Live data from Hacker News

Radical hydrogen-boron reactor leapfrogs current nuclear fusion tech?

newatlas.com

71–80 of 285 posts

Re: Radical hydrogen-boron reactor leapfrogs current nuclear fusion tech?

#71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes it seems like you could generate extreme levels of electrostatic force by collecting the Helium nuclei. Do that on one side of a capacitor, periodically short it out (producing ordinary Helium) to clear both plates, and repeat. So yeah a machine which takes hydrogen and boron and emits helium gas and electricity. Sounds like it's worth doing, at least for the sake of children's birthday parties.

Helium is limited on earth and we need it to cool things like MRIs and other massive electromagnets. Apart from literally saving humanity from a climate disaster, we can still use our MRIs!

You're not going to make an appreciable amount of helium with this process.

And MRIs of the future will be constructed with REBCO magnets and cooled with liquid nitrogen.

Re: Radical hydrogen-boron reactor leapfrogs current nuclear fusion tech?

#74

27 comments and not one hit of the word “inertial”! The line about not being thermonuclear and the description of the device in question (a sphere with lasers) points towards an inertial confinement fusion (ICF) device. Most of the fusion research eggs are in the thermonuclear basket, specifically magnetic confinement fusion. It is good to research a diverse set of approaches, but there are more engineering challenge…

One reason you might not find ‘inertial’ is because the only thing they have in common is a laser.

For ICF, a long-pulse laser is used like a hammer to heat and compress the material to fusion conditions.

This scheme, as far as I can tell, uses the large EM fields of a short-pulse laser to accelerate a ‘beam’ of ions into cold material to induce fusion.

Re: Radical hydrogen-boron reactor leapfrogs current nuclear fusion tech?

#76
Always happy to see people doing new and interesting stuff with fusion. I got into nuclear technology because of ITER back in the early 2000s. Worked on it continuously (mostly in advanced fission) ever since.

> "The timeline question is a tricky one," he says. "I don't want to be a laughing stock by promising we can deliver something in 10 years, and then not getting there. First step is setting up camp as a company and getting started. First milestone is demonstrating the reactions, which should be easy. Second milestone is getting enough reactions to demonstrate an energy gain by counting the amount of helium that comes out of a fuel pellet when we have those two lasers working together. That'll give us all the science we need to engineer a reactor. So the third milestone is bringing that all together and demonstrating a reactor concept that works."

The fourth step is to deliver the reactor concept as promising machine. The fifth step is to attach it to power generating equipment and demonstrate the power plant. The sixth step is to scale up a supply chain capable of delivering multiple units that compete with other sources of commodity electricity (or other energy products). The seventh step is to scale to large scale without being unduly burdened by either supply chain (raw material, skilled labor) or regulatory impact/public concern that inevitably scales with any large fleet of any new tech.

Fission made it to step 7 and then faltered and is now teetering depending on where you look. It never scaled past 5% of total world primary energy.

The promise of fusion is to deliver nuclear energy with less public concern than fission because it makes less radiologically hazardous material. The challenge is to go through the physical, engineering, and commercial viability phases as a power plant.

Re: Radical hydrogen-boron reactor leapfrogs current nuclear fusion tech?

#77

27 comments and not one hit of the word “inertial”! The line about not being thermonuclear and the description of the device in question (a sphere with lasers) points towards an inertial confinement fusion (ICF) device. Most of the fusion research eggs are in the thermonuclear basket, specifically magnetic confinement fusion. It is good to research a diverse set of approaches, but there are more engineering challenge…

It seems easy to conflate any or all approaches as fringe when no one's done it yet, and especially if there are political and program-$ecurity concerns overriding doing what's best, but some approaches scream magical thinking with unexplained reasoning more than others (like one or more cold fusion proposals in the early 1980's). OTOH, it seems like ICF and tokamak are the officially-sanctioned dogma and all other approaches are discounted automatically.

Q0: Without bias from my opinion, how fringe or potentially legitimate does IEC seem?

Q1: Props to the article's team that they invented some awesome lasers. Is there enough experimental data yet on their novel approach to backup their claims to justify funding a prototype? Would such a team be able to test this on a shoestring budget without spending millions?

Re: Radical hydrogen-boron reactor leapfrogs current nuclear fusion tech?

#78

As a bonus it produces helium, which we've been running low on right? Break out the party balloons!

That shortage is mostly a myth: https://www.wired.com/2016/06/dire-helium-shortage-vastly-in...

So what happens after 117 years?

Re: Radical hydrogen-boron reactor leapfrogs current nuclear fusion tech?

#79
post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not so much about efficiency as capital cost.

Except steam generators are pretty cheap - they're off the shelf, and will be a drop in the ocean compared to the total costs of the first fusion plants.

The waste heat from the inefficieny is an environmental issue if cooling with sea, lake or river water.

The article talks about the advantage of not needing steam cooling apparatus. The stations could be located in urban areas.

Re: Radical hydrogen-boron reactor leapfrogs current nuclear fusion tech?

#80
post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not so much about efficiency as capital cost.

Except steam generators are pretty cheap - they're off the shelf, and will be a drop in the ocean compared to the total costs of the first fusion plants.

Well, that depends. ITER is tens of billions. The most expensive part of this reactor would probably be the petawatt laser, which is tens of millions for one-off experimental devices. A turbine and generator is about a million dollars per megawatt, so it could be a significant percentage of total reactor cost, especially in mass production.
Post reply on HN