
Startup company says it is one step closer to creating nuclear fusion - yodabodega
http://www.digitaljournal.com/tech-and-science/technology/startup-lpp-fusion-s-device-exploits-instabilities-to-fuse-atoms/article/503354
======
bmcusick
Lerner has been beating this drum for years, and presented at many
conferences. And yet no one has invested. I'd love to know why. Either there's
a catch to the technology that he's not disclosing (and the smart money
doesn't have a motivation to disclose), or he's asking for unreasonable
business terms.

The only thing I know for sure is there's no lack of capital available for
good fusion research. Not if the money raised by Tri-Alpha, General Fusion,
and others is an indicator.

~~~
Deadstartups
My dad was a navy nuke and said that the cost v safety v portability of
fission was far superior to that of fusion. That was back in the 90s, so I
wonder if it's still relevant, but a quick search [1] seemed to confirm the
general idea.

[1] diffen.com/difference/Nuclear_Fission_vs_Nuclear_Fusion

~~~
olau
I think you should listen to him.

Fusion is still vapourware. For it to ever be viable outside a few niches, it
will have to beat fission in price, because it will probably share many
characteristics with fission plants (high capital costs, low cost of fuel,
radioactive waste, huge plants).

Fusion somehow ended up being branded as the future of energy. But the
prospects aren't looking good so far. Fission plants are probably already too
expensive to have much of a future.

~~~
rpedela
The project featured in the article, if successful, will produce no
radioactive waste, fits inside a garage, and will likely be cheap overall.
Unlike the well-funded laser and tokamak designs which get most media coverage
and still don't work well and are unbelievably expensive.

~~~
sfifs
In discussions of new nuclear technology, it's always a good idea to keep in
mind the famous Paper Reactors Real Reactors document written by the architect
of the worlds most successful nuclear power program.

[http://ecolo.org/documents/documents_in_english/Rickover.pdf](http://ecolo.org/documents/documents_in_english/Rickover.pdf)

------
wppick
Elon Musk addressed the idea of creating nuclear fusion on earth by saying
something along the lines of, "why would we do that, there's a huge nuclear
fusion generator in the sky that we can use to generate all the power we need"

~~~
MrBuddyCasino
Thats what I‘d say if I was selling energy storage.

~~~
bhhaskin
Or owned a solar company.

~~~
ben_w
On the other hand, it’s exactly what I _wouldn’t_ say if I was building an
interplanetary colony ship.

Not if I thought it had any realistic chance of success, anyway.

~~~
bmcusick
The Sun shines on Mars too. Solar energy is a practical source of energy as
far out as the asteroid belt. Nuclear energy isn't needed to accomplish
anything that Musk wants to accomplish in life.

~~~
ben_w
Nuclear _propulsion_ would make colonisation much more practical, much safer,
and return trips much cheaper.

~~~
bmcusick
Maybe. I understand the physics says there's an ISP benefit. Standard rocket
engines are well-understood though, work well, allow for retro-propulsion, and
you can synthesize methane easily on Mars.

In the long term when the space transport infrastructure is as well developed
as the terrestrial one, I can see the benefit of having different systems for
different purposes, so you get the specialized benefits. But I'm not sure we
are there yet.

To use an analogy from history, we aren't at the Golden Spike moment yet where
California was sufficiently settled to warrant a continental rail road
connecting the East and West Coasts. We're still in the exploration and
settlement stage, and while trains may be more energy efficient, what we need
is a Conestoga Wagon that can be operated and maintained by the settlers
themselves while they live off the land and develop the first homesteads.

~~~
ben_w
In the absence of a working fusion reactor, everything is necessarily
speculative. That said, going from chemical to nuclear propulsion is estimated
to reduce round-trip times from ~600 days (you have to wait at Mars for the
orbits to realign), to 30 days.

This is roughly the difference between an 1881 steamliner from London to
Syndey, and a 747.

~~~
bmcusick
NASA is working on it, but until there's a working engine available for
private rockets it seems premature.

[https://www.nasa.gov/centers/marshall/news/news/releases/201...](https://www.nasa.gov/centers/marshall/news/news/releases/2017/nasa-
contracts-with-bwxt-nuclear-energy-to-advance-nuclear-thermal-propulsion-
technology.html)

~~~
ben_w
Ordinarily I would agree. However, this is Musk, and both SpaceX and Tesla
have made progress beyond what most commentors have thought reasonable when
the first press releases went out.

I’d guess a 10%-30% chance SpaceX is already Skunkworks-ing some form of
atomic rocket, either fusion or fission.

Edit: and yes, that estimate is _despite_ the public comments.

~~~
bmcusick
Well you and I are just speculating, so who knows. But I sort of doubt it.
People would have noticed if SpaceX was hiring nuclear engineers. I think they
have enough R&D on their plate getting to full reusability.

------
InclinedPlane
How to judge the merits of different fusion concepts:
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L0KuAx1COEk](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L0KuAx1COEk)

------
logfromblammo
So the journey of a thousand miles has finally begun for them?

If I have learned anything about fusion articles in the tech news, it is that
fusion research is always really expensive and everyone is always
tantalizingly close to a breakthrough whenever they need more funding.

------
ourmandave
So now we're 49 years away instead of the proverbial 50 years we've always
been at?

~~~
euyyn
Nah, it's one step closer, not a full year closer yet.

------
locusm
I think its possible that a lot of people are waiting to see what ITER brings
to the table.

------
tosstossy
Didn't read the article yet, but this is relevant to the discussion.

[https://youtube.com/watch?v=L0KuAx1COEk](https://youtube.com/watch?v=L0KuAx1COEk)

------
dang
Url changed from [https://futurism.com/a-startup-claims-to-have-found-a-
soluti...](https://futurism.com/a-startup-claims-to-have-found-a-solution-to-
stabilize-nuclear-fusion/), which points to this.

