further, Molycorp
plans to scale up production over the next year
or so.
The reopening of the Mountain Pass mine
is the result of changes in China—where the
advantage of mining ion-adsorbed clays by
environmentally damaging techniques is being
reduced by Chinese policy—and in the United
States. Molycorp has devoted significant
effort to minimizing the environmental dam-
ages associated with RE mining and mineral
processing. With this success as an example,
other mines, including urban mines, promise a
sustainable future pathway paved by materials
research.
Acknowledgments
This work benefi ted from the Santa Fe Institute
and the Lujan Neutron Scattering Center at Los
Alamos National Laboratory funded by the U.S.
Department of Energy’s Offi ce of Basic Energy
Sciences (Contracts DE-AC52-06NA25396 and
LA-UR 11-06728).
References
1 . Energy Critical Elements: Securing Materials for Emerging Technologies
( Materials Research Society/American Physical Society , Washington, DC , 2011 ).
2. A. Evans-Pritchard , “ World Faces Hi-Tech Crunch As China Eyes Ban on Rare
Metal Exports ,” New York Times (24 August 2009 ).
3 . Critical Materials Strategy (U.S. Department of Energy, Washington, DC,
December 2010 ), energy . gov / sites / prod / fi les / piprod / documents / cms _ dec _ 17 _ full _
web . pdf ( accessed February 2012 ).
4 . Critical Materials Strategy (U.S. Department of Energy, Washington, DC,
December 2011), energy . gov / sites / prod / fi les / DOE _ CMS 2011 _ FINAL _ Full . pdf
( accessed February 2012 ).
5. J.-C. Bae , “Strategies and Perspectives for Securing Rare Metals in Korea,”
presented at the MIT Energy Workshop on Critical Elements for New Energy
Technologies, Cambridge, MA, 29 April 2010 .
6 . Critical raw materials for the EU: Report of the Ad-hoc Working Group on
defi ning critical raw materials ( European Commission , Brussels, Belgium , 2010 ).
7. “Rare Earths: Statistics and Information” (U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, VA) ,
minerals . usgs . gov / minerals / pubs / commodity / rare_earths / ( accessed February 2012 ).
8. R. Rhodes , The Making of the Atomic Bomb ( Simon & Schuster , New York , 1986 ).
9. N. Mariano , paper presented at the MIT Energy Workshop on Critical Elements
for New Energy Technologies, Cambridge, MA, 29 April 2010 .
10. Minerals, Critical Minerals, and the U.S. Economy ( National Academies
Press , Washington, DC , 2008 ).
11. S. Simpson , Sci. Am. 58 (October 2011 ).
12. The Impact of Selling the Federal Helium Reserve ( National Academies
Press , Washington, DC , 2000 ).
13. Selling the National Helium Reserve ( National Academies Press , Washington,
DC , 2011 ).
14. The Library of Congress, Thomas Home page , thomas . gov ( accessed February
2012 ).
15. Z. Yan , “ Suspension Set to Make Rare Earths Even Rarer ,” China Daily (USA)
(19 October 2011 ).
16. G.P. Hatch , China’s Rare Earths Game Plan: Part 1—The Effects Of Reduced
Export Quotas ( Technology Metals Research, LLC , Carpentersville, IL , 2010 ).
17. “Global Rare Earth Oxide (REO) Production Trends” (U.S. Geological Survey,
Reston, VA) , minerals . usgs . gov / minerals / pubs / commodity / rare_earths / ree - trends -
2010 . pdf ( accessed February 2012 ). 

Scope
Advanced Energy Materials is an international,
interdisciplinary, English-language journal of
original peer-reviewed contributions on materials
used in all forms of energy harvesting, conversion
and storage.
Advanced Energy Materials covers
all topics in energy-related research:
Ωall photovoltaics and artifi cial photosynthesis
Ωbatteries and supercapacitors
Ωfuel cells and biofuel cells
Ω hydrogen generation and storage
Ωthermoelectrics, magnetocalorics, and more
Editorial Offi ce
Advanced Energy Materials is handled by the experienced
Advanced Materials and Advanced Functional Materials
editorial team at Wiley-VCH.
Register for COMPLIMENTARY ONLINE ACCESS
BEX
ΩAdvanced Energy Materials publishes Reviews, Progress
Reports, high-impact Full Papers, and rapid Communications.
ΩAdvanced Energy Materials is committed to swift
processing and publication of contributions: Using the
new Advanced Materials online page proofi ng system,
the editor and the publisher aim to publish papers online
within ten weeks of submission.
ΩAdvanced Energy Materials is read by materials
scientists, chemists, physicists and engineers in
academia as well as industry.
Editorial Advisory Board
Manuscripts emphasizing the demonstration of applications,
exploring structure-property relationships and addressing
fabrication issues are particularly welcome.
www.advenergymat.de
Submit your work now!
Submit your manuscript for Advanced Energy Materials
online via www.manuscriptXpress.com
This special service is available to all institutions.
Ask your librarian to register at
wileyonlinelibrary.com/newjournals
Max Lu
David B. Mitzi
Peter H. L. Notten
John A. Rogers
Debra Rolison
Gregory D. Scholes
Henning Sirringhaus
Takao Someya
Michael Strano
Zhonglin Wang
Martin Winter
Dongyuan Zhao
Christoph Brabec (Chair)
Manfred Waidhas (Chair)
Peter Bruce
Jaephil Cho
Anne C. Dillon
Bruce Dunn
Alan J. Heeger
Wenping Hu
John T. S. Irvine
René A. J. Janssen
Hagen Klauk
Frederik C. Krebs
Karl Leo
Volume 2, 12 issues in 2012.
Print ISSN: 1614-6832.
Online ISSN: 1614-6840.
Don’t miss the opportunity to receive
COMPLIMENTARY ONLINE ACCESS
until the end of 2012.
Accepted for
indexing &
Impact Factor
by ISI