Writing in ASPI's The Strategist, Alain Richardt argues Australia should add substitution -- like iron nitride magnets replacing rare-earth ones -- as a formal third pillar of critical minerals strategy alongside extraction and processing.
At a glance
- ASPI's Alain Richardt argues Australia's critical minerals strategy should add substitution as a formal third pillar alongside extraction and processing.
- Iron nitride magnets -- made from iron and nitrogen, with no rare earths -- are cited as a working substitute for rare-earth permanent magnets in motors and turbines.
- Substitution has two stages: finding a candidate material (often an engineered multi-element compound, not a simple swap) and then qualifying it through testing and certification for real-world use.
- Richardt points to the US Materials Genome Initiative, launched in 2011 to halve materials discovery-to-deployment time, as the model Australia should replicate.
What happened
A commentary published in The Strategist, the analysis site of the Australian Strategic Policy Institute, argues that Australia's critical minerals strategy leans too heavily on securing supply of the minerals themselves and should add a third, faster-moving pillar: finding and certifying substitute materials. Author Alain Richardt, who founded a company that develops material substitutes using computer simulation, points to iron nitride magnets -- made from iron and nitrogen and containing no rare earths at all -- as a working example of a substitute that could reduce demand for rare-earth permanent magnets used in motors and turbines. Richardt describes substitution as a two-stage process: first finding a candidate material, often an engineered compound of several non-critical elements rather than a simple element swap, and then qualifying it through the testing and certification needed before it can be used in a real product. He points to the US Materials Genome Initiative, launched in 2011 to halve the time from materials discovery to deployment, as a model, and argues computational advances now let researchers search many candidate materials simultaneously instead of testing one at a time. His core recommendation is that Australia build an equivalent fast-track qualification and certification pathway through an existing body like the Defence Science and Technology Group, with results recognized across AUKUS partners.
The details
The argument at the center of Richardt's piece is a timing one, not a technology one: building a new mine and a processing plant for a critical mineral takes years, sometimes a decade, while qualifying an already-known substitute material can move far faster once a fast-track certification pathway exists. That distinction is why he frames substitution as a genuinely separate pillar rather than a fallback option -- it operates on a different clock than extraction and processing, which means it can deliver relief while those slower efforts are still under construction.
The mechanism he describes has two distinct, sequential bottlenecks, and conflating them is a common mistake in how substitution gets discussed. The first is discovery: finding a material, usually not a single element but a precisely engineered compound of several non-critical elements, that reproduces the exact magnetic, thermal or mechanical behavior of the original critical mineral. Iron nitride magnets are the example given -- iron and nitrogen, both abundant and geopolitically unconcentrated, combined to approximate what a neodymium-based magnet does in a motor. The second bottleneck, and the one Richardt argues gets underinvested, is qualification: the testing and certification process that lets a manufacturer actually put that substitute into a product without risking failure or liability. A material can be scientifically proven and still sit unused for years because no fast pathway exists to certify it for defense or industrial deployment.
That is where the Materials Genome Initiative comparison does real work. The US program's premise was that computational modeling could replace sequential trial-and-error testing with simultaneous evaluation of many candidate materials at once, cutting discovery-to-deployment timelines roughly in half. Richardt's proposal effectively asks Australia to build the qualification half of that same pipeline -- using the Defence Science and Technology Group as the institutional home -- and then extend mutual recognition of the results across AUKUS, so a material certified in Australia doesn't need to be re-tested from scratch in the US or UK.
The piece doesn't claim substitution replaces the need for mining and processing investment; it argues substitution is faster and should run in parallel, not instead of, those efforts. Whether Australian policymakers actually formalize a third pillar, and whether AUKUS partners agree to mutual certification recognition, remains an open question the commentary itself doesn't resolve -- it's a policy recommendation, not an announced program.
Why it matters
Most critical minerals coverage focuses on where the ore comes from and who refines it -- mining deals, export licenses, processing capacity. Richardt's piece is a reminder that demand itself is not fixed: if a manufacturer can certify an iron nitride magnet instead of a neodymium one, that's demand for rare earths that never needs a mine or a refinery to satisfy it in the first place. For anyone tracking how fast rare-earth-linked costs could ease, a functioning substitute-qualification pathway is a genuinely different lever than the processing-capacity buildouts most governments are currently funding -- worth watching alongside, not instead of, the mining and refining news that usually leads this beat.
Our read
Outlook: neutral. This is a policy commentary proposing a strategy Australia has not yet adopted, not a reported supply, demand or trade event -- there is no near-term change to rare-earth magnet demand or pricing from the piece itself. Its relevance is medium-to-long-term: if a fast-track substitute qualification pathway were eventually funded and adopted, it could gradually soften rare-earth magnet demand, but that outcome is speculative at this stage, keeping the immediate price impact neutral.
What to watch
- Whether the Australian government formally adopts substitution as a named pillar of its critical minerals strategy
- Any movement toward AUKUS-wide mutual recognition of certified substitute materials
- Further commercial progress on iron nitride magnets or similar rare-earth-free alternatives moving from lab to certified product
For information only, not investment advice.
Neodymium price in India
metalscost.com India reference price as of 2026-10-03.
Detailed analysis
Timeline
- 2011-01-01: The United States launched the Materials Genome Initiative, aiming to halve the time from materials discovery to deployment -- the model cited for Australia's proposed substitute-qualification pathway.
- 2026-09-21: The Strategist, ASPI's analysis site, published Alain Richardt's commentary arguing Australia should formalize substitution as a third pillar of its critical minerals strategy.
Demand Drivers
The piece's core argument is that substitute materials like iron nitride magnets can directly reduce future demand for rare-earth permanent magnets in motors and turbines, if a fast qualification and certification pathway exists to get them into real products.
Supply Drivers
Richardt frames substitution as a faster-moving alternative to new mining and processing capacity, arguing that finding and certifying substitute materials can deliver supply-chain relief on a shorter timeline than building new extraction or refining projects.
Government Policies
The recommendation is for Australia to build a fast-track substitute-material qualification and certification pathway through an existing body like the Defence Science and Technology Group, modeled on the US Materials Genome Initiative (launched 2011), with results recognized across AUKUS partners.
Geopolitical Risks
The proposed AUKUS-wide mutual recognition of certified substitute materials is framed around defense-relevant supply security, tying the qualification pathway to Australia, the US and the UK's shared defense industrial base rather than to any single country's mineral dependence.
What could lift prices
- Substitution operates on a shorter timeline than mining or processing buildouts, meaning a working qualification pathway could reduce rare-earth demand pressure faster than supply-side investment alone.
- Iron nitride magnets are cited as an already-demonstrated substitute, not a theoretical one, suggesting the discovery stage of substitution is further along than the qualification stage.
What could weigh on prices
- The piece is a policy recommendation, not an announced program -- Australia has not committed to building the proposed fast-track qualification pathway.
- Qualification and certification for defense and industrial use is historically slow even with computational tools, and mutual recognition across AUKUS partners would require agreement this commentary does not report as secured.
Country impact
| Country | Impact | Reason |
|---|---|---|
| Australia | Medium | The commentary is a direct policy recommendation for the Australian government to formalize substitution as a third pillar of its critical minerals strategy, via the Defence Science and Technology Group. |
| United States | Low | The US Materials Genome Initiative is cited as the model program Australia should replicate, and the proposal envisions mutual recognition of certified substitutes across AUKUS, which includes the US. |
Industry impact
| Industry | Effect | Reason |
|---|---|---|
| Defense | Positive | The proposed fast-track certification pathway would run through the Defence Science and Technology Group and be recognized across AUKUS partners, directly tying substitute-material qualification to defense industrial supply chains. |
Who gains, who loses
- Manufacturers of substitute materials, including companies like Richardt's: A formal, fast-tracked government certification pathway would lower the qualification barrier that currently keeps substitute materials like iron nitride magnets out of mainstream defense and industrial use.
- Rare-earth magnet producers if substitution scales: Widespread adoption of certified substitutes like iron nitride magnets would reduce demand for the neodymium-based magnets that rare-earth producers currently supply, though this remains a policy proposal rather than a scaled shift today.
Other ways this could play out
- If Australia formalizes substitution as a third strategic pillar and AUKUS partners agree to mutual certification recognition, substitute materials like iron nitride magnets could meaningfully dent rare-earth magnet demand within the timeframe of a single mining project's development.
- If the recommendation goes unadopted, substitution could remain a niche, company-by-company effort -- including Richardt's own venture -- rather than a coordinated national strategy, leaving rare-earth demand largely on its current trajectory.
Price risks
- A functioning substitute-qualification pathway could gradually soften long-run rare-earth magnet demand if it moves from proposal to funded program.
- Without an actual government commitment, the substitution pathway described remains aspirational, leaving current rare-earth demand dynamics largely unaffected in the near term.
Technical view
Price is trading above both its 20-period and 50-period moving averages, a bullish alignment.
Computed from metalscost.com's own stored price history.
Australia
United States