• sga@lemmings.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 month 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)

    • absGeekNZ@lemmy.nz
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 month ago

      No where near perfect mass conversion…

      Max theoretical mass-energy conversion efficiency is under 1%

      • teije9
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 month ago

        that’s still waaayyyy more efficient than coal

        • absGeekNZ@lemmy.nz
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 month ago

          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

          • teije9
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 month ago

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

            • absGeekNZ@lemmy.nz
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              1 month ago

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

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