5 ms·

Greybeard former fusion founder here. Wishing you guys all the luck in the world! Email in profile in case you wish to chat. For all the naysayers, as a fusi

Greybeard former fusion founder here. Wishing you guys all the luck in the world! Email in profile in case you wish to chat. For all the naysayers, as a fusion startup, targeting the marine market is a good move. They aren't even the first fusion startup to do so; IIRC Rostoker's group got their first major funding from the NRL. The marine market pays a premium for not having to refuel, and historically emerging energy technologies have early commercialization in ships. This was true for fission in the 50s and for photovoltaic solar in the 70s/80s. Now, sure, they have to make power to be able to sell it. But to build a reactor, you have to raise funds, and in order to raise funds you have to show that you can make money if you are successful at making power. Explicitly aiming at a market that might actually pay for overpriced power shows their investors that there may be a valid business case. That doesn't make fusion happen any easier, but you don't make any reactions without first building a reactor. You know, I'm sure these guys could work somewhere getting paid to get more people to click on stuff. Instead they are taking a risk to do something that might be important. Make no mistake: fusion founder is a tough gig. There is no established off-ramp, and many fusion founders find that it's a job that can easily eat your career. I hope their plan B is in order, as well as their prenups and/or wills. They are going off to fight a dragon that's eaten a lot of other people's careers, relationships and sanity. As an aside, it's nice to see someone working on a tokamak actually not being overly optimistic about wall heat flux. It's like somebody actually paid attention to Stacey or something ;)

DrNosferatu 2y ago
No naysayer here, just curious: - What does this bring to the table beyond marine fission power? - Why do they think they can make it cheaper than military fission marine power?
- nradov 2y ago
  There is at least the possibility that fusion power could eventually be viable for privately owned civilian merchant ships. Fission power is a non-starter in that market due to concerns (valid or not) over security, terrorism, proliferation, and meltdowns. Even if someone builds a new fission powered merchant ship it would be useless because many nations wouldn't allow it to enter their ports. Military fission power plants were never optimized for cost. They have always been hand built in tiny numbers with a focus on safety, durability, and maximal output.
  - pclmulqdq 2y ago
    Aren't the products of fusion equally radioactive? I get that we all have the idea of helium being the main product, but don't you get a lot of tritium out of the process? It's not quite proliferation, but it's not non-radioactive either.
    - arrobbiato 2y ago
      My understanding is that the tritium is bred in the reactor and then consumed in the reaction. But most designs do have some amount of radioactive waste, including structural parts and reactor walls that suffer huge amounts of neutron activation.
    - rnhmjoj 2y ago
      Yes, tritium is radioactive but it has to be recycled and reused to continuously fuel the reactor. Every part of a fusion reactor is designed to minimise the retention of tritium, the actual radioactive waste will be materials activated by neutron radiation (neutrons are captured by nuclei, transmute the element into a radioactive one which then decays to a stable isotope emitting more radiation). A small fusion reactor, being a powerful neutron source, will be a great risk for proliferation. It should be able to breed plutonium for nuclear weapons as much as it can breed tritium.
      - sandworm101 2y ago
        Which is why in "fusion" bombs the majority of energy still comes from fission. The fusion reaction is a neutron source to boost the efficiency of the fission reaction. A pure fusion bomb, if one could ever trigger such a thing without fission, would not be very efficient.
        coldburst 2y ago
        For "boosted fission" and early thermonuclear bomb designs yes, but not so for the more evolved thermonuclear designs. Navajo (Operation Redwing, 1956) was 95% fusion, Tsar bomba (1961) was 97% fusion, Housatonic (Operation Dominic, 1962) was 99.9% fusion.
- moffkalast 2y ago
  Their plain hinges on having net positive fusion in the first place, something that still remains a fantasy even in the largest reactors on land. I think those questions already take so much good faith that you couldn't possibly be a naysayer.
jtcohen 2y ago
Thank you very much !!! Really appreciate this :)
nocoiner 2y ago
Can you elaborate on the use of photovoltaics in shipping? After a few searches, I haven’t been able to find anything that suggests the marine industry was an important sector for its development. Also, I feel extremely confident predicting that the commercial maritime industry will never ever pay a premium for a particular fuel source. There may eventually be some applications where fusion is most efficient, but fusion reactors aren’t going to make their debut in cargo ships.
- defrost 2y ago
  I suspect they're referring to the use of PV cells in lighthouses, Light-Buoys, Wireless Relay Stations, LORAN (pre GPS marine navigation) stations, etc. Economics at the time restricted their limited use to mountainous areas, deserts, isolated areas, remote island outcrops, etc. I saw PV use in the 1970s in remote Austalian rail operations to power signal boxes and repeaters .. the higher costs offset the equally high costs of maintaining a fueled generator in a remote location. Marine shipping wasn't, to the best of my recollection, directly using PV's shipboard as they already had massive engines driving propulsion and it was trivial to bled off a little torque for a electrical generator.
- nradov 2y ago
  Sailboat owners were early adopters of photovoltaics in order to avoid having to run generators. Some newer merchant ships have installed photovoltaics to supply part of the hotel load and maybe save a tiny amount of fuel, but that's a newer development and probably more of a "greenwashing" thing.
- defrost 2y ago
  Addendum: I should have addressed this in my peer comment, from the Launch HN header above Why ships? They don’t have great alternatives—the shipping industry is desperate to decarbonize. Hydrogen and ammonia are being explored, but come with serious downsides: low energy density, flammability, leaks, and massive infrastructure challenges. Is a bit odd from my PoV as it skipped over methanol .. the "green" fuel of choice in shipping today, with supply contracts already inked and signed, ships built, and more in pipeline. DNV GL welcomes Lindanger to fleet – world’s first methanol fuelled ocean-going vessel (2016) “We are very pleased to see the completion and launch of this exciting and innovative newbuilding,” says Knut Ørbeck-Nilssen, CEO at DNV GL – Maritime. “This is the first time a dual-fuel engine with a Low Flashpoint Liquid (LFL) fuel system has been installed on an ocean-going vessel and it is a testament to the excellent cooperation between all the project partners that we have been able to complete this unique project and gain flag state approval. Methanol as a marine fuel is a very promising option to enable owners to reduce the environmental impact of their vessels and to comply with low sulphur and ECA regulations and we look forward to working on many more projects using this innovative marine fuel and technology.” ~ https://www.dnv.com/news/dnv-gl-welcomes-lindanger-to-fleet-world-s-first-methanol-fuelled-ocean-going-vessel-63157/ https://www.dnv.com/news/dnv-gl-welcomes-lindanger-to-fleet-... Methanol as fuel heads for the mainstream in shipping (2023) - https://www.dnv.com/expert-story/maritime-impact/Methanol-as-fuel-heads-for-the-mainstream-in-shipping/ https://www.dnv.com/expert-story/maritime-impact/Methanol-as... Also - https://www.methanol.org/marine-fuel/ https://www.methanol.org/marine-fuel/ and https://www.methanex.com/about-methanol/marine-fuel/ https://www.methanex.com/about-methanol/marine-fuel/
mrweasel 2y ago
> I'm sure these guys could work somewhere getting paid to get more people to click on stuff. That, right there, that is what makes me go: You know what, go for it. Best of luck, go make something, go try something. You're absolutely right. So much talent is wasted on getting people to click an ad, stay on a page just a few minutes longer, watch the next video. So much time, so much money thrown into the dumpster fire of social media, ad tech and stupid "but as-a-service" solutions. It's better for everyone if the funds are directed towards something that might actually make the world a better place.
- justsid 2y ago
  Not just that, but fusion will never happen if no one tries their hands on it because everyone says it can’t be done.

DrNosferatu 2y ago

No naysayer here, just curious: - What does this bring to the table beyond marine fission power? - Why do they think they can make it cheaper than military fission marine power?

nradov 2y ago
There is at least the possibility that fusion power could eventually be viable for privately owned civilian merchant ships. Fission power is a non-starter in that market due to concerns (valid or not) over security, terrorism, proliferation, and meltdowns. Even if someone builds a new fission powered merchant ship it would be useless because many nations wouldn't allow it to enter their ports. Military fission power plants were never optimized for cost. They have always been hand built in tiny numbers with a focus on safety, durability, and maximal output.
- pclmulqdq 2y ago
  Aren't the products of fusion equally radioactive? I get that we all have the idea of helium being the main product, but don't you get a lot of tritium out of the process? It's not quite proliferation, but it's not non-radioactive either.
  - arrobbiato 2y ago
    My understanding is that the tritium is bred in the reactor and then consumed in the reaction. But most designs do have some amount of radioactive waste, including structural parts and reactor walls that suffer huge amounts of neutron activation.
  - rnhmjoj 2y ago
    Yes, tritium is radioactive but it has to be recycled and reused to continuously fuel the reactor. Every part of a fusion reactor is designed to minimise the retention of tritium, the actual radioactive waste will be materials activated by neutron radiation (neutrons are captured by nuclei, transmute the element into a radioactive one which then decays to a stable isotope emitting more radiation). A small fusion reactor, being a powerful neutron source, will be a great risk for proliferation. It should be able to breed plutonium for nuclear weapons as much as it can breed tritium.
    - sandworm101 2y ago
      Which is why in "fusion" bombs the majority of energy still comes from fission. The fusion reaction is a neutron source to boost the efficiency of the fission reaction. A pure fusion bomb, if one could ever trigger such a thing without fission, would not be very efficient.
      - coldburst 2y ago
        For "boosted fission" and early thermonuclear bomb designs yes, but not so for the more evolved thermonuclear designs. Navajo (Operation Redwing, 1956) was 95% fusion, Tsar bomba (1961) was 97% fusion, Housatonic (Operation Dominic, 1962) was 99.9% fusion.
moffkalast 2y ago
Their plain hinges on having net positive fusion in the first place, something that still remains a fantasy even in the largest reactors on land. I think those questions already take so much good faith that you couldn't possibly be a naysayer.

jtcohen 2y ago

Thank you very much !!! Really appreciate this :)

nocoiner 2y ago

Can you elaborate on the use of photovoltaics in shipping? After a few searches, I haven’t been able to find anything that suggests the marine industry was an important sector for its development. Also, I feel extremely confident predicting that the commercial maritime industry will never ever pay a premium for a particular fuel source. There may eventually be some applications where fusion is most efficient, but fusion reactors aren’t going to make their debut in cargo ships.

defrost 2y ago
I suspect they're referring to the use of PV cells in lighthouses, Light-Buoys, Wireless Relay Stations, LORAN (pre GPS marine navigation) stations, etc. Economics at the time restricted their limited use to mountainous areas, deserts, isolated areas, remote island outcrops, etc. I saw PV use in the 1970s in remote Austalian rail operations to power signal boxes and repeaters .. the higher costs offset the equally high costs of maintaining a fueled generator in a remote location. Marine shipping wasn't, to the best of my recollection, directly using PV's shipboard as they already had massive engines driving propulsion and it was trivial to bled off a little torque for a electrical generator.
nradov 2y ago
Sailboat owners were early adopters of photovoltaics in order to avoid having to run generators. Some newer merchant ships have installed photovoltaics to supply part of the hotel load and maybe save a tiny amount of fuel, but that's a newer development and probably more of a "greenwashing" thing.
defrost 2y ago
Addendum: I should have addressed this in my peer comment, from the Launch HN header above Why ships? They don’t have great alternatives—the shipping industry is desperate to decarbonize. Hydrogen and ammonia are being explored, but come with serious downsides: low energy density, flammability, leaks, and massive infrastructure challenges. Is a bit odd from my PoV as it skipped over methanol .. the "green" fuel of choice in shipping today, with supply contracts already inked and signed, ships built, and more in pipeline. DNV GL welcomes Lindanger to fleet – world’s first methanol fuelled ocean-going vessel (2016) “We are very pleased to see the completion and launch of this exciting and innovative newbuilding,” says Knut Ørbeck-Nilssen, CEO at DNV GL – Maritime. “This is the first time a dual-fuel engine with a Low Flashpoint Liquid (LFL) fuel system has been installed on an ocean-going vessel and it is a testament to the excellent cooperation between all the project partners that we have been able to complete this unique project and gain flag state approval. Methanol as a marine fuel is a very promising option to enable owners to reduce the environmental impact of their vessels and to comply with low sulphur and ECA regulations and we look forward to working on many more projects using this innovative marine fuel and technology.” ~ https://www.dnv.com/news/dnv-gl-welcomes-lindanger-to-fleet-world-s-first-methanol-fuelled-ocean-going-vessel-63157/ https://www.dnv.com/news/dnv-gl-welcomes-lindanger-to-fleet-... Methanol as fuel heads for the mainstream in shipping (2023) - https://www.dnv.com/expert-story/maritime-impact/Methanol-as-fuel-heads-for-the-mainstream-in-shipping/ https://www.dnv.com/expert-story/maritime-impact/Methanol-as... Also - https://www.methanol.org/marine-fuel/ https://www.methanol.org/marine-fuel/ and https://www.methanex.com/about-methanol/marine-fuel/ https://www.methanex.com/about-methanol/marine-fuel/

mrweasel 2y ago

> I'm sure these guys could work somewhere getting paid to get more people to click on stuff. That, right there, that is what makes me go: You know what, go for it. Best of luck, go make something, go try something. You're absolutely right. So much talent is wasted on getting people to click an ad, stay on a page just a few minutes longer, watch the next video. So much time, so much money thrown into the dumpster fire of social media, ad tech and stupid "but as-a-service" solutions. It's better for everyone if the funds are directed towards something that might actually make the world a better place.

justsid 2y ago
Not just that, but fusion will never happen if no one tries their hands on it because everyone says it can’t be done.