3 ms·
Wouldn't it be 694 million metric tonnes? I million megatons is a hell of a lot.
by rajandatta 4y ago
Wouldn't it be 694 million metric tonnes? I million megatons is a hell of a lot.
- tasuki 4y agoProbably metric tonnes, but it's weird to use "Mt" to mean metric tonne rather than megatonne. The symbol for metric tonne is "t" [0]. It would certainly be less ambiguous to just spell it out. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tonne https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tonne
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- dmitrygr 4y ago
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- gpcr1949 4y agoYou can't convert mass to energy like that in this context. A megaton just means a million tons (of TNT in an energy context). You can say: (the energy released when detonating) a megaton of TNT is equivalent to 46.55 g of pure mass to energy conversion (E = mc**2 type), but that would be irrelevant in this context because no one is planning converting this mass to energy, nor would it be possible.
- dmitrygr 4y ago
- moralestapia 4y agoLOL, 46 tons would hardly ever be news, that's about the output of a medium-sized mine per minute.
- ptk 4y agoThat’s astonishing. I clearly don’t have any type of intuition for the amount of earth these mines are extracting, because the number you’re putting out there seems comical.
- moralestapia 4y agoIndeed. Check this -> https://www.grida.no/resources/11419 https://www.grida.no/resources/11419 The volumes involved are huge!