We have to develop our rare earth minerals. Or we need a science fix.
From Google search AI...
The United States has several significant rare earth deposits, with the largest estimated deposit located in Halleck Creek, Wyoming, potentially holding 2.3 billion metric tons of rare earth minerals. Another major find is the Sheep Creek deposit in Montana, which US Critical Materials claims to be the highest-grade rare earth deposit in the U.S. These discoveries, along with other deposits in states like Arizona, Nevada, Colorado, and Idaho, indicate a potential for a larger domestic rare earth supply.
Key Points:
Halleck Creek, Wyoming: Estimated to contain 2.3 billion metric tons of rare earth minerals.
Sheep Creek, Montana: US Critical Materials claims it to be the highest-grade rare earth deposit in the U.S.
Other Potential Locations: Arizona, Nevada, Colorado, and Idaho are also believed to have significant rare earth deposits.
Agreed. We ought to drill baby drill and mine baby mine (for coal and rare earths).
As far as the "science fix" you speak of, I'll be for it as long as the govt gets out of science. For example, I power my house with alternative energy (solar). But making the grid depend on solar is ridiculous. Solar works for my home simply because my solar doesn't have to be 100% dependable (the grid is there if I need it). I pull only 20% of my power from the grid (thus 80% of my power is homemade), so the science/math work for solar to be very helpful to me, even providing most of my home's energy. But it'd be infeasible to make myself 100% off grid (law of diminishing returns) -- thus it violates science/math if I did it like the left says and treat solar more like a religion. Likewise with making the grid 100% depending on solar or wind (as the Dims claim). That kind of thinking is when the word "science" is used for energy but it's really a political game.
I'd be for solar and/or wind power for the grid only if we're able to scale up and down hydrocarbon fueled power plants as needed. One FReeper from Texas says that Texas does that efficiently with wind power (cranking up natural gas fueled power plants when the wind is down, then when the wind picks back up they throttle down the natural gas plants). If it's as effective as the FReeper made it out to be, then I'm for alternative energy sources (perhaps what you mean by the "science") as long as we always have hydrocarbons at the ready. That's being practical with the science. Not being into political science, which is never really about science and more about cult level manipulation.