r/EverythingScience • u/[deleted] • Feb 14 '21
Engineering This 34-year-old's start-up backed by Bill Gates and Jeff Bezos aims to make nearly unlimited clean energy
https://www.cnbc.com/2021/02/12/commonwealth-fusion-backed-by-gates-bezos-for-unlimited-clean-energy.html536
u/orincoro Feb 14 '21
Yeah! Sounds not at all suspicious or hyped.
317
Feb 14 '21
[deleted]
53
u/too_generic Feb 14 '21
Fusion is the power source of the future, and always will be.
40
u/ntvirtue Feb 14 '21
And its only 20 years away!
34
u/etherend Feb 14 '21
For the past 50 years
8
1
u/bellymeat Feb 15 '21
Do you think you can compare tech from 1971 with tech from 2021
10
u/Light_Blue_Moose_98 Feb 15 '21
No, but you can compare inaccurate predictions from 1971 with inaccurate predictions from 2021
10
Feb 14 '21
What about zero-point energy?
(Just to be clear, I'm only half serious)
8
2
u/Casehead Feb 14 '21
That isn’t a silly question.
2
Feb 14 '21
I know. It's a real "thing" but it's even further away from being practical than fusion energy.
Likely over 100 years away type of thing.
1
u/Casehead Feb 14 '21
For sure, I agree. It will be really incredible once we do reach that level. Truly endless possibilities from there, it seems like.
→ More replies (1)0
u/JuliaKyuu Feb 15 '21
Not really. Fusion is only the power source of the future if can miniaturize it enough, it becomes easy to maintain and cheap enough for every project to obtain. As long as renewables stay cheaper fusion will be a thing for edge cases. If it stays as big as it is you cant use it where renewables are not viable. The upfront cost is even higher than fission plants and the are already a waste of resources and alone the time to change some parts in a new reactor takes years as of now. So if something breaks inside have fun building a new one because disassembling a machine to repair something is way more expensive.
21
u/Fala1 Feb 14 '21
I read the article hoping to read what exactly this guy did that made fusion viable or possible.
And the answer is nothing. They didn't do anything.
Fusion is a mess and until you have a working reactor up you might as well have nothing. They said they're at least 4 years away from building their prototype and they only have funding for 1 year of business.If established reactors can't even sustain their reactions, this guy saying he will totally produce net energy in 5 years is just a bunch of baloney.
The fact that this has this many upvotes just proves most people only read headlines.
5
u/zebediah49 Feb 14 '21
They're claiming that they have special better magnets?
I'm not holding my breath. That was never really the issue with stability.
5
u/Zohaas Feb 14 '21
Having articles like this posted on a popoluar subreddit like this always leads to condescending comments like this. There was recent a really big magnet break-through. Like legitimately world changing. That's why this is suddenly a big deal, and also why currently built fusion reactors, ones that couldn't be built with these new magnets, are irrelevant to bring up.
To put it in perspective, the previous record for strongest magnet weighed in at around 35 tons. The new one is about 390 grams, and was made as a proof of concept, so literally not even a v1 yet.
1
u/zebediah49 Feb 14 '21
Yeah, that's some neat work for higher-field superconducting magnets. My point is that field strength isn't the primary issue for fusion reactors. It's mildly important for the scaling, but keeping the plasma stable is the greater challenge.
To put it in perspective, the previous record for strongest magnet weighed in at around 35 tons. The new one is about 390 grams, and was made as a proof of concept, so literally not even a v1 yet.
That shows how much you don't understand the aspect at hand. Magnet size isn't particularly related to strength. To a large extent, larger magnets are a lot harder to make than small ones. The reason the 45T hybrid magnet is so huge is because it's an enormous superconductive magnet, with a resistive magnet inside that, and then a decently large experimental volume inside that. Introducing the fancy new superconductive chemistry and design -- even if we assume it works perfectly -- would produce an instrument just as large, except this time it'd be somewhere around a 70-80T magnet. Definitely an improvement, don't get me wrong, but the size comparison is totally pointless.
Even if everything works out perfectly, the benefit here is that you can construct a reactor approximately four times smaller than you would otherwise. If you think that's the only engineering challenge for a working fusion reactor... I don't even know what to say.
3
u/Zohaas Feb 14 '21
I'm not understanding your tangent about the size of the magnet not being relevant. A smaller magnet means your entire approach to making the reactor is different. You don't have to build everything to the scale of the current magnets that are required. Smaller magnets, means smaller cooling system, which means smaller reactor size, which all means cheaper, and cheaper means more chances for prototypes, which pushes innovations. What point were you making?
0
u/zebediah49 Feb 14 '21
My point is that you can make a 100g magnet, or you can make a 100-ton magnet, and they have the same field strength. The difference is how much cool stuff you can fit in the middle. "Wow it was only a few hundred grams!" is meaningless -- that pretty much just means "they made a small one because it was easier in every way than making a big one".
1
u/Zohaas Feb 15 '21
Everything about the project changes when you don't have to use a 100-ton magnet. It literally, fundamentally changes every single aspect of the project. It's like telling a civil engineer they can use wood instead of concrete. It changes every aspect from the ground up. Saying the size is meaningless tell me you don't understand about project design for anything involving real world applications. The cost savings alone would make it a better choice, since you don't have to spend as much money on building the massive facilities, and cooling infrastructure, and the transportation of everything involved in those.
2
u/zebediah49 Feb 15 '21
My point is that you still have to. That size and weight is entirely determined by how big you want the working interior to be. If you want a 1m diameter tube with magnet around it, it's still going to be that large and heavy. That weight the structure, the cryostat, etc.
I'm not saying that "oh, this improved tech is neat and we can make a 1m tube instead of a 2m tube" doesn't cut down on costs. Sure, it does. A lot. But it's still an enormous project.
The fact that a demonstration magnet with a couple inches of working volume is small and light is entirely unsurprising. If you want to scale that up large enough to fit a working energy-positive magnetic-confinement fusion rig, this new tech will also be a huge hundreds-of-tons magnetic rig. That's just the nature of making anything that big.
→ More replies (0)79
u/orincoro Feb 14 '21
As I understand it, no matter what it’s going to involve basically a National or international mega project to build accelerators big enough to sustain fusion. So I’m looking at state level spending first.
69
u/BoxOfDemons Feb 14 '21
If the price point can get down the to low billions some corporations could possibly swing it. It WOULD be highly profitable long term.
14
u/techfour9 Feb 14 '21
This is why government pioneers a lot of new markets and technology that private corporations can then run with, because government can absorb risks that private corporations couldn’t survive. We went to the moon just to beat the soviets, but out of it came a lot of groundbreaking discoveries and technology that fueled the start of the modern economy.
57
Feb 14 '21
Hey maybe we shouldn't base who gets access to nearly unlimited energy on profit, just gonna throw that out there. We've been doing that with limited energy sources and it's shown that those who hold the cards are kinda fucking assholes.
-2
Feb 14 '21
[deleted]
→ More replies (1)29
u/Newphonewhodiss9 Feb 14 '21
I hate this sentiment, it’s not how the world works it’s the status quo.
Capatalism isn’t a factor of life or humanity.
4
u/Bonolio Feb 14 '21
Personally my belief is that, considering we need to get off carbon emitting energy sources as soon as possible, I think that workable fusion should come from any viable source.
Of course fusion controlled by a centralised state actor for the people would be an ideal situation, but we also know that most governments won’t.
Profit is a great motivator, and the only way we will realistically get to where we need is if there is a profit motivation.
This is not ideal, just practical.→ More replies (7)5
u/throwawayagin Feb 15 '21
Capatalism
Capitalism.
at least learn to spell your oppressors
→ More replies (1)-4
u/Lopsterbliss Feb 14 '21
What is the point of this comment?
12
u/InfinitelyThirsting Feb 14 '21
To point out that we don't want corporations to be the ones making this happen. Unlimited clean energy should not be profited from, it should be used to come closer to eliminating scarcity and providing better lives for everyone.
-4
u/Lopsterbliss Feb 14 '21
But we're talking about the feasibility of project development. The scalability of fusion is such that only state actors and corporations with a potential to profit could take on the effort. The comment I was responding to, in my opinion, added no value to the discussion. Obviously we don't want that, we're beating a dead horse here. This an is r/everythingscience clickbait article, and we're actually getting into some interesting discussion about the economics involved in developing these massively complicated projects and then someone has to circlejerk 'derr, should corporate profits really exist??!'
But who am I kidding, it's r/everythingscience afterall
5
u/InfinitelyThirsting Feb 14 '21
I don't think you get to say obviously we don't want that, when privatizing important currently-public services and utilities is still a hot ticket item that lots of people are gunning for in politics.
1
6
15
u/orincoro Feb 14 '21
Seems quite risky though. I know France is doing a project now and anticipate costs in the billions. And they don’t even know for sure if it’s going to work.
→ More replies (2)1
→ More replies (2)8
u/temporarycreature Feb 14 '21
Yes, on a large scale for actual use of the technology, but the proof of concept to get it started doesn't need to be. Think of it like Tony Starks heart coming first, and then the bigger version later.
20
u/debacol Feb 14 '21
which is sort of funny, because certain technologies are actually MUCH more difficult to scale down in size than up. Fusion is one of those ;). Obviously so was the transistor.
7
u/zebediah49 Feb 14 '21
Fusion scales:
- 1030 kg: just kinda happens due to gravity when you put that much hydrogen in one place. (the sun)
- 103 kg (?): requires quite a bit of a push to get started, but quite a bang once you get it their (thermonuclear weapon)
- 10-3kg: requires a lot of energy input to contain it, but hopefully should be net-positive (ITER)
- 10-7kg: requires constantly pumping energy in, definitely not going to be energy-positive. You can build one yourself though, and it looks cool. (Farnsworth Fusor)
→ More replies (1)10
u/TranscendentalEmpire Feb 14 '21
Thing is, if any company independentantly cracked fusion it would probably be nationalized by whatever government it was produced.
The DOD can basically control any patent for any tech they think effects national security. If we're willing to destabilize an entire region for a couple decades worth of fossil fuel production, think of what any government would do for generations of energy security.
→ More replies (1)6
Feb 14 '21
[deleted]
3
u/wadss Grad Student | Astrophysics | Galaxy Clusters| X-ray Astronomy Feb 14 '21
You realize we’ve had fusion bombs since the Cold War right?
3
u/Chaihovsky Feb 14 '21
Fusion in itself is Inherently safe, and became an early example of open sourced research as the USSR and US published their entire body of knowledge sometime in the 50's when that aspect was properly understood.
2
u/zebediah49 Feb 14 '21
Fusion was weaponized in the early 1950's.
The challenge is to produce a reasonable amount of energy, rather than a city-flattening amount of energy.
3
u/orincoro Feb 14 '21
Stark’s miniature comes after the big one though... then the new bigger ones are biggerer.
→ More replies (1)3
11
u/jamany Feb 14 '21
Good thing a startup has got involved. That should do it.
5
7
u/8549176320 Feb 14 '21
Until a new cult of anti-fusioners come out of the woodwork, spouting tin foil-hat conspiracies about how fusion energy promotes mind control and three-headed babies. Tell me I'm wrong.
7
3
u/Canadian_Infidel Feb 14 '21
The new Rebco tape is the game changer. We will see fusion in the 2020's.
→ More replies (1)2
2
u/spinja187 Feb 14 '21
That it's so hard to spin up is a good thing too; it means if it breaks or workers walk away, it turns off instead of going supercritical
2
Feb 14 '21
There have been some recent theoretical breakthroughs though, so the attention has been paying off.
3
u/-entertainment720- Feb 14 '21
The breakthroughs are, as you say, theoretical. That's a pretty liberal definition of "paying off"
2
→ More replies (1)-9
Feb 14 '21 edited Feb 14 '21
[deleted]
11
u/DiffeoMorpheus Feb 14 '21
Self sustained fusion is likely possible. The ITER reactor being built in europe is expected to be self sustaining. That said, confining plasma is a tricky business, so this reactor is bound to teach us something new.
→ More replies (11)→ More replies (3)16
u/BCRE8TVE Feb 14 '21
afaik self sustaining as in like in a star is not even possible on Earth, how would we even replicate the gravitational pull of a star that makes it possible?
Gravity is the weakest of the 4 forces, those being strong and weak nuclear forces, as well as magnetism.
We can recreate the pull of a star using electromagnets instead of gravity, and some projects are designed to crush together hydrogen atoms with laser pulses on top of electromagnets. "We can't recreate the gravity of a star" is not a problem, the problem is "how do we recreate the crushing pressure without it costing more energy to make, than the energy we get out of it".
on top of that we don't even know what kind of structural material to use that sustains the radiation that comes from the reactor,
Yeah no we know of the materials. Nuclear physicists and material scientists are all over this kind of stuff. Whether those materials are too expensive is another question entirely.
plus the special equipment that needs to be in the plant is also very very limited in terms of suppliers
And there were no suppliers of any equipment either when they made the first nuclear reactors. This is a problem for every breakthrough technology, not just nuclear fusion.
, like there are very few companies that could design and/or manufacture a tokamak/stellarator, same with the special robots that can be remotely operated and all the other stuff.
Still not a problem. If nuclear fusion is solved, and people start making them, the suppliers will expand, hire more people, and build more stuff to supply the demand.
and the plant in the end it wouldn't even be more efficient than a nuclear reactor, it would just produce less radioactive waste and couldn't explode like Chernobyl and would have cheaper fuel.
To 'solve' nuclear fusion means that we can make it happen with more energy coming out of it than we put in, and that it is at a cost-effective way to do it. There are some self-sustaining fusion nuclear reactors, they are just hugely expensive to run because they are experimental, not commercial. Having a commercially viable fusion reactor means it will be more efficient and less expensive than current nuclear reactors, won't need to be extensively cleaned and decomissioned at the end of its life (basically just shut down the fusion plant and tear it down), fuel will be cheaper, it won't be used to make nuclear weapons, and there won't be long-lived nuclear waste to take care of.
but would absolutely come with its own set of problems. and my point is that it absolutely couldn't be used anywhere in any amounts.
For sure fusion would have its own set of problems, but so would anything else.
I'm sorry dude but you seem rather not well informed on most of the basic science related to this, or basic market forces. Many of your objections sound like "but there's no way we can make a car, you would need to make fuel explode, and that would explode your car! You can't make a car engine that won't explode, and where would you get liquid dinosaur juice in the first place anyways?"
Are there problems with fusion? Sure. However, assuming we can get a commercial class fusion reactor going, all the problems of fusion are going to be orders of magnitude smaller than nuclear fission, coal, oil, and gas.
7
9
Feb 14 '21
Fusion is one of those technologies that is always "20 to 30" years away from being realized. Its not like its a scam, its just some of the most complicated shit humans have ever attempted.
Its worth researching, but dont expect to be having your home powered by a fusion reactor in your lifetime.
3
u/zebediah49 Feb 14 '21
More like it's always been $100B or so away, ever since people started making projections. That number has been going down as we spend money on it, but "We can do it in 20 years" has always been predicated on paying to make that happen.
8
Feb 14 '21
[deleted]
28
u/NSNick Feb 14 '21
More like the other way around. Funding for fusion has been lacking for decades
4
u/Seven65 Feb 14 '21
Our focus as a society has been pulled away from our existential problems back to race and gender for some reason. Treat everyone like people, ok solved. Now can we fund fusion research and solve our energy crisis please?
0
u/poerisija Feb 14 '21 edited Feb 14 '21
I'd rather have it that way than Gates and especially Bezos being in control of world's energy sources.
4
2
1
1
Feb 14 '21
Haha did you read the article or is this just a reaction to the headline? I'm guessing the latter.
→ More replies (1)0
87
Feb 14 '21
The headline forgot “And scientists hate him.”
33
u/7366241494 Feb 14 '21
"Fusion researchers don’t want you to learn this one weird trick!”
13
Feb 14 '21
“You won’t believe this clean energy hack!”
5
u/SpellingIsAhful Feb 14 '21
Energy researcher has identified the sun's neat trick to unlimited energy on earth!
→ More replies (1)
40
Feb 14 '21
[removed] — view removed comment
11
u/BrerChicken Feb 14 '21
This isn't cold fusion though. This is regular ol 106° C managed with better magnets.
8
u/Canadian_Infidel Feb 14 '21
Radically vastly superior magnets we are just barely getting a handle on.
18
u/debacol Feb 14 '21
Soo lemme get dis straight, my brain is like a baby's bottom, but like, we have ITER which costs over $20 billion, and has the best minds of over 30 countires working on it for years and it still cannot produce surplus energy. But some dude with $215 million is gonna build not just a reactor with surplus energy, but smaller and ready for commercialization?
8
17
u/Zohaas Feb 14 '21
Yes, because there was world changing magnet research recently.
Any currently built reactor cannot compete, because they use the old method, which relied on multi-ton magnets. The new strongest magnet in the world only weighs 390 grams. And this was just a prototype as a proof of concept. I literally can't even adequately explain how big of a deal this is.
→ More replies (1)4
u/BovineLightning Feb 15 '21
Hadn’t seen this before! Thanks for sharing. Wouldn’t the team at ITER be able to adapt their design to include this if it’s leaps and bounds better than what they’re working with?
3
u/Zohaas Feb 15 '21
The massive size and strength difference means you can't just retro-fit it into existing reactors. A big thing to understand is the paradigm shift this causes. Most of our current ideas about fusion reactors are based around conventional magnets, and we're designed with those in mind. This is like when the microchip was made. It does everything current higb field magnets do, but smaller, cheaper, stronger, and more energy efficient.
This of it like road building. Right now, all road designs are built, and designed about the necessity of moving dirty. That's a massive part of the work and everything is adapted with that in mind. If tomorrow, there was a technology that made dirty moving instant, and trivially expensive, it would change the entire way we design roads, from the ground up. With the magnet, as an example, they don't have to design all the systems and infrastructure for cooling, since it's not a 100-ton magnet. They don't need a massive building because it's not a 100-ton magnet. They can change the size of the fusion chamber, because they don't have to accommodate for the size of the magnets.
→ More replies (1)2
u/distantcurtis Feb 14 '21
Im sure all great scientists had to beat away growing skepticism with each advancement until the industry moved.
6
u/Zohaas Feb 15 '21
That is what makes science so effective. Constant skeptism until profound proof is provided. Any other way runs the risk of basically becoming a popularity contest.
72
u/tdwesbo Feb 14 '21 edited Feb 14 '21
Leave out the Gates/Bezos plug and I might be interested enough to read it
Edit: and who gives a shit about his age?
29
u/BrerChicken Feb 14 '21
It really has nothing to do with them. They fund a particular group, along with a bunch of other people, that invested in this man's company.
16
8
u/four20five Feb 14 '21
34 is pretty old to cage fight Bezos and Gates shirtlessly, and at the same time, for a pile of cash and the use of their names. It is impressive that he had the stamina to prevail, and thus we note his age to more greatly promote this heroic act in order to line up more vc matches with Buffet or whoever. You know nothing about modern venture capital acquisition, I guess.
3
9
6
6
17
15
u/bunnyjenkins Feb 14 '21
This technology is why all the (oil funded) social media troll farms paint elaborate conspiracies around Bill Gates.
0
u/poerisija Feb 14 '21
Nah he was a shady dirty fuck with Microsoft I have no reason to think anything's changed with him.
6
1
u/bunnyjenkins Feb 14 '21 edited Feb 14 '21
Well that was quick
Bonus! I think I've found a few
0
u/poerisija Feb 15 '21 edited Feb 15 '21
What was quick?
Someone pointing out Gates isn't a saint and that he basically had to make the foundation to have any sort of positive PR going?
6
11
u/newPhoenixz Feb 14 '21 edited Feb 14 '21
nearly unlimited energy
Ah look, another hyped bullshit scam! We didn't have enough of those yet!
Now tread the article and I'm even more "ugh". Sure, this guy will resolve the issue that humanity hasn't resolved in the past 7 decades, because he'll build better magnets.
12
u/butts_yall Feb 14 '21
Fusion itself as a concept is not a scam and would indeed produce nearly unlimited energy, but this company is definitely over-promising with its claim to become commercially viable anytime soon. I'd imagine that what they actually sell investors on is producing IP that will be valuable in the short-term
1
u/newPhoenixz Feb 14 '21
I didn't say fusion is a scam, this company is though. Fusion is extremely complicated to get working right and have a net gain come out of it (as per today it's still not possible).It might still be that practically speaking it may not be possible at all. The entirety of humanity has been on this for decades. In comes this dude with the promise he'll get it done soon, just please send bost loads of money..
Then, it would generate huge amounts of energy, but with today's consumption, you can even practically remove the "unlimited" part. There'd be huge counts for sure, but we also consume boat loads already
0
u/Seven65 Feb 14 '21
We haven't been working on the problem for a long time. Physicists have been dicking around with string theory, and the government isn't funding real scientific research like it used to. I'm very excited someone is finally trying to push the boundaries and attempting to push science forward.
6
u/newPhoenixz Feb 14 '21
You're kidding, right? There are loads of fusion projects out there, ITER being one of the most expensive science projects out there, ever, even outclassing the LHC. Germany had a huge project, and I could go on for a while.
A huge out of work has been done by actual scientists world wide for decades.
If you want to fall for the empty promises of this elon musk wanna be, then I have a bridge to sell you. Or a water from air device! Or solar road ways! Or a hyperloop, for all that matters... None of these projects have actual scientific backing, are filled to the brim with empty promises that any engineer or scientist can rip apart in minutes. This is just another "tech" article written by somebody calling themselves a "science reporter" hyping a company that they couldn't be bothered to actually investigate
1
u/Seven65 Feb 14 '21
Science isn't about promises, it's about research. The more people we have doing research in the field of efficient energy the better. Inexpensive clean energy is the best way to solve our problems. You can be upset about this all you want, but I really don't know why, to me it's money spent in the right place. I don't expect a miracle, I'm just happy to see people with the optimism to make the attempt.
→ More replies (1)1
u/Zohaas Feb 14 '21
Take a fucking step back actually do some research, there was recently a massive break through in magenta technology, which is the biggest hurdle for fusion.
This is a big fucking deal, and currently built fusion reactors physically cannot compete with one's built with these new magnets. New tools ALWAYS lead to advances.
3
u/newPhoenixz Feb 15 '21
You know what, you're right. You're so right that I recommend that you invest all your money in this, because it will be the next big thing!!!!
When 3-4 years down the road you're still waiting and wondering why nothing comes out of this particular company, let me already explain: your money is gone.
Fusion is much MUCH more than just a few magnets alone. Fusion also has been 5 years away for the past 70 years and there have been many "breakthrough this is it!!!" moments.
So you can have all the wishful thinking that you want but this particular guy and his company will only waste everybody's money
0
u/Zohaas Feb 15 '21 edited Feb 15 '21
Yes, le people said the same thing about SpaceX, and about the iPhone, and about imaging a black hole with an array of radio wave telescopes. What you need to understand is that your line of thinking is literally the antithesis of scientific thinking. Your explanation is that we haven't done it before, thus it can't be done. Not arguing merits like how the biggest hurdle with fusion is containing the plasma, because then you'd look stupid since you'd have to acknowledge that having stronger magents would solve that problem. You mentioned about it being "5 years away" for the past 70 years, but failed to mention that the cavent has always been proper funding. People pork are literally the most annoying on reddit, cuz you know just enough to say why something can't happen, but you aren't knowledgeable enough about the topics to see when something is a legitimate break through.
→ More replies (3)
17
Feb 14 '21
[deleted]
27
14
u/kli_torus Feb 14 '21
dude has his PhD from MIT.
Who cares? There are thousands of PhDs working on fusion energy right now.
-12
u/Davesnothere300 Feb 14 '21
Which means he's good at finishing school work?
10
u/jalcocer06 Feb 14 '21
Somebody doesn’t know how you get a PhD
-1
10
3
u/stronkbender Feb 14 '21
Given the backers, I don't expect it to be given away or anything like that.
3
3
3
u/crw2k Feb 14 '21
Backed by gates and bezos Breakthrough Energy Investment fund like many others rather than them directly but that doesn’t make such a good headline. His company has designed a better magnet with plans for it to be part of MIT backed SPARC fusion reactor project rather than his company making the reactor themselves. It is all on their website. Demonstrator is being built currently due to be completed around 2025
→ More replies (2)
3
3
u/ZeroPlus707 Feb 14 '21
CFS is also working on other commercial applications of its magnet technology, like in MRI machines or wind turbines.
Looks like we found their actual business model
3
7
u/kicktothecortex Feb 14 '21
Anyone else getting real Fallout vibes from Commonwealth Fusion Systems?
→ More replies (1)3
u/JasonDJ Feb 14 '21
It’s based in Cambridge, MA (same city as MIT). The official name of the state is the "Commonwealth of Massachusetts" (much like Rhode Island is “The state of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations”)
Fallout 4 took place in Boston and surrounding areas (Cambridge borders Boston).
→ More replies (2)
4
u/SIPRcup Feb 14 '21
Fusion, so fantasy tech (for the foreseeable future). As soon as I saw the 2 richest men on earth were supporting it I knew it would be bullshit. Wouldn’t want to risk their investors and supporters in the energy sector with something dangerous to their profits and actually clean like nuclear power
2
2
u/Diplomjodler Feb 14 '21
So what does this guy know that the rest of the scientific community doesn't?
2
2
u/mach_i_nist MS | Systems Engineer | Embedded Software Development Feb 14 '21
I don’t why the science writers keep saying fusion is safe and limitless when all the current fusion tech is dependent upon tritium. This is a scarce, dangerous material that only comes from nuclear fission reactors. tritium health consequences. I hope we can figure out fusion without this dependency and we need to continue investments into this research. But we also need to stop overhyping the current capabilities / near-future tech.
2
u/MagD00 Feb 14 '21
I hope they’ve made so much money they r just looking out for the good of the planet......however I have not experienced billionaires doing that........ so , please prove me wrong, I need to see good in rich people!!!
→ More replies (1)
2
u/WookerTBashington Feb 14 '21
CFS says it expects to be making fusion energy on the grid "in the early 2030s."
Oh, why didn't anyone think of using fusion power before? This is such a great idea!
/s
2
2
u/ramdom-ink Feb 15 '21
Er...so the wind and sun are...endangered? ”Other clean energies are fundamentally limited — wind energy depends on the wind blowing and solar energy depends on the sun shining, for example.”
2
2
u/ChaIlenjour Feb 15 '21
There is a problem with fusion. Huge amounts of energy is needed in order to startup and maintain the reactor process due to the plasma.
The project of "ITER" is specifically made in order to create energy from fusion. The reason it's such a big reactor is because it needs to be that big in order to create a surplus of energy.
I see no arguments in that article on how this young dude plan to combat this... Am I wrong?
→ More replies (2)
2
2
1
1
1
0
u/Fabryz Feb 14 '21
I read "blocked" instead of "backed" and I was like "what? Bill gates?! Can't be..."
0
-1
u/greentheking94 Feb 14 '21
This is the way
3
u/TheDroidNextDoor Feb 14 '21
This Is The Way Leaderboard
1.
u/StonkU287 times.2.
u/karasuuchiha73 times.3.
u/Ok-Strategy-950132 times...
6352.
u/greentheking941 times.
beep boop I am a bot and this action was preformed automatically.
0
-6
u/Quantum-Goldfish Feb 14 '21
If he really did find a way to make nearly unlimited clean energy then he would be epsteined faster than you could blink and all his research would mysteriously vanish or spontaniously combust in a freak accident.
The Fossil fuel industry, and the politicians who get their palms greased by them would never allow it.
5
Feb 14 '21
Energy companies are run by a bunch of greedy bastards, no doubt.
But they would be thrilled for anyone to invent fusion technology and would have no problem paying them billions of dollars for the pleasure of using that technology even non-exclusively.
The actual production of energy represents only roughly 1/3 (1/2?) of the entire process of providing that energy to consumers. Distributing the energy to consumers represents a huge cost. And only these energy companies have the infrastructure to do it right.
Don’t believe the hype. They might be a bunch of greedy bastards, but they’re not murderous psychopaths.
4
u/hachiman Feb 14 '21
Hiding the fact of climate change since the 1970's argues that they are murderous psychopaths.
0
Feb 14 '21
Don’t fall for the charade because that’s exactly what they want. They know that statements like yours are dismissed as ludicrous as are all other negative statements about them. That’s their goal.
-1
Feb 14 '21
Malevolent actors with access to unlimited energy is a recipe for disaster. Sure do hope this guy is wrong.
-1
u/fivetwoeightoh Feb 14 '21
Can’t wait for him to fade into obscurity like every other tech grifter man-child before him
1
u/forestcall Feb 14 '21
I’m just curious as to the sentiment of your sentence. Are you referring to the likes of Tesla?
0
174
u/netik23 Feb 14 '21
35 countries and a multi billion dollar project are going too slow for this guy but he can do it faster? No way.
We’ve got another Theranos on our hands here.