this post was submitted on 11 Feb 2025
55 points (98.2% liked)

Asklemmy

44909 readers
1388 users here now

A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions

Search asklemmy ๐Ÿ”

If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!

  1. Open-ended question
  2. Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
  3. Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
  4. Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
  5. An actual topic of discussion

Looking for support?

Looking for a community?

~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[โ€“] absGeekNZ@lemmy.nz 1 points 5 hours ago (1 children)

No where near perfect mass conversion....

Max theoretical mass-energy conversion efficiency is under 1%

[โ€“] teije9@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 points 1 hour ago (1 children)

that's still waaayyyy more efficient than coal

[โ€“] absGeekNZ@lemmy.nz 1 points 30 minutes ago

That is a different level entirely.

The mass-energy conversion from chemical processes is extremely small compared to nuclear processes, you can't really compare the in any meaningful way