You're viewing a single thread.
the implication of einsteins mass-energy equivalence formula is mind-blowing to me. one gram of mass, if perfectly converted to energy, makes 25 GWh. that means half the powerplants in my country could be replaced with this theoretical "mass converter" going through a gram of fuel an hour. that's under 10 kilograms of fuel a year.
a coal plant goes through tons of fuel a day.
energy researchers, get on it
If mass can convert into energy that easily then we’re all in a lot of trouble…
What do you think fusion research is?
Just a fancier way to spin turbines with steam
Fancier or more efficient?
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)
15 years away from a useful result
No where near perfect mass conversion....
Max theoretical mass-energy conversion efficiency is under 1%
that's still waaayyyy more efficient than coal
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
yes you can. coal costs ~32 cent per kWh, and uranium ~$0.0015 per kWh