Interesting Shares

1924 readers

5 users here now

Fascinating articles, captivating images, satisfying videos, interesting projects, stunning research and more.

Share something you find incredibly interesting.

Prefix must be included in the title!

Mandatory prefixes for posts

It helps to see at glance what post is about and certain clients also offer filters that make prefixes searchable/filterable.

Note: Photon (m.lemmy.zip) frontend used for links above.

Icon attribution

If someone is interested in moderating this community, message @brikox@lemmy.zip.

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

BrikoX@lemmy.zip

[Article] Marathon Fusion says it can produce gold as fusion reactor byproduct (newatlas.com)

submitted 5 days ago by BrikoX@lemmy.zip to c/interestingshare@lemmy.zip

34 comments fedilink hide all child comments

The dream of the ancient alchemists may come true as Marathon Fusion announces that its tokamak fusion reactor technology can turn common mercury into gold as a byproduct of fusion operations in quantities that would make Auric Goldfinger blush.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] CameronDev@programming.dev 20 points 5 days ago (14 children)

but five tonnes of gold out from mercury for every gigawatt (~2.5 GWth) of electricity generated.

They are gonna spend more time carting away gold than generating electricity. If this is real, and I have my uneducated doubts, why would they tell anyone about it? They will be wildly rich with such a proven gold generation source.

[–] qupada@fedia.io 12 points 5 days ago (1 children)

The units are weird, and the person writing the article seems to have conflated a few different quantities.

From the actual press release linked in the article:

Using our approach, power plants can generate five thousand kilograms of gold per year, per gigawatt of electricity generation (~2.5 GWth), without any compromise to fuel self-sufficiency or power output.

So unless I've also missed something, what they actually mean is 5 tons per year assuming a continuous power output of 2.5GW, which is roughly 22TWh of energy generation.

Or in slightly more approachable units, approximately 0.23g/MWh.

[–] SinAdjetivos@lemmy.world 2 points 5 days ago

GW~th~ means 1GW of thermal energy, nothing to do with tons.

The paragraph of note from the preprint paper:

Under this simplification, there are ∼ 1.12 × 1028 fusion reactions per year in a 1 GWth fusion device. Assuming neutron multiplication is dominated by (n, 2n) reactions, in order to achieve a TBR = 1.2, at an absolute minimum 20% of all fusion reactions must have a corresponding (n, 2n) reaction in the blanket; as a less conservative value, it is known that simplified blanket configurations (2 m thick, no structure, natural Li) can achieve as high as TBR ∼ 1.85 [26], in which case at least 85% of fusion reactions must have a corresponding multiplication reaction. This range corresponds to 3.7 × 103–1.6 × 104 mol/yr, or for a product with a mass of 197 amu, 732 − 3114 kg/yr of material production.

The paper seems to report an upper bound of 3000 kg/GW~th~/yr.

There does seems to be some conflating of GW~th~ (GW of thermal power) with GW~e~(GW of electrical power). Assuming an efficiency of ~60% would make the numbers line up and that seems in the ballpark of possible conversion efficiencies.

load more comments (12 replies)