Can Centrifuging Nuclear Waste Recover Rare Earth Elements?

  • Context: High School 
  • Thread starter Thread starter clunker
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Nuclear
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the potential for recovering rare earth elements, specifically rhodium, from nuclear waste through centrifugation. Participants explore the feasibility, economic viability, and existing methods of extraction, considering both theoretical and practical aspects of the process.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant questions why centrifugation is not used to recover rare earth elements from nuclear waste, noting the presence of valuable materials in fission products.
  • Another participant suggests that the low quantity of recoverable elements and the radioactive environment may make recovery economically prohibitive.
  • It is mentioned that valuable radioisotopes, such as Ru-106, are extracted from nuclear waste, which are significantly more valuable than rhodium.
  • A participant points out that chemical separation methods are generally easier than centrifugation for extracting rhodium, although some work has been done in this area.
  • One participant discusses the market value of rhodium and its implications for industrial applications, noting that the automotive industry may not adopt it due to cost concerns.
  • Another participant references fission yield numbers for rhodium and suggests that existing studies may provide more accurate data on its recovery potential.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the feasibility and economic viability of recovering rhodium from nuclear waste, with no consensus reached on the best methods or the practicality of such recovery.

Contextual Notes

Participants mention the need for purity in extracted materials and the challenges associated with the radioactive nature of nuclear waste, which may complicate recovery efforts.

clunker
Messages
2
Reaction score
1
My first question on this forum, and I'm diving in head first. While working on a project that has very little to do with physics, I stumbled upon a list of products that result from a Uranium-235 fission reaction. To my surprise, there is a lot of good stuff in that nuclear waste. Specifically, I am interested in rhodium.

Considering that we have stockpiles of nuclear waste that are decades old, is there some reason that no one is centrifuging to recover rare Earth elements? I fully understand that the waste is still radioactive, but the stuff I want is safer than tap water after 50 years of half-lives. Am I missing something here?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
clunker said:
Considering that we have stockpiles of nuclear waste that are decades old, is there some reason that no one is centrifuging to recover rare Earth elements?

An offhand guess would be that there's simply not that much of it, and the fact that it's in a highly radioactive environment makes it economically prohibitive to recover.
 
They do extract valuable materials from nuclear waste - usually radioisotopes like Ru-106. They are much (~100x) more valuable than, e.g. Rhodium, which is ~$20/g.
 
In the rare cases where there is no long-living isotope of an element (as in Rhodium) it is possible, but chemical separation methods are much easier than centrifugation. You have to get a very pure sample, otherwise it is too radioactive for most applications. There has been some work to extract rhodium, but making it commercially interesting is difficult. Wikipedia has a description.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: odietrich
Thanks for the responses everyone. I just looked at the price of Rhodium as a commodity, and it is somewhere around $2,750 per ounce ($97/g). Maybe not as valuable as Ru-106, but still prohibitively expensive for a lot of applications. My latest project (only in the planning stages) requires enough rhodium that the automotive industry would never adopt it. They won't even use all-metal catalytic converters despite their gains in efficiency and longevity. If manufacturers ever did apply my idea, the value of Rh would skyrocket due to lack of supply. According to Wikipedia, Rh accounts for about 3.6% of U-235 fission products, which sounds like a lot to me. However, the article does not specify how much is Rh-103 and how much is Rh-105.

That Wikipedia page is exactly what got me started down this rabbit hole. I was thinking of centrifuging because Rh for automotive use would not need to be very pure. Some contamination with Ru-102 and Ru-104 would not be a problem since ruthenium has similar properties. Ru-103 is the only radio isotope you would need to worry about, and it decays into the the desired product. Maybe chemical extraction is easier. I haven't looked into it that far.
 
You'll have to calculate a bit to get fission yield numbers from it, but the study cited there quotes >400 g/ton for rhodium, and as far as I understand they exclude Rh-105 as they look at long-living products only. Reference 1 might have better numbers.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
4K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
3K
Replies
3
Views
4K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 49 ·
2
Replies
49
Views
6K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
9K
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
6K