Should Google Go Nuclear? Clean, cheap, nuclear power (no, really)

What Hacker News said

Strong rec ThaddeusQuay2 · 2012-09 · on “Dry-run experiments verify key aspect of Sandia nuclear fusion concept”

Bussard was a genius who couldn't get funding. Less than a year before he died of cancer, he asked Google for a paltry sum to continue his research, shortly after the government cut him off. I have wondered why Google didn't jump on this. Do you know? And now, ironically, the Navy, the very entity which tossed him out, has not only picked up his research, but has apparently gone all quiet about the results. Here's the video of his excellent (and, in retrospect, sad) presentation at Google. I say "sad" because it shows an intellectual giant, nearly on his deathbed, practically begging an Internet giant, for what was really the tiny amount he needed to continue with what had become his life's

Recommends carapace · 2014-11 · on “Inside the Dynomak: A Fusion Technology Cheaper Than Coal”

Dr. Bussard gave a very interesting talk on his design for "inertial electrostatic confinement" fusion reactor: [this video]

Recommends carapace · 2015-08 · on “Secretive fusion company claims reactor breakthrough”

I keep wondering why this talk doesn't get more traction? [this video] Published on Aug 22, 2012 Google Tech Talks November 9, 2006 ABSTRACT This is not your father's fusion reactor! Forget everything you know about conventional thinking on nuclear fusion: high-temperature plasmas, steam turbines, neutron radiation and even nuclear waste are a thing of the past. Goodbye thermonuclear fusion; hello inertial electrostatic confinement fusion (IEC), an old idea that's been made new. While the international community debates the fate of the politically-turmoiled $12 billion ITER (an experimental thermonuclear reactor), simple IEC reactors are being built as high-school science fair projects. Dr. Rober

Cites marktangotango · 2014-02 · on “A Star in a Bottle”

I believe he's referring to assertions made by Robert Bussard in this talk [this video] . Bussards comments on the DOE and funding tokomaks is toward the end iirc. Bussard is by no means a crank, he IS from a different era for sure. Edit; for those just discovering polywell fusion; Bremelstrung radiation is the primary reason why it may or may not be practicable.

Cites carapace · 2015-10 · on “The Real Population Problem (2013)”

We convert fuel into people. As the author states, "It’s so blindingly obvious that I am embarrassed to have belabored the point as long as I have." To slow population growth anyway educate young women and provide them seed capital. A new person in the U.S. uses far more resources than a new person born in China or India, so the U.S. population growth has a far greater effect than they do despite their greater growth rate. (A good reason not to have children if you live in the U.S., as the author has chosen not to do.) In the final section titled "Oil-Clouded Crystal Ball" the author ignores fusion. The word "fusion" appears nowhere in the article. ------- EDIT: What's with the fusion hate y

Cites killjoywashere · 2017-04 · on “Former Google VP Starts a Company Promising Clean and Safe Nuclear Energy”

I wonder if this is based on the Bussard polywell design. The Navy was soliciting for bids on development of that as recently as 2008 (1), and Bussard presented at Google at in 2006 (2). A decade seems about right to get from small prototype that blew up to stable prototype. Indeed, other people think this too (3). 1) [LINK] 2) [this video] 3) [LINK]

Cites carapace · 2019-08 · on “A Commercial Path to Fusion”

FWIW, Dr. Robert Bussard claimed in 2006 that the inertial electrostatic confinement fusor could be developed for ~$200M IIRC [LINK] "Should Google Go Nuclear? Clean, cheap, nuclear power (no, really)" [this video]