4 ms·

> and we believe we’ll witness Q > 1 within a few (say 3) years. That’s huge. I think it fits squarely in the "requires extraordinary evidence" bucket - what m

> and we believe we’ll witness Q > 1 within a few (say 3) years. That’s huge. I think it fits squarely in the "requires extraordinary evidence" bucket - what makes you so bold ? Also, what's you intermediate plans between : 2025 -> Post on HN 2028 -> Q>1 achieved (by you ? by someone else ?) ???? -> ???? 20xx -> a ship goes to sea powered by a fusion reactor ???? -> ???? 2060 -> fusion is so easy, let's use it for baseload Sorry if I sound stark, but I'm already burnt out and fed up with the "breakthroughs" on batteries that never materialize - I have a very low tolerance threshold for startups promising fusion for next week ;) If you're on to something, more power to you - we need that yesterday.

isatty 2y ago
The HN battery checklist needs to be reworked for fusion power. Arguably, even though people think it’s trolling to use the checklist, I’ve found it surprisingly educational each time.
- quchen 2y ago
  Sounds interesting, could you post that checklist?
  - kaycebasques 2y ago
    https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28025969 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28025969
    - dang 2y ago
      Ah interesting! https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&query=%22lacks%20thermal%20stability%20at%20low%20or%20high%20temperatures%22%20&sort=byDate&type=comment https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...
  - d_silin 2y ago
    This one I presume: ---------------------------------------------------------------- Dear battery technology claimant, Thank you for your submission of proposed new revolutionary battery technology. Your new technology claims to be superior to existing lithium-ion technology and is just around the corner from taking over the world. Unfortunately your technology will likely fail, because: [ ] it is impractical to manufacture at scale. [ ] it will be too expensive for users. [ ] it suffers from too few recharge cycles. [ ] it is incapable of delivering current at sufficient levels. [ ] it lacks thermal stability at low or high temperatures. [ ] it lacks the energy density to make it sufficiently portable. [ ] it has too short of a lifetime. [ ] its charge rate is too slow. [ ] its materials are too toxic. [ ] it is too likely to catch fire or explode. [ ] it is too minimal of a step forward for anybody to care. [ ] this was already done 20 years ago and didn't work then. [ ] by this time it ships li-ion advances will match it. [ ] your claims are lies
    - red-iron-pine 2y ago
      flashbacks to slashdot
    - nailer 2y ago
      > Your new technology claims to be superior to existing lithium-ion technology and is just around the corner from taking over the world. As a corroboration, current hotness in cell phones is existing lithium ion tech with new silicon-carbon anodes.
  - d_silin 2y ago
    And one for fusion ---------------------------------- Dear Nuclear Fusion Power Claimant Thank you for your submission of proposed new revolutionary nuclear fusion power technology. Your new technology claims to solve humanity's energy problems, produce unlimited clean energy, and is just months away from commercialization. Unfortunately, your technology will likely fail, because: [ ] it requires materials that cannot be produced at any scale. [ ] its energy gain (Q factor) is still substantially less than 1. [ ] its plasma instabilities modes are completely unknown. [ ] its plasma modeling behavior relies exclusively on numerical simulations. [ ] it cannot sustain required plasma confinement criteria [ ] it cannot handle the neutron flux without rapid degradation of components. [ ] it requires magnetic fields stronger than currently achievable [ ] it consumes more energy in cooling systems than it produces. [ ] your claimed breakthrough violates fundamental physics. [ ] the same approach was tried in the 1960s, 1970s, 1980s, 1990s and abandoned each time for good reason [ ] by the time it ships, renewable energy plus storage will be far cheaper. [ ] your timeline has been "5 years away" for the past 50 years. [ ] your claims are lies. Sincerely, The Energy Research Community
dust42 2y ago
Also, what's you intermediate plans between : 2025 -> Post on HN 2028 -> Q>1 achieved (by you ? by someone else ?) CFS plans Q>1 for 2027 with a tokamak design. If they succeed then there will be plenty of VC for similar designs. I'd place my bets that CFS succeeds with Q>1. And I think the real problem will be the energy flux and neutron handling and thus much more a material sciences problem than a plasma physics problem. Thus the idea to look for a niche that has lower power needs is a very clever one. My bet would be rather on Maritime Fusion than Helion. But nevertheless, CFS will be likely first at Q>1 however there is always space for another competitor.
- jtcohen 2y ago
  Exactly this !!
- beambot 2y ago
  Let's also be really explicit... CFS is targeting Q>1 by 2027 for nuclear fusion via the SPARC reactor, but not Q>1 for electrical generation. The latter is slated for sometime in the early 2030s via the subsequent ARC reactor. All of this is driven by HTS. Fusion reactors (generically) scale to the inverse^4 of magnetic field strength. HTS doubled the achievable magnetic field strength of electromagnets, which means that ITER-like performance can be achieved in university-scale reactors at comercially-viable, lower costs. Dr. Dennis Whyte (MIT Nuclear Eng Prof) gave a great seminar at Berkeley that covered some technical nuances. It's mandatory watching if you want to geek out and understand the fusion hype: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rY6U4wB-oYM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rY6U4wB-oYM
  - ClumsyPilot 2y ago
    > that ITER-like performance can be achieved in university-scale reactors at comercially-viable, lower costs Are they going to upgrade it or it’s already obsolete before it was even finished?
    - mikeyouse 2y ago
      “Obsolete” probably isn’t the right word but they’re continuing as usual on ITER.. they’re aiming for 5.5T compared to >9T field strength on ARC. There’s still a ton of science to be learned, so it makes sense to keep pushing ahead but it’s clear any eventual commercial design will use HTS magnets instead of the NbSn ones in ITER.
AtlasBarfed 2y ago
Batteries are steadily improving, at least in the cost factor. We haven't seen any 2x leaps in density from sulfur or solid state or aluminum air. But LFP and Sodium Ion are making undeniable progress in cheap usable EV batteries that don't require nickel or cobalt.
- rgmerk 2y ago
  I'm not sure I'm seeing the relevance here. Incremental advances in battery tech (or even futuristic step-change prospects like lithium-air batteries) won't solve intercontinental shipping.
- phtrivier 2y ago
  > cheap usable EV batteries I know this is going to sound harsh, but I will personnally consider EV batteries "cheap" only when they pass the very scientific "my mom can use the EV exactly like shes uses her car, and she does not notice" test: * on one charge, drive 10-50km daily for 350 days in a year * on one charge, drive 1000km in one go for the holidays * it must be less than 10kE at a local car dealership * it can be plugged in your garage * if you forgot to charge it, you can stop every 10km to recharge in 10m I know: "it's harsh" ! "We should change our car usage" ! "My mom should live differently to accomodate the technology", etc... Go tell that to my mom. Still, that's the goal post I've been having for 20y, and 10y ago people where writing headlines about "breakthroughs" that would make this possible any time now. And it's not. So I'm burnt out, kinda.
  - Earw0rm 2y ago
    If you fix your goalposts for long enough, cohort effects will move around them. I'm not sure how old your mom is, but 1000km drives aren't something most people want to be doing past 75 ish. And newer cohorts adapt their lifestyles and expectations to available technology, whether that's charging time, on-demand rental for the occasionally needed longer distance EVs, and so on. Although I can't help thinking that hybrids are a better fit for this common usage pattern - given a choice between hauling the dead weight of a rarely-used gasoline engine, or the dead weight of the 80% of battery capacity you hardly ever use, the gas engine is cheaper and less demanding of rare metals. It's a shame that weight considerations mean "rent 80% extra range in a removable module for occasional use" isn't a practical option. You could almost have a 10kWh/50km light EV with a gasoline generator or extra battery in a hitch trailer, but the trade-offs don't quite work.

isatty 2y ago

The HN battery checklist needs to be reworked for fusion power. Arguably, even though people think it’s trolling to use the checklist, I’ve found it surprisingly educational each time.

quchen 2y ago
Sounds interesting, could you post that checklist?
- kaycebasques 2y ago
  https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28025969 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28025969
  - dang 2y ago
    Ah interesting! https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&query=%22lacks%20thermal%20stability%20at%20low%20or%20high%20temperatures%22%20&sort=byDate&type=comment https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...
- d_silin 2y ago
  This one I presume: ---------------------------------------------------------------- Dear battery technology claimant, Thank you for your submission of proposed new revolutionary battery technology. Your new technology claims to be superior to existing lithium-ion technology and is just around the corner from taking over the world. Unfortunately your technology will likely fail, because: [ ] it is impractical to manufacture at scale. [ ] it will be too expensive for users. [ ] it suffers from too few recharge cycles. [ ] it is incapable of delivering current at sufficient levels. [ ] it lacks thermal stability at low or high temperatures. [ ] it lacks the energy density to make it sufficiently portable. [ ] it has too short of a lifetime. [ ] its charge rate is too slow. [ ] its materials are too toxic. [ ] it is too likely to catch fire or explode. [ ] it is too minimal of a step forward for anybody to care. [ ] this was already done 20 years ago and didn't work then. [ ] by this time it ships li-ion advances will match it. [ ] your claims are lies
  - red-iron-pine 2y ago
    flashbacks to slashdot
  - nailer 2y ago
    > Your new technology claims to be superior to existing lithium-ion technology and is just around the corner from taking over the world. As a corroboration, current hotness in cell phones is existing lithium ion tech with new silicon-carbon anodes.
- d_silin 2y ago
  And one for fusion ---------------------------------- Dear Nuclear Fusion Power Claimant Thank you for your submission of proposed new revolutionary nuclear fusion power technology. Your new technology claims to solve humanity's energy problems, produce unlimited clean energy, and is just months away from commercialization. Unfortunately, your technology will likely fail, because: [ ] it requires materials that cannot be produced at any scale. [ ] its energy gain (Q factor) is still substantially less than 1. [ ] its plasma instabilities modes are completely unknown. [ ] its plasma modeling behavior relies exclusively on numerical simulations. [ ] it cannot sustain required plasma confinement criteria [ ] it cannot handle the neutron flux without rapid degradation of components. [ ] it requires magnetic fields stronger than currently achievable [ ] it consumes more energy in cooling systems than it produces. [ ] your claimed breakthrough violates fundamental physics. [ ] the same approach was tried in the 1960s, 1970s, 1980s, 1990s and abandoned each time for good reason [ ] by the time it ships, renewable energy plus storage will be far cheaper. [ ] your timeline has been "5 years away" for the past 50 years. [ ] your claims are lies. Sincerely, The Energy Research Community

dust42 2y ago

Also, what's you intermediate plans between : 2025 -> Post on HN 2028 -> Q>1 achieved (by you ? by someone else ?) CFS plans Q>1 for 2027 with a tokamak design. If they succeed then there will be plenty of VC for similar designs. I'd place my bets that CFS succeeds with Q>1. And I think the real problem will be the energy flux and neutron handling and thus much more a material sciences problem than a plasma physics problem. Thus the idea to look for a niche that has lower power needs is a very clever one. My bet would be rather on Maritime Fusion than Helion. But nevertheless, CFS will be likely first at Q>1 however there is always space for another competitor.

jtcohen 2y ago
Exactly this !!
beambot 2y ago
Let's also be really explicit... CFS is targeting Q>1 by 2027 for nuclear fusion via the SPARC reactor, but not Q>1 for electrical generation. The latter is slated for sometime in the early 2030s via the subsequent ARC reactor. All of this is driven by HTS. Fusion reactors (generically) scale to the inverse^4 of magnetic field strength. HTS doubled the achievable magnetic field strength of electromagnets, which means that ITER-like performance can be achieved in university-scale reactors at comercially-viable, lower costs. Dr. Dennis Whyte (MIT Nuclear Eng Prof) gave a great seminar at Berkeley that covered some technical nuances. It's mandatory watching if you want to geek out and understand the fusion hype: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rY6U4wB-oYM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rY6U4wB-oYM
- ClumsyPilot 2y ago
  > that ITER-like performance can be achieved in university-scale reactors at comercially-viable, lower costs Are they going to upgrade it or it’s already obsolete before it was even finished?
  - mikeyouse 2y ago
    “Obsolete” probably isn’t the right word but they’re continuing as usual on ITER.. they’re aiming for 5.5T compared to >9T field strength on ARC. There’s still a ton of science to be learned, so it makes sense to keep pushing ahead but it’s clear any eventual commercial design will use HTS magnets instead of the NbSn ones in ITER.

AtlasBarfed 2y ago

Batteries are steadily improving, at least in the cost factor. We haven't seen any 2x leaps in density from sulfur or solid state or aluminum air. But LFP and Sodium Ion are making undeniable progress in cheap usable EV batteries that don't require nickel or cobalt.

rgmerk 2y ago
I'm not sure I'm seeing the relevance here. Incremental advances in battery tech (or even futuristic step-change prospects like lithium-air batteries) won't solve intercontinental shipping.
phtrivier 2y ago
> cheap usable EV batteries I know this is going to sound harsh, but I will personnally consider EV batteries "cheap" only when they pass the very scientific "my mom can use the EV exactly like shes uses her car, and she does not notice" test: * on one charge, drive 10-50km daily for 350 days in a year * on one charge, drive 1000km in one go for the holidays * it must be less than 10kE at a local car dealership * it can be plugged in your garage * if you forgot to charge it, you can stop every 10km to recharge in 10m I know: "it's harsh" ! "We should change our car usage" ! "My mom should live differently to accomodate the technology", etc... Go tell that to my mom. Still, that's the goal post I've been having for 20y, and 10y ago people where writing headlines about "breakthroughs" that would make this possible any time now. And it's not. So I'm burnt out, kinda.
- Earw0rm 2y ago
  If you fix your goalposts for long enough, cohort effects will move around them. I'm not sure how old your mom is, but 1000km drives aren't something most people want to be doing past 75 ish. And newer cohorts adapt their lifestyles and expectations to available technology, whether that's charging time, on-demand rental for the occasionally needed longer distance EVs, and so on. Although I can't help thinking that hybrids are a better fit for this common usage pattern - given a choice between hauling the dead weight of a rarely-used gasoline engine, or the dead weight of the 80% of battery capacity you hardly ever use, the gas engine is cheaper and less demanding of rare metals. It's a shame that weight considerations mean "rent 80% extra range in a removable module for occasional use" isn't a practical option. You could almost have a 10kWh/50km light EV with a gasoline generator or extra battery in a hitch trailer, but the trade-offs don't quite work.