| | | "that quote of $13/kg I reference says for high purity niobium..."
Sanity checking that, quickly, if the focus is going to be on a 1950's era process using CCl4...
First, what is the relationship between Nb and volume in CCl4... then, what does that much CCl4 cost... to buy, transport, store, manage, use, re-use, re-cycle, or re-process, store in spent form, transport, and dispose of... in the required volume ?
Second, what does the use of CCl4 impose in costs tied to health and environmental risks... including the risks inherent in dependence on an item controlled under the Montreal Protocol ? "There was a slower phase-out (to zero by 2010) of other substances (halon 1211, 1301, 2402; CFCs 13, 111, 112, etc.) and some chemicals were given individual attention (Carbon tetrachloride..." I'm not sure what "special attention" means in context of the current standards and resulting cost issues, or the probability of market access changes continuing in the longer term.
en.wikipedia.org
Third, what will the cost be of meeting health and environmental standards to enable its use... given the various risks associated with it... and the need for a very high level of containment within the process. en.wikipedia.org
My guess is that there are probably already short paths to better alternatives available today, that make more sense than building systems that will depend on the use of phosgene or CCl4 based processes. If not, then there's a need for better options that needs to be addressed. |
|
