You must log in or register to comment.
Bah, that graph needs antimatter.
If we could consume uranium, you could have a teaspoon’s worth and be done with eating for the rest of your life.
I think that’s technically true regardless.
I wonder if that’s actually factual or not. Uranium by itself isn’t too terribly dangerous. It’s the whole fission byproducts thing that’s the buzz kill.
You would get heavy metal poisoning, same as if you ate a chunk of lead
Copy pasta without source. Book! https://xkcd.com/1162/
*Boo
(But having a book instead is always nice.)
Uranium generates that energy by fission. The hydrogen in sugar could generate huge amounts of energy if fused.
And this boulder could generate huge amounts of energy if I pushed it up to the top of Mt. Kilimanjaro and let it roll down.
44 upvotes and 0 downvotes for a comment that doesn’t understand that energy density measurements like this tend to measure the useful energy of a system.
How much more energy would you get if you fused uranium?
Using the rule of thumb, anything heavier than iron requires energy input to fuse. So you lose energy fusing uranium.
Incorrect, if you aren’t a bitch about it. Fuse that gasoline!
I was thinking the same thing. It’s unfair compare chemical energy to nuclear energy. Coal still kind of sucks, but the hydrogen in the others could definitely be used in fusion…
It is perfectly fair in the context of “fuel”, a resource used to produce energy. Whether energy is generated via chemical or nuclear reaction is irrelavent in this case.
