5 ms·

But what about the compact nuclear reactors startup?

JumpCrisscross 2y ago
> what about the compact nuclear reactors startup? Nuclear energy is the textbook definition of start-ups "that need very high capitalization" with "a focus on developing hard, risky technology."
- SoftTalker 2y ago
  It's not really hard or risky (in the sense that we don't know how to do it -- there is regulatory and political risk though). It just needs a lot of money.
  - janalsncm 2y ago
    By definition creating a new technology is difficult. Most of the startups YC funds are based on small variations to proven technologies. At the point they’ve been funded, you’re not doing fundamental research.
  - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
    > not really hard or risky (in the sense that we don't know how to do it One, regulatory and political risks are real. And two, we don’t know how to do it. Not economically. There is a massive search space and no guarantees that the part you’re shining a light on is where the goods are.
lumost 2y ago
Likely an attempt to break out of the mold. It's possible to adjust YC style incubators to work on harder problems that require more capitalization - but the milestones look different. You wouldn't encourage a nuclear reactor startup to go straight for revenue and commercial deployment with a tiny reactor on 500k. But building a team, research roadmap, and fundable "milestones"? Sure - it's possible the right team could use 500k to get to an initial funding round from a power company, GE, or someone similar.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- keepamovin 2y ago
  I guess this would converge with Peter Thiel’s criticism that we’ve had so much progress in the world of bits, but not in the world of atoms. I suppose what we really need—and don’t have—is an accelerator for companies like SpaceX. In a sense, by making entry to lower orbit affordable, you peel back a lot of the risks that startups would have had to mitigate themselves. In that way, it functions as a kind of accelerator, which is the point. But I think more generally, it’s true what he says: where’s our progress in the world of atoms? We probably need to start accelerators focused specifically on that, not just on “let’s pitch this to the limited partners, get those sweet, quick returns,” and create the next air quotes “unicorn” company. I think you need an institutional-scale endeavor committed to that, like what Y Combinator has, as has been said, “lower-hanging fruit” of progressing bit-based startups!
  - lumost 2y ago
    I spent some time understanding early stage VC back in 2022/2023. My anecdotal experience is that there is a lot of hesitance by most funding sources to go after bigger problems. You tend to get a lot of advice along the way to focus on a tiny problem. Occasionally with advice pointing to a small success which reached 10k/month as a SaaS. Generally, I see limited value in such pitches outside of lifestyle businesses - tech is simply too expensive to build at those Tams. Likely I was to close to the YC ecosystem when I had my exploration - none of the people I talked to would have written a 5 million dollar seed check.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
programjames 2y ago
I've heard they didn't mesh well with the YC culture
- keepamovin 2y ago
  How so? details are good
  - programjames 2y ago
    This was a brief thing I heard from (who I think is) one of the founders of Oklo. It was something along the lines of the YC culture rewarding immediate growth over solving hard, technical problems.
    - keepamovin 2y ago
      OH, cool. Yeah, I guess their motto is: "Build things people want", not "build things people WILL want". Hahaha! Too bad, eh? :) There's probably a gap (with China edging ahead): university research, DARPA / NSF etc, startup accelerators. We should copy China's model (for filling that gap), whatever it is--unless their model is just-"copy us"-hahaha! :)
zaptrem 2y ago
Don't forget about the satellite companies and that one missile company and the one with the orbital drop pods and their entire subbatch of biotech startups (biotech is famously capital intensive).

> what about the compact nuclear reactors startup? Nuclear energy is the textbook definition of start-ups "that need very high capitalization" with "a focus on developing hard, risky technology."

SoftTalker 2y ago
It's not really hard or risky (in the sense that we don't know how to do it -- there is regulatory and political risk though). It just needs a lot of money.
- janalsncm 2y ago
  By definition creating a new technology is difficult. Most of the startups YC funds are based on small variations to proven technologies. At the point they’ve been funded, you’re not doing fundamental research.
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago
  > not really hard or risky (in the sense that we don't know how to do it One, regulatory and political risks are real. And two, we don’t know how to do it. Not economically. There is a massive search space and no guarantees that the part you’re shining a light on is where the goods are.

lumost 2y ago

Likely an attempt to break out of the mold. It's possible to adjust YC style incubators to work on harder problems that require more capitalization - but the milestones look different. You wouldn't encourage a nuclear reactor startup to go straight for revenue and commercial deployment with a tiny reactor on 500k. But building a team, research roadmap, and fundable "milestones"? Sure - it's possible the right team could use 500k to get to an initial funding round from a power company, GE, or someone similar.

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
keepamovin 2y ago
I guess this would converge with Peter Thiel’s criticism that we’ve had so much progress in the world of bits, but not in the world of atoms. I suppose what we really need—and don’t have—is an accelerator for companies like SpaceX. In a sense, by making entry to lower orbit affordable, you peel back a lot of the risks that startups would have had to mitigate themselves. In that way, it functions as a kind of accelerator, which is the point. But I think more generally, it’s true what he says: where’s our progress in the world of atoms? We probably need to start accelerators focused specifically on that, not just on “let’s pitch this to the limited partners, get those sweet, quick returns,” and create the next air quotes “unicorn” company. I think you need an institutional-scale endeavor committed to that, like what Y Combinator has, as has been said, “lower-hanging fruit” of progressing bit-based startups!
- lumost 2y ago
  I spent some time understanding early stage VC back in 2022/2023. My anecdotal experience is that there is a lot of hesitance by most funding sources to go after bigger problems. You tend to get a lot of advice along the way to focus on a tiny problem. Occasionally with advice pointing to a small success which reached 10k/month as a SaaS. Generally, I see limited value in such pitches outside of lifestyle businesses - tech is simply too expensive to build at those Tams. Likely I was to close to the YC ecosystem when I had my exploration - none of the people I talked to would have written a 5 million dollar seed check.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]

programjames 2y ago

I've heard they didn't mesh well with the YC culture

keepamovin 2y ago
How so? details are good
- programjames 2y ago
  This was a brief thing I heard from (who I think is) one of the founders of Oklo. It was something along the lines of the YC culture rewarding immediate growth over solving hard, technical problems.
  - keepamovin 2y ago
    OH, cool. Yeah, I guess their motto is: "Build things people want", not "build things people WILL want". Hahaha! Too bad, eh? :) There's probably a gap (with China edging ahead): university research, DARPA / NSF etc, startup accelerators. We should copy China's model (for filling that gap), whatever it is--unless their model is just-"copy us"-hahaha! :)

zaptrem 2y ago

Don't forget about the satellite companies and that one missile company and the one with the orbital drop pods and their entire subbatch of biotech startups (biotech is famously capital intensive).