7 ms·

> The nuclear fusion startup Helion, which announced last week that it has raised $500 million, says it has developed new technologies that may make nuclear fus

by platz 5y ago

> The nuclear fusion startup Helion, which announced last week that it has raised $500 million, says it has developed new technologies that may make nuclear fusion viable — practically, economically and environmentally. This is the only actual news in the article. The rest is bog-standard speculation.

neltnerb 5y ago
Thanks, glad I didn't buy a subscription to Bloomberg for that.
mandelken 5y ago
Thanks. Note it’s an opinion piece published on bloomberg, not an actual bloomberg article.
- marak830 5y ago
  I don't get the reason for saying this. They published it, without rebuttal, they must support it.
  - blendergeek 5y ago
    Some newspapers (I don't know if Bloomberg is included) will publish opinion pieces from multiple sides (not necessarily at the same time). If in a few months, Bloomberg publishes a "no fusion" opinion piece, this will not mean Bloomberg is "now opposed to fusion". Rather, Bloomberg publishes a wide range of opinion pieces as they should.
dwheeler 5y ago
"May" is pretty specious. Is there any evidence of something likely to work? I would love to see practical fusion, but I see no reason to believe it will exist soon. Someone has to figure out how to actually make it practical first.
- Tuna-Fish 5y ago
  In magnetic confinement fusion, power density scales to the fourth power of the magnetic field strength. The only way to reasonably achieve the kind of magnetic fields needed without massive constant power draw is superconducting magnets. For a very long time, the best superconductors available limited the maximum field strength to ~ 5-6T. This limited the space of possible magnetic confinement reactors into basically ITER, or "big enough that you need a major multi-decade international collaboration to build it". Last decade, major discoveries were made in practical high-temperature superconductors. By 2017, you could commercially purchase superconducting tape that can do >8T, the state of the art has improved since, and keeps improving. All the constraints and limits on fusion that were known since the field began are changing now. Most importantly, with high-field magnets, the size of a theoretically functional net-energy fusion reactor comes way down, to what is achievably by a reasonably well funded startup. The whole field is open now, and all the different magnetic confinement fusion technologies that were tested and discarded over the first 60 years of fusion research are now being re-evaluated in ligth of the new magnets that are available. That's why there are now like a dozen well-funded fusion startups.
  - SubiculumCode 5y ago
    Sounds like the story of deep learning once computing power cheapened.
  - wiz21c 5y ago
    Do you mean that ITER could be obsolete before even reaching a production phase ?
    - neltnerb 5y ago
      Absolutely, as is the case in any huge project, it takes long enough to build that at some point you have to freeze the design and technology keeps progressing. It's hard to predict which pieces of technology will mature on what timeline, and at some point you just have to start. That ITER doesn't use superconducting magnets to me means that it will definitely be "obsolete" in the sense of using the most modern technologies, but it's still going to do the job it was designed for.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
aetherson 5y ago
Note that seven years ago, Helion said they were three years away from energy positive fusion. Today, they say they're... Three years away from energy positive fusion.
- ncmncm 5y ago
  They said they were three years away given investment, which they did not get. Now they have the investment they said, then, such progress would depend upon. Tokamak eating all the fusion research capital has much to answer for. The only sense I can find in Tokamak exclusivity is that aneutronic fusion research does not maintain employment of a population of hot-neutron physicists that weapons work would need to draw on.
  - tim333 5y ago
    The SPARC/ARC thing seems to make sense as a research project. I'm not sure ITER is a good use of funds though.
    - ncmncm 5y ago
      I am dead certain ITER is not a good use of funds. At least, for any public goal. Certainly the people--military contractors, mainly, I expect--whose pockets the $billions are going into may be justified in considering it a good use. Not a single penny disappears; each goes into somebody's account.
simonblack 5y ago
To us older and more cynical old farts, the story has been: "Fusion power is twenty years away". It's been that for nearly 70 years. I don't see anything changing that elderly estimate for at least another 50 years. (And that's being optimistic.)
- tim333 5y ago
  Helion is changing that story to fusion power always being three years away.

by platz 5y ago

neltnerb 5y ago

Thanks, glad I didn't buy a subscription to Bloomberg for that.

mandelken 5y ago

Thanks. Note it’s an opinion piece published on bloomberg, not an actual bloomberg article.

marak830 5y ago
I don't get the reason for saying this. They published it, without rebuttal, they must support it.
- blendergeek 5y ago
  Some newspapers (I don't know if Bloomberg is included) will publish opinion pieces from multiple sides (not necessarily at the same time). If in a few months, Bloomberg publishes a "no fusion" opinion piece, this will not mean Bloomberg is "now opposed to fusion". Rather, Bloomberg publishes a wide range of opinion pieces as they should.

dwheeler 5y ago

"May" is pretty specious. Is there any evidence of something likely to work? I would love to see practical fusion, but I see no reason to believe it will exist soon. Someone has to figure out how to actually make it practical first.

Tuna-Fish 5y ago
In magnetic confinement fusion, power density scales to the fourth power of the magnetic field strength. The only way to reasonably achieve the kind of magnetic fields needed without massive constant power draw is superconducting magnets. For a very long time, the best superconductors available limited the maximum field strength to ~ 5-6T. This limited the space of possible magnetic confinement reactors into basically ITER, or "big enough that you need a major multi-decade international collaboration to build it". Last decade, major discoveries were made in practical high-temperature superconductors. By 2017, you could commercially purchase superconducting tape that can do >8T, the state of the art has improved since, and keeps improving. All the constraints and limits on fusion that were known since the field began are changing now. Most importantly, with high-field magnets, the size of a theoretically functional net-energy fusion reactor comes way down, to what is achievably by a reasonably well funded startup. The whole field is open now, and all the different magnetic confinement fusion technologies that were tested and discarded over the first 60 years of fusion research are now being re-evaluated in ligth of the new magnets that are available. That's why there are now like a dozen well-funded fusion startups.
- SubiculumCode 5y ago
  Sounds like the story of deep learning once computing power cheapened.
- wiz21c 5y ago
  Do you mean that ITER could be obsolete before even reaching a production phase ?
  - neltnerb 5y ago
    Absolutely, as is the case in any huge project, it takes long enough to build that at some point you have to freeze the design and technology keeps progressing. It's hard to predict which pieces of technology will mature on what timeline, and at some point you just have to start. That ITER doesn't use superconducting magnets to me means that it will definitely be "obsolete" in the sense of using the most modern technologies, but it's still going to do the job it was designed for.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

aetherson 5y ago

Note that seven years ago, Helion said they were three years away from energy positive fusion. Today, they say they're... Three years away from energy positive fusion.

ncmncm 5y ago
They said they were three years away given investment, which they did not get. Now they have the investment they said, then, such progress would depend upon. Tokamak eating all the fusion research capital has much to answer for. The only sense I can find in Tokamak exclusivity is that aneutronic fusion research does not maintain employment of a population of hot-neutron physicists that weapons work would need to draw on.
- tim333 5y ago
  The SPARC/ARC thing seems to make sense as a research project. I'm not sure ITER is a good use of funds though.
  - ncmncm 5y ago
    I am dead certain ITER is not a good use of funds. At least, for any public goal. Certainly the people--military contractors, mainly, I expect--whose pockets the $billions are going into may be justified in considering it a good use. Not a single penny disappears; each goes into somebody's account.

simonblack 5y ago

To us older and more cynical old farts, the story has been: "Fusion power is twenty years away". It's been that for nearly 70 years. I don't see anything changing that elderly estimate for at least another 50 years. (And that's being optimistic.)

tim333 5y ago
Helion is changing that story to fusion power always being three years away.