Slashdot Mirror
Improving Uranium Extraction From Seawater, Inspired by Shrimp
New submitter Celarent Darii writes "Prospects for harvesting Uranium from seawater turned interesting by using shrimp shells as a sort of catalyst."
Researchers at ORNL presented their findings from a test of a chitin net for harvesting Uranium at the ACS fall meeting. From the ORNL press release: "In a direct comparison to the current state-of-the-art adsorbent, HiCap provides significantly higher uranium adsorption capacity, faster uptake and higher selectivity, according to test results. Specifically, HiCap's adsorption capacity is seven times higher (146 vs. 22 grams of uranium per kilogram of adsorbent) in spiked solutions containing 6 parts per million of uranium at 20 degrees Celsius. In seawater, HiCap's adsorption capacity of 3.94 grams of uranium per kilogram of adsorbent was more than five times higher than the world's best at 0.74 grams of uranium per kilogram of adsorbent. The numbers for selectivity showed HiCap to be seven times higher."
Then Vegas is acquiring it's own nuclear arsenal.
...there's tonnes of Uranium around! You mine it easily - it's not so rare that you need to go looking in seawater.
Now if the shells selectively captured the Uranium-235 isotope, that WOULD be useful....
Unlike oil, uranium will be found in comets, asteroids, planets, and deep within the earth. This applies to thorium as well. Effectively, it is an inexhaustible resource. The deeper you mine, the greater density of rock and the greater likeliness you will find uranium. Once we are able to mine the mantle we will be able to travel to the stars.
Chitin is also what makes up the body shells of insects. While these molten salts mentioned may be the best way to extract chitin, it also is soluble in d-limonene, an extract of citrus fruit peels.
This would be very good news, if people valued it properly. As much as a think the LFTR (which doesn't depend on uranium as a fuel) is a better type of reactor, there are limitations on its fuel source, which is thorium. Thorium is more plentiful, but it is not water soluble, so it doesn't benefit from this type of mining technique.
How much energy does it take to create these mats, put them in place, harvest, etc. Wouldn't this rather rapidly reduce the local concentration of uranium in seawater, requiring the mats to constantly be moved (or placed in areas with strong currents flushing new supplies through)? Seems like an interesting idea, but at only roughly $50 per pound (for uranium oxide) it really doesn't seem like this would pan out without massively increased demand for uranium. Maybe go after something valuable, like gold or platinum first (although I suppose they may be harder to extract from seawater)?
Is that like a "sort of" virgin, or a "sort of" complete ignoramus?
It's a word with a very specific scientific meaning. Use it for that purpose, or find a different one.
If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
I can't see why anyone eats shrimp.
I want to delete my account but Slashdot doesn't allow it.
... who originally read ORNL as ORLY?
I could not understand this well.
Breeder reactors, bitches!
Make all the fuel we need from fuel (and bombs) we already have!
Oh chitin. Is there anything it can't do?
Why aren't we extracting what we need most from seawater? Water... Oh, never mind.. no money in it. We need the uranium to bomb countries that have lots of fresh water. Big money there.
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
Uranium sucks:
unless you're talking Uranium-233 bred in a thorium-fueled reactor, of course...
Never took chemistry. After studying the Wikipedia entry for Adsorption I have determined that "The Adsorption Chillers" would be a good name for a group or a movie.
The Russians have won. They have made the world a cesspool of distrust, greed, fear and hate.
And likely to make me crabby. So, taken from seawater to light bulb. Is it energy positive or not? And what does it cost per watt? And why do I still start sentences with "And?"
Please do not read this sig. Thank you.
We need it to produce electricity; we already have enough fissile material to blow up whomever we want.
And the countries we would prefer to turn into a flat landscape of radioactive glass (I liked the idea of calling it New Iowa, myself), have oil but no fresh water.
Most of us don't need more fresh water, provided we manage to keep our "economic engine" from screwing up the supplies we have and quit having more children. Those last two are not advice the politicians on the right side of the aisle endorse, though.
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
The fact is, that uranium is increasingly not going to be an important issue. The reason is that over the next decade, the reactors will be of 2 designs:
1) something to burn up current waste. It will still require loads of 'waste' which it will burn up.
2) thorium reactors.
As such, pulling uranium is not that big of a deal.
Now, if they can pull a number of other elements out of there, they would have something. If you look at this, you will see some rather useful elements:
Lithium
Metals such as Aluminum, iron, etc.
Rare earths such Scandium, Neodymium, etc
Perhaps even gold.
Now, there is a group who is doing just this, but they are not getting it from the Ocean. Instead, they are getting it from geo-thermal energy plants.
Simbol Materials is looking to pull minerals, in particular lihtium, from already concentrated fluids.
For now, they will go after Lithium, manganese and zinc, but with the idea that down the road, they will grab other minerals as they can be done economical.
What is interesting is that Lithium 'mined' this way, should be a fraction of the price than anything on the market today.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.