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!
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.
If someone is interested in moderating this community, message @brikox@lemmy.zip.
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.
Not once they've produced enough gold to make it worthless.
Aluminum used to be one of the rarest, most-precious metals on earth. Now it's used as a disposable container.
Dude, spoilers! /s
If they kept it a secret, they could sell the gold continuously while the value slowly crashes, and still make a ton of money. But if you tell the world you can make gold for "free", the value craters overnight and you get nothing.
Jesus. Imagine if we could make gold cheap enough to make into soda cans. They wouldn't even need that plastic liner. A truly infinitely recycleable solution to packaging of all sorts. Imagine if the bag on the inside of cereal boxes was made from gold foil. What's so great about gold is it's incredibly chemically stable. That means it won't interact chemically with any food you package in it. And it's an element, not some forever chemical that will pollute our bodies and environment.
I want to see a world where all cheap disposable packaging is made out of gold.
Being an element doesnt exclude it from poisoning/pollution. Lead is an element and it'll happily poison people. Quick google suggests gold will kill at dosages 2g/kg, so probably dont want to ingest too much.
Gold isnt very strong on its own, so in order to use it for foil food packaging, it would require being attached to something else, which brings back the plastics part :(
Easier to get investors to just throw money at you than to actually make the product.
I don't know why you got downvoted, this is genuinely the most likely reason. If they had proven this technology, they could fund themselves. Right now they just have a hypothesis
Because Lemmy has that single person that downvotes everything. They probably think it's their "cool thing" and we're all wondering who it is and are always talking about them, but no one notices. It's just normal to see a single downvote when there's many upvotes.
Thats exactly my point, fleece the investors, and it doesnt matter if the tech works or not.
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.
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.
This article is based on a preprint paper that hasn't been peer reviewed yet.
Mercury vapor would be really bad to have in a fusion plasma. It would drastically increase energy loss and would make maintaining the plasma difficult.
1st problem is that the mercury will highly likely poison the fusion plasma. The blanket is already a hard engineering problem to have it work in a "regular fusion reactor". 2nd problem nobody has said anything about is that you get a mixture of radioactive isotopes out of (a supposedly working) a transmutation reactor. This adds to required enrichment processes: to get 100% mercury-198 (from 10%) and possibly a purification of the freshly radioactive gold.
I'd imagine radioactive gold is pretty much worthless. The Au-197 is metastable, and to my flaky understanding will emit gamma-rays, not to mention the other isotopes generated around Au-197.
It's the perpetual motion machine that laid the golden egg...
How radioactive will it be?
Pfft, you aren't asking the right question, the real question is:
"How much healing power is it enfused with?"
:D
Both ^198^Hg and ^197^Au are perfectly stable isotopes and so according to the paper not at all!
However, my layman's understanding is that the breeder is a form of neutron irradiation, and neutron irradiation of ^197^Au yields ^198^Au which is radioactive and produces ~0.411 MeV of radiation and has a half-life of 2.69 days before decaying back to ^198^Hg.
Compare that with ^235^U. In comparison ^198^Au has no decay chain, ~10x less energy than the highest emitters, a much shorter half life and beta- decay instead of alpha decay.
Coverting to something like sieverts gets real tricky, but the beta decay means it's not very penetrative, ~4mm in biological tissue, and the short half-life means it will quickly stabilize itself. Therefore as long as it's not predominantly ^198^Au it's probably fine.
I would guess (based on very little) that it wouldn't have much radiation at all. This is fusion, not fission
... but at what cost?
The price of gold
"Nothing but worthless gold!"
Mercury
still pricy
Yes, they can create gold with nuclear reactors. Many years ago when I first learned about this, I recall it being unstable (turned back into lead) and radioactive, though.
I assume they worked the bugs out ages ago.
Probably only in minuscule quantities. Otherwise I'd say hold the economy ransom and demand social program funding.
Gold is not worth anything. Humans assigned a value. It's all made up.
It's a better conductor than copper. Doesn't oxidize like copper. Could be very useful if I'm the far future it could replace copper.
It's actually a worse conductor than copper. It's just used for contacts because it's nearly as good of a conductor and it doesn't oxidize. If you want a better conductor than copper then you want silver which to my knowledge is the best conductor out of all the base elements.
Electronics. Prior to electronics, what you said may have been somewhat true. But now gold has a real purpose.
Gold does have a purpose, my point is that the value of gold, paper money, diamonds, caviar, etc. is assigned and not a real number.