3 ms·
The full paper is on sci-hub_se, "Ultrafast and highly selective uranium extraction from seawater by hydrogel-like spidroin-based protein fiber" > "In the natu
by photochemsyn 5y ago
The full paper is on sci-hub_se, "Ultrafast and highly selective uranium extraction from seawater by hydrogel-like spidroin-based protein fiber"
> "In the natural seawater, SSUP fiber achieved a breakthrough uranium extraction capacity of 12.33 mg/g with an ultrashort equilibration time of 3.5 days, suggesting that SSUP fiber might be a very promising adsorbent for uranium extraction from the natural seawater."
A 1000 MWe reactor (gigawatt) requires about 115 tons of uranium, and this needs to be replaced about every four years. The silk protein degrades fairly rapidly in seawater, good for about 10 cycles. Some rough calculations then indicate that if the process worked, about 1,000 tons of silk protein would be required to accumulate enough uranium to fuel one reactor for one four-year cycle... with massive logistical problems (i.e. deployment, extraction, recycling, etc.)
I doubt this would be economically or energetically feasible. In contrast, a silicon PV solar plant with enough storage to generate a steady 1000 MW 24/7 seems to be a good deal less expensive.
https://www.nuclear-power.com/nuclear-power-plant/nuclear-fuel/fuel-consumption-of-conventional-reactor/ https://www.nuclear-power.com/nuclear-power-plant/nuclear-fu...
- DennisP 5y agoThe numbers would look a lot better if we were to switch to fast reactors, which get a hundred times as much energy from the same amount of natural uranium.
- ncmncm 5y agoIf Teller did not trust fast reactors, I *really" don't trust fast reactors.
- credit_guy 5y agoAre you talking about the same Teller who wrote this paper? https://www.osti.gov/servlets/purl/231377 https://www.osti.gov/servlets/purl/231377 Just kidding, I know you are talking about him. But as you can see, he kind of changed his mind over time.
- AtlasBarfed 5y agoI love nuclear in the abstract (loved the LFTR presentations and other new gen), and I agree strongly that new nuclear is dumb with current economic development curves / LCOE of solar/wind and storage. What I REALLY like about alternative energy "destroying" nuclear is that the nuclear industry it is destroying is the old PWR / Solid Rod / regulatory / proliferation regimes. Because what nuclear REALLY needs a clean slate. When the solar/wind/battery markets and technologies stabilize, it should then provide a target for modular reactors, LFTR, etc.
- ncmncm 5y agoNukes will never be more competitive than they are right now, and they aren't, now. Renewables+storage cost is still in free-fall. By the time things stabilize, even just sunk-cost operating expense for a nuke, ignoring capital, will be way too high. There will always be a place for nukes in the outer solar system, ultimately pB11 fusion. Out there, you don't need to bother with containment. On Titan or in the upper atmosphere of Venus, Saturn, Neptune, or Uranus, a reactor is as simple as a a big fabric tube with a naked pile near the bottom and a wind turbine at the top. One moving part.