Woo! Alchemy achieved.
this post was submitted on 27 Jul 2025
174 points (91.0% liked)
Technology
73370 readers
6232 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
This is stupid, but not for the reasons you would think.
The energy required to change lead into gold is bigger than their difference in price.
The whole point of the paper is that limitation has been breached. The fusion plant would primarily create electricity, and gold is a profitable byproduct.
It's not out of peer review, though.
But this reactor turns mercury into gold, and is meant to produce power.
Mhhh. Would have to check the binding energy per nucleon charts. Might work. I automatically read lead.
load more comments
(3 replies)
"But it’s worth noting that the same process would likely result in the production of unstable and potentially radioactive isotopes of gold. As such, Rutkowski admitted, the gold would have to be stored for 14 to 18 years before it could be labeled radiation-safe."
Ah yes, 18-year vintage, very nice choice. Pairs well with a 3 carat lab grown diamond!
This is like a reverse Goldfinger plan. Could have an interesting impact on the gold market if it can be done at scale.
I'm sure most gold mining operations take at least a few years to get permitted and started and then there's risk that you won't find as much gold as expected.
Compared to a lump of gold that all you have to do is not lose it and it will appreciate in value all on its own.
In Neal Stephenson's Baroque Cycle, there's an alchemist priest who is really interested in trying to make infinite gold. Not because he wants to get rich, but because he wants to collapse the market and eat the rich.
It's been a long time since I read it, but I seem to remember that he's not as much of a hero as the above makes it sound. Though that series is pretty pro-early stage capitalism, so take that as you will.
"All you have to do is find it."
The value of gold is not just in its scarcity, properties, luster, purity, etc., but also in the effort it takes to find or mine it. So, sure. Trip over a nugget and you're...golden.
The same concept can be loosely applied to the abstraction of crypto currency. It takes energy and computational effort to acquire if you don't just buy it.
load more comments
(5 replies)
It's only irradiated gold if it comes from the Radioactive Startup Part of San Fransisco.
Otherwise, it's just sparkling rock.
load more comments
(3 replies)
load more comments
(2 replies)
Inb4 radioactive gold hits the market, leading to Geiger counters being standard in gold buying businesses.
It also creates some radioactive isotopes of gold, so it'd have to sit there for 12-14 years before being useful.
My guess is that once the radioactive cycle time is up, it'd create more gold than the economy knows what to do with, and the price would collapse. They're quoting 5 metric tons of gold created per GWh of electricity created by the fusion reactor. There are 3,000 metric tons of gold mined every year. Worldwide energy production is 26,000,000 GWh. If we had 20% of that on one of these fusion reactors, there would be 26,000,000 metric tons produced.
It's estimated that for all of human history, 244,000 metric tons has been mined.
Gold ain't that useful, and it isn't even that artistically desirable if it's common. I think we'd struggle to use that much. Maybe if the price drops below copper we'll start using it for electrical wiring (gold is a worse conductor than copper, but better than aluminum). Now, if the process could produce something like platinum or palladium, that'd be pretty great. Those are super useful as catalysts, and there isn't much we can extract from the Earth's crust.
If late stage capitalism hasn't played itself out by then, what's going to happen is similar to solar deployment now. Capitalists see that solar gives you the best return on investment. Capitalists rush to build a whole lot of solar farms. But focusing on just solar is a bad idea; it should be combined with wind, hydro, and storage to get the best result. Now that solar has to be turned off so it doesn't overload the grid, and that cuts into the profits they were expecting.
Same would likely happen here. The first investors make tons of money with gold as a side effect of electricity generation. A second set of investors rushes in, collapses the price of gold, and now everyone is disappointed. Given the time it would have to sit before it's at safe radiation levels, this process could take over 20 years to play out.
5 metric tons of gold created per GWh of electricity
per GW. 5000kg over whole year of 1gw reactor going almost continuous. While there is no theoretical possiblity of creating economically viable fusion energy, a minimum reactor size would be 10gw. Needs 1gw of backup fission to provide stable power input, and make the deuterium.
$500M/gw in gold revenue could make a difference in the economics. If fusion cost 2x what fission costs per gw, ($30/w) then it would make back its cost in gold only over 60 years, @$100/gram.
Why do we try to turn things into gold? The price of gold would collapse if we succeeded, so wouldn't it be completely pointless?
I dunno. I would be cool with it if we stopped mining for Gold with all the environmental problems and found a way to profitably clean up the mercury from past gold mining and places like Grassy Narrows with extensive mercury poisoning.
I would assume that this would lead to a rise in mercury mining instead of cleaning up Mercury contaminations, because that would probably be cheaper. And I don't think mercury mining is any less toxic than gold mining.
load more comments
(2 replies)
Who gives a shit about the gold price except for some idiots who think it has some inherent value beyond some applications in electronics.
What's wrong w/ collapsing the price of gold? Gold is super useful since it doesn't oxidize, so it's fantastic in electronics and space stuff. Making that cheaper would be awesome.
I want to sell my gold teeth 😐
If you have a monopoly on the process, then its the same as the DeBeers Diamond Cartel. You can keep the price up by limiting the sale and spending a ton of money on marketing.
load more comments
(2 replies)
You want gold? Tons of it? Go mine the asteroid belt. But if it is to become plentiful what value will it hold?
Will cheap gold plated circuitry be back?
I'd love that. Corrosion would no longer be a concern.
any particle accelerator can do that just incredibly slowly.
Alchemy of that sort has been doable for generations, it's just WILDLY impractical!
Currently many orders of magnitude more expensive than just buying an equivalent amount of gold, but makes me wonder what the future might be capable of with those proofs of concept.
Science circling back around to alchemy is an interesting thought.
If it is possible to make small amounts of those elements on purpose as a byproduct, it can help to offset the costs of the reactor in some small way and help with isotopic/nuclear research in general. But that can be done in pretty much any fusion reactor design to some degree.
As for Alchemy of the future, If in a thousand years we can just built whatever materials we need (including potential ultra heavy stable elements) from raw subatomic particles we don't even need mining, just gather up some hydrogen/helium from space and transmute it into whatever you need. food, fuel, structures, etc.
just gather up some hydrogen/helium from space and transmute it into whatever you need. food, fuel, structures, etc.
Tea, earl gray, hot.
And a gross of self-sealing stem bolts.
we don't even need mining, just gather up some hydrogen/helium from space and transmute it into whatever you need. food, fuel, structures, etc.
Believe it or not, this can actually be done without fusion alchemy.
It's been explored in science fiction and I believe there are some actual theories and papers on the subject, but here's the quick version:
The sun contains all the same elements found on earth in remarkably similar proportions (The exception being that all of earth's hydrogen and helium were blown away long ago). But unlike earth, in the sun the heavy elements don't separate and sink down to the core, everything just mixes together in one big suspension. Magnetic fields in the sun constantly eject charged particles out as solar wind and while these particles are mostly hydrogen, they actually contain every element found in the solar system. And because the particles are charged, this wind could be harvested using magnetic fields, it could be redirected and focused into a stream of matter for collection.
And it's a lot of matter that could be collected this way... The sun loses 130 billion tons of matter in solar wind every day. For comparison, Mars's moon Deimos masses about 1.5 trillion tons, so the sun loses a full Deimos worth of matter every 12 days. There would be more than enough of every element in that stream to satisfy humanity for the foreseeable future.
And my apologies for the long reply, someone mentioned space and I couldn't help myself. 🤓
The sun loses 130 billion tons of matter in solar wind every day.
But how much can be caught?
From the sun, the angular diameter of the earth (12,756 km wide, 149,000,000 km away) is something like 0.004905 degrees (or 0.294 arc minutes or 17.66 arc seconds).
Imagining a circle the size of earth, at the distance of the earth, catching all of the solar wind, we're still looking at something that is about 127.8 x 10^6 square kilometers. A sphere the size of the Earth's average distance to the sun would be about 279.0 x 10^15 square km in total surface area. So oversimplifying with an assumption that the solar wind is uniformly distributed, an earth-sized solar wind catcher would only get about 4.58 x 10^−10 of the solar wind.
Taking your 130 billion tons number, that means this earth-sized solar wind catcher could catch about 59.5 tons per day of matter, almost all of which is hydrogen and helium, and where the heavier elements still tend to be lower on the periodic table. Even if we could theoretically use all of it, would that truly be enough to meet humanity's mining needs?
load more comments
(1 replies)
load more comments
(4 replies)
Good to see Gargamel following his dreams.
In theory but can they do it efficiently. Probably not. And definitely not yet. But hey let them get the fool's money.
I read up on this the other day and their claims are 8 tons produced per gigawatt of energy consumed. Even if they manage a quarter. Of that, it's enough to obliterate the value of gold. I doubt this will actuary go anywhere either way but it would be nice to see.
This article says (5 tonnes/yr) per GW produced. It's a fusion reactor, so it's making electricity, not consuming it.
At $0.05/kWh, 1 GWh of electricity is $438 million. At $3400/troy ounce, 5 tonnes of gold is $545 million. So that jives with the company's estimate on the article that the sale of gold could double their revenue.
All bunk, of course
This is a fusion reactor, I'll believe its making energy instead of consuming it when someone manages to get one to be net energy positive
Sure - they're claiming to do two very difficult things simultaneously (net positive fusion and transmute mercury to gold at scale) which makes me even more skeptical. It's like saying "Not only can pigs fly, but we've taught them to simultaneously do calculus."
load more comments
(1 replies)
That's an enormous amount!
Most of the value of gold these days is its use in electronics, and jewelery. I'm fine with it being made cheap and plentiful. Anyone holding gold (or gold-backed investments) as opposition to other types of investments is going to see a big loss, but that's what they bought into.
Alchemy you say? Take my money now, I'll ask questions later. Glad we got in on this before the peer review!
Kings dont fund science, Kings fund alchemy!
USA USA USA ...
load more comments
(1 replies)
So do it. Crash the economy, rip that bandaid right off.
so they can make gold for less than it costs now? why are they looking for investors?
The search for the philosophers stone never ended.
I really think I’m close, I just need to distill a little more urine
view more: next ›