The rare earth conundrum - why the UK's new strategy is only half the solution
Last week, the UK Government launched its plan to address the ongoing challenge posed by rare earth minerals.
Listen to this article
The strategy outlines an ambition for the UK to produce 10% of mineral needs domestically and achieve 20% of that through recycling, by 2035. This initiative, backed by £50 million in funding, aims to protect the UK from supply disruptions caused by geopolitical tensions or global shocks, such as natural disasters.
The strategy highlights that mineral supply security has become an issue of national resilience, especially given that China currently dominates global critical mineral production, controlling 70% of rare earth mining and 90% of refining.
While the strategy is timely, I believe we must ensure we don't fixate solely on the volume coming out of the ground. True mineral sovereignty will only be achieved by fundamentally altering what we put into our green economy products in the first place.
Rare earth minerals are essential components of high-performance permanent magnets. These magnets are the core technology driving the transition to Net Zero, powering the majority of electric vehicles, turning wind turbine blades, and driving essential industrial machinery.
As demonstrated recently, a supply interruption means that a small component costing a few hundred pounds can halt the production of a car worth tens of thousands. This represents a board-level, existential vulnerability that cannot be ignored.
On top of supply chain risks, the mining of rare earth minerals comes at a huge planetary cost. The ores from which rare earths are extracted often contain radioactive materials, such as thorium.
Separating the desired minerals requires huge amounts of toxic substances, including sulphate, ammonia, and hydrochloric acid.
Simply aiming to dig up 10% more minerals will not, in itself, solve these profound challenges. The long lead times, massive capital expenditure, and high environmental cost of mining mean that this approach is too slow to mitigate the immediate, acute threat to our manufacturing base.
We need a strategy for the twenty-first century, and that means a plan focused on demand reduction through innovative engineering. Our goal should be to achieve more with less.
This is where the power of Industrial Artificial Intelligence (AI) must be leveraged. Unlike the much-hyped sub-sector of AI dominated by Large Language Models (LLMs), which focuses on generating content, a quieter and more impactful revolution is being driven by Industrial AI.
This application of AI and Machine Learning focuses on increasing efficiency in the physical economy. It enables manufacturers to use fewer minerals in critical components, delivering significant return on investment and quietly accelerating the global transition further towards Net Zero.
At Monumo, for example, we've demonstrated that this technology can deliver a 20% to 30% reduction in rare-earth magnet content while maintaining, or even improving, the motor's performance specifications.
This is not a distant, theoretical breakthrough, it is an engineering solution available today that can be integrated into EV motor and white goods production lines within months, providing an immediate buffer against supply chain shocks and reducing planetary impact.
The strategy for mineral resilience must be dual-pronged. Yes, we must secure domestic supply and recycling capability. But more importantly, we must become global leaders in the intellectual property that renders these minerals less critical.
True mineral sovereignty is not about owning every single mine shaft, it is about the technological leadership that allows us to build the future with dramatically less dependence.
We must back the British engineers and the AI tools that are already turning the tide in the race to reduce reliance on rare earths.
Dominic Vergine is the CEO of Monumo
LBC Opinion provides a platform for diverse opinions on current affairs and matters of public interest.
The views expressed are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the official LBC position.
To contact us email opinion@lbc.co.uk