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

151–160 of 267 posts

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

#151

Post by jandrese »

marssaxman wrote: post #131
jandrese wrote: post #88

I think your timeline is at best optimistic. I would personally like to see fixed land based fusion power work before we start trying to build them into moving vessels. Your claim that the shipping industry is "desperate to decarbonize" also needs a citation. From what I've seen shippers top three concerns are "how to minimize costs", "how to reduce costs", and "how to save money". Can you make this system cheaper to…

> before we start trying to build them into moving vessels Why wait, though? I agree that the timeline - the whole project! - seems extraordinarily optimistic, but I don't see why development of potential maritime applications should create any obstacle to the simultaneous development of grid power applications.

Lots of potential complications when building something on a vessel and failure is more likely to be deadly, if for example it fails because the ship is being battered too much by a storm. Plus there is the complicating factors with needing to miniaturize the equipment enough to fit in the available space.

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

#152

Post by condensedcrab »

Balgair wrote: post #133

Hey, how small do you think a fusion generator can get? Like, ships, sure. But how about car sized? Phone sized?

The scaling laws for fusion follow a power law for size and magnetic field (see https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/175830/nuclear-f...), which allow for better break even for commercial applications for larger fusion reactors like ITER. All of the smaller fusion reactors proposed need to use high Tc superconducting wire to generator higher magnetic fields for smaller reactors.

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

#153

Post by pclmulqdq »

nradov wrote: post #148
DrNosferatu wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

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…

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.

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

#154

Post by ted_dunning »

bananapub wrote: post #80
agentultra wrote: post #71

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.

> I'd wager you'll end up pivoting to SMRs. They exist today. who is selling ~zero maintenance, mass-produced SMRs today?

How is that an argument to avoid SMRs if magical thinking about fusion reactors is allowed?

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

#156

Post by jtcohen »

FiatLuxDave wrote: post #139

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 ener…

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

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

#158

Post by phendrenad2 »

IlikeKitties wrote: post #155

> if we’re deploying thousands of nuclear reactors globally, they need to be meltdown-proof. Fusion is the only way to guarantee that. Regulation also isn’t as bad. "What's a molten salt reactor"

MSRs can melt down, but the steps to get there are rarer. Also the number of things that can go wrong and release radioactivity might be higher than LWRs.

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

#159

Post by jacknews »

naysayer here, but best of luck anyway

it's definitely a good choice to target a niche market, but imho (DT) fusion will never be competitive on earth unless theres a breakthrough in cold fusion, muon fusion, etc

the right niche is probably spaceships

fusion is still worth pursuing; i always judge these efforts by their scientific output rather than their chances of reaching commercially viable fusion (zero)

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

#160

Post by cyberax »

I'm sorry, but it looks like a scam. The "maritime" addition looks like it's designed to filter out investors gullible enough not to ask too many questions.

This is not unprecedented, Ulstein THOR is the same concept. They're building a nuclear-powered ship with a reactor type that has never really been proven in practice. With unclear use-cases ("recharge battery-powered ships at sea and Antarctic cruises").

Why not build a demonstrator reactor first? _ANY_ energy positive fusion reactor is going to be a HUGE deal.

Post reply on HN