MIT researchers accidentally discover safer, cleaner, and less expensive smelting process
34 replies, posted
[url]https://www.engadget.com/2016/08/24/mit-accidentally-discovered-a-cleaner-smelting-process/[/url]
[quote]Sometimes, science can take an unexpected turn. While trying to develop a new kind of high temperature storage battery, MIT researchers accidentally stumbled upon a new, more efficient process for smelting metal -- one that's potentially cheaper, safer and less harmful to the environment than traditional ore processing.[/quote]
[quote]It turned out the battery was performing electrolysis, and the metal it was producing was 99.9 percent pure. That got the researcher's attention -- traditional smelting produces large quantities of greenhouse gas, and is a significant contributor of air pollutants. Sadoway's accidental smelting process produced almost none.
The team did further tests with antimony, but says the process could apply to other metals.[/quote]
"Science, even when we fuck up it's great."
Edit:
This also makes me wonder how many other things were discovered by sheer dumb fucking luck.
So they're basically electrocuting the metal until it separates and melts?
That's awesome.
I wonder what the trade off is for that extra clean. Like if it requires lots of electric energy out maybe it takes longer.
[QUOTE=bord2tears;50946161]I wonder what the trade off is for that extra clean. Like if it requires lots of electric energy out maybe it takes longer.[/QUOTE]
Wild guess says it takes a ton of energy. Electrolysis generally does iirc.
[QUOTE=purvisdavid1;50946149]"Science, even when we fuck up it's great."
Edit:
This also makes me wonder how many other things were discovered by sheer dumb fucking luck.[/QUOTE]
Tons of things. More than we realize, actually. Vaseline, viagra, plastic, xray tubes, strikeable matches, pacemakers were all accidentally discovered while trying to accomplish something else, just like this
The Chinese discovered gunpowder by trying to make an elixir for life. Dynamite was discovered because nitroglycerin was being transported and spilled and absorbed into a certain kind of rock. Nuclear fission was discovered by a scientist trying to increase the mass of atoms. Safety glass, the list goes on.
[QUOTE=bord2tears;50946161]I wonder what the trade off is for that extra clean. Like if it requires lots of electric energy out maybe it takes longer.[/QUOTE]
The irony would be if the electricity it used in the process was from gas/coal/etc plants. :v:
Here's a link to the study: [url]http://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms12584[/url]
[QUOTE=OvB;50946169]Wild guess says it takes a ton of energy. Electrolysis generally does iirc.[/QUOTE]
So instead of producing green house gasses at the smelting factory(?), they'll produce lots of green house gasses at the electrical plant.
Well, it's still a step forward and leaves the opportunity to remove the damage to the environment once renewable energy becomes more feasible.
jeez, it's such a simple idea that it makes you feel stupid for not thinking of it before
[QUOTE=OvB;50946169]Wild guess says it takes a ton of energy. Electrolysis generally does iirc.[/QUOTE]
That's probably true, but in combination with clean energy production (assuming we can increase our clean production by a substantial enough rate), we could still be looking at net gain in efficiency and a dramatically cleaner smelting process overall if there aren't any other major challenges preventing widespread adaptation.
I thought this was already a thing?
[QUOTE=Headhumpy;50946235]jeez, it's such a simple idea that it makes you feel stupid for not thinking of it before[/QUOTE]
People apparently did try it before, but couldn't find a means to make it work efficiently, as found in the study;
[quote]While Hoar and Ward demonstrated the electrolysis of molten copper sulfide in complicated bicameral laboratory cells containing a cathode and an anode both composed of molten copper sulfide and connected by molten barium chloride chosen for its low vapour pressure at 1,150 °C (ref. 24), the absence of alkali sulfide dissolved in the barium chloride led to generation of cuprous ions at the anode with attendant precipitation of Cu2S. Indeed, the authors admit that while twin copper sulfide electrodes can be made to work in small, laboratory-scale cells, ‘large-scale cells would obviously present formidable development problems, not the least being methods for feeding molten white metal into the electrode compartments.’[/quote]
[QUOTE=Teddybeer;50946260]LSD deserves a mention.[/QUOTE]
What were they originally trying to accomplish?
[QUOTE=Kylel999;50946297]What were they originally trying to accomplish?[/QUOTE]
The guy who made LSD, Albert Hoffmann, was trying to research a CNS stimulant from the derivatives of a certain plant that had lysergic acid, and to isolate its pure chemical structure.
The biggest one I think I can remember is Alexander Fleming finding penicilin. He was really untidy and left two petri dishes out when he went abroad, when he came back right when he was about to clean it, he saw some of the bacteria had killed all the other.
(I'm remembering this from secondary school chances are I missed out a plenty o shit here.)
:snip:
[QUOTE=windows098;50946425]The biggest one I think I can remember is Alexander Fleming finding penicilin. He was really untidy and left two petri dishes out when he went abroad, when he came back right when he was about to clean it, he saw some of the bacteria had killed all the other.
(I'm remembering this from secondary school chances are I missed out a plenty o shit here.)[/QUOTE]
IIRC he noticed an absence of bacteria around some mold.
[QUOTE=OvB;50946169]Wild guess says it takes a ton of energy. Electrolysis generally does iirc.[/QUOTE]
Well, we currently use arc furnaces which is probibly much worse.
[QUOTE=nuttyboffin;50946484]Well, we currently use arc furnaces which is probibly much worse.[/QUOTE]
Depends on how you look at it. If the power is coming from solar/wind or nuclear then it would make for a very clean but power hungry process. If the power comes from coal then youre really just pushing the pollutants from one location to another.
[QUOTE=purvisdavid1;50946149]"Science, even when we fuck up it's great."
Edit:
This also makes me wonder how many other things were discovered by sheer dumb fucking luck.[/QUOTE]
the lightbulb was discovered, forgotten, rediscovered, reforgotten and then finally discovered again
like at least half a dozen people made vacuum chambers, noticed the wire emitting a bit of heat and light went "huh, thats neat" and didnt do anything else
[editline]25th August 2016[/editline]
[QUOTE=nuttyboffin;50946484]Well, we currently use arc furnaces which is probibly much worse.[/QUOTE]
arc furnaces use massive capaciters to get the big arc but they are by far the most efficient process compared to other techniques involving gas heating
This isn't nearly as great as the article makes it sound, and after reading the paper it seems fairly impractical. Despite what the Engadget article suggests, smelting ores is not done that often anymore and electrolysis is already a common way of extracting metals. Normally, the metal sulfides are dissolved out of the rock with acid and the resulting leach is purified and electrolyzed. What this method does is directly electrolyze the molten ore minerals, which supposedly reduces energy requirements and emissions. My issue with this method is they seem to have forgotten that the ores at many important deposits contain extremely tiny quantities of the target sulfides. For example, the most important copper mines are giant open pit mines where the ore often contains well below 1% copper. Mechanically separating them out from both the host rock and other sulfides so they can be used in this technique would require ludicrous amounts of energy and effort. With the normal electrolysis method, basically all you need to do is heap the ore in pile, pour acid on top, and collect the leach. There are probably deposits where their technique could be useful, but it's not going to put an end to harmful emissions produced by mines like Engadget is trying to make it seem.
"The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not 'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...' "
so someone smart enough to get into MIT wasn't already aware of electroplating?
[QUOTE=butre;50946666]so someone smart enough to get into MIT wasn't already aware of electroplating?[/QUOTE]
This really isn't much like electroplating
I'd calm down though, while this sort of "smelting" may be nice for situations with high-concentration ores it doesn't seem like it'd scale very well at all. I wonder if it would work for in-space smelting? I'm trying to write a proposal to get funding for an in-space manufacturing project so I could see it being used there. Conventional ore processing equipment doesn't jive with space and stuff - heavy, energy-intensive, and produces lots of waste heat it seems.
[QUOTE=purvisdavid1;50946149]"Science, even when we fuck up it's great."
Edit:
This also makes me wonder how many other things were discovered by sheer dumb fucking luck.[/QUOTE]
Discovering things by sheer dumb fucking luck is pretty much the fundament of how humans started understanding the sciences. At some point somebody probably accidentally learned how to set something on fire, and it all kind of snowballed from there
[QUOTE=purvisdavid1;50946149]"Science, even when we fuck up it's great."
Edit:
This also makes me wonder how many other things were discovered by sheer dumb fucking luck.[/QUOTE]
Rubber was an accident. Water balloons were also an accident, when someone trying to use rubber as a sort of portable form-shaping boot discovered it held water and exploded on impact nicely.
The ancient Greeks were the first to make a steam engine -- [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aeolipile"]the Aeolipile[/URL], which was seen as a useless but neat toy. Trains (pulled by horses) had been invented 500 years prior. It wasn't until ~2000 years later before we discovered the steam engine train.
No such thing as mistakes, just happy little accidents.
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;50946182]So instead of producing green house gasses at the smelting factory(?), they'll produce lots of green house gasses at the electrical plant.
Well, it's still a step forward and leaves the opportunity to remove the damage to the environment once renewable energy becomes more feasible.[/QUOTE]
Yeah for now, but then once we start generating most of our power with green energy then that's no longer a problem
i wish i could turn my mistakes into something marvellous
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.