6 ms·

Amazon's Jeff Bezos Backs Nuclear Startup General Fusion

103 points by hornokplease 15y ago

MatthewB 15y ago
General Electric...General Fusion...oh, I get it:)
- smhinsey 15y ago
  It's a pretty common prefix. There was General Atomics, General Dynamics, and of course, General Motors. Probably more too.
neutronicus 15y ago
Disappointed, for selfish reasons, to hear that he's sinking money into fusion instead of thorium-based fission. Still cool, though. As a title nitpick, using the N-word to cover both fission and fusion glosses over how utterly different the two things are.
- VladRussian 15y ago
  there is completely different regulatory landscape and thus price to enter the game. Any fission work would involve radioactive elements from the start. Licensing and approval on all the levels from federal to local require investments and political power on the scale well beyond ... An even if you manage to develop and prototype the fission reactor, the deployment is still and even more subject to that approval problems. The nuclear fusion work, as long a it is deuterium based (tritium can be bread during the process) and no dual-purpose equipment is attempted to be bought (like very large power lasers or extremely short-impulse discharge devices) can be conducted in your garage ... well until you start getting real neutron flux (or gamma flux before it if you're going fusor way) - either you and your neighbors get serious health damage/killed or you start installing protection from the flux - that would involve money and questions on why would you need so much of boron concrete :)
  - neutronicus 15y ago
    The fission startups out there (most notably TerraPower) do all of their work in silico, and that's representative of fission reactor design in general. Fission reactors aren't prototyped, they're simulated exhaustively, approved, and then built. You're right, though, that securing the materials for a fusion prototype is less legally fraught.
- hartror 15y ago
  I had the same reaction to the N-word, fusion and fission are a bit too similar for the layman I think.
baggachipz 15y ago
The author's assertion that this project will be impacted by the Japanese disaster shows that she doesn't understand the technology. Fusion != Fission, and in this case there isn't even any radioactive material in the equation. If anything, the Japanese disaster will put more focus on fusion research and development. /facepalm
- cperciva 15y ago
  Fusion != Fission, and in this case there isn't even any radioactive material in the equation Fusion reactors spew neutrons which can create a variety of radioactive isotopes. Most of these are very short-lived, fortunately -- but they do exist, and reactor designs need to take these into account. (Also, some reactor designs use tritium as fuel, which is of course radioactive to begin with.)
  - DennisP 15y ago
    True but the other difference is that fission reactors have to be kept cool. With fusion reactors, the challenge is getting it hot enough. There's never a concern about loss of cooling, meltdown, all that mess. Also of course, several projects are attempting boron fusion, which doesn't produce neutrons other than from a small portion of side reactions.
    - cperciva 15y ago
      Right, I agree that fusion reactors are inherently much safer than fission reactors -- I just wanted to make the point that they're still not completely harmless.
  - hugh3 15y ago
    Related anecdote: I visited the National Ignition Facility [1] last year, where everything was pretty much up and running but they still hadn't finished putting in all the shielding that needs to surround the target chamber before they start actually doing fusion shots. We were assured that if they had done a fusion shot before installing the shielding then everyone in the (extremely large) building would have been dead due to (if I recall correctly) neutron absorption. Side note: the National Ignition Facility is freaking awesome. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Ignition_Facility http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Ignition_Facility
heyrhett 15y ago
I hope he wasn't inspired by "Wall Street II"
jjordan 15y ago
Glad to see someone with a long-term vision. Tapping fusion power will solve the world's energy issues, and that is a good thing.
- wcoenen 15y ago
  Tapping fusion power will solve the world's energy issues, and that is a good thing. Is it though? Exponential growth always has to end in disaster sooner or later. Global energy use in 2008 was estimated at 474 exajoules. At a 8% yearly growth rate in consumption, it would take only 120 years to increase that to 5 million exajoules, thereby producing more waste heat than the energy which the earth receives from the sun. It's likely that we would be in serious trouble long before that. (If the 8% growth rate seems high, I took it from the growth rate in oil consumption before the first oil shock in the 1970s. This seemed like a reasonable model for growth in a world with limitless energy supply.)
  - jeffreymcmanus 15y ago
    It's actually not reasonable; since the 70s there have been significant pushes toward efficiency on a variety of fronts which make pre-1970s energy consumption statistics inapplicable.
    - wcoenen 15y ago
      I know; my point was that this drive for energy efficiency would disappear again in a world with limitless energy supply from fusion.
      - jeffreymcmanus 15y ago
        But nothing's ever "limitless," though -- energy would still cost something (even though it could be 1/100th of what it is today). Transmission and storage of energy would still have costs and that's where the drive for efficiency would come from.
ck2 15y ago
Wait, there is a viable chance at (controlled) fusion within the next decade? That would be massive news, I mean of the century, no?
- Cushman 15y ago
  It would probably be the most significant technological development in human history thus far.
- mortenjorck 15y ago
  Probably not the next decade. I've seen fusion researchers referred to as "the cathedral builders of our time"—their work will take decades, and they might not see success within the span of their careers, or even lifetimes. But yes, controlled, sustained, repeatable fusion reactions could be a black swan on the order of the internal combustion engine for the 21st century.
- sp332 15y ago
  Fusion isn't so hard. What's hard is getting a reaction big enough for "breakeven", which means getting more energy out than you put in. From there, it's even harder to capture that energy in a useable form and then use that energy to continue the reaction. So, fusion isn't so hard. Useful fusion is hard.
Apocryphon 15y ago
What's with that photo? The shaven head, leather armchair, and expression, juxtaposed with the story about nuclear reactors, make it look like he's channeling a supervillain. Paging Hank Scorpio.
jacques_chester 15y ago
Here's the triad which must seem attractive to billionaires: High Risk -- High Capital Cost -- High Impact. By risk I refer to financial risk. By impact I refer to the changes the new thing would wreak and the concomitant profits that would follow. Fusion fits the bill nicely. With a few billion bucks I reckon I would happily sling a million here and there for a low probability of obtaining still further billions.
Element_ 15y ago
I submitted an old article about these guys last year: http://www.popsci.com/scitech/article/2008-12/machine-might-save-world http://www.popsci.com/scitech/article/2008-12/machine-might-... the article includes a video of their proposed design and an interview.
andrerobot 15y ago
Is the name Elastic Fusion Power appropriate?
troymc 15y ago
General Fusion is taking a different approach to fusion than anything previous. Their website has a great summary: http://www.generalfusion.com/ http://www.generalfusion.com/ If they (General Fusion) can make their idea work... wow. Kudos to Bezos and the other investors for backing them. Also did you notice the author chose to use a Bezos photo taken by Steve Jurveston (Managing Director of Draper Fisher Jurvetson)? It's a small world indeed!
known 15y ago
http://www.hyperionpowergeneration.com/product.html http://www.hyperionpowergeneration.com/product.html also sounds interesting
kristianp 15y ago
Pity he isn't investing in Emc2, the maker of the Polywell. http://www.emc2fusion.org/ http://www.emc2fusion.org/

103 points by hornokplease 15y ago

MatthewB 15y ago

General Electric...General Fusion...oh, I get it:)

smhinsey 15y ago
It's a pretty common prefix. There was General Atomics, General Dynamics, and of course, General Motors. Probably more too.

neutronicus 15y ago

Disappointed, for selfish reasons, to hear that he's sinking money into fusion instead of thorium-based fission. Still cool, though. As a title nitpick, using the N-word to cover both fission and fusion glosses over how utterly different the two things are.

VladRussian 15y ago
there is completely different regulatory landscape and thus price to enter the game. Any fission work would involve radioactive elements from the start. Licensing and approval on all the levels from federal to local require investments and political power on the scale well beyond ... An even if you manage to develop and prototype the fission reactor, the deployment is still and even more subject to that approval problems. The nuclear fusion work, as long a it is deuterium based (tritium can be bread during the process) and no dual-purpose equipment is attempted to be bought (like very large power lasers or extremely short-impulse discharge devices) can be conducted in your garage ... well until you start getting real neutron flux (or gamma flux before it if you're going fusor way) - either you and your neighbors get serious health damage/killed or you start installing protection from the flux - that would involve money and questions on why would you need so much of boron concrete :)
- neutronicus 15y ago
  The fission startups out there (most notably TerraPower) do all of their work in silico, and that's representative of fission reactor design in general. Fission reactors aren't prototyped, they're simulated exhaustively, approved, and then built. You're right, though, that securing the materials for a fusion prototype is less legally fraught.
hartror 15y ago
I had the same reaction to the N-word, fusion and fission are a bit too similar for the layman I think.

baggachipz 15y ago

The author's assertion that this project will be impacted by the Japanese disaster shows that she doesn't understand the technology. Fusion != Fission, and in this case there isn't even any radioactive material in the equation. If anything, the Japanese disaster will put more focus on fusion research and development. /facepalm

cperciva 15y ago
Fusion != Fission, and in this case there isn't even any radioactive material in the equation Fusion reactors spew neutrons which can create a variety of radioactive isotopes. Most of these are very short-lived, fortunately -- but they do exist, and reactor designs need to take these into account. (Also, some reactor designs use tritium as fuel, which is of course radioactive to begin with.)
- DennisP 15y ago
  True but the other difference is that fission reactors have to be kept cool. With fusion reactors, the challenge is getting it hot enough. There's never a concern about loss of cooling, meltdown, all that mess. Also of course, several projects are attempting boron fusion, which doesn't produce neutrons other than from a small portion of side reactions.
  - cperciva 15y ago
    Right, I agree that fusion reactors are inherently much safer than fission reactors -- I just wanted to make the point that they're still not completely harmless.
- hugh3 15y ago
  Related anecdote: I visited the National Ignition Facility [1] last year, where everything was pretty much up and running but they still hadn't finished putting in all the shielding that needs to surround the target chamber before they start actually doing fusion shots. We were assured that if they had done a fusion shot before installing the shielding then everyone in the (extremely large) building would have been dead due to (if I recall correctly) neutron absorption. Side note: the National Ignition Facility is freaking awesome. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Ignition_Facility http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Ignition_Facility

heyrhett 15y ago

I hope he wasn't inspired by "Wall Street II"

jjordan 15y ago

Glad to see someone with a long-term vision. Tapping fusion power will solve the world's energy issues, and that is a good thing.

wcoenen 15y ago
Tapping fusion power will solve the world's energy issues, and that is a good thing. Is it though? Exponential growth always has to end in disaster sooner or later. Global energy use in 2008 was estimated at 474 exajoules. At a 8% yearly growth rate in consumption, it would take only 120 years to increase that to 5 million exajoules, thereby producing more waste heat than the energy which the earth receives from the sun. It's likely that we would be in serious trouble long before that. (If the 8% growth rate seems high, I took it from the growth rate in oil consumption before the first oil shock in the 1970s. This seemed like a reasonable model for growth in a world with limitless energy supply.)
- jeffreymcmanus 15y ago
  It's actually not reasonable; since the 70s there have been significant pushes toward efficiency on a variety of fronts which make pre-1970s energy consumption statistics inapplicable.
  - wcoenen 15y ago
    I know; my point was that this drive for energy efficiency would disappear again in a world with limitless energy supply from fusion.
    - jeffreymcmanus 15y ago
      But nothing's ever "limitless," though -- energy would still cost something (even though it could be 1/100th of what it is today). Transmission and storage of energy would still have costs and that's where the drive for efficiency would come from.

ck2 15y ago

Wait, there is a viable chance at (controlled) fusion within the next decade? That would be massive news, I mean of the century, no?

Cushman 15y ago
It would probably be the most significant technological development in human history thus far.
mortenjorck 15y ago
Probably not the next decade. I've seen fusion researchers referred to as "the cathedral builders of our time"—their work will take decades, and they might not see success within the span of their careers, or even lifetimes. But yes, controlled, sustained, repeatable fusion reactions could be a black swan on the order of the internal combustion engine for the 21st century.
sp332 15y ago
Fusion isn't so hard. What's hard is getting a reaction big enough for "breakeven", which means getting more energy out than you put in. From there, it's even harder to capture that energy in a useable form and then use that energy to continue the reaction. So, fusion isn't so hard. Useful fusion is hard.

Apocryphon 15y ago

What's with that photo? The shaven head, leather armchair, and expression, juxtaposed with the story about nuclear reactors, make it look like he's channeling a supervillain. Paging Hank Scorpio.

jacques_chester 15y ago

Here's the triad which must seem attractive to billionaires: High Risk -- High Capital Cost -- High Impact. By risk I refer to financial risk. By impact I refer to the changes the new thing would wreak and the concomitant profits that would follow. Fusion fits the bill nicely. With a few billion bucks I reckon I would happily sling a million here and there for a low probability of obtaining still further billions.

Element_ 15y ago

I submitted an old article about these guys last year: http://www.popsci.com/scitech/article/2008-12/machine-might-save-world http://www.popsci.com/scitech/article/2008-12/machine-might-... the article includes a video of their proposed design and an interview.

andrerobot 15y ago

Is the name Elastic Fusion Power appropriate?

troymc 15y ago

General Fusion is taking a different approach to fusion than anything previous. Their website has a great summary: http://www.generalfusion.com/ http://www.generalfusion.com/ If they (General Fusion) can make their idea work... wow. Kudos to Bezos and the other investors for backing them. Also did you notice the author chose to use a Bezos photo taken by Steve Jurveston (Managing Director of Draper Fisher Jurvetson)? It's a small world indeed!

known 15y ago

http://www.hyperionpowergeneration.com/product.html http://www.hyperionpowergeneration.com/product.html also sounds interesting

kristianp 15y ago

Pity he isn't investing in Emc2, the maker of the Polywell. http://www.emc2fusion.org/ http://www.emc2fusion.org/