SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
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)
(Score: 4, Insightful) by ledow on Tuesday February 21 2017, @05:09PM
Energy transport.
Centralised energy generation is useless if you lose most of it trying to get it to its destination.
This blows out any non-equatorial landmass being entirely solar-powered for a long time (yes, technically it's possible with huge investment and on small timescales, but we're already hitting limits of solar power efficiency - literally how much sun lands on the earth at that point - and energy demands are still increasing all the time), because you can't generate on-site and you can't import without an extra added expense.
Literally, just float an oil rig outside the national boundary, stick a fission plant on it, if it blows (Two recorded cases in history? Both of whom you can safely walk past the building still to this day), you sink it into 300km^2 of ocean which is a perfect barrier against radiation.
Nuclear power generates orders of magnitude more, is statistically not that more dangerous than, and is much cheaper, environmentally friendly, able to be sited locally, and easier than any other method of electrical generation. Per watt, all the fission stations in the world generate more, safer electricity than anything else.
Just because you don't understand this, is no excuse for the policy makers to kowtow to NIMBYs.
Site it out of populated areas. Build half-a-dozen small ones. No need to upheave 100's of square kilometers of habitat. No more power generation problems for the next few hundred years, so you can focus ALL your research on "the next big thing" rather than wasting money on solar, tidal, wave, etc. and associated subsidies.
(Score: 2) by bob_super on Tuesday February 21 2017, @07:43PM
> Literally, just float an oil rig outside the national boundary, stick a fission plant on it, if it blows
> (Two recorded cases in history? Both of whom you can safely walk past the building still to this day)
You point still stands if you properly give credit to the US for being first and third in the nuclear meltdown business.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sodium_Reactor_Experiment [wikipedia.org]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucens_reactor [wikipedia.org]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Mile_Island_accident [wikipedia.org]
While longer than we'd all like, the list is really short compared to just about any other power generation technology:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_and_radiation_accidents_and_incidents [wikipedia.org]
(Score: 2) by GreatAuntAnesthesia on Wednesday February 22 2017, @08:32PM
Not sure I'd want it OUTSIDE the national boundary - having it within your own national jurisdiction would make things like defending against pirates etc a lot easier. Put it out near the edge though, yeah.
An artificial island would be better than a boat, I think. Bigger, more stable, less prone to bad weather, harder to steal.
Finally, use the energy from the nuclear plant to take CO2 from the air or sea & mix it with hydrogen from seawater to make carbon-neutral hydrocarbons. Transfer to a supertanker to take to mainland, for use in cars and/or power plants.