4 ms·
Even if this were true, at 0.15 USD/kWh it would cost more than just buying the gold. Even excluding cost of cleaning up the radioactivity, the equipment, labor
by oh_my_goodness 1y ago
Even if this were true, at 0.15 USD/kWh it would cost more than just buying the gold. Even excluding cost of cleaning up the radioactivity, the equipment, labor, everything except the power.
A GW-year is 8760 GWh. That's 8760/5000 = 1.75 GWh per kg of gold. At 0.15 USD/kWh, a GWh costs $150k US. So 1.75GWh costs about $263k. A kg of gold costs about 100k US.
- modeless 1y agoThe gold is a byproduct of generating the electricity. You still get to sell the electricity too.
- oh_my_goodness 1y agoWait, really?
- snickerdoodle12 1y agoThird paragraph from the post, in bold: > 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.
- one-note 1y ago> 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.
- floxy 1y agoYes, that is their selling point https://www.marathonfusion.com/alchemy.pdf https://www.marathonfusion.com/alchemy.pdf
- dwattttt 1y agoGold is atomically heavier than iron, fusing gold costs energy. The language in the article is ambiguous, but I believe the energy quoted is a cost.
- amelius 1y agoYeah, but the gold price is going to drop ...
- a1371 1y ago15 cents per kWh is much more expensive than what you buy electricity for around the world. Also, they can time their usage for when the electricity is free or very cheap
- kristianp 1y agoThis is such a fun topic to think about, it's nearly science-fiction. The problem with fusion plants is that they don't exist except as small experimental reactors. I think this could be retrofitted to existing fission plants, pumping mercury 198 gas around the outside of the core (in heat-resistant pipes of course). Still an expensive proposition as you'd want to certify that it's not going to affect the safety and reaction rates of the reactor. Another thought is that gold is a useful product, so anything that reduces the price of gold is good for the industries that use it. Are there other rare elements that are more useful, though?
- stubish 1y agoI doubt I'll see it in my lifetime. Designing the reactors, building the prototype, building the real power plant... 30 years minimum. Then waiting another 13 years for the gold to stop being radioactive (although maybe radioactive gold sitting unmoving in a vault is worth as much as non-radioactive gold sitting unmoving in a vault if you pay your finance guys enough). And it requires high electricity prices to be profitable at all, so a bet against renewable energy generation and battery storage in that time frame (we don't have a shortage of gold). But yes, if you could create tantulum or something similar (expensive, in short supply, not artificially scarce because of hoarding)