Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by martyb on Tuesday February 21 2017, @11:17AM   Printer-friendly
from the wave-of-interest dept.

Stanford researchers have improved a technique for drawing out uranium from seawater:

Trace amounts of uranium exist in seawater, but efforts to extract that critical ingredient for nuclear power have produced insufficient quantities to make it a viable source for those countries that lack uranium mines. A practical method for extracting that uranium, which produces higher quantities in less time, could help make nuclear power a viable part of the quest for a carbon-free energy future. "Concentrations are tiny, on the order of a single grain of salt dissolved in a liter of water," said Yi Cui, a materials scientist and co-author of a paper in Nature Energy. "But the oceans are so vast that if we can extract these trace amounts cost effectively, the supply would be endless."

[...] Scientists have long known that uranium dissolved in seawater combines chemically with oxygen to form uranyl ions with a positive charge. Extracting these uranyl ions involves dipping plastic fibers containing a compound called amidoxime into seawater. The uranyl ions essentially stick to the amidoxime. When the strands become saturated, the plastic is chemically treated to free the uranyl, which then has to be refined for use in reactors just like ore from a mine.

How practical this approach is depends on three main variables: how much uranyl sticks to the fibers; how quickly ions can be captured; and how many times the fibers can be reused. In the recent work, the Stanford researchers improved on all three variables: capacity, rate and reuse. Their key advance was to create a conductive hybrid fiber incorporating carbon and amidoxime. By sending pulses of electricity down the fiber, they altered the properties of the hybrid fiber so that more uranyl ions could be collected.

A half-wave rectified alternating current electrochemical method for uranium extraction from seawater (DOI: 10.1038/nenergy.2017.7) (DX)


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 21 2017, @03:58PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 21 2017, @03:58PM (#469733)

    it is true. orders of magnitude more ... thanks to the "light-speed" constant (c) in the equation (it's HUGE) even tho the efficiency of the conversion is not great.

    however, nothing comes for free ... the dangerous physical waste lasts for a long time and the addition of "magnitudes"
    of new energy into global-human-society will have future impacts, for sure.

    we can see what the liberation of energy in coal, oil and gas did to the planet (not all bad but not all good).

    now if we "magnitude this" the repercussions will be enormous:
    imagine a exxon valdez and american-gulf oil spill put magnified by the "magnitudes of nuclear fission power".
    3mile, Chernobyl and fukushima are are chronological in time and each one worst then the one before (like a trend?).

    Each disaster requires energy to recuperate from. maybe we can define a magnitude of disaster for energy production where the "still working" sources of energy cannot provide enough energy to fix the disaster.
    Not to mention that massive oil fires can burn really hot that humans without protection and ingenuity cannot approach the blaze and extinguish it.
    For burning oil wells, maybe a distance of 50 meters is required. if we "magnitude" this for a future disaster then minimum distance would translate to ... 50 km?

    however, human capacity to IGNORE shit is unlimited, so maybe we will just collectively take a step over the
    "pile of dog poo" that's still to come?

    "With great power comes great responsibility".
    Is a human life time enough time to realize the power AND responsibilities for these kinds of energy sources? : )

  • (Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Tuesday February 21 2017, @05:47PM

    by Azuma Hazuki (5086) on Tuesday February 21 2017, @05:47PM (#469787) Journal

    If we'd quit friggin' burning goddamn uranium and move onto thorium, yes, especially if we design modular-type reactors like some of Toshiba's prototypes. Something that keeps the primary and secondary loops entirely separate, and has passive safety ("drain plug").

    --
    I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
  • (Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday February 21 2017, @08:49PM

    by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday February 21 2017, @08:49PM (#469874) Journal

    imagine a exxon valdez and american-gulf oil spill put magnified by the "magnitudes of nuclear fission power".

    Because we'd ever throw tens of thousands of tons of nuclear fuel on a supertanker? In practice, we don't do that. Sure, there's more energy present, like years of energy in one place rather than days. But you greatly overstate the actual problem by orders of magnitude.

    3mile, Chernobyl and fukushima are are chronological in time and each one worst then the one before (like a trend?).

    You missed Windscale [wikipedia.org]. When one takes into account Windscale, which was worse than Three Mile Island, and that Chernobyl was the worst of the lot, there isn't an actual trend.

    Each disaster requires energy to recuperate from. maybe we can define a magnitude of disaster for energy production where the "still working" sources of energy cannot provide enough energy to fix the disaster.

    Hasn't been a problem to date.

    however, human capacity to IGNORE shit is unlimited, so maybe we will just collectively take a step over the "pile of dog poo" that's still to come?

    Funny how the most ignorant thrive off of argument from ignorance fallacies.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 22 2017, @06:31AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 22 2017, @06:31AM (#470030)

      Go back and keep hitting refresh until the fukushima article shows up for you...

      • (Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday February 22 2017, @08:29AM

        by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday February 22 2017, @08:29AM (#470055) Journal

        Go back and keep hitting refresh until the fukushima article shows up for you...

        Don't have to. Chernobyl was worse for a variety of reasons: 1) the Soviets tried at first to hide the accident rather than protect people; 2) Chernobyl released somewhere around an order of magnitude more radiation [wikipedia.org] into the environment (5200 PBq versus 340-800 PBq), 3) Fukushima had an ocean next door which soaked up a lot of the radioactive fallout in a relatively harmless way, and 4) reactor design was significantly worse for Chernobyl (positive feedback at one point when control rods first inserted and graphite-based system increased the risk via fire).

    • (Score: 2) by hendrikboom on Thursday February 23 2017, @02:20PM

      by hendrikboom (1125) Subscriber Badge on Thursday February 23 2017, @02:20PM (#470700) Homepage Journal

      Windscale looks like another case of the people in charge ignoring the warninrs of the technicians.

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 21 2017, @09:03PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 21 2017, @09:03PM (#469879)

    hey. i didnt want to replay on a sub-class( sounds strange doesn’t it? but my char type is like @ 6 or so .. call it small print and BIG SORRY!")
    point was .. we are stuck in a way of life with energy consumption .. you &me (raise children (which is good)).
    stuck with the situation i dont think, escaping in the same way(!) will solve the problem.

    not here for a revolution, it would kill my message .. the planet revolves and lives SL0wly(*).
    the people who don't care about the after-life should not be allowed to dictate the future for all ?
    (*) everything "quicky kills": like the physical properties of "length, area, volume, dimension" which ALL try to override TIME(**)
    (**) if you can read this you required some time. if you cannot then ...

  • (Score: 2) by Aiwendil on Tuesday February 21 2017, @10:16PM

    by Aiwendil (531) on Tuesday February 21 2017, @10:16PM (#469904) Journal

    imagine a exxon valdez and american-gulf oil spill put magnified by the "magnitudes of nuclear fission power".

    Ok.. U3O8 is the normal form to ship it in overseas, it is not soluble in water and it sinks (8.3g/cm3), seems like a fairly easy cleanup doable with the same barges we use to build artifical islands and dredge harbours. Btw, water is a decent shielding (a few meters will shield an active core, and we don't ship it when hot enough to need more than a meter of concrete as shielding).

    Heck, even if it was watersoluble and it didn't sink it would take dumping about 500 years worth of _global _annual civilian uranium usage before we manage to get even lake Eire to the point where it would be more than a curiosity for scientists.

    (Btw, the stuff we ship active nuclear material in is designed to only get cosmetical damages when hit by a speeding train, being part in an airplane crash, and being dropped from towers)

    So yeah, I can imagine it - a whole lot of politics, media and forum-chatter, but no significant imoact.