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

Microsoft Bets That Fusion Power Is Closer Than Many Think

wsj.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 86 posts

Re: Microsoft Bets That Fusion Power Is Closer Than Many Think

#41

Post by nradov »

sylens wrote: post #19
aaronblohowiak wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are most fusion reactor designs a national security concern? I am not a nuclear physicist but from my rudimentary understanding of most modern approaches I don’t see how they would help with bad stuff (other than creating material for a dirty bomb through waste perhaps)

Energy independence would upend a lot of international trade markets and therefore geopolitical stability in some areas. If you don't need Saudi Arabia for oil, why do you care what happens there?

The USA is already largely energy independent. We import very little oil from Saudi Arabia. But if the price of fusion power gets low enough (questionable) then that would obviously have a huge impact on international trade.

Re: Microsoft Bets That Fusion Power Is Closer Than Many Think

#42

Post by DennisP »

nordsieck wrote: post #38
DennisP wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Given climate change, if Helion works then it would be in the interest of the US for it to spread worldwide as quickly as possible. Especially since it uses a mostly-aneutronic reaction.

> Given climate change, if Helion works then it would be in the interest of the US for it to spread worldwide as quickly as possible. Especially since it uses a mostly-aneutronic reaction. The US may want cheap energy to spread world wide. That doesn't necessarily mean the US wants fusion tech to spread world wide.

There's nothing scary about this. If it works it'll be very cheap, dispatchable power with no need for storage, curtailment, long-distance transmission, or demand management. It works just as well in any location, is massively scalable, and isn't really helpful for making bombs.

Re: Microsoft Bets That Fusion Power Is Closer Than Many Think

#43

Post by incahoots »

DennisP wrote: post #29
dotBen wrote: post #6

Given the implications of this technology I wonder how much development is actually being done "in the open". And therefore how close to a breakthrough we are, whether a breakthrough has already occured and we are being fed delayed findings, and ultimately how a private organization like Microsoft would truly be able to access matured tech. Whether by incentive or by coercion, it feels like the DOD and the DOE would…

Given climate change, if Helion works then it would be in the interest of the US for it to spread worldwide as quickly as possible. Especially since it uses a mostly-aneutronic reaction.

That really depends on how fast they can capitalize on doing so. Whilst it's nice to think America would share such tech willingly, I'd offer the reality that if it's not generating a revenue, it's not being given away.

Re: Microsoft Bets That Fusion Power Is Closer Than Many Think

#44

Post by kevmo314 »

emaginniss wrote: post #20
avalys wrote: post #5

Given that Helios hasn’t demonstrated production of any amount of energy from fusion, this is probably just bullshit, like the United “order” for supersonic jets from Boom a few months ago. Similarly, Boom has not even flown a prototype yet.

I'm not sure why you're so negative on a business model that has worked for tech startups for decades now. Many businesses have started by promising to fix a problem experienced by a larger entity. Along with product guidance, the startup often gets capital in the form of investment. The larger company gets a low-risk attempt to solve their problem with the possibility of upside in the case of a larger than expected…

The larger company's involvement feels closer to nepotism.

If Helion actually pulls off productive fusion, Microsoft will buy the power regardless. Same with Boom, if their jet really is efficient, United would buy one no matter what because it makes business sense. Signaling like this feels more like a marketing campaign to investors rather than a signal of potential.

Re: Microsoft Bets That Fusion Power Is Closer Than Many Think

#45

Post by DennisP »

incahoots wrote: post #43
DennisP wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Given climate change, if Helion works then it would be in the interest of the US for it to spread worldwide as quickly as possible. Especially since it uses a mostly-aneutronic reaction.

That really depends on how fast they can capitalize on doing so. Whilst it's nice to think America would share such tech willingly, I'd offer the reality that if it's not generating a revenue, it's not being given away.

Helion plans to build a factory churning out twenty 50MW reactors per day, capable of producing dispatchable electricity for about $0.01/kWh. If they achieve that then revenue won't be a problem.

Re: Microsoft Bets That Fusion Power Is Closer Than Many Think

#46

Post by thangalin »

lillecarl wrote: post #36
maeln wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The response by Improbable Matter is also interesting in its own right https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3vUPhsFoniw

Thunderf00t, YouTubes own cynic also made a video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p3VGDCa9fZg We know we can achieve fusion, but as far as I'm informed we still don't know that we can take more energy out than we put in.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fusion_energy_gain_factor

> On December 13, 2022, the United States Department of Energy announced that NIF had exceeded the previously elusive Q ≥ 1 milestone on December 5, 2022. This was achieved by producing 3.15 MJ after delivering 2.05 MJ to the target, for an equivalent Q of 1.54.

Re: Microsoft Bets That Fusion Power Is Closer Than Many Think

#47

Post by ThomPete »

tasty_freeze wrote: post #11
ThomPete wrote: post #4

Fusion is not just another way to power our lightbulbs it's a completely different kind of energy. Two unique properties of energy density like Fusion. 1. The ability to hit 10% of the speed of light in space 2. The ability to create fundamental elements like gold, silver etc. Another good example of the fact that there are no scarcity of resources only scarcity of knowledge. Resources are created not found. Edit: Wh…

Fusion releases energy when producing items lighter than iron. It requires energy to create atoms heavier than iron via fusion. It would cost huge amounts of money to produce an ounce of silver or gold that way.

I am not talking about tomorrow. I am talking about the potential of what you can do with the energy density.

Re: Microsoft Bets That Fusion Power Is Closer Than Many Think

#48

Post by luroc »

DennisP wrote: post #42
nordsieck wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Given climate change, if Helion works then it would be in the interest of the US for it to spread worldwide as quickly as possible. Especially since it uses a mostly-aneutronic reaction. The US may want cheap energy to spread world wide. That doesn't necessarily mean the US wants fusion tech to spread world wide.

There's nothing scary about this. If it works it'll be very cheap, dispatchable power with no need for storage, curtailment, long-distance transmission, or demand management. It works just as well in any location, is massively scalable, and isn't really helpful for making bombs.

You are describing a scenario that's very scary for any economy that depends on fossil energy sources to some extent.

Do you really not see the geostrategic advantage in being able to control who gets "free" energy and who doesn't?

Re: Microsoft Bets That Fusion Power Is Closer Than Many Think

#49

Post by bheadmaster »

incahoots wrote: post #43
DennisP wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Given climate change, if Helion works then it would be in the interest of the US for it to spread worldwide as quickly as possible. Especially since it uses a mostly-aneutronic reaction.

That really depends on how fast they can capitalize on doing so. Whilst it's nice to think America would share such tech willingly, I'd offer the reality that if it's not generating a revenue, it's not being given away.

> Whilst it's nice to think America would share such tech willingly, I'd offer the reality that if it's not generating a revenue, it's not being given away. reply

On the contrary, I think as long as it's generating revenue, it's not going to be given away. Remember that UNIX was popularized only because AT&T were under anti-trust sanctions and couldn't sell it.

Re: Microsoft Bets That Fusion Power Is Closer Than Many Think

#50

Post by DennisP »

luroc wrote: post #48
DennisP wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's nothing scary about this. If it works it'll be very cheap, dispatchable power with no need for storage, curtailment, long-distance transmission, or demand management. It works just as well in any location, is massively scalable, and isn't really helpful for making bombs.

You are describing a scenario that's very scary for any economy that depends on fossil energy sources to some extent. Do you really not see the geostrategic advantage in being able to control who gets "free" energy and who doesn't?

Sure but I think climate change trumps that by a wide margin. Plus, our most acute geopolitical foe gets most of its revenue by selling fossil fuels, so it'd work out nicely to steal all their customers.

And it's not like the US controls who gets energy right now, or would be able to for more than a short time. China is already attempting to copy the Helion reactor; if it works then efforts like that will ramp up worldwide.

Post reply on HN