this post was submitted on 11 Feb 2025
87 points (97.8% liked)

Asklemmy

45180 readers
1668 users here now

A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions

Search asklemmy ๐Ÿ”

If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!

  1. Open-ended question
  2. Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
  3. Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
  4. Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
  5. An actual topic of discussion

Looking for support?

Looking for a community?

~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[โ€“] Fluke@lemm.ee 12 points 1 week ago (5 children)

What do you think fusion research is?

[โ€“] ICastFist@programming.dev 12 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Just a fancier way to spin turbines with steam

Fancier or more efficient?

[โ€“] tetris11@lemmy.ml 6 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (2 children)

Studies into how to make a more efficient kettle.

[โ€“] Fluke@lemm.ee 4 points 1 week ago

I mean, you're not wrong.. XD

[โ€“] CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org 2 points 1 week ago (1 children)

There's a possibility of using the plasma directly for inducing electrical current, actually.

But then yeah, probably steam with whatever's left.

[โ€“] tetris11@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 week ago

now that would be revolutionary!

[โ€“] lime@feddit.nu 4 points 1 week ago

15 years away from a useful result

[โ€“] sga@lemmings.world 3 points 1 week ago

a fun fact: for the most efficient mass energy conversion, you need a huge spin black hole (preferably naked). Then you can get about 42% conversion. (there was a minute physics video about it i think)

[โ€“] absGeekNZ@lemmy.nz 1 points 1 week ago (1 children)

No where near perfect mass conversion....

Max theoretical mass-energy conversion efficiency is under 1%

[โ€“] teije9@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 points 1 week ago (1 children)

that's still waaayyyy more efficient than coal

[โ€“] absGeekNZ@lemmy.nz 1 points 1 week ago (1 children)

That is a different level entirely.

The mass-energy conversion from chemical processes is extremely small compared to nuclear processes, you can't really compare the in any meaningful way

[โ€“] teije9@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 points 1 week ago (1 children)

yes you can. coal costs ~32 cent per kWh, and uranium ~$0.0015 per kWh

[โ€“] absGeekNZ@lemmy.nz 3 points 1 week ago

We were talking about the mass-energy conversion, for nuclear fusion.

Not really sure how nuclear fission Vs coal cost/kWh is relevant.