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

51–60 of 86 posts

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

#51

Post by nradov »

slothtrop wrote: post #22
markus_zhang wrote: post #16

If we get fusion power and ai and longevity up in next 10-20 years it's going to be nightmare for ordinary people. Yeah, nightmare, not paradise.

A rapid transition would necessitate the need for legislative/policy changes. People aren't going to complacently waddle in "nightmares". Workers already feel priced out of the housing market, just add it to the pile.

There will be no rapid transition. Even if Helion's design actually works (and it might not), the plants will be expensive to construct. It would take decades to scale up production.

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

#52

Post by incahoots »

bheadmaster wrote: post #49
incahoots wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Oh you mean when the DOJ used to trial Anti-Trust suits? I can't recall the last time they acted on a monopoly.

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

#53

Post by pantalaimon »

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.

What makes you think this is going to be cheap? There is a lot of high tech going into this, costs for a fusion device would likely eclipse that of an EUV stepper (if we are talking small scale devices), for plants the size of ITER that's a whole nother level.

Fission was supposed to be super cheap too, but construction costs rendered that a fantasy.

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

#54

Post by zdragnar »

pantalaimon wrote: post #53
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.

What makes you think this is going to be cheap? There is a lot of high tech going into this, costs for a fusion device would likely eclipse that of an EUV stepper (if we are talking small scale devices), for plants the size of ITER that's a whole nother level. Fission was supposed to be super cheap too, but construction costs rendered that a fantasy.

Construction costs for fission are largely bloated due to safety, activist and political concerns that span the realm of pragmatic and necessary to pure fantasy as well.

Aneutronic fusion would (hopefully) bypass a lot of that.

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

#55

Post by netsharc »

DennisP wrote: post #50
luroc wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 wor…

I wonder if there's already a paper, or a fictional book, about what happens if someone invents something that makes fossil fuels obsolete within, say, a year. The OPEC countries would suddenly be faced with losing one of their biggest income streams. It would be interesting to speculate...

Of course there are different levels of obsolence, all the petrol cars won't disappear, unless someone invents a magic liquid to replace petrol/diesel with something that works identically but without the pollution.

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

#56

Post by pantalaimon »

netsharc wrote: post #55
DennisP wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 wor…

I wonder if there's already a paper, or a fictional book, about what happens if someone invents something that makes fossil fuels obsolete within, say, a year. The OPEC countries would suddenly be faced with losing one of their biggest income streams. It would be interesting to speculate... Of course there are different levels of obsolence, all the petrol cars won't disappear, unless someone invents a magic liquid to…

You still need fossil fuels for the chemical industry, transportation, etc.

Even if electricity becomes cheap (we can already do that with wind and solar) changing everything else is a huge task.

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

#57

Post by euroderf »

HPsquared wrote: post #18
markus_zhang wrote: post #16

If we get fusion power and ai and longevity up in next 10-20 years it's going to be nightmare for ordinary people. Yeah, nightmare, not paradise.

Not fully automated luxury space communism?

Still working out the kinks in the requirements spec.

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

#58

Post by rcpt »

zdragnar wrote: post #54
pantalaimon wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What makes you think this is going to be cheap? There is a lot of high tech going into this, costs for a fusion device would likely eclipse that of an EUV stepper (if we are talking small scale devices), for plants the size of ITER that's a whole nother level. Fission was supposed to be super cheap too, but construction costs rendered that a fantasy.

Construction costs for fission are largely bloated due to safety, activist and political concerns that span the realm of pragmatic and necessary to pure fantasy as well. Aneutronic fusion would (hopefully) bypass a lot of that.

When it becomes clear that fusion can displace coal those safety, activist and political concerns will immediately pop up again

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

#59

Post by htag »

zdragnar wrote: post #54
pantalaimon wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What makes you think this is going to be cheap? There is a lot of high tech going into this, costs for a fusion device would likely eclipse that of an EUV stepper (if we are talking small scale devices), for plants the size of ITER that's a whole nother level. Fission was supposed to be super cheap too, but construction costs rendered that a fantasy.

Construction costs for fission are largely bloated due to safety, activist and political concerns that span the realm of pragmatic and necessary to pure fantasy as well. Aneutronic fusion would (hopefully) bypass a lot of that.

* The safety is massively different than fission because there is no 'run away' reaction. If you turn off the power, fusion will stop. Fission will keep going once started, and can be very dangerous if the cooling system fails.

* I do believe the fusion paths Helios is using emit neutrons, which is a big safety concern. Not only is neutron radiation directly deadly to humans, it's also a challenge to maintain containment. Neutrons are not magnetic, so matter must be used as a shield. Most materials that absorb a neutron will itself become radioactive. I'm unsure about the number of neutrons Helios is emitting, or will emit as they scale up.

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

#60

Post by DennisP »

zdragnar wrote: post #54
pantalaimon wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What makes you think this is going to be cheap? There is a lot of high tech going into this, costs for a fusion device would likely eclipse that of an EUV stepper (if we are talking small scale devices), for plants the size of ITER that's a whole nother level. Fission was supposed to be super cheap too, but construction costs rendered that a fantasy.

Construction costs for fission are largely bloated due to safety, activist and political concerns that span the realm of pragmatic and necessary to pure fantasy as well. Aneutronic fusion would (hopefully) bypass a lot of that.

In fact, even for D-T fusion the NRC recently decided to regulate reactors like accelerators instead of like fission reactors.

Also, we never mass-produced fission reactors. Helion wants to build a factory making twenty 50MW reactors per day, shippable by rail.

Post reply on HN