- What does this bring to the table beyond marine fission power?
- Why do they think they can make it cheaper than military fission marine power?
Military fission power plants were never optimized for cost. They have always been hand built in tiny numbers with a focus on safety, durability, and maximal output.
A small fusion reactor, being a powerful neutron source, will be a great risk for proliferation. It should be able to breed plutonium for nuclear weapons as much as it can breed tritium.
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 fusion reactors aren’t going to make their debut in cargo ships.
Economics at the time restricted their limited use to mountainous areas, deserts, isolated areas, remote island outcrops, etc.
I saw PV use in the 1970s in remote Austalian rail operations to power signal boxes and repeaters .. the higher costs offset the equally high costs of maintaining a fueled generator in a remote location.
Marine shipping wasn't, to the best of my recollection, directly using PV's shipboard as they already had massive engines driving propulsion and it was trivial to bled off a little torque for a electrical generator.
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.
DNV GL welcomes Lindanger to fleet – world’s first methanol fuelled ocean-going vessel (2016)
“We are very pleased to see the completion and launch of this exciting and innovative newbuilding,” says Knut Ørbeck-Nilssen, CEO at DNV GL – Maritime.
“This is the first time a dual-fuel engine with a Low Flashpoint Liquid (LFL) fuel system has been installed on an ocean-going vessel and it is a testament to the excellent cooperation between all the project partners that we have been able to complete this unique project and gain flag state approval. Methanol as a marine fuel is a very promising option to enable owners to reduce the environmental impact of their vessels and to comply with low sulphur and ECA regulations and we look forward to working on many more projects using this innovative marine fuel and technology.”
Methanol as fuel heads for the mainstream in shipping (2023) - https://www.dnv.com/expert-story/maritime-impact/Methanol-as...
Also - https://www.methanol.org/marine-fuel/ and https://www.methanex.com/about-methanol/marine-fuel/
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)
Marine PV has seen use on pleasure craft (particularly sailboats) for auxiliary power needs (electronics, nav, lighting, pumps, light cooking/heating), and for drone craft (there was a startup out of Alameda, CA, producing what seemed to be aimed as US Naval marine survey craft a few years ago, largely wind-powered but with electronics and back-up propulsion powered by solar arrays, see: <https://newatlas.com/marine/72-ft-autonomous-saildrone-map-s...>.
Wind-capture remains the most viable alternative to fuel-based marine transport, and "windjammers" remained in commercial operation through the 1950s particularly on very-long-haul routes, though ultimately even that niche was captured by oil-powered propulsion. See: <https://omeka2.hrvh.org/exhibits/show/a-new-age-of-sail/last...>.
Containerisation probably accelerated and/or solidified that decline as this permitted not only far more efficient loading and unloading, but requires clear decks and permits vastly larger ships and concommitantly greater crew efficiencies (crewing is almost entirely independent of ship size and capacity, so a larger and faster ship (factors which also trend together given hull speed and its relationship to length) is virtually always vastly more efficient than a smaller one, despite possibly greater total fuel consumption. Fuel use itself per unit cargo is also lower for larger shipping.
Current ship-size constraints are largely determined by harbour and canal dimensions (hence ship dimensions defined by <location>max, e.g., Panamax, Suezmax, Chinamax, Batimax (Baltic Sea, not Baltimore Harbour), etc. I'm fond of the designation "Handy Size", which calls to mind "fun sized" though I'm told there's little relation. Maximum length capable of sustaining large seas (waves) without keel breakage is another marine engineering consideration which has limited ships to ~1,200 ft / 660m maximum length. At larger sizes ships are simply too susceptible to coming apart in heavy conditions.
Ships in general are constrained by the smallest viable dimensions of a port of call or route, and larger ships have fewer viable available ports or routes, though the busiest of such tend also to favour larger hull dimensions.
That, right there, that is what makes me go: You know what, go for it. Best of luck, go make something, go try something.
You're absolutely right. So much talent is wasted on getting people to click an ad, stay on a page just a few minutes longer, watch the next video. So much time, so much money thrown into the dumpster fire of social media, ad tech and stupid "but as-a-service" solutions. It's better for everyone if the funds are directed towards something that might actually make the world a better place.
For all the naysayers, as a fusion startup, targeting the marine market is a good move. They aren't even the first fusion startup to do so; IIRC Rostoker's group got their first major funding from the NRL. The marine market pays a premium for not having to refuel, and historically emerging energy technologies have early commercialization in ships. This was true for fission in the 50s and for photovoltaic solar in the 70s/80s.
Now, sure, they have to make power to be able to sell it. But to build a reactor, you have to raise funds, and in order to raise funds you have to show that you can make money if you are successful at making power. Explicitly aiming at a market that might actually pay for overpriced power shows their investors that there may be a valid business case. That doesn't make fusion happen any easier, but you don't make any reactions without first building a reactor.
You know, I'm sure these guys could work somewhere getting paid to get more people to click on stuff. Instead they are taking a risk to do something that might be important. Make no mistake: fusion founder is a tough gig. There is no established off-ramp, and many fusion founders find that it's a job that can easily eat your career. I hope their plan B is in order, as well as their prenups and/or wills. They are going off to fight a dragon that's eaten a lot of other people's careers, relationships and sanity.
As an aside, it's nice to see someone working on a tokamak actually not being overly optimistic about wall heat flux. It's like somebody actually paid attention to Stacey or something ;)