Slashdot Mirror


Researchers Fish Yellowcake Uranium From the Sea With a Piece of Yarn (ieee.org)

Wave723 shares a report from IEEE Spectrum: Researchers at the U.S. Energy Department's Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL) and LCW Supercritical Technologies made use of readily available acrylic fibers to pull five grams of yellowcake -- a powdered form of uranium used to produce fuel for nuclear power reactors -- from seawater. The milestone, announced in mid-June, follows seven years of work and a roughly US $25 million investment by the federal energy agency. Another $1.15 million is being channeled to LCW as it attempts to scale up the technique for commercial use. The effort builds on work by Japanese researchers in the late 1990s and was prompted by interest in finding alternative sources of uranium for a future time when terrestrial sources are depleted. "[U]ranium in seawater shows up in concentrations of around 3.3 parts per billion," the report notes. "With a total volume estimated at more than 4 billion tons, there is around 500 times more uranium in seawater than in land-based sources."

16 of 126 comments (clear)

  1. See? by 110010001000 · · Score: 5, Funny

    See? Nuclear power is 100% safe! It is natural: it comes from the sea. Pumping the radioactive waste back into the sea will just return it to its natural state.

    1. Re:See? by drinkypoo · · Score: 5, Informative

      This proves we can dump the waste back into the ocean where it came from. The solution to pollution is dilution, and at 4 billions tons, the ocean is a great diluter

      Dilution doesn't work with dumping because of currents and bioaccumulation. We figured that out in the 1970s. You are cordially invited to join us in this millennium.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    2. Re:See? by Memnos · · Score: 4, Informative

      Wrong basically everywhere. First, the Earth's oceans are not 4 billion tons, that's the estimated quantity of yellowcake in the Earth's oceans. The Earth's oceans are about 1.4 quintillion metric tons, so you were off by about 9 orders of magnitude. Second, see drinkypoo's reply.

      --
      I don't trust atoms -- they make up stuff.
    3. Re:See? by PolygamousRanchKid+ · · Score: 2

      Like seafood and mermaids.

      For some of us . . . mermaids are seafood . . .

      . . . you insensitive clod, or our new overlord or something like that . . .

      --
      Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
    4. Re: See? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Eh? The great garbage patch is where ocean currents naturally concentrate solid waste fom many diverse sources. That's kind of the opposite of dispersion.

    5. Re:See? by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 3, Interesting

      So why isn't that an issue with the naturally occurring yellowcake?

      Bioaccumulation is a valid point, because nuclear waste is a different isotopic mix from the original uranium oxide. Bioaccumulating organisms see plutonium as being chemically like calcium, for example.

      We shouldn't be "dumping" the waste anywhere, but building full-burnup reactors to extract all of the energy from it, which is the "radioactive for thousands of years" part. What's left will be a few useless isotopes that we can drop down a borehole in igneous rock, whereupon they will fade to background in about 300 years.

    6. Re:See? by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 2

      Depleted uranium is radio-active for billions of years

      DU is only mildly radioactive, about 60% the level of natural uranium, and emits mostly alpha particles, which don't penetrate the skin. If you have a warehouse full of DU, the biggest risk is accumulation of radon, which can be prevented with a ventilation fan.

      and it's extremely toxic.

      It isn't really all that toxic in practice. In high enough concentrations, uranium can cause kidney problems. Ingesting or inhaling uranium dust can cause cancer. But dust does not easily form, and people working with DU usually just wear gloves, and don't bother with respirators or filter masks, unless they are directly involved with milling or machining operations.

      DU is mostly used for sabot penetrators and other kinetic energy weapons. It is also used in armor, radiation shielding, and counterweights.

    7. Re:See? by MobyDisk · · Score: 2

      The waste that comes out of the reactor is arguably safer than what went in. It is less radioactive than when it went in. And uranium is already toxic. I'd love to see a real scientific analysis of this. I have always been unclear why the waste is so frightening. Compared to the plastic and chemicals we dump into the oceans, there is a much smaller volume of radioactive waste. Nobody complains when that uranium goes out the smokestack of a coal plant into the air, but you make it 1/10th as radioactive and everybody calls it "nuclear waste" goes nuts about it.

  2. This could pay for desalination by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Extracting any metals from seawater requires straining through large volumes of H2O. Because desalination has the same requirement, the two technologies will naturally go together. The uranium alone could pay for the whole process, with many other extractable metals as a bonus. Instead of conflict minerals, the world will have thirst minerals.

  3. Re:Running the numbers by Mr+D+from+63 · · Score: 3, Funny

    And if there is a lot more seawater, there is a lot more yellow cake.

  4. Re:Running the numbers by rgmoore · · Score: 2

    The 4 billion tons is the amount of uranium in the ocean, not the amount of water. The oceans have a volume of over a billion cubic kilometers, and one cubic kilometer is about a billion tons, so the total mass of the oceans is more than a billion billion tons.

    --

    There's no point in questioning authority if you aren't going to listen to the answers.

  5. Stupid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    Switch away from Uranium and start using extremely abundant thorium instead. LFTRs could be installed at every LWR on the planet to chew through their "waste" stockpiles prior to their decomissioning, then just use said thorium for fuel.

  6. Re:Enlighten me... by hey! · · Score: 4, Informative

    Why on Earth would this be made public?!

    Because (a) it sounds consequential for non-proliferation but (b) it is not particularly so.

    Triuranium octooxide is the major component of yellowcake; the current market value of the uranium extracted in the experiment was about $0.25, which was extracted at a cost of $25 million. Of course uranium prices are volatile, so the market value of the uranium extracted in the experiment has, in recent years, been as high as a dollar. And a scaled up production plant would be more efficient too. Still, there's a long way to go before it's competitive with mining.

    Now granted use-value and market-value are two different things. If a country (a) had no uranium reserves and (b) had a coastline, it could, given a very, very long time gather enough yellowcake to, say, make a bomb, because you'd need thousands of tons of the stuff to feed into your enrichment process to obtain the required fissile isotopes. If you were a landlocked regime with nuclear ambitions and no uranium reserves, you'd have to compare the time and cost to this process to the effort of finding a dodgy merchant who will sell you yellowcake under the table.all arsenal. And most countries with no uranium can obtain it on the open market by starting a civilian nuclear power program.

    Proliferation should scare you, but his particular development has almost zero marginal effect. Uranium is fairly common in the Earth's crust, which is why you find it in seawater, and even countries with zero commercially viable uranium deposits, like Pakistan, can scrape together enough domestically mined uranium to build a small arsenal.

    --
    Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
  7. There Has Been A Lot of Work Done On This by careysub · · Score: 2

    Research on extracting uranium from seawater using polymer matrix materials has been going for decades, with significant progress. The projected cost of extraction has fallen to as low as $350/kg, which is actually less than the peak spot market price of uranium hit in 2007, but higher than the 10 year average of about $100/kg.

    This paper does a nice survey of this work up to about 2014, and does not include this most recent project. You can use SciHub to get the whole article but the abstract I link to provides a good summary of its key points which are:

    • Adsorption capacity was the largest driver of cost.
    • A higher capacity did not necessarily mean a lower cost.
    • Many substrates were employed: polyethylene was the most widely and recently used.
    • Passive mooring systems were more economical than pumping seawater systems

    The abstract gives a price range of $400-$1000/kg but if you read the paper the lower bound is really about $350, and obviously only the most cost-effective systems are going to be candidates for eventual commercial use. This latest work cited in TFA uses (potentially recycled) acrylic, and the focus seems to be on finding a better cost/performance ratio, whereas most of the research has focused primarily on performance. I would like to see this work put into context with all the other work that has been done, to see exactly what the advancements/benefits are.

    But that won't be for a long time. We have proven uranium reserves on land good for over 100 years at current rates of use before the price will rise to $350/kg. The world produced $75 billion of electricity from nuclear power last years (at $30/MWh wholesale price) and the cost of the uranium to fuel it was $6.8 billion (using the ten year average price). At $350/kg the cost would be $24 billion, a significant increase in total electricity cost, but in the context of the trillions of dollars of economic output that runs on that electricity, one that could easily be absorbed. But the uranium in seawater is a 13,000 year supply, so it will not run out on any relevant timescale.

    And if and when we need to use seawater uranium, one can expect that that $350/kg figure can be driven lower, with an additional century of research and a sustained focus on commercialization.

    --
    Starships were meant to fly, Hands up and touch the sky - Nicky Minaj
  8. What? by TimMD909 · · Score: 2

    First I couldn't get pudding if I didn't eat my meat. Now I need to get yarn to get cake? Where will this end?

    1. Re:What? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      Probably on the dark side of the moon.