= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
passive_fist comments on Crazy Ideas Thread - Less Wrong Discussion
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (344)
Mass production wouldn't necessarily make them less expensive than they already are. During the cold war the USA and USSR effectively mass-produced thousands of warheads. Official cost estimates for the manufacture cost aren't available but it seems that the US government managed to bring the cost of plutonium down from about $100,000/g to $500/g or so (The price of plutonium for civilians using it for chemistry purposes is currently around ten times that, however, and it's obviously an extremely restricted and regulated substance). A nuclear weapon needs about 2 kg of plutonium minimum, so that's about $1,000,000 per warhead at the very least.
It's a bargain. Even one billion US$ per day for the bombs, would be like nothing. We are talking about the energy output comparable with all the others (coal, oil, gas, nuclear, hydro ...) combined!
Not necessarily. Plutonium has about 90 TJ/kg energy density. At $500/g, that comes out to about 180 MJ/$, or 2 c/kWh. That's only a bit below half of coal's 4.63 c/kWh. And this is only for the fuel! If you were to go the all-plutonium route, it would probably wind up being more expensive than coal.
High-yield fusion would be another matter.
You have to have fusion. With fision you have to clean too much.
And the OP wanted the fusion as well.