71–80 of 267 posts
We've been running reactors on ships since the 50s after all.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Sounds interesting, could you post that checklist?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Sounds interesting, could you post that checklist?
----------------------------------------------------------------
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
Why specifically target maritime? Getting a stationary reactor to 25MWe at all would be an incredible feat in itself.
It seems like if you can get the reactor working then you're floating right on top of all the fuel you could ever want, provided you're doing hydrogen fusion.
- compact CPP-violating antimatter reactor
- super-efficient MHD turbine
- perpetual motion engine
- magic box which will be invented in 5 years
No, really, I want to know what you would do differently in each of these situations.
Hot stuff. Both literally and figuratively. An energy breakthrough is really required to get the world back on track. My thesis is that the longer it takes for us to get on the fusion train the more craziness we will see in the world. Wish you all the best and will follow your journey.
Not really, the energy technologies we've needed have been around for about half a century, with quite reasonable economics (albeit less and less so, as the time pressure increases), especially compared to the alternative. The problems that need to be solved are political and economic, not technical.
What would the engine with this look like? Does it cause a lot of noise or any other damage to sea life?
The good news is that neutrons are easily absorbed by steel and water.
The bad news is that the resulting irradiated steel isn't anywhere near as strong as it was pre-irradiation.
https://www.science.org/content/article/fusion-power-may-run...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Sounds interesting, could you post that checklist?
----------------------------------
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
Why specifically target maritime? Getting a stationary reactor to 25MWe at all would be an incredible feat in itself.
It seems like if you can get the reactor working then you're floating right on top of all the fuel you could ever want, provided you're doing hydrogen fusion.
Good luck. I'd wager you'll end up pivoting to SMRs. They exist today. Are cheaper to produce. And their failure mode would be... capsizing the reactor at sea probably and running on stored diesel until you make it to port? We've been running reactors on ships since the 50s after all.
who is selling ~zero maintenance, mass-produced SMRs today?