Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by sbierwagen 1343 days ago
For a while they were describing D-He3 as "aneutronic", (that reaction is, but a mixed D-He3 plasma will be producing D-D side reactions, which produce neutrons) and some of their promotional materials showed reactors in standard ISO shipping containers. (missing the concrete biological shield it would need) However, I just checked their site again to link to those mistakes, and they've been removed, which is nice. Their CEO also made some nonsense remarks about how Helion reactors would be deployed directly to end users like datacenters, which the NRC wouldn't like.

They're a lot like the other fusion startups in the current scene. They have a machine, about which they make various surprising claims, but keep almost all the specifications secret, since it's a privately held venture rather than a public government-funded experiment. It's not obvious incoherent nonsense like solar roadways from a couple years back. Maybe it will work, maybe it won't. Check back in 10 years.
2 comments
DennisP 1342 days ago
The D-He3 reaction itself is aneutronic. Overall, Helion's reactor would produce only 6% of its energy as neutron radiation, compared to 80% for D-T reactors. For Helion that means they extract electricity directly from fast-moving charged particles instead of using a heat cycle. In practical terms that's often what people are thinking about what they refer to aneutronic fusion.

The NRC and their UK equivalent have already been moving towards lighter regulation for fusion reactors, and that's for D-T reactors. A reactor like Helion's could well be regulated more like medical devices than fission reactors.

link
Schroedingersat 1343 days ago
I'd lump all the other fusion startups into the same category as incoherent nonsense like solar roadways as they all rely on recycling energy through a steam turbine (which is already prohibitive even if you had free heat) in order to power their rube goldberg machine and somehow that's supposed to be 100x cheaper than existing steam turbines when excluding the fuel.

I was wondering if there was some incoherent nonsense I'd missed.

link