Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Launch HN: Maritime Fusion (YC W25) – Fusion Reactors for Ships

news.ycombinator.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 267 posts

Re: Launch HN: Maritime Fusion (YC W25) – Fusion Reactors for Ships

#61

Post by jtcohen »

dghlsakjg wrote: post #34
jtcohen wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

With fusion, there is no Uranium or Plutonium or highly radioactive materials. The main concern is Tritium which is a categorically reduced concern from enriched Uranium (but still needs to be secured and accounted for).

Is the tritium a different isotope than the one I can have shipped to my house on the internet? https://tritiumworkshop.com/products/megaglow-tritium-marker...

Nope, that's it! We do need vastly larger quantities though, on the order of a kilogram.

Re: Launch HN: Maritime Fusion (YC W25) – Fusion Reactors for Ships

#64

Post by jtcohen »

jaronchong wrote: post #58

I'm just going to put this here. Someone please make this a reality. ### *"Tokamak Sailor"* (To the tune of "Drunken Sailor") *(Verse 1)* What shall we do with a tokamak sailor? What shall we do with a tokamak sailor? What shall we do with a tokamak sailor? Early in the mornin'! *(Chorus)* *Ho, ho! Fire up the plasma!* *Ho, ho! Fire up the plasma!* *Ho, ho! Fire up the plasma!* *Fusion in the mornin'!* *(Verse 2)* Ra…

Lol - on it

Re: Launch HN: Maritime Fusion (YC W25) – Fusion Reactors for Ships

#66

Post by jimbru »

uranium wrote: post #38

"Downtime for maintenance is part of normal operations, making this a far more forgiving early application of fusion, unlike the grid where every down hour is lost revenue." Planned maintenance, sure, but unplanned maintenance means the same lost revenue, plus you're stuck floating in the middle of the pacific ocean, possibly in need of parts or debugging expertise that only exists half a planet away or, for that mat…

The first ocean-going steamships still had sails - it took many years for steam power to fully displace sail. Presumably a new maritime power system, like fusion, would follow a similar pattern.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steamboat#Sea-_and_Ocean-going

Re: Launch HN: Maritime Fusion (YC W25) – Fusion Reactors for Ships

#67

Post by gpm »

ethagnawl wrote: post #41

As it applies to shipping, I'm curious to know if you initially considered alternative/hybrid approaches which would augment current/modern approaches to shipping, like using sails. It seems to me like this is an obvious miss in modern (dirty) shipping.

There are other companies doing exactly this (for a random example: https://www.bartechnologies.uk/), but they definitely don't replace the need for engines entirely, just reduce their usage by a bit.

Not sure why you would expect a fusion company to have anything to do with this. The technology is completely different.

(Note: not affiliated with launching company, just a random commenter)

Re: Launch HN: Maritime Fusion (YC W25) – Fusion Reactors for Ships

#68

Post by beambot »

dust42 wrote: post #54
phtrivier wrote: post #40

> 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 ba…

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 p…

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

Re: Launch HN: Maritime Fusion (YC W25) – Fusion Reactors for Ships

#69

Post by simpaticoder »

jimbru wrote: post #66
uranium wrote: post #38

"Downtime for maintenance is part of normal operations, making this a far more forgiving early application of fusion, unlike the grid where every down hour is lost revenue." Planned maintenance, sure, but unplanned maintenance means the same lost revenue, plus you're stuck floating in the middle of the pacific ocean, possibly in need of parts or debugging expertise that only exists half a planet away or, for that mat…

The first ocean-going steamships still had sails - it took many years for steam power to fully displace sail. Presumably a new maritime power system, like fusion, would follow a similar pattern. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steamboat#Sea-_and_Ocean-going

There is something very compelling about a fusion-powered ship also having sails.

Re: Launch HN: Maritime Fusion (YC W25) – Fusion Reactors for Ships

#70

Post by kikokikokiko »

Sorry for being so naive but I need to ask: What is the difference between a startup dedicated to making "Fusion Reactors for Maritime Ships" and a startup dedicated to making "Anti-Gravity devices for Airplanes"? Since you're talking about applying a non existing technology to a specific market, swing for the fences and go all in.
Post reply on HN