3C-i 

APPENDIX 3C. RARE EARTH PHOSPHOR MARKET 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

3C.1 INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE .............................................................................3C-1

3C.2 RARE EARTH PHOSPHOR COMPOSITION ............................................................3C-2

3C.3 SUPPLY CHAIN AND APPLICATIONS....................................................................3C-2

3C.4 RARE EARTH MARKET.............................................................................................3C-1

3C.4.1 Overview............................................................................................................3C-1

3C.4.2 Supply, Demand, and Pricing ............................................................................3C-3

3C.4.3 Long Term Outlook ...........................................................................................3C-5

3C.4.3.1 Rare Earth Projects ............................................................................ 3C-6

3C.4.3.2 Triphosphor Reclamation................................................................... 3C-7

3C.5 ANALYSIS OF IMPACT OF STANDARDS AND RESULTS ..................................3C-8

3C.5.4 Impact on Consumer LCC .................................................................................3C-9

REFERENCES ........................................................................................................................3C-10

LIST OF TABLES 

Table 3B.2.1 General Chemical Formulas for Key Phosphors.................................................3C-2

Table 3C.2.2 Representative Triphosphor Composition...........................................................3C-2

Table 3C.4.1 Supply and Demand Projection for Key Rare Earth Elements ...........................3C-4

LIST OF FIGURES 

Figure 3C-1 Rare Earth Application by Volume ......................................................................3C-1

Figure 3C-2 Rare Earth Application by Value .........................................................................3C-1

Figure 3C-3 Rare Earth Market Size by Volume (metric tons)................................................3C-2

Figure 3C-4 Rare Earth Market Size by Value ($billions).......................................................3C-3

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 101
3C-1

APPENDIX 3C. RARE EARTH PHOSPHOR AVAILABILITY AND PRICING 

3C.1 INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE 

 

Rare earths are commercially defined to include 17 elements that have similar chemical 

properties. “Phosphors” are a subgroup of these rare earth elements, some of which are critical 

to high-performance general service fluorescent lamps (GSFL). During the operation of 

common GSFL, cathodes that seal each end of the lamp emit a flow of electrons that reacts with 

mercury vapor in the lamp and emits invisible ultraviolet (UV) radiation. To convert this UV 

radiation into visible light, manufacturers coat the inside of the lamp’s glass with a powder of 

blended elements, or phosphor. These phosphors fluoresce when struck by UV rays, generating 

visible light. In high performance GSFL, this phosphor blend usually includes some rare earth 

materials. 

 

Broadly speaking, the phosphor powders that manufacturers use in GSFL can be divided 

into two groups: blends of only “halophosphor” and blends incorporating various amounts of 

“rare earth phosphors.” Halophosphor blends are much less costly than those containing rare 

earth materials. However, halophosphor blends are also less efficient and produce a lower 

quality light. For some less efficacious GSFL, manufacturers coat the lamp glass tubes with only 

halophosphor blends. Comparatively, coating a lamp with a layer of rare earth phosphor blends, 

in addition to or in place of halophosphors, can increase efficacy, while dramatically improving 

color quality and lumen maintenance. The precise blend and weight of the phosphor mixes also 

influence the color correlated temperature (CCT) and the color rendition index (CRI). 

During the comment period following the April 2009 NOPR, manufacturers expressed 

concern that more stringent energy conservation standards for GSFL would necessitate very 

large increases in their demand for the more costly rare earth triphosphor blends. Manufacturers 

asserted this would drive up the price of the key rare earths—specifically, terbium, europium, 

and yttrium—which, in turn, would increase the cost of lamps to consumers. Depending on the 

lamp type, rare earth triphosphor can be the highest input material cost of a GSFL. 

Manufacturers were also concerned about whether there were sufficient recoverable sources of 

the key rare earths remaining in the ground, particularly with regard to Tb, Y, and Eu. 

Manufacturers further commented that China’s near monopoly on the rare earth market could 

severely limit access to the world supply. (For a complete description of manufacturer 

comments and DOE’s response, see the June 2009 Final Rule.) To address these concerns, the 

Department of Energy (DOE) analyzed the rare earth phosphor market and conducted interviews 

with several industry players and experts, seeking to understand the potential impact of the 

standards on the market for rare earth trisphosphor. This appendix reflects DOE’s findings. 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 101
3C-2

3C.2 RARE EARTH PHOSPHOR COMPOSITION 

Generally, in high-performance GSFL, manufacturers combine a blend of three rare earth 

phosphors: one that emits green light; one that emits red light; and one that emits blue light. 

These “triband” or “triphosphor” lamps require the use of varying amounts of key rare earth 

elements (in addition to other elements) in the green, red, and blue phosphors. Specifically, three 

key rare earth elements are commonly used in the triphosphor blends: yttrium (Y), europium 

(Eu), and terbium (Tb). These elements work to emit light at the wavelengths (and therefore 

colors) to which human eyes are most sensitive. Y and Eu are used in the red-light-emitting 

phosphor; Eu is used in the blue phosphor; and Tb is common to the green phosphor. Table 

3B.2.1 displays the general chemical formulas for each color phosphor (there are two common 

options for blue). 

Table 3B.2.1 General Chemical Formulas for Key Phosphors 

Phosphor Color Chemical Formula 

Red Y2O3:Eu 

Green LaPO4:Ce,Tb 

Blue #1 BaMgAl10O17:Eu 

Blue #2 (Sr,Ca,Ba)5(PO4)3Cl:Eu 

 After each color phosphor is manufactured, the phosphors are blended together for use in 

triphosphor lamps. Table 3C.2.2 displays the share of each phosphor color of a representative 

unit of trisphosphor. While it can vary, a standard triphosphor GSFL is coated with triphosphor 

composed of approximately 55% red, 35% green, and 10% blue. The amount of rare earth 

material in each of these phosphor colors can vary by manufacturer and application 

requirements. The red phosphor is almost entirely composed of yttrium and europium, the vast 

majority being yttrium. The green phosphor is generally composed of approximately 10% 

terbium, and the blue phosphor is usually less than 5% europium.1

 

Table 3C.2.2 Representative Triphosphor Composition 

Phosphor Color Share of Triphosphor Weight 

Red 55% 

Green 35% 

Blue 10% 

3C.3 SUPPLY CHAIN AND APPLICATIONS 

 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 101
3C-3

Hundreds of mining firms, mostly in China, extract rare earth-containing material from 

ground. Rare earths are mined primarily from bastnasite, monazite, and xenontime ores, as well 

as ion-adsorption clay. Naturally mixed in with many other elements, rare earths must be 

concentrated through a series of separation processes to distill the rare earth elements from the 

ore. Most of the mining firms also perform the initial stages of this concentration process. The 

two principal means of separating rare earths are solvent extraction and ion exchange, either of 

which can yield purities up to 99.999%.2

 As discussed previously, the most important rare earths 

for lighting applications are yttrium, europium, and terbium. Very high levels of purity (99.99% 

or greater) are necessary for these phosphors in lighting applications, which increases the cost to 

lamp manufacturers. One of the difficulties associated with processing rare earths such as Y, Eu, 

and Tb is that to achieve the required purity levels, the processor must refine all of the ore’s 

elements down to those levels, which can be very expensive and require these companies to find 

markets for other materials beyond rare earths, which may not be in demand to the same extent. 

As a result, demand for these other elements can affect the market for the key rare earths for 

lighting. 

 Next, the concentrated rare earth product is usually shipped to a handful of phosphor 

manufacturers who further process the rare earths to higher levels of purity and/or manufacture 

the phosphor. For lighting applications, the phosphor manufacturer may sell the individual 

manufacturer colored phosphors or the mixed triphosphor to lamp manufacturers. In other 

instances, lamp manufacturers may perform the phosphor blending in-house. 

 

 Rare earth materials, including phosphors, have found an increasing range of practical 

applications in recent decades. Aside from the energy efficient applications, rare earths are used 

in automotive catalysts, metals and magnets, petroleum catalysts, glass polishing, and ceramics. 

The industry has experienced significant demand growth in recent years for use in electric and 

hybrid vehicles. 

Figure 3C-1 and Figure 3C-2 show 2008 rare earth oxide consumption by volume and 

value, respectively.3

 Various sources estimate that phosphors represent 4 percent to 15 percent of 

the rare earth market by quantity; the most recent estimates typically range between 7 percent 

and 11 percent.4

 However, phosphors are the largest segment by value as terbium and europium 

are among the most valuable rare earths. Within this phosphor subgroup, there are three main 

applications: televisions (plasma, LCD and cathode ray tube), tri-phosphor fluorescent lamps, 

and x-ray intensifying screens. Currently, there are few, if any, suitable substitutes in most 

applications, including high efficiency GSFL.

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 101
Figure 3C-1 Rare Earth Application by Volume 

Phosphors, 7%

Ceramics, 6%

Catalysts, 19%

Glass, 10%

Polishing, 12%

Metal

Alloys, 18%

Other, 7%

Magnets, 21%

Figure 3C-2 Rare Earth Application by Value 

3C.4 RARE EARTH MARKET 

3C.4.1 Overview 

 

3C-1

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 101
 Historically, unstable supply and demand and significant price fluctuations have been the 

norm in the rare earth market. The 1980s saw rapidly increasing demand, followed by 

substantial oversupply in the 1990s when China entered the market and quickly established a 

dominant market position.5

 Prior to China’s arrival as the dominant supplier of rare earths, most 

production came from the United States. By the late 1990s, China’s low-cost supply had driven 

down prices, causing many suppliers to cut or cease operations. China has only consolidated its 

dominant position since. At the time of publication of the June 2009 final rule, rare earths were 

not mined in the United States.6

 

 Reports estimate the overall value of the rare earth market was roughly $1.25 billion in 

2008 and it is expected to double by 2015,roughly a 10% CAGR. In terms of rare earth oxide 

volume, growth is estimated to be 7% annually through 2015. Figure 3C-3 and Figure 3C-4

show estimates of the market by volume and value, respectively. 7

Figure 3C-3 Rare Earth Market Size by Volume (metric tons) 

0

20,000

40,000

60,000

80,000

100,000

120,000

140,000

160,000

180,000

200,000

2003 2008 2015

3C-2

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 101
Figure 3C-4 Rare Earth Market Size by Value ($billions) 

$0.0

$0.5

$1.0

$1.5

$2.0

$2.5

2003 2008 2015

 

 According to a Rhodia presentation, the 2007 phosphor portion of the rare earth market 

totaled about $670 million8

, while an earlier Roskill report put the 2000 total rare earth phosphor 

market at $300 million.9 That implies a 12.2 percent compounded annual growth rate (CAGR) 

in the rare earth phosphor market from 2000 to 2007. 

Of Rhodia’s $670 million estimate for the 2007 phosphor market, lamps accounted for 

$355 million ($30 million of which was halophosphor). The presentation also predicted the 

phosphor market will grow to $925 million by 2012, a 6.8 percent CAGR, or 8.1% for only rare 

earth phosphors. Lamps will account for approximately 60 percent of that growth.10 Another 

industry report expects 7% annual growth through 2014.11

3C.4.2 Supply, Demand, and Pricing 

Large, economically viable deposits of important rare earths (such as terbium and 

europium) are scarce because they are mixed with other minerals and require a costly 

purification process to isolate. Despite being more abundant than other industrial metals, rare 

earths are much less likely to become concentrated in minable deposits. Furthermore, portions of 

different rare earths vary greatly in deposits. These ratios often do not correspond to the ratios of 

rare earths required in their applications. Therefore, to recover enough of the rarer, more 

important elements, mining companies must produce large amounts of more widespread 

elements. This can be an expensive process that can limit supply and drive prices of Eu, Tb, and 

Y.12 In most deposits, for example, 80% to 99% is composed of the most common rare earths 

(not Eu, Tb, or Y).13

 The most attractive geological concentrations of Tb and Eu appear to be located in China, 

which dominates rare earth supply. Chinese mines are thought to have relatively lax 

3C-3

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 101
3C-4

environmental controls. Combined with lower labor costs and aggressive policy, these factors 

have created a market in which China accounts for more than 90 percent of world’s rare earth 

production.14 

Beginning early this decade, China began to take steps to curb the exportation of rare 

earths and thereby attract the industries that utilize rare earths to China, according to DOE 

interviews and research. The desire to preserve the resource and address environmental concerns 

has constrained Chinese supply. Recently, the country instituted mining quotas, which have 

been continually reduced. China has continued to drop its export quotas by roughly 3% per year. 

In 2008, the country exported 53,150 tons of rare earth, compared with 65,600 tons five years 

earlier.15 In the meantime, short-term production outside China has not increased to make up for 

the latter’s lower output and the increasing worldwide demand. 

Demand for rare earth phosphors is projected to grow rapidly. Macro trends towards 

greater energy efficiency and larger display technologies have driven growth in phosphor 

demand. The growth in CFLs is also contributing to phosphor demand. Lynas Corporation 

projects demand for rare earth phosphors for use in CFLs to grow from 1,600 tons in 2004 to 

3,779 tons by 2010, or 15 percent annually.16 Rare earth demand from China itself is also 

sapping supply, growing at 25 percent annually from 2004 to 2007, according to Roskill.17 

 

 Of particular concern to this rulemaking, however, is the demand and supply of Eu, Tb, 

and Y. A Rhodia presentation forecasted Eu, Y, and Tb demand to grow 50 percent, 47 percent 

and 40 percent, respectively, from 2007 to 2012, annualized growth rates of 9.6, percent, 7.0 

percent, and 9.1 percent. The table below represents Rhodia’s demand and supply projections for 

each of the key phosphors. It appears there was an oversupply of yttrium; however, that was not 

true of the highest grade Y, which is necessary for use in phosphor lighting.18

Table 3C.4.1 Supply and Demand Projection for Key Rare Earth Elements 

Element Year Supply Demand 

In Metric Tons 

2007 300 300 Eu 2012 450 450-500 

2007 300 300 Tb 2012 420 420 

2007 11,700 7,500 Y 2012 14,000 10,600 

DOE’s discussions with industry experts show that current demand and supply of Eu, Tb, 

and Y, are in currently in balance. (Rhodia, No. 93 at p. 1; AMR, No. 95 at p. 1) Historically, 

prices for rare earths, particularly the key three phosphors in lamps, have been extremely 

volatile. Recent price estimates have already proven well off the mark. Tb, Eu, and Y 

experienced dramatic prices increases prior to the recent economic downturn. Between 2000 and 

summer 2008 prior to the recent economic downturn, the prices of Y, Tb and Eu increased 

roughly 45 percent, 420 percent and 53 percent, respectively, since 2000, according to Rhodia. 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 101
3C-5

Much of the price increases occurred from 2006 to 2008.19 Chinese policy, environmental 

concerns, increases in tariffs and others taxes, demand growth, and speculation all contributed to 

the run up in prices. For example, in June 2006 China established a 10 percent tariff on rare 

earths; the tariff on key rare earth phosphors is now 25 percent. 

However, since their highs in the summer of 2008, these rare earth prices have fallen 

sharply, pressured by the sluggish economy and, to a large extent, lower energy prices, which 

constitute a large portion of the mining and concentration production costs. Prices fell as much 

as 30 to 40 percent. 

3C.4.3 Long Term Outlook 

DOE’s research revealed that Chinese policy is the most significant factor in the long 

term supply and prices of Y, Tb, and Eu. (Kingsnorth, No. 96 at p. 1; AMR, No. 95 at p. 1; 

Rhodia, No. 93 at p. 1; USGS, No. 94 at p.1) Assuming their current policy remains, Rhodia said 

the industry could meet Y, Eu, and Tb demand for at least 20 years. (Rhodia, No. 93 at p. 1). 

After that time shortages of Tb and Eu could be possible without the development of additional 

resources. Others industry players and experts have offered more optimistic and more 

pessimistic outlooks. 

The U.S. Geological Survey said exploration for rare earths “continued strong in 2008,”20

although DOE’s interviews indicate the worldwide credit crisis severely hampered efforts to 

develop new sources. (Kingsnorth, No. 96 at p. 1, USGS, No. 94 at p. 1). Several projects listed 

below are in early phases of development around the world (see section 3C.4.3.1 below for a 

description of these projects). Additionally, the threat of limited supply has also driven interest 

in phosphor reclamation (see section 3C.4.3.2). 

According to the U.S. Geological Survey, “Undiscovered resources are thought to be 

very large relative to expected demand.”21 The USGS estimates that globally there are 88 

million metric tons of proven economically viable reserves of rare earth oxide content; 61 

million tons of which are outside China. The total estimated “reserve base,” which includes 

reserves that have a “reasonable potential for becoming economic within planning horizons,” is 

much larger. The USGS estimates that this reserve base totals 154 million; however, nearly all 

of the difference comes from China.22 The USGS concludes that “world reserves are sufficient 

to meet forecast world consumption well into the next decade. Several very large rare-earth 

deposits in Australia and China have yet to be fully developed.” While such a forecast bodes 

well for the long term outlook of rare earths, these “undeveloped” resources may not necessarily 

contain sufficient quantities of the rare earths useful to lighting applications. Further, it is 

important to note that rare earth reserves may not necessarily contain attractive amounts of the 

key rare earth elements to lighting use (yttrium, terbium, and europium). However, the USGS 

does publish estimates on the reserves of yttrium, which is the largest component of rare earth 

elements in the triphosphor used in lamps. Reserves are estimated at 540,000 metric tons of 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 101
3C-6

yttrium oxide and the reserve base is estimated to be 610,000, with 40% of each located in 

China. 23

 . 

Issues beyond the physical resources have also restricted supply. Environmental and 

regulatory factors and costs have contributed to Chinese dominance in the market. Additionally, 

monazite, the most common mineral deposit with economic concentrations of rare earth 

elements, often contains thorium as well. Thorium is weakly radioactive, and that has caused 

concerns about its further processing. In the past decade, such concerns have led to the reduction 

of monazite mining and processing.24

3C.4.3.1 Rare Earth Projects 

 

 First, it is important to note that the estimates below reflect published estimates that may 

be based on varying assumptions used by mining firms to assay the content of their mines. For 

instance, some firms’ production estimates may utilize different cut-off grades or rare earth 

content, which can significantly change the estimated amounts of recoverable rare earth and the 

economics of its recovery. Also note that an estimate of rare earths production is not the same as 

an estimate of the production of rare earth phosphors. For example, just as terbium demand 

reflects approximately 0.3% of total rare earth demand,25 it also reflects only a very small 

portion of even the most terbium-rich mines. This list is meant to be illustrative of the potential 

for the development of rare earth projects. 

 Australia has the potential to become a major rare earth supplier. Lynas Corporation’s 

Mt. Weld project in Western Australia was expected to ramp to full capacity by 2011.26

However, a Chinese firm acquired a majority stake in the company after the financial downturn 

forced the company to suspend the project.27 28 Lynas’ planned production was 21,000 tons per 

year of rare earth oxide, about 7 percent to 9 percent of total 2007 global supply based on various 

estimates.29,30 Based on the company’s estimated rare earth distribution, this implies 

approximately 14 tons of terbium and 93 tons of europium annually. The total resources 

available at the mine, measured by rare earth oxide, are 917,000 metric tons (769,000 tons of 

which is proven and economically viable). 31 

Also in Australia, Afurara Resources’ Nolans project has identified 577,000 metric tons 

of indicated and inferred REO. The company plans to reach 50 percent production capacity by 

2011 and full capacity, or 20,000 metric tons, by 2013. That amounts to roughly 10 percent of 

worldwide supply at that time.32 Notably, a Chinese firm recently acquired a 25% stake in the 

company.33 Alkane Exploration Ltd.’s Dubbo Zirconia Project in Australia may begin 

producing Yttrium by mid-2010. A feasibility study indicated an annual yield of 1,200 tons of 

Yttrium and other rare earths is possible.34 

In Canada, Avalon Ventures Ltd.’s Thor Lake site may be able to produce 3,000 to 5,000 

metrics tons of REO per year.35 The deposit appears to be relatively rich in terbium and 

europium. Great Western Minerals Group has a rare earth deposit in Saskatchewan at Hoidas 

Lake with REO measured reserves of some 123,000. 

 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 101
3C-7

In the United States, Molycorp, Inc.’s rare earth mine in Mountain Pass, CA, is an 

example of rare earth production in response to recent change in prices. Just 10 years after 

generating more than 40 percent of worldwide rare earths revenue, the mine shut down 

operations in 2000 “due to record lows” of rare earth prices.36 The mine only remained open for 

the concentration, purification, and sale of its previously mined stocks.37 The mine has some 20 

million metrics tons of rare earth reserves.38 Mountain Pass could potentially produce more than 

40 tons of Eu annually. (Molycorp, No. 97 at p. 1) 

Wings Enterprises, Inc., is planning to redevelop an iron-ore mine, Pea Ridge, in 

Missouri. Studies of the deposit show relatively high concentrations of rare earths useful to 

lighting, including terbium. The mine has proven reserves of 600,000 tons of rare earth ore, with 

relatively high concentrations of terbium and europium. The mine plans to produce rare earths 

both as a byproduct and as a primary product in two different mineral formations onsite.39

3C.4.3.2 Triphosphor Reclamation 

Reclamation efforts can also play a significant role in augmenting supply in the long 

term. Rhodia estimates that by 2015 there will be more than 250 tons of rare earth oxide in 

recycled lamps.40 However, the recovery of rare earth from recycled lamps brings with it many 

technical and economic challenges. First, the infrastructure to collect recycled GSFL must be in 

place. With this infrastructure, a commercial scale technically viable process for distilling the 

rare earths from the other lamp materials—glass, alumina, halophosphate, etc.—must be 

established. This will include chemical treatments, mercury removal, and waste disposal. 

Rhodia, a large rare earth phosphor supplier, already has some reclamation ability and is 

ramping up its capacity, although the commercial scale economics of this enterprise are unclear 

at this time. The attractiveness of reclamation will depend not only on the cost of the process 

versus the price of normal rare earth acquisition, but also the amount or rare earth available for 

recovery in the retiring lamp stock. Currently, the universe of retiring lamps was installed 

several years ago; they are mostly halophosphor lamps. Therefore, the yield of rare earth oxides 

from recycling would not likely make commercial scale reclamation economically attractive 

currently. However, in several years, Rhodia expects the amount of recoverable useful rare earth 

to grow significantly as high performance GSFL become commonplace.41 Just as standards will 

increase the demand for rare earth phosphor in 2012, they will provide larger volumes available 

for reclamation when they retire. 

Finally, because of phosphor degradation, recovered rare earth phosphor will have to be 

brought back to its original elements and ‘re-manufactured’ to have the quality required to meet 

TSL 4 and TSL 5. 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 101
3C-8

3C.5 ANALYSIS OF IMPACT OF STANDARDS AND RESULTS 

 

 Based on its research and interviews with manufacturers, supply chain participants, and 

industry experts, DOE developed this market assessment and analyzed the impacts of standards 

at each TSL. DOE’s methodology is described below. 

 In general, DOE estimated the total amount of triphosphor that would be required by 

manufacturers at each TSL and in the base case. Next, in accordance with manufacturer 

discussions and comments, and consistent the opinions of the industry experts with whom DOE 

spoke, DOE focused specifically on the amount of europium, terbium, and yttrium that standards 

would require. These are the key ingredients that improve the performance of lamps and also 

drive the cost differential between rare earth and halophosphor lamps. DOE determined how 

much of these rare earths, manufacturers would require due to standards. Additionally, because 

these key rare earths have many applications and are transacted in a global market, DOE 

assessed the standards-induced increase in their demand in the context of global supply and 

demand. DOE used these results to assess phosphor availability, and, in turn, GSFL product 

availability. 

 As for the impact of greater manufacturer phosphor needs on consumers, DOE chose not 

to attempt to model future rare earth prices due to the volatile nature of the market and 

impracticality of specific price projections for individual rare earth elements. However, DOE did 

conduct a sensitivity analysis to address the potential increases in end-user lamp prices 

attributable to greater phosphor input costs. DOE compared the life-cycle cost (LCC) savings 

due to purchasing higher efficacy GSFL (as calculated in chapter 8) to LCC savings under 

scenario with higher phosphor prices. A more detailed description of DOE’s methodology and 

assumption follows. 

 To analyze the impact of efficacy standards on manufacturer rare earth phosphor 

requirements relative to the world supply, DOE calculated the increased national demand for rare 

earth phosphors that would result from higher GSFL efficacy standards. To calculate this 

increased demand, DOE first estimated the mass of triphosphor used in each lamp type (e.g., 4-

foot T8 medium bipin) for three series of rare-earth phosphor lamps— 700, standard 800, and 

high-performance 800. Specifically, in interviews, manufacturers provided estimates for the 

mass of rare earth phosphor per high performance 800-series 4-foot T8 medium bipin (MBP) 

lamp. DOE found similar figures in its research and industry interviews. Manufacturers also 

reported at the public meeting that improving a high performance 800-series lamp required 3 

times the quantity of rare earth triphosphor as a 700-series lamp. By using the relative efficacies 

of the 700 series, 800 series, and high performance 800 series and industry curves relating 

phosphor thickness to efficacy, DOE derived estimates for the amount of rare earth phosphor 

used in the three series of 4-foot T8 MBP lamps. DOE extrapolated the estimated 4-foot MBP 

rare-earth phosphor requirements to 8-foot single pin (SP) slimline, 8-foot recessed double 

contact (RDC) high output (HO), 4-foot miniature bipin (MiniBP) standard output (SO), and 4-

foot MiniBP HO lamps using relative lamp surface areas. 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 101
3C-9

 Next, by multiplying these amounts by its shipments projections of each lamp type in 

each year, DOE determined the total amount of triphosphor that would be required to meet each 

TSL in each year. This allowed DOE to compare observe national lamp triphosphor demand in 

the base case versus the standards case. DOE estimates that at TSL 3, TSL 4, and TSL 5, 

manufacturer demand for triphosphor in covered products in 2012 would be 171 percent, 183 

percent, and approximately 230 percent of base-case usage, respectively. These estimates reflect 

the average of the lower and upper bound scenarios. 

 Next, DOE estimated the total quantities of each rare earth element required to meet the 

shipment demands. As discussed above, DOE determined from its research the approximate 

share (by weight) of blue, green, and red phosphor in triphosphor. DOE also found the share of 

each key rare earth element in each phosphor. (See 3C.2 for these amounts.) With these data 

points, DOE determined that the total standards-induced demand for these elements at each TSL. 

 DOE compared these results (for 2012) to industry projections of total worldwide 

demand to evaluate how standards may affect the overall supply-demand balance for Tb and Eu, 

in 2012. The difference between demand in the standards case and demand in base case in 2012 

was not more than 11% of Rhodia’s projections of 2012 demand for each element. That is, DOE 

found that standards alone would not increase world demand by more than 11 percent for any 

key element. 

 

For further detail on trial standard levels and GSFL shipment forecasts, see chapter 10 

and chapter 11 of this TSD, respectively. 

3C.5.4 Impact on Consumer LCC 

 

Given the historically volatile prices of rare-earth phosphors and the unpredictable future 

determinants of supply and demand (notably Chinese policy), DOE has not developed supply 

and demand curves to estimate future phosphor prices. However, DOE recognizes significant 

price increases are possible given the expected increase in demand, particularly for Tb and Eu. 

Therefore, to analyze the impact of higher phosphor prices on the consumer, DOE also 

conducted a sensitivity analysis to address the potential increases in end-user lamp prices 

attributable to greater phosphor input costs. That is, DOE compares the life-cycle cost (LCC) 

savings due to purchasing higher efficacy GSFL (as calculated in chapter 8) to LCC savings 

under scenario with higher phosphor prices. 

 As discussed earlier, DOE determined the quantity of each rare-earth phosphor required 

to manufacture each phosphor series of GSFL. DOE then determined the cost of the rare earth 

phosphors to the manufacturers for each lamp type, considering the quantity of each phosphor 

required and the current estimated cost of each phosphor type. Next, by applying manufacturer 

and retail markups, DOE analyzes how an increase in phosphor prices may affect LCC savings 

for a consumer of each lamp type. 

Four-foot T8 MBP lamps account for the majority of triphosphor costs over the analysis 

period at high standard levels. For this product class, DOE calculated that the triphosphor costs 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 101
3C-10

 

are approximately $0.28 per high performance 800 series T8 lamp at current phosphor prices. 

Using the combined manufacturer and retail markup employed in the MIA, DOE estimates 

triphosphor account for approximately $0.64 of the per-unit cost to the consumer. Because 

purchasers of all 4-foot MBP baseline lamps for all events in the commercial sector show LCC 

savings of at least $4.93 upon purchasing high performance 800-series lamps, phosphor prices 

could increase at least 7 times (and more in most cases) before commercial consumers would 

experience negative LCC savings for this product class. In the residential sector, for events that 

show positive LCC savings at current triphosphor prices, consumers could sustain even larger 

phosphor price increases before they experience negative LCC savings. 

Using the same methodology, DOE determined that for 8-foot SP slimline lamps, 

phosphors prices could increase by a factor of 5 before any commercial consumers that receive 

positive LCC savings at current triphosphor prices would experience negative LCC savings. For 

the 60W T12 baseline, consumers already face negative LCC savings in the lamp failure event 

and standards-induced retrofit events. For the 58W T8 baseline, consumers already face 

negative LCC savings in the new construction and ballast failure events. 

For 8-foot RDC HO lamps, triphosphor prices could increase by more than 20 times 

before commercial or industrial consumers experience negative LCC savings in all events for the 

110W T12 baseline lamp. The lamp failure event for the 95W baseline lamp is the only event in 

all sectors in all product classes that could experience positive LCC savings at current 

triphosphor prices and negative LCC savings with a moderate jump in triphosphor prices. A 

doubling of triphosphor prices could negate LCC savings in this event. 

For 4-foot T5 MiniBP SO lamps, phosphor prices could increase more than 300 percent before 

any commercial or residential consumer experienced negative LCC savings for any event. For 4-

foot T5 MiniBP HO lamps, where LCC savings are positive at current phosphor prices for all 

events, only a 50-fold increase in triphosphor prices could jeopardize positive LCC savings. The 

lamp failure and the standards-induced retrofit events already experience negative LCC savings. 

REFERENCES 

1 Rhodia, Phosphor Recycling: Dream or New Source of Rare Earths? Presentation at Phosphor 

Global Summit 2009. Miami, Fl, March 2009.

2 http://www.metall.com.cn/re/facts.htm. (Last accessed June 11, 2009.)

3

 Kingsnorth, Dudley J. Industrial Minerals Company of Australia. The Rare Earths Market: Can Supply Meet 

Demand in 2014? Presentation at the 2009 SME Annual Meeting. Denver, CO. February 2009. 

4 See, for example: Naumov, A. V. Review of the World Market of Rare-Earth Metals, Russian 

Journal of Non-Ferrous Metals, Vol. 49, No. 1, pg. 14-22, March 2008; Cuif, Jean-Pierre. Rhodia 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 101
3C-11

 

Silcea - Electronics BU, Is there enough rare earth for the "green switch" and flat TVs?

Phosphor Global Summit 2008, March 2008; and Ibid 3. 

5 Haxel, Gordon B., Hedrick, James B., and Orris, Greta J. Rare Earth Elements—Critical 

Resources for High Technology. United States Geological Survey. November 2002. 

6 Hedrick, James B. Mineral Commodity Summaries. United States Geological Survey. January 

2009. 

7

 See for example, http://www.roskill.com/reports/rare (Last accessed June 11, 2009.) and Ibid 3. 

8

 Cuif, Jean-Pierre. Rhodia Silcea - Electronics BU, Is there enough rare earth for the "green 

switch" and flat TVs? Phosphor Global Summit 2008, March 2008. 

9 http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa5348/is_200201/ai_n21307831. (Last accessed June 11, 2009).

10 Ibid 8. 

11 Ibid 3 

12 Hedrick, James U.S. Geological Survey. 2006 Minerals Yearbook. May 2008. 

13 Ibid 5 

14 Ibid 5. 

15 Ibid 3 

16 http://www.lynascorp.com/application.asp?category_id=1&page_id=10&app_id=2 (Last accessed June 11, 

2009) 

17 Ibid 7. 

18 Ibid 8. 

19 Ibid 8. 

20 Ibid 6. 

21 Ibid 6. 

22 Ibid 6 

23 Ibid 6 

24 Ibid 5 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 101
3C-12

 

25 Ibid 3and 8

26 Curtis, Nicholas. Lynas Corporation. Presentation at 4th International Rare Earths Conference. 

November 2008. 

http://www.lynascorp.com/content/upload/files/Reports/(RS)_4th_Intl_RE_Conference_HK.pdf. 

(Last accessed June 11, 2009). 

27

http://www.lynascorp.com/content/upload/files/Announcements/2009/Update_on_Suspension_of_Project_170209_f

inal695622.pdf. (Last accessed June 11, 2009) 

28http://www.lynascorp.com/content/upload/files/Announcements/2009/Investor_Relations_Call_5th_May_-

_Supporting_Presentation.pdf (Last accessed June 11, 2009). 

]

29 Ibid 26. 

30 Ibid 8. 

31 Ibid 26. 

32 Alistair J Stephens, "Singapore Asia Mining Conference", Afurara Resources Ltd., 2008. 

33 http://clients.weblink.com.au/clients/Arafura/article.asp?asx=ARU&view=6440570 (Last accessed June 11, 

2009). 

34 Ian Chalmers, "The Dubbo Zirconia Project", Alkane Exploration Ltd., May 2008. 

35 http://www.avalonventures.com/projects/rare/thor_lake/. (Last accessed June 11,200)9; 

http://www.avalonventures.com/insitepresent/(Last accessed June 11,2009) 

36 http://www.molycorp.com/operational_excellence/rehistory.asp

37 Ibid 12. 

38 Ibid 5

39 http://www.wingsironore.com/data/wings_enterprises_reo_quick_summary.pdf (Last accessed on June 11, 2009) 

40 Ibid 1 

41 Ibid 1 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 101