Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

IPutThisUsernameHere t1_j96824j wrote

Neat. Now prove it works at scale and can turn a healthy profit.

368

Beyond-Time t1_j96i0m5 wrote

I mean, this is basically the only comment needed here. Same with the monthly battery revolutionizing technology discovered that goes nowhere.

155

PO0tyTng t1_j96oi5s wrote

From the article: > The plastic, which does not need to be sorted or washed as in traditional recycling, is “flashed” at temperatures over 3,100 kelvins (about 5,120 degrees Fahrenheit). “All we do is grind the material into small, confetti-sized pieces, add a bit of iron and mix in a small amount of a different carbon — say, charcoal — for conductivity,” Wyss said.

Sounds pretty damn scalable to me.

75

Herbert-Quain t1_j96pd0m wrote

>temperatures over 3,100 kelvins

How are commercial procedures less energy-efficient than that?!

35

IPutThisUsernameHere t1_j96ptw9 wrote

For additional context, steel melts at about 2,500 F - less than half the temperature cited in this process.

42

PO0tyTng t1_j96t56j wrote

It’s not like nanotubes need to be made in 1000 gallon cauldrons. I would think we would need far less material than raw/smelted steel. So it could be made in a kiln or something. Honestly though the amount of heat needed is not a hurdle in scaling this up.

Really manually intensive /precise processes like making a sheet of graphene have soooo many more barriers to scaling than simply “apply more heat”

39

ReasonablyBadass t1_j99eja2 wrote

Efficiency has nothing to do with how much energy you need. It's about the ration between resource use and end product.

If other processes need less heat but produce a lot of unusable waste, they are less efficient.

Edit: also,flashing, afaik, means for only a very short amount of time. Might not be all that mich energy overall, actually

5

Telewyn t1_j9779bx wrote

So, useless for everything then? This will make tiny nanotubes that can't even be woven together, won't it?

1

Peantoo t1_j98n6l3 wrote

Well to be fair, the act of weaving is specifically for making tiny strips into long ropes. Maybe they just need a super small weaver?

Also, carbon nanotubes have utility beyond being cables.

6

axonxorz t1_j98pbqk wrote

And multiple uses as cable. Woven into cohesive fibres that are further woven into fabric or "rope"/cable, the traditional usage. Extremely low electrical resistance means collercial scale production could lead to lower cost conductors for megavolt-scale transmission

3

Skyrmir t1_j993oth wrote

The short strands are used for surface coatings, and showed a lot of novel electronic properties that just weren't useful because of material costs.

We'd all like an easy answer for a space elevator, but faster, cheaper, or more efficient, electronics is always a bonus.

2

Ripberger7 t1_j976v4k wrote

Well then they should stop writing white papers and start soliciting investors.

−4

danielravennest t1_j96qcpp wrote

This is the wrong place to be looking for engineering and production level products. This is r/science, so what we get is lab results.

If you want Battery Tech or Solar Tech you want to be looking at industry-oriented websites.

30

Rrraou t1_j96xtt0 wrote

> discovered that goes nowhere.

Or, by the time it gets where it's going it's become normal and doesn't feel as special.

16

Beyond-Time t1_j970pgd wrote

Perhaps. I've grown tired of every revolutionary technology disappearing because it's too expensive, material intense, or impractical. I tend to forget that yes, some do, in fact, make it into production devices.

−1

Darkdoomwewew t1_j97567d wrote

And some come back around down the line as we make advances in materials and processes. Progress is progress.

8

mdielmann t1_j98o7kb wrote

Thos is how research works. People have an idea. They do a lot of testing, and figure out a process that works. They say, "Hey, check out what we did!" Someone else, who was looking at something else, perhaps in a completely different field, learns about this and it leads to some practical advance in the world at large. Kind of like seeing salt making frog legs jump leading to lithium ion batteries.

2

KevinFlantier t1_j99xmvn wrote

> Same with the monthly battery revolutionizing technology discovered that goes nowhere.

Then again this is always a very slow process. Any kind of battery breakthrough (assuming it's not bogus to make headlines) takes at least a decade to find its way to the consumer market.

So of course you're gonna hear about this revolutionary new thing on paper, then never hear about it ever again, and by the time it's available on the market -probably quietly- then the rest of the industry has also made many other improvements to the point that it's not the huge leap that was promised but more of a "hey the battery on this phone charges faster than on my older one... I think"

2

chemdude1414 t1_j990f2m wrote

The tech is being used by a company called Universal Matter - they just reached a milestone of being able to produce 1 ton of graphene a day at 35$ a ton from mixed plastic waste. Their commercial scale plant is being built now.

It does use a lot of energy, however, it takes only a few microseconds to reach the temperature needed to convert the mixed waste to graphene. Tbh, it’s pretty revolutionary technology. It extends way further than just making strong materials. It can be used for soil enrichment, isolation of rare minerals, and almost (most importantly) converting coal ash (highly toxic) to inert materials. All at a profit. It’s sad that everything has to operate on a scale of “profitability”, but the Tour group has cracked the code!

10

talontario t1_j99ml7e wrote

what is that $35 covering? the material, material and power cost or running the full factory/lab?

1

chemdude1414 t1_j9ae036 wrote

As far as I know, it’s the average cost of electricity required for the flash plus a few other components. At scale and overtime it will pay for the construction materials. With the product being sold at a profit, that would help to pay for wages, etc.

But I think one hugely overlooked item is that that vast majority of their materials will be … free. waste is already waste, and given that recycling is costly and time consuming, this will be a cheaper option. If anything companies will begin to pay to have their waste turned into graphene. So in terms of raw materials, their expenditure is nearly nothing.

This article is okay at covering some of the fundamentals (e. g. The actual published work in the journal) but not super great at looking at the wider picture.

1

PoopIsAlwaysSunny t1_j96kxt5 wrote

If it works at scale it seems like it would have to be able to turn a profit. Energy costs way lower and they’re using waste products that we have piled mountains of in recycling facilities.

6

Peantoo t1_j98nbbz wrote

Like someone said, this is r/science, not r/futurism or something. This is science and is fine the way it is.

5