Comment on At this rate, why not.
marcos@lemmy.world 1 week ago
Well, I’m sure controlled slow-paced mining is more energy efficient and will emit less carbon to create…
But I’m not stopping that guy. Go on. I’ll just watch from a safe distance.
Comment on At this rate, why not.
marcos@lemmy.world 1 week ago
Well, I’m sure controlled slow-paced mining is more energy efficient and will emit less carbon to create…
But I’m not stopping that guy. Go on. I’ll just watch from a safe distance.
anton@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 week ago
Going of same value in the paper and wikipedia it would take the energy used by all of humanity in two months.
marcos@lemmy.world 1 week ago
You either spend a truckload of resources during decades to make a bomb that explodes releasing the same energy humanity spends in two months, or you spend a truckload of resources doing the end task at a slower pace for decades.
The later is guaranteed to require a smaller truckload.
anton@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 week ago
Why is the second guaranteed to be smaller?
We know how nuclear bombs work. The majority of the energy comes from nuclear fission, a highly exothermic process, that can (in the foreseeable future) only be used in bombs.
If we don’t need to drop the bomb, but rather assemble it in place, it can just use deuterium as a fusion fuel. Deuterium can be distilled from normal water for much less energy that it generates in fusion.
marcos@lemmy.world 1 week ago
Yes, from an extremely inefficient fission reaction that can be improved by an order of magnitude by doing it slowly in a reactor.