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

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 work. Anyway, it's an intense, fast-paced, insightful, and (likely) final public look into his mind, his work, and his character. [link] (Should Google Go Nuclear?) ▶ this video (archive copy) UPDATE: I found a good paper covering the above talk. It's a 25-page PDF, of less than 2MB, with color photos and charts from the video. [link]

in “Dry-run experiments verify key aspect of Sandia nuclear fusion concept” · View on HN

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. Robert Bussard, former Asst. Director of the Atomic Energy Commission and founder of Energy Matter Conversion Corporation (EMC2), has spent 17 years perfecting IEC, a fusion process that converts hydrogen and boron directly into electricity producing helium as the only waste product. Most of this work was funded by the Department of Defense, the details of which have been under seal... until now. Dr. Bussard will discuss his recent results and details of this potentially world-altering technology, whose conception dates back as far as 1924, and even includes a reactor design by Philo T. Farnsworth (inventor of the scanning television). Can a 100 MW fusion reactor be built for less than Google's annual electricity bill? Come see what's possible when you think outside the thermonuclear box and ig

in “Secretive fusion company claims reactor breakthrough” · View on HN

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

in “Inside the Dynomak: A Fusion Technology Cheaper Than Coal” · View on HN

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

in “A Commercial Path to Fusion” · View on HN

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]

in “Former Google VP Starts a Company Promising Clean and Safe Nuclear Energy” · View on HN

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'all? First: Dr. Bussard on fusion: $200M and done: ▶ this video And THE SUN: A fusion reactor that will burn out your eyes from 150 Giga-meters away. We're going to have plenty of ergs for the foreseeable future. Heat pollution will be an issue before the deuterium runs out. I don't like to be vulgar in public but hating on fusion power is just stupid.

in “The Real Population Problem (2013)” · View on HN