Live data from Hacker News

Microsoft Bets That Fusion Power Is Closer Than Many Think

wsj.com

71–80 of 86 posts

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

#71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Well you need hydrocarbons, but cheap scalable fusion would make it a lot easier to source the hydrogen from water, the carbon from ambient CO2, and mush them together.

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

#72
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…

I heard a rumor once, and it may be more fictional speculation than reality, that OPEC shows most of the signs of a "going out of business" sale. That they know the market window is shrinking and are doing their best to make the most of it in an "everything must go" fashion.

(The rumor suggested that's why there was a weird sudden drop in oil and gas prices several years back and then prices nearly "flatlined" for a few years there rather than sticking to a slow inflation-locked climb as it had been. The rumor was that OPEC had started to liquidate its reserves as fast as possible without crashing the market.)

If that was the case, one would hope that OPEC members were also smart enough to plan for after the "going out of business sale" and smartly socking away the money into long term investments. (Further speculation: given the real estate booms in UAE and Qatar, especially, and attempts to spin some of those cities as world tourism destinations there may even be evidence that that is what they have been trying to do.)

> 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.

I don't think it will need "magic", I think the feedback loops between supply-side and demand-side economics can handle it all on their own, and possibly (probably, IMO) surprisingly quickly once things start to snowball: gas pumps are already low margin "loss leaders" for convenience stores and supermarkets. As prices get higher the usefulness as "loss leaders" shrinks. As EVs spread, demand drops which could drop prices (temporarily) but that also lowers the usefulness as a "loss leader". Any such price drops are almost guaranteed to be temporary because as demand drops, production should drop. Production is capital heavy and much of production once it shuts down, in theory shuts down for good (especially if demand isn't expected to go back up) because the costs for restarts become increasingly too expensive. As the usefulness for gas as a "loss leader" drops below certain thresholds, consumer gas pumps start to disappear. As gas pumps start to disappear, demand for EVs increases, furthering the drop in demand for gas, exacerbating the disappearance of gas pumps. Eventually, as that cycle snowballs, ICE range anxiety returns with a vengeance and petrol cars become museum pieces too expensive to drive.

Because it is a feedback snowball, it could happen seemingly abruptly, almost like magic.

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

#73
post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Regardless of energy density, creating gold in a fusion reactor will still be more expensive than digging it out of the ground. We are far from exhausting that natural resource.

Again yes, but that's not the point. The point is you can't do that with any other energy source.

Seeing as the only known way the universe makes the stable isotope of gold is through colliding neutron stars, I doubt you can do that with fusion either.

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

#74
post #62
post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Their combined D-D/D-He3 reaction will emit 6% of its energy as neutron radiation, compared to 80% for D-T. Mostly they'll be lower-energy neutrons, and it's only a 50MW reactor. They don't plan to make it bigger, just to make lots of them. They're considering doing the D-D reaction in a separate reactor to produce the He3. The D-He3 reaction is purely aneutronic, and while some D-D will still happen, they can tune i…

> The D-He3 reaction is purely aneutronic, and while some D-D will still happen, they can tune it so it doesn't happen much. That would mean very little neutron radiation at the power plants. Yea. I'm just very curious as to what these numbers look like in practice. Neutrons are essentially waste emissions with their plan, but physics and engineering constrains will determine how much they can tune out D-D reactions.

> very curious as to what these numbers look like in practice

At their stated "optimum" temperature of 200 million kelvin[0] or ~17 keV, the selectivity of the two cross-sections (D-H3/D-D) is about 0.7[1].

Let x = the fraction of D (we'll generously assume no T contamination, so the remainder 1-x is He3), plug in the reaction energies[2], and rearrange.

Graph is here: https://www.wolframalpha.com/input?i=plot+y+%3D+1.225+x%5E2%...

The top line is total non-neutron power, and the bottom line is neutron power. The horizontal axis is the fraction of D in the mix, and the vertical axis is proportional to power.

It might help compare the relative tradeoffs if you zoom in on the rising slope of the power curve, and normalize both curves to 1: https://www.wolframalpha.com/input?i=plot%3A+y%3D1%2F3.9503+...

[0] https://www.reuters.com/technology/microsoft-buy-power-nucle...

[1] https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:RxDT-DD-DHe3.jpg

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_fusion#Criteria_and_ca...

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

#75
post #26
post #3

Worth watching about Helion: https://youtu.be/_bDXXWQxK38

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

Then you should also read this comment: https://www.reddit.com/r/fusion/comments/10g95m9/comment/j67...

From what I can gather a lot of Improbable Matter's critisism is based on misunderstandings or flawed understanding of Helion's specific approach. But yes, it's a good watch if you don't blindly trust his conclusions.

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

#76
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.

No.. just no. Don't watch anything by Thunderf00t. It has been too many times now that he has clearly put out just the lowest effort thing he can make to "debunk" some topic. Doesn't matter. People will view his videos anyway. I think "debunking" channels are inherently problematic because they attract viewers who like to feel smart, but don't actually want to deeply understand a topic. The conclusion is already pre-determined. The topic has to be debunked.

Improbable Matters video is.. OK. He raises some valid concerns. I think he was genuinely trying to understand and critisize the technology honostly. Though it seems he misunderstands some key facts. I've never seen that kind of honesty with Thunderf00t.

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

#77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wide adoption of longevity tech is necessary to prevent population collapse. AI also doesn’t seem like it’s going to stay cooped up for long, there’s a solid chance that open source projects beat OpenAI to the punch as well if scaling is no longer productive beyond this point

What population collapse ? And why would longevity-extending techniques help ?

I’m amazed you haven’t heard of this before now. The entire West has had a fertility rate below replacement for decades and now even China has joined the party and India is going to be there really soon. The way Africa is developing they probably only have a few decades left. If we don’t find a way to turn this around then all of our golden years are going to spent desperately trying to prevent the global economy from collapsing.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_states_and_union_ter...

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

#78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Again yes, but that's not the point. The point is you can't do that with any other energy source.

Seeing as the only known way the universe makes the stable isotope of gold is through colliding neutron stars, I doubt you can do that with fusion either.

Well you can.

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

#79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What population collapse ? And why would longevity-extending techniques help ?

I’m amazed you haven’t heard of this before now. The entire West has had a fertility rate below replacement for decades and now even China has joined the party and India is going to be there really soon. The way Africa is developing they probably only have a few decades left. If we don’t find a way to turn this around then all of our golden years are going to spent desperately trying to prevent the global economy fro…

I guess I read "population collapsing" overly dramatically - the reduction of the fertility rate is a good thing, as the population size has overshot what is deemed to be sustainable for at least half a century now, so we'll have to reduce it at least by half anyway, one way or another. (And economic collapse has been pretty much baked in at this point, you can thank the boomers for that : the first generation to be aware of these issues, but chose to be selfish instead.)

And I still don't see how more longevity would help (aside from helping to kick the can further while our situation worsens even more) - women have a fixed number of gametes they acquire before birth - increasing their longevity is not going to postpone menopause !

Furthermore, so far extra longevity and a better quality of life (and especially education of women, as already theorized by Malthus) has been correlated with a reduction in fertility rate - again, something that is typically seen as a good thing !

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

#80
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…

My impression is that Gates (and other tech billionaires) have been investing in fusion for a decade, so he probably knows or has leverage/access to people who know what’s going on, ergo Microsoft does too.

There is expertise in DOE and DOD, but there is an also a lot of private capital being invested in companies that don’t need to talk themselves up much. People in the industry generally know who most of the players are; that’s how you or your technical peers/friends get a job after all.

I don’t see a particular need for there to have been a top secret breakthrough to explain this deal.

Post reply on HN