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

231–240 of 267 posts

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

#231

Post by DennisP »

harmalarm wrote: post #98

What if we already have fusion power at sea? Water has one of the highest heat capacities of any substance in the world, and Earth is covered in it. The sun provides all the fusion energy we need while our oceans absorb and store it. What if we simply extract the stored fusion power from the ocean? Ocean Thermal

To extract thermal energy you need a temperature difference. The way to do it for ocean thermal is with OTEC, which pumps cold water from deep down up to a large heat exchanger at the surface. It's usable for stationary power but I don't think it'd work for a ship, it's bulky and would add a lot of drag. Plus it mainly works in tropical regions.

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

#232

Post by DennisP »

kikokikokiko wrote: post #70

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.

It's so weird how so many people on HN think fusion is magic technology at the level of antigravity.

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

#233

Post by genewitch »

bananapub wrote: post #79
throwway120385 wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

where can I read about fully-automated, ship-stable, ~zero maintenance deuterium sea-water extraction systems?

YC32

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

#234

Post by genewitch »

0x457 wrote: post #143
echoangle wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Would you though? A lot of freight lines in europe are already electric, wouldn't it be much more efficient to have a stationary high-power reactor than carrying around a smaller one on each locomotive?

In europe sure, in the US most of freight rail isn't and companies operating those rail roads don't want to spend money on eletrifying railroads. Currently they're trying to gas light us that hydrogen-hybrid locomotives are the futures (why not use diesel-hybrid locomotives that already exist is a mistery)

trains in the US have electric motors that actually make the wheels turn.

The issue with the US is the distances trains have to go. Mostly short distance trains will be(are?) fully electric but long distance and frieght is diesel series hybrid engines.

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

#235

Post by genewitch »

jcgrillo wrote: post #83
kikokikokiko wrote: post #70

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.

Or swing for all the fences at once--"we're making fusion powered AGI for the technorapture!" Or similarly, why not faster than light space travel?

Forget FTL,. 5C, I'm generous.

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

#237

Post by viggity »

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…

Suno could do this, even with a reference melody :)

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

#238

Post by foobarian »

howenterprisey wrote: post #181
foobarian wrote: post #89

Dumb layperson question: my understanding of confined plasma fusion from a while ago was that the energy flux across the enclosing boundary can not be handled by known materials without melting down. Is this still true? Not sure if you can share but would be curious to know what the "bottleneck" material is in your design as far as withstanding high temperatures/other extreme conditions goes.

Certainly the plasma could melt the wall if it were allowed to touch it, but by shaping the magnetic fields that confine the plasma, the plasma can be made to stay away from the wall (not perfectly, but well enough). This is how many fusion experiments operate today. The walls are made of tungsten and other materials that can handle heat, so even if (when) the plasma hits the wall, the melting isn't too severe. Some…

> If you're counting neutrons in that "energy flux", they'll just go through the wall (mostly); this is how tokamaks are supposed to make electricity, ie the neutrons go through the wall and hit a "blanket" that's much better at absorbing neutrons, and the blanket will heat up and the heat will be converted to electricity.

Yes! This is what I was wondering about. Presumably you would want more energy out than you use to run the reactor, and if that amount of neutron flux would melt the wall it would not be a workable design. Glad to know if this is not true.

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

#239

Post by ccozan »

Earw0rm wrote: post #215
Earw0rm wrote: post #203

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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-si…

I am totally mesmerized by the idea of a floating hydrolizing platform , where ships can dock and load hydrogen fuel ( not sure what form suits best ).

Must start some economics of it. Also marine environment is very unforgiving...

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

#240

Post by nancyminusone »

buildsjets wrote: post #33

If you are fantasizing the implementation of an imaginary future technology, why not fusion power for SPACE ships?

You still need somewhere for the heat to go, and that's a lot easier if you're on top of water instead of nothing.

Although, a good radiator on a spacecraft still seems trivially easy compared to having a working fusion reactor in the first place.

Post reply on HN