11 ms·

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,

by dotBen 3y ago

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 want to have first access to any breakthroughs and also guard knowledge transfers (ie protect any program - commerical or government - from foreign state espionage). The DOE is basically an entire national security organization centered around nuclear security, it seems unlikely they would be standing by watching R&D in fusion occur without a seat at the table.

mensetmanusman 3y ago
Disruption outside of the government eye is common, I wouldn’t be surprised. Those organizations focus on nuclear weapons tech.
- dotBen 3y ago
  DOE also covers domestic nuclear power generation https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Department_of_Energy https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Department_of_...
  - DennisP 3y ago
    And the NRC regulates civilian nuclear reactors. Recently, the NRC commissioners unanimously decided to regulate fusion reactors like particle accelerators rather than like fission reactors, which is very favorable to rapidly building out fusion reactors once they become available. https://www.cnbc.com/2023/04/20/nuclear-fusion-will-not-be-regulated-the-same-way-nuclear-fission-is.html https://www.cnbc.com/2023/04/20/nuclear-fusion-will-not-be-r...
aaronblohowiak 3y ago
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)
- sylens 3y ago
  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?
  - onlyrealcuzzo 3y ago
    Isn't that in everyone's interest besides KSA?
  - BlackSwanMan 3y ago
    [dead]
  - darksaints 3y ago
    It is in the interest of global stability that we absolutely decimate Saudi Arabia, as well as Russia. Other oil producing nations suck too, but they mostly suck internally, whereas KSA and Russia are oil-funded international terrorist regimes.
  - nradov 3y ago
    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.
DennisP 3y ago
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.
- nordsieck 3y ago
  > 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.
  - DennisP 3y ago
    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.
    - luroc 3y ago
      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?
      - DennisP 3y ago
        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.
gregw2 3y ago
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.

by dotBen 3y ago

mensetmanusman 3y ago

Disruption outside of the government eye is common, I wouldn’t be surprised. Those organizations focus on nuclear weapons tech.

dotBen 3y ago
DOE also covers domestic nuclear power generation https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Department_of_Energy https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Department_of_...
- DennisP 3y ago
  And the NRC regulates civilian nuclear reactors. Recently, the NRC commissioners unanimously decided to regulate fusion reactors like particle accelerators rather than like fission reactors, which is very favorable to rapidly building out fusion reactors once they become available. https://www.cnbc.com/2023/04/20/nuclear-fusion-will-not-be-regulated-the-same-way-nuclear-fission-is.html https://www.cnbc.com/2023/04/20/nuclear-fusion-will-not-be-r...

aaronblohowiak 3y ago

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)

sylens 3y ago
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?
- onlyrealcuzzo 3y ago
  Isn't that in everyone's interest besides KSA?
- BlackSwanMan 3y ago
  [dead]
- darksaints 3y ago
  It is in the interest of global stability that we absolutely decimate Saudi Arabia, as well as Russia. Other oil producing nations suck too, but they mostly suck internally, whereas KSA and Russia are oil-funded international terrorist regimes.
- nradov 3y ago
  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.

DennisP 3y ago

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.

nordsieck 3y ago
> 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.
- DennisP 3y ago
  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.
  - luroc 3y ago
    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?
    - DennisP 3y ago
      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.

gregw2 3y ago

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.