From the paper:

>Using neutronics simulations, we demonstrate a tokamak with a blanket configuration that can produce 197Au at a rate of about 2 t/GWth/yr.

The first link on their site is alchemy.pdf behind announced a solution. Maybe read that? (40 pages) Or not, because here is the abstract ;)

Abstract A scalable approach for chrysopoeia—the transmutation of base metals into gold—has been pursued for millennia. While there have been small-scale demon- strations in particle accelerators and proposals involving thermal neutron capture, no economically attractive approach has yet been identified. We show a new scalable method to synthesize stable gold (197Au) from the abundant mer- cury isotope 198Hg using (n, 2n) reactions in a specialized neutron multiplier layer of a fusion blanket. Reactions are driven by fast 14 MeV neutrons provided by a deuterium-tritium fusion plasma, which are uniquely capable of enabling the desired reaction pathway at scale. Crucially, the scheme identified here does not negatively impact electricity production, and is also compatible with the challenging tritium breeding requirements of fusion power plant design because (n, 2n) reactions of 198Hg drive both transmutation and neutron multiplication. Using neutronics simulations, we demonstrate a tokamak with a blanket configu- ration that can produce 197Au at a rate of about 2 t/GWth/yr. Implementation of this concept allows fusion power plants to double the revenue generated by the system, dramatically enhancing the economic viability of fusion energy.

That seems like so little time it’s just a slight detail to iron out.

I also doubt it would be worth much less. I suspect most gold physically sits idle for longer periods of time while changing ownership often.

17 years to banana is basically free money.

Well for gold that will be placed in some vault dig deep into the ground that doesn't seem too bad trade off..

It reminded me of avocado trees. They take a couple of years to produce avocados and still people plant those.

>In practice, given that much of all gold is used to store value and is not actively in use, we do not expect the need to store it for 7–17 years to be a major impediment; at worst, it means that the product will initially have somewhat less value than pure 197Au, and so some discount should be applied to the value of freshly produced gold.

Imagine a whiskey manufacturer saying "this is impossible because we'll have to age it for 13 years" lel

This is not a problem for finance bros, they would sell a discounted note that gave you "ownership" of the gold in 17 years at some discount on the current spot price of gold. So you'd get these things that 'mature' in 17 years and you know their going to be worth whatever the spot price of gold is then, so it becomes a simple problem of pricing the risk that gold will be worth something in 17 years (people by gold futures all the time which this basically is).

That thought fails altogether since it will do perfectly well sitting in a vault as a reserve for a 1:1 gold backed crypto coin. Of course this holds true only until its value collapses due to its lack of scarcity.

"Didn't" is not the same as "couldn't". Priorities change, and completing a PhD is a massive time commitment.

As a former PhD candidate, yes that.

Honestly in my case I discovered I like being paid actual money and despise academic politics. Got a job offer so I phoned in sick on a catch up with my adviser and never went back. No one even checked on me for 6 weeks (!)

Given he left Princeton early and is now supposedly synthesizing gold merely two years later, the narrative seems in his favor.

Well, he did pass his qualifiers so I guess that means something.

During my research internship, I met many PhD students whose labs simply ran out of funding. In some cases, they'd ended up having to scrap their PhD as the topic was too specialist to do anywhere else (e.g. requires a high level of biocontainment) and nobody wanted to fund it.

I think if you got three years into a PhD and were faced with the prospect of starting it all over again in another lab, it wouldn't take much to convince you to throw in the towel and do something else instead.

Silver would be obly slightly more difficult to synthesize. Rhodium and iridium would be a lot more difficult.

The gold is a byproduct of generating the electricity. You still get to sell the electricity too.

15 cents per kWh is much more expensive than what you buy electricity for around the world. Also, they can time their usage for when the electricity is free or very cheap

This is such a fun topic to think about, it's nearly science-fiction. The problem with fusion plants is that they don't exist except as small experimental reactors. I think this could be retrofitted to existing fission plants, pumping mercury 198 gas around the outside of the core (in heat-resistant pipes of course). Still an expensive proposition as you'd want to certify that it's not going to affect the safety and reaction rates of the reactor.

Another thought is that gold is a useful product, so anything that reduces the price of gold is good for the industries that use it. Are there other rare elements that are more useful, though?

That's even better! We can turn gold into mercury-198 and sell that. Gold is dirt cheap at $0.11 per mg. We're rich!

There are 7 stable isotopes of mercury, and mercury-198 makes up ~10% of naturally occurring mercury. The paper covers a lot of ground here, see section 5.2.2 "Mercury Isotope Separation", where they are shooting for $2.4/kg.

It's the second lightest natural isotope of mercury, comprising about 10% of natural mercury:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isotopes_of_mercury

Since mercury forms vapor so easily, it should be easily enriched in gas centrifuges like uranium (more easily, actually, since the starting isotopic abundance is higher and the chemistry is simpler). The high price of purified mercury-198 at present is probably due to it being a scientific curiosity with no industrial demand.

It's 10% of natural mercury. you're looking into separating it cheaply instead, or at least hope the other naturally occuring isotopes don't cause too many problems.

"I knew mercury was involved. Just knew it!"

https://www.chemistryworld.com/news/newtons-recipe-for-alche...

> I like my skin not blue

Isn't that problem just with silver, not gold?

> (note: I have no intention of using gold for beverage containers... I like my skin not blue)

I thought gold was biologically inert. Any chance you’re thinking of argyria, which is caused by exposure to elemental silver?

Your source [1] is claiming 10.04% +/-0.003% for Mercury-198 abundance.

I think you read that table a little quickly. Mercury-198 is 10% of natural mercury.

According to the paper, you need neutrons of at least 9 MeV to drive the transmutation. Fission reactions don't generate neutrons with energies that high. A proton accelerator can generate high energy neutrons by spallation, but in smaller numbers. It wouldn't be economically viable to do this with accelerator generated neutrons.

The paper shows that neutrons from deuterium-tritium fusion are energetic enough (14.1 MeV) to drive the transmutation reaction, and they're a natural byproduct of a D-T fusion reactor, and adding this extra gold generating step shouldn't compromise the ordinary fuel breeding and power generating operations of a commercial fusion reactor.

So now all they need is a commercial fusion reactor. I say that with tongue firmly in cheek, but also impressed that working fusion reactors (if they ever arrive) can also upend the current gold market.

Rhodium and iridium can become very valuable, more than they are now, if they're relatively impractical to produce cheaply using fusion.