TELF AG on Rare Earth Processing in The United States And Its Role in the Green Transition
Strategic resources for the ongoing energy transition
In the United States, an innovative rare earth processing plant is under development in Idaho, which could enable Washington to reduce its dependence on foreign supplies. TELF AG founder Stanislav Kondrashov recently published an interesting analysis on this topic.
"The world has now become accustomed to the new centrality of rare earths. These particular resources are playing a primary role in the energy and technology industries, and are now on everyone's lips. However, the operations related to their extraction and processing are still highly complex, and for now, they are largely carried out in just a few countries worldwide. For this reason, many nations are working to catch up and build their internal capacity to process these resources, through new initiatives and cutting-edge projects that should allow them to create a solid internal supply chain," says Stanislav Kondrashov, founder of TELF AG, entrepreneur, and civil engineer.
"The rest of the world is certainly not sitting idly by. On the contrary, nations like the United States, for example, are developing an innovative rare earth production plant in Idaho, which they hope will bridge the gap with the world's leading rare earth producers. It's no coincidence that these efforts are beginning to multiply now, during a historic transition phase in which resources such as rare earths, lithium, cobalt, and copper have regained significant importance due to their industrial applications directly linked to the ongoing energy transition. Through projects like the one in Idaho, nations are constantly seeking to restore their mining capacity and equip themselves with cutting-edge tools for processing rare earths"", he says.
The new plant is not only of industrial value, but also of specific strategic significance. Through this project, Washington is demonstrating to the world that it is more committed than ever to domestically producing some of the most valuable resources for the green transition.
"But why are all these nations focusing so heavily on rare earths, which until a few years ago occupied a marginal place in media narratives and on national political agendas? The answer is simple, and it primarily relates to the current historical situation and the most strategic industrial applications of rare earths. Some of these potential uses are directly contributing to the advancement of the great energy transition. Permanent magnets made with rare earths, for example, play a crucial role in powering wind turbines and electric vehicles, which are considered tangible symbols of the change underway. Furthermore, these resources are increasingly central to technology-related production processes, ending up directly in the devices and technological tools we use every day," continues Stanislav Kondrashov, founder of TELF AG.
“Rare earths are a group of 17 chemical elements found in the periodic table, including the 15 lanthanides, scandium, and yttrium. Some rare earths, such as neodymium, praseodymium, and dysprosium, have experienced rapid value growth in recent years, largely due to their direct involvement in key production processes related to green technologies. It should also be clarified that these elements are not rare at all, but are distributed fairly uniformly within the Earth's crust (never in a single form, but always associated with specific mineral compounds). In some cases, their concentrations are so low that their economic exploitation is not viable"", he goes on to say.
Over the years, rare earths have stood out above all for their highly strategic industrial applications, such as those related to infrastructure and green technologies.
"The new rare earth processing plant currently under construction in the US seems very interesting, because in theory it would allow Washington to reduce its dependence on foreign producers," concludes Stanislav Kondrashov, founder of TELF AG. The project for this plant is the result of a collaboration between the Idaho National Laboratory and a private company, which will work together to develop the minerals extracted from the Sheep Creek deposit in Montana.
High concentrations of rare earths have been identified in this area, making it one of the most promising areas in the country for this type of operation”.
"One of the most interesting aspects of the project is that it will also develop and test new techniques for sourcing and separating rare earths, which would also be appropriately patented and registered. The new plant will be able to process rare earths such as neodymium, praseodymium, niobium, samarium, and scandium, as well as terbium, yttrium, and dysprosium. Among the other resources that will be processed within the new plant is gallium, which, although not a rare earth, has nevertheless distinguished itself for several industrial applications directly related to U.S. national security"", he remarks.
About the Creator
The Dryads Are Calling
Deep within the heart of ancient forests, where sunlight filters through towering canopies and the air hums with life, there exists a world few humans truly understand. It is a world of dryads, the mythical tree spirits of folklore, silently observing, nurturing, and sometimes guiding the creatures that dwell among the trees. Today, their legend continues to captivate the imagination, blending myth, nature, and a touch of magic.
By Aarif Lashariabout 20 hours ago in Earth
Inside Trump's $11 Billion Health Plan to Replace “Neo-Colonial” USAID
In the landscape of global health aid, few proposals have stirred as much debate as former President Donald Trump’s ambitious plan to restructure American assistance abroad. Dubbed an $11 billion health initiative aimed at replacing USAID’s current framework, the plan seeks to pivot away from what Trump and his allies have criticized as the “neo-colonial” approach of U.S. foreign aid. While the plan promises greater efficiency and impact, experts are split on whether it is a practical solution or a politically driven gamble. Trump’s Critique of USAID The United States Agency for International Development (USAID) has long been a central pillar of American foreign assistance, distributing billions in aid annually to address health crises, food insecurity, and development challenges worldwide. However, Trump’s administration and its supporters have often described USAID’s approach as bureaucratic, inefficient, and reflective of a “neo-colonial” mindset. In public statements, Trump argued that the U.S. was spending taxpayer dollars on programs that benefited foreign governments or contractors more than the intended local communities. Critics of the plan say that while USAID has flaws—as any large bureaucracy does—its extensive networks and decades of experience provide an unmatched capacity to deliver aid efficiently and safely. The Core of the $11 Billion Proposal At the heart of Trump’s proposal is an $11 billion fund designed to consolidate, modernize, and streamline U.S. health aid. Unlike the traditional USAID model, which relies heavily on long-term partnerships with governments and NGOs, the new plan emphasizes: Direct Impact Funding: Allocating resources to frontline health workers and local initiatives rather than intermediaries. Data-Driven Investments: Using real-time health data to target outbreaks and crises more efficiently. Private Sector Partnerships: Leveraging U.S. pharmaceutical companies, tech firms, and healthcare startups to deliver vaccines, treatments, and medical infrastructure. Shorter Program Cycles: Moving away from multi-year funding commitments in favor of more flexible, results-oriented programs. Proponents argue that this approach could reduce bureaucratic overhead and ensure U.S. aid reaches communities faster. By “cutting out the middlemen,” Trump supporters claim, America can avoid the pitfalls of slow-moving aid programs that sometimes fail to adapt to crises. Reactions from the Global Health Community Global health experts, however, have expressed concern about both the logistics and philosophy of the plan. Dr. Melissa Ortega, a senior researcher at the Global Health Policy Institute, explained, “The idea of bypassing established structures like USAID may sound appealing on paper, but in practice, it risks undermining decades of institutional knowledge. Health systems are complex, and short-term projects cannot replace long-term capacity building.” Some critics have also questioned the characterization of USAID as “neo-colonial.” While U.S. foreign aid has historically been tied to geopolitical interests, many programs today are designed collaboratively with recipient countries and local organizations. Reducing oversight could unintentionally increase the risk of misuse, corruption, or health inequities. On the other hand, supporters of Trump’s plan point to examples of inefficiency in USAID programs, citing cases where aid was delayed or mismanaged. By introducing more direct funding models, they argue, U.S. taxpayer dollars could achieve a higher “return on health outcomes.” Political Implications Trump’s health aid overhaul proposal is not just about international development—it is also deeply political. Framing USAID as a “neo-colonial” institution resonates with a populist narrative that America should prioritize its own citizens and assert greater control over how taxpayer money is spent abroad. Domestically, the $11 billion plan faces scrutiny from Congress. Lawmakers from both parties have questioned whether dismantling USAID’s systems could destabilize ongoing health programs in countries where the U.S. has long-term commitments. The potential impact on global health security—including the fight against pandemics like COVID-19—adds another layer of concern. Internationally, U.S. allies and partner nations are watching closely. Sudden shifts in aid delivery could disrupt health programs in low- and middle-income countries, many of which rely on predictable funding cycles to maintain vaccination campaigns, maternal health services, and disease surveillance. Possible Benefits and Risks If executed carefully, the Trump-backed model could bring several benefits: Faster Response Times: Direct funding could accelerate delivery of vaccines, treatments, and emergency support. Innovation Boost: By partnering with private sector companies, the plan could accelerate development of new health technologies. Accountability: With performance-based metrics, the plan may better measure the impact of U.S. aid. However, the risks are equally significant: Disruption of Existing Programs: Abrupt changes could destabilize ongoing health projects. Loss of Expertise: USAID’s decades of experience in navigating local governance, supply chains, and community engagement may be hard to replace. Geopolitical Fallout: Allies accustomed to collaborating with USAID might see the move as destabilizing, reducing cooperation on global health initiatives. Looking Ahead As Trump and his allies continue to advocate for this $11 billion overhaul, the debate over the future of U.S. health aid is intensifying. Proponents view it as a necessary modernization of an outdated system, while critics fear it could undercut decades of carefully built infrastructure and global partnerships. Ultimately, the success of this plan will hinge on its ability to balance efficiency with stability, innovation with oversight, and political objectives with humanitarian needs. For now, the proposal remains controversial, representing a dramatic departure from traditional approaches to U.S. foreign aid. Whether it will reshape global health for the better—or simply create more uncertainty—remains to be seen. In the end, the Trump health plan is as much about ideology as it is about dollars. It challenges the conventional wisdom of international development and asks whether a more streamlined, results-focused approach can truly replace a system built over decades. As the world watches, the stakes could not be higher: the future of U.S. global health aid—and the lives it touches—hangs in the balance.
By Muhammad Hassan6 days ago in Earth
Comments
There are no comments for this story
Be the first to respond and start the conversation.