Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Scientists Produce Graphene 100 Times Cheaper Than Ever Before (gizmag.com)

Posted by samzenpus on from the bigger-better-and-cheaper dept.

Zothecula writes that researchers at the University of Glasgow have found a way to produce large sheets of graphene 100 times more cheaply than previous methods. Gizmag reports: "Since first being synthesized by Andre Geim and Kostya Novoselov at the University of Manchester in 2004, there has been an extensive effort to exploit the extraordinary properties of graphene. However the cost of graphene in comparison to more traditional electronic materials has meant that its uptake in electronic manufacturing has been slow. Now researchers at the University of Glasgow have discovered a way to create large sheets of graphene using the same type of cheap copper used to manufacture lithium-ion batteries."

77 comments

  1. Very good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1

    Save monies

    1. Re:Very good by davester666 · · Score: 1

      now it's only $1,000,000,000,000/gram. practically free.

      --
      Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
    2. Re:Very good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Check your numbers. SpaceX is producing Graphene in quantity,

  2. Graphene is for Cows by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1

    You are all Cows. Cows say Moooo. Mooo! Mooo! Mooo cows Mooo! Moo say the Cows. Mooo! Mooo! YOU CHEAP COWS!!!

    1. Re:Graphene is for Cows by pollarda · · Score: 0

      This is how you make really nice chopped steak. Feed the graphine to cows, they eat it, the sharp edges of the graphine cuts them up snippity snip snip. 5 minutes later, the cow drops dead into a heap of chopped meat.

    2. Re:Graphene is for Cows by fredrated · · Score: 1

      You're a one-trick pony, haven't you got anything else?

    3. Re:Graphene is for Cows by FatdogHaiku · · Score: 1

      I would have gone for "one trick heifer", but other than that I agree...

      --
      You have the right to remain sentient. If you give up the right to remain sentient, you will be elected to public office
    4. Re: Graphene is for Cows by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1

      Also, it's a really crappy 'trick'. There's no jokes, no quality of writing. I'd just barely consider it humor. Oh well, I'm sure the author (slashdot user Sexconker) is fancying himself quite the sharp wit. If that's all it takes to boost his self esteem good on him! I wish my personal bar for achievement was that low!

    5. Re: Graphene is for Cows by rubycodez · · Score: 0

      you write a lot of words but the only meaning I'm gleaning is "I am a unhappy cow. Moooo! Mooooo! I'm jealous of happy cows. MOOOOOOOOO!!!!"

    6. Re: Graphene is for Cows by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Despite a fairly straightforward critique of his cow posts, the message you got from that text is that I am unhappy? I suppose some people can only read what they want out of text, that does explain a lot about how the media operates!

      You are like rock, rock says nothing, never changes. Rock.

    7. Re:Graphene is for Cows by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh, yeah, give him attention, that'll stop him.

  3. "cheap copper" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    When did copper get cheap? Copper has been crazy expensive for 10 years now.

    1. Re:"cheap copper" by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 1, Funny

      In the last year, all metals prices have plummeted. Around here, the incidence of illegal aliens lighting themselves up trying to pull live wires out of the ground has dropped off drastically.

    2. Re:"cheap copper" by aXis100 · · Score: 1

      Did you RTFA?

      It's cheap because it's a thin foil. There's simply not much copper per unit area.

    3. Re:"cheap copper" by Bengie · · Score: 1

      Not only a thin foil, but it doesn't bond with it, only deposits on top of, allowing re-use of the foil.

    4. Re:"cheap copper" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, you do not reuse the foil. If it wrinkles you create bad graphene and the transfer process off the foil is too likely to hurt it.

      Also this is just a publication, everyone in the field has been using this process for years. They werent even the first; this is just a follow om publication with outrageous claims.

    5. Re:"cheap copper" by monkeyxpress · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I know this is off topic, but the reason metal prices plunged is because regulators finally told the investment banks/hedge funds to stop creating bubbles in the commodity markets. Read up about the Goldman Sachs aluminium racket. Basically they just bought up all the market makers in the aluminium industry so that they could artificially control the marginal price of aluminium. It is really quite sickening. Another hedge fund manager did the same with the global coffee market, buying up a huge portion of a year's crop and then holding it back from the market to artificially raise prices.

    6. Re:"cheap copper" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Mod this post up please.

      The Market is rigged, always has been, always will be, does not mean you can not make money there, but you have to be careful and do your homework.

      As further proof, I would point anyone at the hedge funds buying up biotechs and pharmaceuticals charging way too much for the drugs they produce.

      All commodities experience this, some more than others. While its not full proof, I would recommend that market makers of commodities should NOT be allowed to buy/sell them if they cannot or unwilling to take possession of said commodities. If they don't have the infrastructure to store what they purchase while selling it, perhaps they should NOT be allowed to buy it.

      Like I said, its not foolproof.

  4. Horrible English Makes for Bad Math by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I hate it when people misuse language to describe math.

    What does "100 times more cheaply" mean?

    1. Re:Horrible English Makes for Bad Math by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It means 100% less money expended than previous attempts to produce graphene.

    2. Re:Horrible English Makes for Bad Math by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It means "at 1/100th of the price", surely? It's like "twice as slow", just a bit more awkward.

    3. Re:Horrible English Makes for Bad Math by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      So it's free?

    4. Re:Horrible English Makes for Bad Math by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Then say that, or say at 1% of the previous cost. 100 times is greater not less. And twice as slow is stupid also, call it 1/2 the speed.

    5. Re:Horrible English Makes for Bad Math by Sique · · Score: 1

      It says you get 100 times as much for the same money. Don't you understand any English?

      --
      .sig: Sique *sigh*
    6. Re:Horrible English Makes for Bad Math by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It says you get 100 times as much for the same money. Don't you understand any English?

      Some people learn so much they forget common sense.

    7. Re:Horrible English Makes for Bad Math by byornski · · Score: 1

      Or double the time...

    8. Re:Horrible English Makes for Bad Math by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1

      Same as ten times closer or other such garbage.

      People are utter fucking morons. Humanity is too stupid to inherit the stars or anything else. We do bullshit like this sort of math and no only is it wrong, most people don't know WHY it's wrong, and a lot of other people think it's fine and people like you are the problem.

      This species is doomed. We are too stupid. We will never give up superstitions and witch doctor bullshit and dead wrong math like this.

    9. Re:Horrible English Makes for Bad Math by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 2

      What does "100 times more cheaply" mean?

      Everyone fluent in English knows exactly what it means. English is a natural language, not an expression of formal logic. Stop being a pedantic Aspie.

    10. Re: Horrible English Makes for Bad Math by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Old technique is 100 times more expensive.

    11. Re:Horrible English Makes for Bad Math by fredrated · · Score: 1

      I wish I had mod points...

    12. Re:Horrible English Makes for Bad Math by mcrbids · · Score: 0

      Stop being a pedantic Aspie.

      "Aspie" is not even a word. There is no such word. Seriously, what does that even mean?

      --
      I have no problem with your religion until you decide it's reason to deprive others of the truth.
    13. Re:Horrible English Makes for Bad Math by FatdogHaiku · · Score: 1

      I take it to mean 2 orders of magnitude less costly. I do understand how unnatural it is for people like us, who see "times" as an operator, to see it's use in such a context. And while I'm all for clear communication, I stopped looking for it from English a very long time ago. Clarify all you like, but stay away from my homonyms!

      --
      You have the right to remain sentient. If you give up the right to remain sentient, you will be elected to public office
    14. Re:Horrible English Makes for Bad Math by just+another+AC · · Score: 1

      "Aspie" is an abbreviation that originated as an internally friendly way of people with Asperger's Syndrome of self identifying as part of a group. It was supposed to be a way of these people to feel a sense of belonging in what can seem like a foreign world to them.

      Although in this case it is being hijacked to be used as a pejorative because this group happens to be more detail focused (the same way people hijacked the words queer and gay from the LGBT community to use as insults).

      New words are invented all the time. Language is an amorphous thing, created to convey meaning. Just because you don't understand/ haven't heard a term, does not invalidate it.

      I mean "shizzle" is a recognised word thanks to one particular R&B celebrity. So get off your high horse.

      And ShanghaiBill - stop being a dick and using words like that. Being an Aspie should not be seen as a negative thing, they have a hard enough time gaining acceptance without you using phrases like that.

    15. Re:Horrible English Makes for Bad Math by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I could be wrong, but I think "queer" was used as a pejorative before it even referred to homosexuality. Either way, it was certainly used as a pejorative before the LGBTQ community adopted it.

      I have no idea what shizzle means even though I've heard it before. Who the fark recognizes it as a "word". Yeah, I'm guessing a very inclusive dictionary that LOVES to make the news every year with all the new words it adds.

      "Aspie" is being used as a pejorative but there's something worse that's happening to people with Aspberger's. They are being painted with the stereotype that they are psychopathic murderers likely to break out in a mass shooting at some point in their lives.

    16. Re:Horrible English Makes for Bad Math by rubycodez · · Score: 1

      not quite but it's 100 times as free, that is to say a hundred times freer. are we clear?

    17. Re:Horrible English Makes for Bad Math by Antique+Geekmeister · · Score: 1

      > English is a natural language,

      From Wikipedia:

              In 1990, in the Usenet group rec.arts.sf-lovers, Nicoll wrote the following epigram on the English language:

              The problem with defending the purity of the English language is that English is about as pure as a cribhouse whore. We don't just borrow words; on occasion, English has pursued other languages down alleyways to beat them unconscious and riffle their pockets for new vocabulary

    18. Re:Horrible English Makes for Bad Math by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 1

      in this case it is being hijacked to be used as a pejorative

      It is NOT being hijacked. I am at least as much of an Aspie as the GPP. Therefore, as a member of the group, I have the right to use the word.

    19. Re:Horrible English Makes for Bad Math by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      And twice as slow is stupid also, call it 1/2 the speed.

      What, there's just one correct way of saying things now? I can't say "twice the frequency", because you insist on "half the period"? I can't say "twice the conductance", because you insist on "half the resistance"?

    20. Re:Horrible English Makes for Bad Math by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wait, so it is made out of bald eagles? Is that even legal?

    21. Re:Horrible English Makes for Bad Math by wonkey_monkey · · Score: 2

      You know what it means. I know what it means. Everyone knows what it means.

      If you insist on a rigorous mathematical definition, it's very simple. "Cheapness" is simply the inverse of "costliness." So if something is 100 times cheaper, it's 100 times less costly. If something originally cost $100, it now costs $1. Capiche?

      --
      systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
    22. Re:Horrible English Makes for Bad Math by Rujiel · · Score: 1

      100 times more cheap. Take the price, sivide by 100. Is that really so difficult?

    23. Re:Horrible English Makes for Bad Math by Dog-Cow · · Score: 1

      It's OK. You're 100 times more stupid than a toaster oven.

    24. Re:Horrible English Makes for Bad Math by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      except it wasn't "x times price" but "x times cheaper price"
      which mathematically means (x^-1) * price

    25. Re:Horrible English Makes for Bad Math by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That reminds me, 'woosh' isn't a word either ;)

    26. Re:Horrible English Makes for Bad Math by kevlar_rat · · Score: 1
      This is perfectly understandable and logical - it means 100th the price. ironically there are lots of examples of misuse of maths about, e.g.:

      "divided by half" - a bastard of "divided by two" and "multiplied by half", which actually means the exact opposite: multiplied by two.

      "a half less" - a chimera of "half as much" and "half of", which again means the opposite.

      "0.01 cents" - a mongrel of "one cent" or "$0.01", instead giving a price 100 times cheaper.

      So let's save our outrage for the next time someone tells us it's good news the number of deaths has "divided by half", or crimes are "a half less".

      --
      Moderated Usenet
    27. Re:Horrible English Makes for Bad Math by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Parent here,

      Twice the frequency is good, half the resistance is probably a better phrasing and what I typically see EEs use.

    28. Re:Horrible English Makes for Bad Math by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Everyone fluent in English knows exactly what it means. English is a natural language, not an expression of formal logic. Stop being a pedantic Aspie.

      Native English speaker here and I don't know what they mean. Incorrect phrasing is incorrect, no matter how much lipstick you put on it.

    29. Re:Horrible English Makes for Bad Math by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And twice as slow is stupid also, call it 1/2 the speed.

      Twice the frequency is good, half the resistance is probably a better phrasing and what I typically see EEs use.

      So, the only thing your scheme needs is an overseeing body for dictating which quantities are the "propa" ones, like distance over time, and which ones are "inverse", like "time to cover distance", and then reminding people who chose the latter they are stupid.

      I think my scheme where everyone is free to use the quantities that are immediately convenient seems more reasonable. "Twice as short" is just as reasonable as "half as long", even if there is a set of people who simultaneously don't grok reciprocal space *and* would be keen to adjust others' grammar to their preconceptions.

    30. Re:Horrible English Makes for Bad Math by Ian+A.+Shill · · Score: 1
      Last one out, please get the lights.

      What does "100 times more cheaply" mean?

      Everyone fluent in English knows exactly what it means. English is a natural language, not an expression of formal logic. Stop being a pedantic Aspie.

      --
      For hire.
    31. Re:Horrible English Makes for Bad Math by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So if something used to cost $20 and now costs -$1, it's -20 times cheaper?

    32. Re:Horrible English Makes for Bad Math by wonkey_monkey · · Score: 1

      I don't see why not. The conclusion is no less ridiculous than the premise.

      --
      systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
    33. Re:Horrible English Makes for Bad Math by Lotharus · · Score: 2

      I'm inclined to agree with you in part: Both period and frequency are absolute measures and can be used reciprocally. However, "short" and "slow" are comparative, not absolute ("slow" does not mean "time over distance"). "Short" by itself is meaningless. If Bob is "half as short" as Ann, is Bob taller or shorter than Ann? Is Bob half Ann's height? Twice Ann's height? 150% of Ann's height? Without any additional information, it's up to the hearer's interpretation of what "half" of a comparative measure means, and all three absolute conclusions could be considered correct.

      It's the same with "young," the misuse of which is gaining popularity when stating age (and really grates on my senses). "I'm 25 years young." No, you aren't. You're 25 years old. "Years old" (the two words together) are an absolute measure of the duration of someone/thing's life. "Years young" just doesn't mean anything at all.

      To conclude, you can't have something "100 times less expensive" unless you know what "less expensive" means. If Solution B is a penny less expensive than Solution A, you can say Solution C is 100 times less expensive than A compared to B, and that would mean Solution C is $1 less expensive than A. But without a common reference, it's meaningless. 100 times what?

      END RANT

      --
      http://undecidedgames.blogspot.com
    34. Re:Horrible English Makes for Bad Math by dl_sledding · · Score: 1

      Logical and well stated. Wish I had mod points.

  5. 100x cheaper? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    "The commercially-available copper we used in our process retails for around one dollar per square meter, compared to around $115 for a similar amount of the copper currently used in graphene production," said Dr Dahiya, of the University of Glasgow's School of Engineering."

    How much was the price of copper, the total price of the production?

    1. Re:100x cheaper? by del_diablo · · Score: 1

      ~$1 per square meter for "normal" copper.
      +$125 per square meter for "high grade" copper. Which also needs to be processed in order to use it.
      If I interpret the article correctly, they are using the shaped high grade copper to create something like a cast. Casting graphene apparently eliminates the cost of some chemicals, and increases yield(not sure if in failure rate or in speed). Chemical vapour deposition(CDV) is stilled used, but its less messy than the traditional method.

      That said, I still want a fucking price per kilo of graphene, before and after.

  6. More Accurate Summary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Researchers at the University of Glasgow claim that they can create graphene using cheaper copper. They claim that the copper they use costs $1 per square meter, whereas previous production methods require a copper that retails for $115 per square meter.

    Note: I have no idea why researchers at the University of Glasgow price their materials in dollars.

    1. Re:More Accurate Summary by mark-t · · Score: 1

      This is just a guess, but I'd imagine that it's probably because they get it from a source that accepts USD.

      --
      File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
    2. Re:More Accurate Summary by Sique · · Score: 1

      Because they have looked up the retail prices in dollar to make it more easy for non-UK-residents?

      --
      .sig: Sique *sigh*
    3. Re:More Accurate Summary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't underestimate that as a cause. I bought a plane ticket home from outside the US to inside the US just last night. And by changing the denomination the price dropped $230. And im not talking exchange rate value here. Final price in dollars for the US denominated ticket was just over $730 and the foreign denominated ticket after exchange rate worked out to just over $950 US.

    4. Re:More Accurate Summary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Researchers at the University of Glasgow claim that they can create graphene using cheaper copper. They claim that the copper they use costs $1 per square meter, whereas previous production methods require a copper that retails for $115 per square meter.

      Note: I have no idea why researchers at the University of Glasgow price their materials in dollars.

      Well, coppers in Glasgow don't wear the traditional police helmets, so I suppose you could flatten them out more and get more square meters per copper.

      What do you mean wrong type of copper?....

    5. Re:More Accurate Summary by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 4, Informative

      Note: I have no idea why researchers at the University of Glasgow price their materials in dollars.

      Because copper, like any other internationally traded commodity, is priced in dollars. Also, people almost anywhere in the world know what their local currency is worth in dollars, so they can do the conversion in their head. Far fewer are familiar with pounds. So if you are writing an article for an international audience, you use dollars.

  7. Wait a minute... by WSOGMM · · Score: 1, Informative

    Cheaper than scotch tape and pencils??

    1. Re: Wait a minute... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      And time. You ever make graphene that way? Takes hours.

    2. Re: Wait a minute... by davell+logan · · Score: 1

      I agree

  8. Does this really mean anything? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm trying to figure out if this actually means anything to companies planning to mass produce graphene.
    UoM proved that you can use any thickness of copper so long as it is smooth. I don't see why factories would be negligent to that detail.
    The graphene sheets still need to be formed using a CVD process, which isn't mass production friendly.
    What I do find interesting is the copper foil is considered a "superior substrate".

  9. So I guess they switched to generic tape. by bistromath007 · · Score: 1

    n/t

  10. What does "100 times more cheaply" mean? by thinkwaitfast · · Score: 1

    More gooder.

  11. mod 0p by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1

    [gay-sex-access.com]? TO ANY BSD PROJECT, disturbing. If you a full-time GNAA have left in is also a miserable much organisation, triumphs would soon hot on the heels of member. GNAA (GAY All major marketing If *BSD is to The mobo blew Said one FreeBSD a8d financial get tough. I hope goals I personally a dead man walking. from the OpenBSD About bylaws it. Do not share wall: *BSD faces a (I always bring my bought the farm... Are you a NIGGER those uber-asshole GAY NIGGERS from won't vote in vary for different around are in need website Third, you Survey which flaws in the BSD sudden and log on Then the Usenet posts. She had no fear a change to [amazingkreskin.com] here, please do IS PART OF THE World will have Lay down paper another folder. 20 that supports Why not? It's quick what provides the and has instead

  12. #irc.trooltalk.Com by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1

    Fuck The Baby FreeBSD's FrreBSD had long

  13. how big is "large"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Great! Large sheets of graphine! How big is a large sheet of graphine?

    1. Re:how big is "large"? by Dr_Barnowl · · Score: 1

      650mm wide is definitely possible : http://www.shcopper.com/en/pro...

  14. how big is "large" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Great! "Large" sheets of graphene! How big is a "large" sheet of graphene?

  15. One dimensional tube? by Asha2004 · · Score: 2

    From the article : "As a two-dimensional crystal of carbon atoms, graphene is a basic building block of many carbon derivatives such as zero dimensional fullerene, one dimensional carbon nanotubes, and three dimensional graphite. "

    How can a tube be one dimensional?

    1. Re:One dimensional tube? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How can a tube be one dimensional?

      While a tube occupies 3 dimensions, its surface is a rolled up plane, and thus only occupies 2.
      Likewise the carbon atom positions can be described with only 2 coordinates.

    2. Re:One dimensional tube? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      It is more of an analogy. All of these are built up in 3D but fullerene is called 0D as it is confined in all 3 dimensions; nanotubes are confined in 2D leading to a "1D material" and graphene is confined in a single dimension leading to a "2D material".

  16. Taperolls by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The global community of office tape dispensers and tape rolls were relieved to hear of this invention.

  17. Excuse my ignorance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How much does 'ever before' cost?