[dotBen]

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.

[DennisP]

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]

> 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]

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.

[pantalaimon]

What makes you think this is going to be cheap? There is a lot of high tech going into this, costs for a fusion device would likely eclipse that of an EUV stepper (if we are talking small scale devices), for plants the size of ITER that's a whole nother level.

Fission was supposed to be super cheap too, but construction costs rendered that a fantasy.

[zdragnar]

Construction costs for fission are largely bloated due to safety, activist and political concerns that span the realm of pragmatic and necessary to pure fantasy as well.

Aneutronic fusion would (hopefully) bypass a lot of that.

[htag]

* The safety is massively different than fission because there is no 'run away' reaction. If you turn off the power, fusion will stop. Fission will keep going once started, and can be very dangerous if the cooling system fails.

* I do believe the fusion paths Helios is using emit neutrons, which is a big safety concern. Not only is neutron radiation directly deadly to humans, it's also a challenge to maintain containment. Neutrons are not magnetic, so matter must be used as a shield. Most materials that absorb a neutron will itself become radioactive. I'm unsure about the number of neutrons Helios is emitting, or will emit as they scale up.

[DennisP]

In fact, even for D-T fusion the NRC recently decided to regulate reactors like accelerators instead of like fission reactors.

Also, we never mass-produced fission reactors. Helion wants to build a factory making twenty 50MW reactors per day, shippable by rail.

[rcpt]

When it becomes clear that fusion can displace coal those safety, activist and political concerns will immediately pop up again

[luroc]

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]

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.

[netsharc]

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 replace petrol/diesel with something that works identically but without the pollution.

[incahoots]

That really depends on how fast they can capitalize on doing so. Whilst it's nice to think America would share such tech willingly, I'd offer the reality that if it's not generating a revenue, it's not being given away.

[DennisP]

Helion plans to build a factory churning out twenty 50MW reactors per day, capable of producing dispatchable electricity for about $0.01/kWh. If they achieve that then revenue won't be a problem.

[bheadmaster]

> Whilst it's nice to think America would share such tech willingly, I'd offer the reality that if it's not generating a revenue, it's not being given away. reply

On the contrary, I think as long as it's generating revenue, it's not going to be given away. Remember that UNIX was popularized only because AT&T were under anti-trust sanctions and couldn't sell it.

[incahoots]

Oh you mean when the DOJ used to trial Anti-Trust suits? I can't recall the last time they acted on a monopoly.

[aaronblohowiak]

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]

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]

Isn't that in everyone's interest besides KSA?

[nradov]

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.

[darksaints]

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.

[mensetmanusman]

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

[dotBen]

DOE also covers domestic nuclear power generation

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

[DennisP]

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-r...

[gregw2]

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.