This article is based on a preprint paper that hasn't been peer reviewed yet.
Mercury vapor would be really bad to have in a fusion plasma. It would drastically increase energy loss and would make maintaining the plasma difficult.
This article is based on a preprint paper that hasn't been peer reviewed yet.
Mercury vapor would be really bad to have in a fusion plasma. It would drastically increase energy loss and would make maintaining the plasma difficult.
but five tonnes of gold out from mercury for every gigawatt (~2.5 GWth) of electricity generated.
They are gonna spend more time carting away gold than generating electricity. If this is real, and I have my uneducated doubts, why would they tell anyone about it? They will be wildly rich with such a proven gold generation source.
1st problem is that the mercury will highly likely poison the fusion plasma. The blanket is already a hard engineering problem to have it work in a "regular fusion reactor". 2nd problem nobody has said anything about is that you get a mixture of radioactive isotopes out of (a supposedly working) a transmutation reactor. This adds to required enrichment processes: to get 100% mercury-198 (from 10%) and possibly a purification of the freshly radioactive gold.
I'd imagine radioactive gold is pretty much worthless. The Au-197 is metastable, and to my flaky understanding will emit gamma-rays, not to mention the other isotopes generated around Au-197.
How radioactive will it be?
Pfft, you aren't asking the right question, the real question is:
"How much healing power is it enfused with?"
:D
Both ^198^Hg and ^197^Au are perfectly stable isotopes and so according to the paper not at all!
However, my layman's understanding is that the breeder is a form of neutron irradiation, and neutron irradiation of ^197^Au yields ^198^Au which is radioactive and produces ~0.411 MeV of radiation and has a half-life of 2.69 days before decaying back to ^198^Hg.
Compare that with ^235^U. In comparison ^198^Au has no decay chain, ~10x less energy than the highest emitters, a much shorter half life and beta- decay instead of alpha decay.
Coverting to something like sieverts gets real tricky, but the beta decay means it's not very penetrative, ~4mm in biological tissue, and the short half-life means it will quickly stabilize itself. Therefore as long as it's not predominantly ^198^Au it's probably fine.
I would guess (based on very little) that it wouldn't have much radiation at all. This is fusion, not fission
Yes, they can create gold with nuclear reactors. Many years ago when I first learned about this, I recall it being unstable (turned back into lead) and radioactive, though.
I assume they worked the bugs out ages ago.
... but at what cost?
Probably only in minuscule quantities. Otherwise I'd say hold the economy ransom and demand social program funding.
Gold is not worth anything. Humans assigned a value. It's all made up.
It's a better conductor than copper. Doesn't oxidize like copper. Could be very useful if I'm the far future it could replace copper.
It's actually a worse conductor than copper. It's just used for contacts because it's nearly as good of a conductor and it doesn't oxidize. If you want a better conductor than copper then you want silver which to my knowledge is the best conductor out of all the base elements.
Electronics. Prior to electronics, what you said may have been somewhat true. But now gold has a real purpose.
And it's how radioactive?
all 33 comments