Hacker News
points by marshray 3 days ago | 0 comments
Definitely. It will let some smooth-talker with a vibe-coded website raise billions for "Nuclear Fusion AI". Then they can use AI to squeeze your team with lawsuits until you agree to sell cheap, and maybe keep you on as an employee to build it.
[–] Routine8502 3 days ago
Hah. Fusion scammers are a dime a dozen. Unlike SaaS apps or finance, though, you can't sweet talk a neutron into existence, so they fizzle out pretty fast. I'm more worried about fusion dying because nobody comes up with a good enough idea than someone stealing my ideas.
[–] eru 3 days ago
Going on a tangent: I think fusion is pretty much useless this century. We already have energy generation technology that has high capital costs and low running costs: it's called nuclear fission and works fairly well.

Fission hasn't exactly taken the world by storm.

There are a few nice advantages fusion has, but they are more important once we want to reach the stars as far as I can tell; not this century on this planet.

But I'm just an armchair analyst. You probably have a much better understanding.

[–] Routine8502 3 days ago
Nah I agree with you. Not this century, not this planet. Fusion rockets are really efficient, though ;)

I just find it to be an interesting problem! My hope is it happens before I die. My rule of thumb is anyone who says energy on the grid in < 10 years is a blatant liar.

[–] eru 2 days ago
Oh, I think energy on the grid in < 10 years is probably technically feasible.

It's just probably not economically feasible, ie it would be a waste of resources to rush fusion so much.

> I just find it to be an interesting problem!

Ha, that's why I was working Zero Knowledge Proofs for quite a while. I don't even hold any cryptocurrency or other crypto assets.

[–] Routine8502 2 days ago
I agree that you can build a facility to put energy on the grid in under a decade, but the probability that it works is going to be tiny, and anyone giving you the billion or so it would take would be disappointed to say the least.

Therefore, most credible folks are talking a 2-3 facility staged approach. And probably 5 years per facility to build, and 5 years per to test.

Also, remember that even with huge cash pools, you have supply chain problems. Some of the nonlinear optics takes a fixed amount of time to fabricate.

[–] eru 2 days ago
> I agree that you can build a facility to put energy on the grid in under a decade, but the probability that it works is going to be tiny, and anyone giving you the billion or so it would take would be disappointed to say the least.

A giant water tank that you detonate H-bombs in should work, and even be energy positive. :)