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

91–100 of 267 posts

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

#91

Post by DaiPlusPlus »

12_throw_away wrote: post #76
ilrwbwrkhv wrote: post #4

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.

> An energy breakthrough is really required to get the world back on track 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.

> The problems that need to be solved are political and economic, not technical.

You're saying the technical problems involved in fusion power have already been solved. They haven't.

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

#92

Post by nradov »

How do you intend to address the crew training issue? Merchant vessel operators tend to hire low wage seamen with limited technical training, plus a few qualified engineering officers. Marine diesel engines are pretty simple and robust but I would imagine that operating a fusion plant might require more technical training.

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

#93

Post by jfengel »

Out_of_Characte wrote: post #82

The mere fact that you're proposing doing this on a moving vessel already tells me you're completely incompetent. No one has made fusion net positive, somehow building a net positive fusion reactor on a boat would be fine I guess but to suggest its better than enriched uranium is dishonest. You'll have more luck building a regular fission reactor on a commercial freighter than verify a fusion reactor for any ocean ca…

You'll have more luck building a regular fission reactor on a commercial freighter than verify a fusion reactor for any ocean capable ship.

That part, I'm not so sure about. Enriched uranium is potentially dangerous stuff, and has to be guarded closely. In a world with literal pirates, getting one on a commercial ship sounds very, very unlikely.

As you say, fusion seems equally unlikely, albeit from a physics standpoint rather than a regulatory standpoint. It's hard to tell whether the immovable object of physics would dominate the unstoppable force of regulation, or vice versa.

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

#94

Post by agentultra »

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?

I meant in that they could actually be built and working SMRs exist in labs and test facilities in greater numbers than fusion reactors. My local university has been running one for ages.

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

#95

Post by ClumsyPilot »

beambot wrote: post #68
dust42 wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Are they going to upgrade it or it’s already obsolete before it was even finished?

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

#96

Post by dang »

bbor wrote: post #46
dang wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nothing to do with the hot news of the moment. It's just YC doing what it always does. I think there is probably some kind of headline bleedover effect where, because of repetition, we start seeing these things everywhere, like the afterimage of a bright light.

I think the point being made is more subtle than you're appreciating: it's not just any defense firm, it's a defense firm founded by engineers who have worked on multiple Elon projects. I understand we try to stay away from politics here, but speaking objectively+non-normatively: Elon has been known to greatly favor working with people that have worked at his companies, and he now has immense influence over the contr…

You guys are welcome to connect whatever dots you like, but the idea that YC funding decisions would change depending on the politics of the CEOs of the companies the founders used to work for strikes me as absurd, and I think I have a basis for saying that.

YC's process looks something like this: smart founders? check. Technical? check. Big important problem? check. Technically credible on this problem? check. "Did $Thing at $Company" can help on that last point for obvious reasons, but the idea of some triple-bank-shot collusion/corruption with Big Political Players is Too Much Internet.

This matters! I would hate it if any smart, technical, wants-to-work-on-big-problem founder were to read HN threads and think "I don't have connections, so I guess YC is not for me." Please don't anyone think that! If that's you, then YC is for people just like you. You have as good a chance as anyone, precisely because these externalities don't make the difference.

To shift gears to your other question:

> is Y-Combinator really investing more in government and heavy industry as it appears?

I don't know, but it's possible. However, the reason might not be what you'd expect. Trends among YC startups have to do with what founders want to work on, and that is mostly determined by macro factors beyond YC.

I suppose both my points could be summed up like this: "YC is all about the founders". A nice, simple, true sentence, but with a lot of implications that are easy to miss.

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

#98

Post by harmalarm »

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

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

#99

Post by mikeyouse »

ClumsyPilot wrote: post #95
beambot wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 Are they going to upgrade it or it’s already obsolete before it was even finished?

“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.

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

#100

Post by dameyawn »

baking wrote: post #31

What kind of a blanket are you using and how thick is it? Seems like that would be the determining factor for size and cost.

Whether solid or liquid blankets, these guys seem clueless. How about the neutron shield? Gonna breed tritium as well? How long do they suspect reactor components can last w/o all the heat and neutron radiation?
Post reply on HN