new | show | ask | jobs Github

mclau157 3 days ago

But fusion has never been proven to work at scale

▲

messe 3 days ago | parent | next [-]

On the contrary, I think it has only been proven to work at scale: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star

▲

lazide 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Fusion definitely works at large scale; and in short bursts. That is the Sun and Thermonuclear weapons.

What has not yet been shown (and may be impossible?) is fusion working at small scale and over long timeframes.

▲

cladopa 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

It has been:

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

▲

tootie 3 days ago | parent | prev [-]

From what I can tell, Helion energy has already broken ground on what would be a commercial fusion reactor connected to the WA grid despite their best prototype still not producing net positive energy. It's a gamble, but presumably everyone involved is willing to take the risks. A data center that runs on fusion would be a real watershed moment and everyone wants to be first.

▲

philipkglass 3 days ago | parent | next [-]

If Helion delivers a working fusion reactor that produces net electricity, at commercially competitive rates, I think that's an even more significant event than the recent AI boom.

▲

tim333 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Helion is a odd one. They have picture of the site here https://www.helionenergy.com/articles/helion-secures-land-an...

saying "Milestone keeps Helion on track to deliver electricity from fusion to Microsoft by 2028"

but as you say they don't seem to have produced any energy and after watching Sabine's take I'm very skeptical (https://youtu.be/YxuPkDOuiM4)

I think it may be a bit of a scam where they keep the investment and their jobs going as long as possible but don't produce power.

	▲	antonvs 3 days ago \| parent [-]
		> I think it may be a bit of a scam where they keep the investment and their jobs going as long as possible but don't produce power. There may be some of that, but I think a lot of it is people who believe in what they're doing. A good example in another field is Stockton Rush and his submarine - assuming he wasn't suicidal, he clearly believed in what he was doing, even though to any sane and informed outsider it was fundamentally and life-threateningly flawed.

▲

antonvs 3 days ago | parent | prev [-]

I don't understand this line of thinking.

"Breaking ground" and "wanting to be first" makes no difference to the physics, engineering, and economics involved here. They're just going to end up with an expensive plant that eats money.

No-one has yet demonstrated a break-even fusion reactor purely from a physics perspective - let alone an engineering or, even more challenging, an economics perspective. In other words, we're essentially still in the fundamental physical research phase.

It's like building international airports for jet planes when you've just invented the Kitty Hawk - but worse, really, because at least the Kitty Hawk proved we could fly in practice. With fusion, there's no evidence that we'll ever be able to create a sustained, economically viable reaction.