• 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.