Live data from Hacker News

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

news.ycombinator.com

211–220 of 267 posts

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

#211
post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> we’re focusing on large commercial shipping (>10,000 TEU) and mobile military vessels to provide ship-to-shore power capability I can't tell for sure what this means, if it's propulsion or a temporary ship to shore power plant. I suppose this gives them the latitude to target both. Or perhaps the idea is to get exposure to maritime shipping investors. A mobile power plant might be useful for deep sea mining, or mee…

Unlike what the nuclear Navy does today which is directly mechanically link the steam turbine to the propeller... we have the turbine spin a generator that creates a high voltage electric bus, which can than power a motor for propulsion. But you can 'easily' swap out the motor and tap off that HV bus for any other electrical load. Agree with all those other potential applications for mobile power at sea, there's a to…

> nuclear Navy does today which is directly mechanically link the steam turbine to the propeller

Not exactly, but very close to true. As I hear, newest Virginia class of US submarines are planned to be all-electric, but rumors said, they are extremely expensive, so all currently commissioned ones have close to classic propulsion system.

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

#212

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 reac…

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.

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.

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

#213
post #205
post #198

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Helion Energy ( https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8178450 ) has been going 11 years and building prototypes and raising many millions by saying power is 5 years away or so and not publishing any results. So I guess that model works sort of. Currently "Helion claims it will build the world’s first nuclear fusion power plant by 2028 and has already secured a purchase agreement from Microsoft." but Sabine is sceptica…

Interesting yes, but regardless of the scientific viability of Helion's approach (that I have no means to discuss), at least they are aiming at addressing the core problem of fusion energy as an investment strategy: turning an non-existent into an existent technology. What bewilders me here are people discussing the business model and implementation details of these ships' reactors for the endeavor to become profitab…

I guess taking an optimistic view, these sort of designs seem quite similar to the MIT ARC/SPARC design put forward in a lecture put up on youtube "Breakthrough in Nuclear Fusion? - Prof. Dennis Whyte" https://youtu.be/KkpqA8yG9T4?list=PL_ywmYr5cjkBWSPyqEaps8uGu...

That actually seems a reasonable attempt at a practical design so all Maritime Fusion have to do is wait till someone cracks that and then do the marine version.

There are plans to build an ARC design producing power in the 2030s https://chesterfieldbusinessnews.com/2024/commonwealth-fusio...

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

#214

Earlier quoted context omitted.

“Obsolete” probably isn’t the right word but they’re continuing as usual on ITER.. they’re aiming for 5.5T compared to >9T field strength on ARC. There’s still a ton of science to be learned, so it makes sense to keep pushing ahead but it’s clear any eventual commercial design will use HTS magnets instead of the NbSn ones in ITER.

I'd be ready to bet that the boring, international, big gouvernement funded ITER will be the only place to reach anything meaningful, long before the hip VC-backed startups ship anything. Source : I generally don't believe VC-backup startups anymore, but that says more about me than about them (thankfully, sometimes they do stuff, like, 140 chars and useful tools for Russian trolls.) But let's see how it goes !

Do you believe MIT? They used to run the Alcator C-Mod, which had the highest magnetic field of any tokamak in the world, did preliminary work with the new superconductors, and based on all that they designed ARC before they spun off a company to actually build it.

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

#215
post #197

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Interesting concept. Let's run the numbers... The largest Q-Max-class gas tanker is 345 meters long [1]. Let's say you manage to fit 3 giant Siemens wind turbines on it, with 100m long blades [2]. It's a bit cramped but let's say you have extenders on the side to make room for all 3 of them. And also let's say you found a way to prevent the ship from tipping over when the wind is strong. By deploying floaters on the…

It strikes me that having the turbine and hydrolysis plant fixed in place, and having ships visit those sites to refuel, is probably an easier setup than mobile turbines. But I think your maths is wrong somewhere. Hydrogen supplies 33MWh/tonne, and you've stated the ship capacity as 18620 tonnes. 18620/(33*24) gives a generation time of 23 days, even before we allow for hydrolysis overheads. Marine hydrogen isn't a t…

Ugh, turns out I suck at math too. At least attempting it before coffee.

The ship's capacity in MWh is 18620t x 33MWh/t = 614460MWh.

At 45MW generating capacity, an electric hydrolyser at 80% efficiency delivers hydrogen at a rate of 36MW. That will unfortunately take about 70 years to fill the ship to its maximum capacity.

On a more positive note, 36MW is still a heck of a lot of power, plenty enough to run a mid-sized cruise liner or warship. So a marine generating station with three of these turbines could, for example, refuel a liner once a month, and then that liner have enough fuel to cruise for a month, and so on.

This would require a fuel tank with a more reasonable 750 tonne capacity. That's still several times more than the Shuttle, but not beyond the realms of feasibility - and a stronger, heavier tank allows higher pressures / smaller volumes.

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

#216
post #206
post #197

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Interesting concept. Let's run the numbers... The largest Q-Max-class gas tanker is 345 meters long [1]. Let's say you manage to fit 3 giant Siemens wind turbines on it, with 100m long blades [2]. It's a bit cramped but let's say you have extenders on the side to make room for all 3 of them. And also let's say you found a way to prevent the ship from tipping over when the wind is strong. By deploying floaters on the…

You have it reverse wind turbines need mooring, stay upright and so on. That's highly impractical. No, you build a fast-going sail vessel (using big traction kites, because it's not the 19th century anymore) and power the generator from much smaller turbine blades in the water. Hydrogenerator is the term established in recreational boating. I sure would not expect any returns in days, more like months or years. But i…

The main issue is that prevailing winds have a direction, and there's not a continuous open ocean path other than the Southern Ocean which is harsh even by the standards of oceans. Sure you can steer along trade winds in the Atlantic or Pacific but there's quite some efficiency loss.

(Give climate change another decade or so and the Arctic Ocean maybe becomes an option, although by then we'll have bigger fish to fry, or perhaps poach).

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

#217

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.

Fusion fuel is so compact, there's really no need for that. To get an idea of it, deuterium is less than 0.1% of the hydrogen in water, and there's enough in your morning shower to provide all your energy needs for a year.

Nuclear aircraft carriers go thirty years without refueling, and fusion could easily do the same.

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

#218

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Batteries are steadily improving, at least in the cost factor. We haven't seen any 2x leaps in density from sulfur or solid state or aluminum air. But LFP and Sodium Ion are making undeniable progress in cheap usable EV batteries that don't require nickel or cobalt.

> cheap usable EV batteries I know this is going to sound harsh, but I will personnally consider EV batteries "cheap" only when they pass the very scientific "my mom can use the EV exactly like shes uses her car, and she does not notice" test: * on one charge, drive 10-50km daily for 350 days in a year * on one charge, drive 1000km in one go for the holidays * it must be less than 10kE at a local car dealership * it…

If you fix your goalposts for long enough, cohort effects will move around them.

I'm not sure how old your mom is, but 1000km drives aren't something most people want to be doing past 75 ish. And newer cohorts adapt their lifestyles and expectations to available technology, whether that's charging time, on-demand rental for the occasionally needed longer distance EVs, and so on.

Although I can't help thinking that hybrids are a better fit for this common usage pattern - given a choice between hauling the dead weight of a rarely-used gasoline engine, or the dead weight of the 80% of battery capacity you hardly ever use, the gas engine is cheaper and less demanding of rare metals.

It's a shame that weight considerations mean "rent 80% extra range in a removable module for occasional use" isn't a practical option. You could almost have a 10kWh/50km light EV with a gasoline generator or extra battery in a hitch trailer, but the trade-offs don't quite work.

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

#219

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 fus…

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 ch…

Here is latest (2025) bio methanol project from China [1], at $150/barrel of oil equivalent

And its not even true e-methanol which will be $200-$300boe

[1] https://mp.weixin.qq.com/s/Va0XYtSXQJLVrOZsW5obXA

(if u have any actual contact with the maritime industry would love to connect and chat)

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

#220
post #75

What's going on in your business plan that would be different if we replaced "future tokamak" with: - 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.

> perpetual motion engine

[with apologies to OP] "Hey HN, we’re just Ian and Jay's son, co-founders of Maritime Perpetual Motion (https://maritimeperpetualmot.io/n). We’re working on pitching perpetual motion reactors to VCs—specifically, large well-capitalised funds and Angel Investor applications. Should be easy!

Yes, we know: perpetual motion has been the energy source of the future for centuries…and it always will be. But high-temperature superconductors (HTS) have changed the game for magnetic bearings, and we believe we’ll witness someone else achieving Q > 1 within a few (say 3) years. That’s huge.

(Side note: Q is the ratio of input power divided by output power. Q> 1 means the machine is producing more power than it consumes, achieving ‘perpetuity.’)

However, getting to perpetuity is just the first daunting challenge. Making the first-of-a-kind (FOAK) machines cost-competitive on the grid? That might be even harder.

That’s why we’re taking this hopefully-soon-to-be breakthrough in perpetual motion and applying it to the first market we believe makes sense: extracting money from VCs.

Instead of targeting 24/7 baseload grid electricity—where perpetual motion has to compete with real things which really exist and actually work, like solar, wind, batteries, and natural gas—we’re focusing on large commercial funds (>10,000 $) and mobile individual investors to provide wallet-to-wallet capital transfer capability.

Why VCs? They don’t have great alternatives—the crypto industry is old-hat, hydrogen and ammonia are being explored but come with serious downsides that can only be handwaved away for so long: low energy density, flammability, leaks, and massive infrastructure challenges. AI is running out its welcome, and nobody cares about the Hyperloop. It's time to return to the overbalanced wheel and friends for another 'go round' - see what I did there? Perpetual motion will provide a high-density, long-term solution without the same infrastructure challenges—once it works, of course! wink wink.

One common question is, why not zero-point energy? Zero point energy works fictitiously, but not practically. Small Modular Blackholes (SMBs) could produce power, but licensing is brutally hard and expensive—doing it internationally with enriched antimatter is nearly impossible. Public perception is another major barrier: if we’re deploying thousands of machines globally, they need to be meltdown-proof. Perpetual Motion is the only way to guarantee that. Regulation also isn’t as bad. While perpetual motion won’t be a walk in the park to license, the NRC has declared a distinct framework for it—more like FTL drives and teleporters than nuclear power plants. That’s a game-changer.

Instead of a 500+ MW grid-scale reactor, our system is 25 MWe, designed for, ummm, ... ship propulsion! Our tokamakebelieve is roughly, uhh, jet-engine-sized, but with Room Temperature Superconductor magnets (8-9T) and higher azimuth current (~10MA). The first-wall power flux capacitor is down from multi-MW/m² to nearly 500 kW/m²—still tough, but not nightmare mode. The materials challenges associated with the first wall and nuclear activation of the Bremsstrahlung structures is greatly reduced. Also, ships don’t require 90% uptime for some reason, probably, making this a far more forgiving early application of perpetual motion; the famously profitable and high-margin global shipping industry.

Jay's son and I come from Fintech and Theranos, where we solved hard marketing hype problems at scale. My background is BS engineering (NC State, BS) and VX physics[1] (Prager University, MS). We’ve been busy during our time in YC making progress on our elevator-pitch design, and are in the process of assembling a team of business development managers and LinkedIn rockstars who can pull this off.

We sell this as a ridiculously hard problem, of course (because VCs wouldn't invest in anything else). But we think extracting money for old rope is the right hard problem—one that’s actually solvable (and for us, worth solving!) with today’s tech if applied correctly. Eventually the cheaper and more robust SOAK and NOAK (second-of-a-kind and nth-of-a-kind) machines 'will arrive' in the coming decades (2050-2060) wink wink, and then we'll pivot to decapitalising the taxpayer and hypewashing saving the world (we'll need to change our name by then to keep the cash flowing), but until then we'll be out mining the ocean for precious metals using our perpetual Magneto Hydro Drive!

Would love to hear your thoughts—whether you’re deep into troll-physics and engineering, skeptical-but–gullible, or just have a trust fund and nothing to do with it. Ask us anything!"

[1] r/VXjunkies

Post reply on HN