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 problem. Thus the idea to look for a niche that has lower power needs is a very clever one. My bet would be rather on Maritime Fusion than Helion. But nevertheless, CFS will be likely first at Q>1 however there is always space for another competitor.

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.

Dr. Dennis Whyte (MIT Nuclear Eng Prof) gave a great seminar at Berkeley that covered some technical nuances. It's mandatory watching if you want to geek out and understand the fusion hype: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rY6U4wB-oYM

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

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 !

I can completely imagine that it goes through stages like

Half a century of painful research at universities -> decades to build multiple prototypes -> years to build a POC -> decades to industrialize the POC -> years to connect the POC to the grid -> ???? -> light bulb moment -> ???? -> profit

I'm not sure we much further than the beginning of step 2. Indeed, (sorry to say that), I'd trust an MIT startup to do that more than a YC startup. But real life will serve as evidence.

----------------------------------------------------------------

Dear battery technology claimant,

Thank you for your submission of proposed new revolutionary battery technology. Your new technology claims to be superior to existing lithium-ion technology and is just around the corner from taking over the world. Unfortunately your technology will likely fail, because:

[ ] it is impractical to manufacture at scale.

[ ] it will be too expensive for users.

[ ] it suffers from too few recharge cycles.

[ ] it is incapable of delivering current at sufficient levels.

[ ] it lacks thermal stability at low or high temperatures.

[ ] it lacks the energy density to make it sufficiently portable.

[ ] it has too short of a lifetime.

[ ] its charge rate is too slow.

[ ] its materials are too toxic.

[ ] it is too likely to catch fire or explode.

[ ] it is too minimal of a step forward for anybody to care.

[ ] this was already done 20 years ago and didn't work then.

[ ] by this time it ships li-ion advances will match it.

[ ] your claims are lies

As a corroboration, current hotness in cell phones is existing lithium ion tech with new silicon-carbon anodes.

----------------------------------

Dear Nuclear Fusion Power Claimant

Thank you for your submission of proposed new revolutionary nuclear fusion power technology. Your new technology claims to solve humanity's energy problems, produce unlimited clean energy, and is just months away from commercialization. Unfortunately, your technology will likely fail, because:

[ ] it requires materials that cannot be produced at any scale.

[ ] its energy gain (Q factor) is still substantially less than 1.

[ ] its plasma instabilities modes are completely unknown.

[ ] its plasma modeling behavior relies exclusively on numerical simulations.

[ ] it cannot sustain required plasma confinement criteria

[ ] it cannot handle the neutron flux without rapid degradation of components.

[ ] it requires magnetic fields stronger than currently achievable

[ ] it consumes more energy in cooling systems than it produces.

[ ] your claimed breakthrough violates fundamental physics.

[ ] the same approach was tried in the 1960s, 1970s, 1980s, 1990s and abandoned each time for good reason

[ ] by the time it ships, renewable energy plus storage will be far cheaper.

[ ] your timeline has been "5 years away" for the past 50 years.

[ ] your claims are lies.

Sincerely, The Energy Research Community

https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...

But LFP and Sodium Ion are making undeniable progress in cheap usable EV batteries that don't require nickel or cobalt.

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 can be plugged in your garage

* if you forgot to charge it, you can stop every 10km to recharge in 10m

I know: "it's harsh" ! "We should change our car usage" ! "My mom should live differently to accomodate the technology", etc... Go tell that to my mom.

Still, that's the goal post I've been having for 20y, and 10y ago people where writing headlines about "breakthroughs" that would make this possible any time now. And it's not. So I'm burnt out, kinda.

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.

Alternatively, they will keep living their life exactly the way they have so far, and refuse to use the "new" technology until it has caught up with the "old" one.

"Regulations" could in theory help, if it served as enough of an incentive for car makers to pay some serious R&D and get the "new" tech on par with the old one.

Problem is, in practice, though, the option to "not care about the regulation and elect right wing people until it's dropped" is easier than paying chemist and physicists.

And selling my mom a 2t SUV is much better for the shareholders.

So, never mind. At some point, one "game changing revolutionary breakthrough" will actually break through something and change some game.

Or, my mum will die of old age, bitching about those stupid pseudo "cars" that their grand kids can't use to visit her because the battery is too small.

(No, wait, HN tells my mum will actually not die, thanks to some "game changing AI-powered breakthrough in biotech")