452
submitted 2 weeks ago by cm0002@lemmy.world to c/science@mander.xyz
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] booly@sh.itjust.works 2 points 2 weeks ago

I would think that using fusion or fission for synthesizing elements is going to still be less efficient (among all resources, not just energy) than using the newfound abundant/cheap energy to extract those preexisting elements from mixtures that exist on Earth.

Take neodymium, your example. That's pretty abundant in the Earth's crust. It's just that it's energy intensive to extract it from the mineral formations that naturally occur. At that point it's still probably much cheaper, energy wise, to separate a bunch of minerals into their constituent elements, rather than try to synthesize atoms through fusion and fission.

[-] nekbardrun@lemmy.world 1 points 2 weeks ago

I kinda agree with you tho. It is way more realistically to have asteroid mining facilities before what I said in the previous comment

(And of course, earthly mining already exists and will get more efficient in the future anyways)

this post was submitted on 21 Jan 2025
452 points (97.3% liked)

Science

3530 readers
93 users here now

General discussions about "science" itself

Be sure to also check out these other Fediverse science communities:

https://lemmy.ml/c/science

https://beehaw.org/c/science

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS