chemdude1414 t1_j990f2m wrote on February 20, 2023 at 4:16 AM

Reply to comment by IPutThisUsernameHere in Scientists create carbon nanotubes out of plastic waste using an energy-efficient, low-cost, low-emissions process. Compared to commercial methods for carbon nanotube production that are being used right now, ours uses about 90% less energy and generates 90%-94% less carbon dioxide by Wagamaga

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!

talontario t1_j99ml7e wrote on February 20, 2023 at 8:31 AM

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

chemdude1414 t1_j9ae036 wrote on February 20, 2023 at 2:01 PM

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.