Uranium From Seawater...Using Shrimp Shells?

[Queen Cassie 3,058]

http://www.bbc.co.uk...onment-19335708

 

Uranium from seawater idea boosted with shrimp shells

 

A happy coincidence in the seafood industry has raised the prospects of harvesting uranium - the fuel source for nuclear power - from seawater.

Oceans hold billions of tonnes of uranium at tiny concentrations, but extracting it remains uneconomical.

A report at the 244th meeting of the American Chemical Society described a new technique using uranium-absorbing mats made from discarded shrimp shells.

A range of improved approaches were outlined at a symposium at the meeting.

The developments are key to a future nuclear power industry. Uranium is currently mined from ore deposits around the world, but there are fears that demand may outstrip the supply of ore as nuclear power becomes more widespread.

At issue is the tremendously low concentration of uranium in seawater: about three parts per billion, so that just 3.3mg exist in a full tonne of water. As a result, extracting it is an inherently costly process.

Much work carried out in Japan in recent decades has sought to address that.

Researchers there came up with a design of a mat of plastic fibres impregnated with molecules that both lock onto the fibres and preferentially absorb uranium. That work culminated in a 2003 field test that netted a kilogram of the metal.

The mats can reach 100m in length, suspended underwater at depths up to 200m. They are withdrawn and rinsed with an acid solution that frees the uranium, and the cycle is repeated.

Research has focussed on improving both the braided fibres of the mat and the "ligand" that captures the uranium, which has most often been a molecule called poly-acrylamidoxime.

Several groups at the conference said they had been working on variations on this molecular theme, or variants of porous "nanoparticles" made of silica (the stuff of sand) or carbon.

Robin Rogers of the University of Alabama, who organised the symposium, outlined an improvement developed in his own group: seafood shells.

He said that in the wake of both Hurricane Katrina and the BP oil spill in the region, "we began working with the Gulf Coast Agricultural and Seafood Co-operative... and with the shrimpers and crabbers there, and found they were paying hundreds of thousands of dollars to get rid of their waste [shells]".

"We discovered an 'ionic liquid' - a molten salt - could extract a very important polymer called chitin directly from shrimp shells," he added.

Chitin is the principal protein in crustaceans' shells, but its toughness and its ability to be "electrospun" into fibres that can be made into mats make it an ideal sustainable and biodegradable choice for uranium harvesting.

While research is continuing, there is still some way to go to reach cost parity with the more mature - but more environmentally damaging - technology of mining uranium ores.

"We have not reached a point where we can 'downselect' to a [single] technology, but we have shown that we can double the capacity of what the Japanese have done," Dr Rogers said.

"But the economic analysis being done at the University of Texas has told us that we're not good enough yet, even in today's economy, so we have to improve."

The work is promising enough, though, to begin to remove a concern about the sustainability of those terrestrial sources and any stumbling block that may present to growth in the nuclear power industry.

I find this very fascinating, this approach to gathering uranium from seawater. One of the things I've consistently advised would be needed for any kind of departure from fossil fuels for our power infrastructure is a power structure with a strong foundation in nuclear derived energy. Though they are tricky to manage, even trickier to maintain, and certainly can be dangerous should the worst happen, the simple truth is that a single nuclear power plant is far less polluting and far safer, when managed properly, than any number of coal plants currently used. (In fact, the radioactive output of a coal-fired plant is actually higher than a nuclear power plant would output.)

 

What is your take on this concept for uranium gathering from seawater?

[Evilshy 5,093]

While this does look promising, I think it will take a long time before the US starts using nuclear power. Not sure about other countries, but it seems like there's some kind of taboo on nuclear power here. Nuclear power plants aren't unsafe if the people in charge stay on top of things, but sadly, when they do fail, it tends to be a bigger deal than a coal plant exploding, so everybody just flees out of the room whenever anybody brings up nuclear power :/

[silvadel 1,394]

My take on this is that the real solution to the energy problem is helium 3. Even with mining the oceans for uranium (which would get a small amount over time) there just is not enough to use it as a major power source for the long term. He3 however is abundant -- the only problem is getting it. Hint -- it exists on the moon.

[Queen Cassie 3,058]

While this does look promising, I think it will take a long time before the US starts using nuclear power. Not sure about other countries, but it seems like there's some kind of taboo on nuclear power here. Nuclear power plants aren't unsafe if the people in charge stay on top of things, but sadly, when they do fail, it tends to be a bigger deal than a coal plant exploding, so everybody just flees out of the room whenever anybody brings up nuclear power :/

 

Nuclear power gets far too bad a rap for far too few incidents. There are a total of three incidents in the entire history of nuclear power that have any bearing on anything: Three Mile Island, where almost nothing actually happened; Chernobyl, which was the result of mismanagement on an absurd scale and a plant design that was long out of date when it was first constructed; and Fukashima, which was the result of an uncontrollable earthquake, was still handled quite well, and only happened the way it did due to its coastal location. Even there, improvements could be made to render issues like Fukashima unlikely to occur at best.

 

Meanwhile, coal plants fail every year, and pump out ridiculous amounts of pollution all the time. Nuclear power is just plain safer, despite the rap it gets.

 

 

My take on this is that the real solution to the energy problem is helium 3. Even with mining the oceans for uranium (which would get a small amount over time) there just is not enough to use it as a major power source for the long term. He3 however is abundant -- the only problem is getting it. Hint -- it exists on the moon.

 

Oh, I agree, we'd want to eventually go for fusion if we could make it. The point to an energy-grid that depends upon nuclear fission as a backbone is that it would be transitional--I'm thinking about fifty to seventy-five years. Fusion power plants aren't likely to be usable before 2075 at the earliest, in my opinion, so we need something to depend upon before then.

 

Plus, as time passes, the nuclear power plants can be retired and replaced with more types of renewable energy, such as more efficient solar collectors. But until such time as we have something that will really replace it, nuclear power is going to be necessary.

[Evilshy 5,093]

Plus, as time passes, the nuclear power plants can be retired and replaced with more types of renewable energy, such as more efficient solar collectors. But until such time as we have something that will really replace it, nuclear power is going to be necessary.

 

Eh, I've never liked solar collectors much, unless we can get a reliable way to have them in space, constantly facing the sun, and a reliable way to transmit the power back down to earth. I don't think land based solar energy will ever be able to meet world energy needs. Of course, I live in the Pacific Northwest, where we have maybe 2 months of sun and 10 months of clouds and rain, so I'm probably biased in that way

[Queen Cassie 3,058]

Eh, I've never liked solar collectors much, unless we can get a reliable way to have them in space, constantly facing the sun, and a reliable way to transmit the power back down to earth. I don't think land based solar energy will ever be able to meet world energy needs. Of course, I live in the Pacific Northwest, where we have maybe 2 months of sun and 10 months of clouds and rain, so I'm probably biased in that way

 

Oh, I was definitely thinking of space-based solar collectors rather than land-based solar collectors. With that said, a solar energy grid of sufficient size with current materials, based in Nevada, could conceivably power the entirety of the United States and meet all of its energy needs, but such a thing would be ridiculously huge--we're talking probably a hundred miles in diameter or more--and prohibitively expensive. Solar collectors was just one example, mind: there are plenty of other methods for renewable energy too.

[Dusty Soul 2,614]

I think this opens up some awesome things. The thing I don't really like about this is that Uranium will definitely run out fast.

[silvadel 1,394]

Actually we have no problems with nuclear fusion if we had the He3 -- We could have the plants up and running in a decade easy with the supply. He3 fusion is MUCH more simple than using H. We already know how to do it. The problem is just getting that He3.

[Queen Cassie 3,058]

I think this opens up some awesome things. The thing I don't really like about this is that Uranium will definitely run out fast.

 

Actually, not quite true, depending upon how it's collected. According to the article there are potentially billions of tons of uranium within the seawater, far more than has ever or could ever be minded from normal high grade ores. The issue is that it would still take a long time to concentrate the uranium, so while you're partially right, you're right more due to the fact that at any one time the supply will be a bit tight.

 

Actually we have no problems with nuclear fusion if we had the He3 -- We could have the plants up and running in a decade easy with the supply. He3 fusion is MUCH more simple than using H. We already know how to do it. The problem is just getting that He3.

 

I would like to see some evidence for how He3 fusion is much simpler than H fusion. I find your statement suspect, because the basic nature of the physics of fusion would still likely require temperatures of hundreds of millions of degrees and large amounts of initial input energy in order to start a fusion reaction, which would then have to generate enough energy to keep itself going while still generating plenty of energy for other uses.

[Archangel 143]

While this does look promising, I think it will take a long time before the US starts using nuclear power. Not sure about other countries, but it seems like there's some kind of taboo on nuclear power here. Nuclear power plants aren't unsafe if the people in charge stay on top of things, but sadly, when they do fail, it tends to be a bigger deal than a coal plant exploding, so everybody just flees out of the room whenever anybody brings up nuclear power :/

 

I think this is because of the Cold War, everyone feared a nuclear bomb dropping, just about everyone knew how devastating it could be. Plus it's still in movies and games, so everyone STILL knows how devastating it is.

 

Now look at a coal plant, I don't even know what it looks like and I LIVE NEXT TO ONE. Let alone know what it blowing up is like. So the media reporting on mostly nuclear explosions is really to raise ratings. Or so I'd guess.

 

Personally, I'll be jumping for joy the day we start using nuclear tech like crazy, maybe we'll have nuclear powered cars, satellites, robots, and all sorts of crazy stuff like in Fallout! (Preferably without the bombs)

[RBDash 176]

I'm for complete reliance on nuclear energy and discontinuation of gasoline cars. If the US could do that, we would probably be the leading enviromental first world country, not to mention not relying on a nearly gone resource. Imagine no more smog over Los Angeles, that would be a glorious day. However, until we can develop efficient fusion reactors and h3 lunar mining operations we should be using

, they're cheaper, safer, smaller than uranium reactors. Why we still use coal and oil for 80% of US power and most cars baffles me.

[Evilshy 5,093]

Why we still use coal and oil for 80% of US power and most cars baffles me.

 

Coal and oil are pretty much the most efficient fuels that can be obtained in practical amounts. And despite what many say, there's enough to last quite a long time, the only problem is getting at it, since most is locked behind either physical or political barriers :/

[RBDash 176]

Coal and oil are pretty much the most efficient fuels that can be obtained in practical amounts. And despite what many say, there's enough to last quite a long time, the only problem is getting at it, since most is locked behind either physical or political barriers :/

 

Thorium is really common too, and it can power reactors, which output much more energy than a coal plant could dream of.

 

Also, I wonder how anyone could think nuclear power is unsafe compared to coal power. Thousands die of coal power pollution or coal mines each year, while the only real problem nuclear power has made was Fukushima and Chernobyl, which was caused by a giant earthquake, tsunami, and refusing to update the plants safety while Chernobyl was severely outdated and was manned by people who didn't properly know how to work a reactor.

[Evilshy 5,093]

Thorium is really common too, and it can power reactors, which output much more energy than a coal plant could dream of.

 

Also, I wonder how anyone could think nuclear power is unsafe compared to coal power. Thousands die of coal power pollution or coal mines each year, while the only real problem nuclear power has made was Fukushima and Chernobyl, which was caused by a giant earthquake, tsunami, and refusing to update the plants safety while Chernobyl was severely outdated and was manned by people who didn't properly know how to work a reactor.

 

Thousands die from coal pollution? I mean, I know pollution is bad and all, but I don't think burning coal is killing thousands of people every year. Coal mines are more dangerous, though, but they're still pretty safe. It's just because it's big news when one collapses or explodes or something, so everybody freaks out. Now that I think about it, it's just a lesser version of what happens when something nuclear goes wrong :/

 

But seriously, how long has it been since we had a nuclear disaster that was directly caused by human error and not a natural disaster or random event?

[RBDash 176]

Thousands die from coal pollution? I mean, I know pollution is bad and all, but I don't think burning coal is killing thousands of people every year. Coal mines are more dangerous, though, but they're still pretty safe. It's just because it's big news when one collapses or explodes or something, so everybody freaks out. Now that I think about it, it's just a lesser version of what happens when something nuclear goes wrong :/

 

But seriously, how long has it been since we had a nuclear disaster that was directly caused by human error and not a natural disaster or random event?

 

The ALA says that 13,000 die a year from pollution. And that's not counting people who die from heat stroke due to global warming, which is caused by pollution.

[Evilshy 5,093]

The ALA says that 13,000 die a year from pollution. And that's not counting people who die from heat stroke due to global warming, which is caused by pollution.

 

Interesting article, I didn't know that. I mean I figured it would definitely be a problem for some people, and might kill some by complicating existing lung conditions, but not in those numbers. Good to know.

 

And while I don't want to get into an argument, there isn't any conclusive evidence for climate change being caused by humans. And arguing isn't likely to change either of our minds (and would get deleted for being off optic) so let's just not even start

Edited August 23, 2012 by Evilshy and His Own Ego

[I used to be a stranger 7,994]

I <3 nuclear power

 

Ignoring the whole "We have nuclear waste we should do something about" because people are usually clever and can come up with solutions, I think Nuclear power is a great way to have energy.

 

That is, until 2020 when Mayors unlock Microwave Power.

Hurr hurr Sim City jokes.

[Queen Cassie 3,058]

I'm for complete reliance on nuclear energy and discontinuation of gasoline cars. If the US could do that, we would probably be the leading enviromental first world country, not to mention not relying on a nearly gone resource. Imagine no more smog over Los Angeles, that would be a glorious day. However, until we can develop efficient fusion reactors and h3 lunar mining operations we should be using

, they're cheaper, safer, smaller than uranium reactors. Why we still use coal and oil for 80% of US power and most cars baffles me.

 

The concept of a Thorium reactor isn't one I had heard of prior till now, despite my strong belief in nuclear power. And the ideas presented in that video make it sound incredibly beneficial. I think we would have to gather some information, such as how much thorium there is in the world, how long we could last on it...but this sounds like it would be an incredible boon. The hardest part would be getting start-up support into research for more efficient designs and getting the funding for plants. As suggested in the video, we might have to wait and watch what China does before the U.S. or any other Western government takes a step towards pursuing thorium reactors.

 

I think I definitely want to research these reactors more when I get the chance, because I'm already excited by their potential.