Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Helion’s fusion power purchase agreement with Microsoft

helionenergy.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 258 posts

Re: Helion’s fusion power purchase agreement with Microsoft

#141

Post by pfdietz »

chasil wrote: post #100
DennisP wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Their sixth reactor achieved 100M degree temps, ran for 16 months under vacuum, did thousands of fusion shots, and demonstrated D-He3 fusion. Their seventh will start up in 2024, and is supposed to demonstrate net electricity from D-He3. Their eighth is supposed to be the commercial reactor. If they don't achieve that, they will have to pay penalties to Microsoft.

Divorced from both cynicism and hype, how does this compare to the recent advance in hohlraum laser fusion? https://www.llnl.gov/news/lawrence-livermore-national-labora...

It's much more promising than the laser approach, IMO.

Re: Helion’s fusion power purchase agreement with Microsoft

#142

Post by zackmorris »

thepasswordis wrote: post #58

HN, what the heck has happened to you? What is with all of these cynical comments? Helion is an awesome company, their technology is real, and this is cool. >oh no this might not work! Do you guys not understand that you’re posting on the forum of a venture capital firm/startup accelerator?

I feel some guilt about this, in that the vast majority of my comments are critical in some way. Mostly because I'm trying to dig deeper into the truth and expand the discussion into a meta-analysis. That style of big-picture thinking often reveals conceptual flaws, which is the point!

Anyway, we have the math and experimental evidence now to show that fusion reactors work, and it's just a scaling problem. Sure, it may cost a billion dollars, but Elon Musk could pay that 100 times over. Not only that, but science has become distracted by expensive projects, to the point that it would pour another billion into a particle accelerator rather than fund 1000 research projects for $1 million each. So the main thing stopping us is that financial barrier between the status quo and scalable progress for everyone. And the power of choice in the hands of the wealthy to deny us the catalyst (money) to overcome that barrier.

I thought that life was a meritocracy until the Dot Bomb, Great Recession and concentration of wealth post-pandemic revealed that a few key players pull all of the strings. The amounts of money we're used to dealing with are largely meaningless. So our life's work at countless dead-end jobs is just a rounding error for the wealthy.

Cynical comments could be seen as the outward projection of the jealousy we feel having to go to a job every day instead of doing meaningful deep work on projects like this. And sure, fusion might deliver 1 cent/kWh electricity. But it only costs 10 cents now. So it will not trigger a material improvement in quality of life like we might expect. Meanwhile a fusion plant might make another billion dollars for its owner, which is a material improvement. This is how injustice works as the primary commodity throughout history, and why seemingly egalitarian tech like fusion could and should be looked at with healthy skepticism. Because the people pursuing it would do more for us by taking on the real challenges like ending subjugation and empowering others (through education, automation, UBI, etc), but for all their wealth, they're fixated on egocentric solutions which may never materialize.

Re: Helion’s fusion power purchase agreement with Microsoft

#143

Post by DoreenMichele »

mola wrote: post #40

Sounds like Altman used his personal relationship with Microsoft CEO to do this meaningless PR stunt, so he can more easily pursaude stupid money to actually invest in this.

Maybe people are getting desperate enough for meaningful progress on environmental stuff they've decided to throw money at the problem on the theory that if we don't find real solutions soon, we're all dead anyway.

(A la the scene in The Titanic: "You're money won't do me any good at the bottom of the ocean.")

Re: Helion’s fusion power purchase agreement with Microsoft

#144

Post by sebzim4500 »

anonuser123456 wrote: post #132
sebzim4500 wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't understand your argument at all. In a world where people can produce power through fusion cheaper than they can through coal or oil, why would use of non-clean materials increase?

The price of oil+nat gas will fall as alternative forms of energy come online. But when the price falls, consumption goes up (demand elasticity).

There is a nonzero cost of extracting hydrocarbons, the price can only fall so far.

Re: Helion’s fusion power purchase agreement with Microsoft

#145

Post by SeasonalEnnui »

hutzlibu wrote: post #137
piloto_ciego wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The cynicism is an op, or something - because I don’t have the evidence to say it’s definitively an “op” - as the kids say. But legitimately, there is a strong cynical bubble in the zeitgeist now, and it’s dangerous. There are a few things this cynicism says. 1. “People suck and are terrible.” 2. “People are stupid.” 3. “We can’t change anything.” 4. “Great calamity is going to happen and we are powerless to stop it.…

"The world doesn’t suck, it’s much better than it used to be" Better then when and by what meassure? It is quite subjective I think. One satirical person offered this quote: We optimized for the minimum of individual luck, to get the maximum of people. I am not fully behind this quote, it is satirical, but I think there is too much truth behind it. Ecologically things look bad. Geopolitical the same. But yes, the sun…

"Factfulness: Ten Reasons We're Wrong About the World" is a book that makes an excellent attempt to answer this.

Re: Helion’s fusion power purchase agreement with Microsoft

#146

Post by bequanna »

schainks wrote: post #61
mola wrote: post #40

Sounds like Altman used his personal relationship with Microsoft CEO to do this meaningless PR stunt, so he can more easily pursaude stupid money to actually invest in this.

AIUI Helion’s bottleneck is the number of capacitors needed to run a sustained reaction at a given scale. The numbers don’t seem out of this world to me, and it’s probably smarter money than what we are throwing at ITER given time to market.

Having watched a short documentary on ITER it seems like an incredible waste. A bunch of mismanagement and bureaucratic nonsense. As an American, it seemed like exactly what we would expect from a Euro-based project.

By the time any actual work can be done at ITER, won't the technology have progressed beyond they design they are trying to test?

Re: Helion’s fusion power purchase agreement with Microsoft

#147

Post by YetAnotherNick »

ramraj07 wrote: post #71
schainks wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

AIUI Helion’s bottleneck is the number of capacitors needed to run a sustained reaction at a given scale. The numbers don’t seem out of this world to me, and it’s probably smarter money than what we are throwing at ITER given time to market.

I mean I won’t put MY money in to Helion. From whatever I’ve read it’s not that simple for Helion to get their reactor to work and even if they did it likely won’t produce meaningful net power. But let’s see.

Of course you shouldn't unless you have billions lying dedicated for leaving your legacy. It is a semi moonshot semi charity project, I don't think even investors would disagree with this. Similar to what OpenAI was like 4 years ago when it raised $1B as a non profit.

Re: Helion’s fusion power purchase agreement with Microsoft

#148

Post by simonebrunozzi »

Reminds me of a similarly vague "statement" made by BOOM supersonic, another YC company. [0] Here's an excerpt:

United will purchase 15 of Boom’s ‘Overture’ airliners, once Overture meets United’s demanding safety, operating and sustainability requirements, with an option for 35 more aircraft. Slated to carry passengers in 2029, the net-zero carbon aircraft will fly on 100% sustainable aviation fuel (SAF).

Let me tell you where the problem is.

If there is no PENALTY for United or Microsoft to get out of the deal, and/or no upfront payment, it's simply a completely empty statement.

Let me give you an example.

Here, on HN, today, I solemnly declare that I am available to sign a deal with Helion to purchase 50 MW of power generation, for 10 years, generated by their 1st power plant, starting in 2028.

We can pre agree on the price, yes. Let's say $40 per MWh [1]. This is 50 MW * 24 * 365 = 438,000 MWh / year, or ~$16M/year. (correct me if this math is completely wrong). Fantastic!

Oh, by the way: nothing will happen to me if I walk away from this deal. I am not giving any upfront payment. Nothing. Just my word.

See you in 2028. Or not.

p.s. happy to be proven wrong, if Microsoft of Helion (or Boom) are kind enough to provide more details about this "agreement".

Besides this, I wish them all the best. Just don't try to sell me this PR BS, please.

[0]: https://boomsupersonic.com/united

[1]: https://www.nuenergen.com/solutions/smart-grid/price-point

Re: Helion’s fusion power purchase agreement with Microsoft

#149

Post by jillesvangurp »

bmitc wrote: post #117

Does anyone have some thoughts on whether fusion will actually help fight climate change? Of course, fusion is far more clean than coal or gas and less environmentally destructive, aside from the mining of materials required, than say hydro power plants. But from what I can tell, the primary contributor to damaging the climate and environment is consumption, as a process. I currently see no end result where fusion do…

I think it's a long term great option that will have to prove itself based on a cost/performance basis in an extremely competitive market.

Therefore, short term the impact is going to be minimal/negligible. There are no plants yet, no approved plans to build any, no validated designs for any, etc. The first few plants are going to be very research/prototype focused and won't produce any impressive amounts of energy relative to what is needed and what is coming online every year in other forms. Best case, we'll see some early adoption in the late 2030's early 2040s with some proof of concept reactors coming online maybe in the next five to ten years already. Several companies are claiming that they are doing that; including Helion. That would be optimistic but it could happen. But I'd be surprised if it hits more than a few percent of global supply before middle of the century. And even that would be a lot.

Getting most coal, gas, and other fossil fuels offline by the 2050s would be the main challenge and a bit of a stretch goal according to some. I think fusion will be too late for to play a major role for that either way. If fusion starts working as advertised, it will likely be the second half of this century. It's main role will be to drive cost down and replace more expensive nuclear reactors.

I'm actually optimistic about the 2050 timeline here mainly because I think the fossil fuel industry is heading for an investment and cost cliff much faster than they are hoping and mainly because that is driven by the pricing of and investment in renewables. They are being to optimistic how long they can remain profitable and too pessimistic about how much further renewables are going to come down in cost. Once they hit that cliff, a lot of remaining supply will be deprecated and taken offline as fast as they can replace it with something vastly cheaper. They'll be bleeding cash all the way. Also, investment is ramping up and shifting from one to the other faster than they hope. So, I take most current projections that seem overly pessimistic and conservative with a grain of salt.

Either way fusion won't be that important for getting rid of fossil fuels. But if it works and is cheap enough there will be a role for it beyond the 2050 timeline.

By then, we should be pretty far done tackling climate change. Mostly via renewables and maybe a bit of nuclear here and there and lots of cheap and scalable storage. There are so many proven battery chemistries and other solutions for this now that I consider that as pretty much guaranteed to happen. A mix of short term, mid term, and long term storage coming online by the tens of twh per year in a few decades. The grid will be very different than it is today with lots of private and de-centralized generation (almost exclusively renewables) and storage, micro grids, etc.

Re: Helion’s fusion power purchase agreement with Microsoft

#150

Post by sfpotter »

stevenhuang wrote: post #120
ramraj07 wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can be optimistic when you’re just making an app to rent your room out or to find a dog walker. You can hustle and sell useless SaaS services long enough to get acquired for no real reason except managerial power plays in large companies. In the world of software you can kinda make almost any idea work with sweat and political maneuvering. You can literally see that they’re trying to play the same games here. How…

There are worse ways to destroy capital, and the VC capital destruction is going to happen anyways. Might as well put it towards fusion. The criticisms raised in the video are fair, and also the first youtube comment has an interesting point: > Why would he allow this reckless behavior? Why would he himself be standing right there with them next to the device while it was in operation? Then I watched the video more c…

A better way to destroy that capital: have it appropriated by the government and used to fund actual science.
Post reply on HN