• @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    1
    edit-2
    2 days ago

    Going of the value in the paper and wikipedia it would take the energy used by all of humanity in two months.

    • @marcos
      link
      English
      11 day ago

      You either spend a truckload of resources during decades to make a bomb that explodes releasing the same energy humanity spends in two months, or you spend a truckload of resources doing the end task at a slower pace for decades.

      The later is guaranteed to require a smaller truckload.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        2
        edit-2
        1 day ago

        Why is the second guaranteed to be smaller?
        We know how nuclear bombs work. The majority of the energy comes from nuclear fusion, a highly exothermic process, that can (in the foreseeable future) only be used in bombs.
        If we don’t need to drop the bomb, but rather assemble it in place, it can just use deuterium as a fusion fuel. Deuterium can be distilled from normal water for much less energy that it generates in fusion.

        Edit: mixed up fusion and fission in the first statement

        • @marcos
          link
          English
          11 day ago

          The majority of the energy comes from nuclear fission

          Yes, from an extremely inefficient fission reaction that can be improved by an order of magnitude by doing it slowly in a reactor.

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            English
            11 day ago

            Mixed up fission and fusion there, they sound so similar in English.
            The comment talks about fusion.

            • @marcos
              link
              English
              11 day ago

              Most of the energy does not come from fusion.