
Nuclear fusion startup raises $100M to design and build a demo power plant - JumpCrisscross
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-12-16/bezos-backed-fusion-start-up-raises-100-million-for-demo-system
======
acqq
No new technical details.

The whole article is just about this press release:

[https://generalfusion.com/2019/12/general-fusion-
closes-65m-...](https://generalfusion.com/2019/12/general-fusion-
closes-65m-of-series-e-financing/)

“General Fusion Closes $65M of Series E Financing“

~~~
lwansbrough
This is their design:
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k3zcmPmW6dE](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k3zcmPmW6dE)

~~~
acqq
One would think that if it were so easy, nobody would bother with magnets:

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ITER](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ITER)

"If ITER becomes operational, it will become the largest magnetic confinement
plasma physics experiment in use with a plasma volume of 840 cubic meters,[15]
surpassing the Joint European Torus by almost a factor of 10."

I fail to find any hint to a reasonable estimation of viability of General
Fusion's concept.

Edit: and I mean a written estimation, not that they will now, with the
received money, according to their own words, just "formally launch the
program" (note they promise _just_ to _formally launch_ the program, nothing
more) "to design, construct, and subsequently operate its Fusion Demonstration
Plant." Heh.

~~~
bdamm
In fact there is something like a dozen groups working on prototypes to do
fusion cheaper than ITER. Obviously, the people running ITER don't think that
it can be done cheaper. The race is on!

What I don't understand is why the WX-7 looks nothing like ITER. The people
putting together WX-7 evidently thought that these convolutions were required,
yet the ITER group does not. The race is not simple!

~~~
simonh
>The people putting together WX-7 evidently thought that these convolutions
were required, yet the ITER group does not...

They're just two different ways to solve the same problem. If you confine a
plasma in a symmetric toroidal field, the difference in field strength between
the inner and outer edges of the torus cause the electrons and protons in the
field to separate. This causes a buildup of huge voltages in the plasma,
causing a breakdown in the magnetic field.

A stellarator fixes this by twisting the plasma loop into a figure 8 pattern
that causes electrons and protons to twist and loop round the plasma path and
roughly cancel out the voltages, not quite, but close. A tokamak confines the
particles in a torroidal field, but winds the magnetic field lines round the
torus in a helical pattern.

------
lwansbrough
The founder of General Fusion was somebody who lived in the same small island
community as me. He's a true hacker. Very eccentric. If I recall correctly, he
bought the old gas station which was on the main street of the island and
that's where he brought his prototype to life. I think people were surprised
to learn that the eccentric mad scientist was working on nuclear experiments
next to their homes :)

~~~
mmartinson
Which island is it?

~~~
coolspot
according to
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michel_Laberge](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michel_Laberge)
it is British Columbia.

~~~
intopieces
British Columbia is not an island. The website for General Fusion [0] notes
that the island in question is Bowen Island.

[0] [https://generalfusion.com/2014/07/from-the-archives-
general-...](https://generalfusion.com/2014/07/from-the-archives-general-
fusions-early-garage-laboratory/)

~~~
coolspot
I am not familiar with the area, but according to Google “Bowen Island is
Municipality in British Columbia, Canada” .

------
opwieurposiu
Forget the power, 1.5GWt plant of this design could make almost 5 party
balloons per hour worth of helium!

mev_per_fusion = 17.59e6

mev_per_j = 1.602e-19

pwr_thermal = 1.5e9

j_per_fusion = mev_per_fusion * mev_per_j

fusions_per_second = pwr_thermal/j_per_fusion

l_He_per_second = 22.4 * fusions_per_second / 6.02e23

l_per_ballon = 14.1

ballons_per_hr = (l_He_per_second * 60 * 60)/l_per_ballon

~~~
tombert
I remember my dad saying about ten years ago that we should flatout stop
selling helium to the average consumer until we've really cracked fusion. His
reasoning was that helium is used in medicine and quantum computing, which has
a whole slew of uses, vs a balloon that some kid is going to lose in five
minutes anyway.

It would be pretty neat if we made helium a renewable resource, even if it is
slow.

~~~
ant6n
I'd say more helium is generated in the Earth crust than the potential fusion
reactors powering all of humanity. Probably by several orders of magnitude.

Just distill it out of the atmosphere before it escapes into space - it'll be
only a small order of magnitude more expensive than today's helium.

~~~
tombert
Forgive me for some ignorance here, since I know almost nothing about nuclear
physics or chemistry, but from what I understood, doesn't helium escape out
into space? Would there even be any to extract outta the atmosphere?

~~~
ant6n
There is helium in the atmosphere. It is on its way from being created in the
crust to escaping into space. But as long as it is in the atmosphere, it could
be extracted.

------
TheSoftwareGuy
ITER has been working on this problem for almost a decade now, and with more
money available to them. What are the odds some startup can beat them to the
punch?

~~~
JumpCrisscross
> _ITER has been working on this problem for almost a decade now_

ITER has been working on _one implementation_ of magnetic confinement. It's an
international effort, bringing to the battle the advantages of scale and
disadvantages of multilateral bureaucracy.

Since ITER was formed in 2007 [1], the bleeding edge has advanced beyond
Tokomaks. Advanced computational methods birthed the Wendelstein 7-X [2].
Improved superconducting magnets are compacting designs, reducing costs--and
thus accessibility to start-ups--through mass reduction.

It's almost _likely_ a start-up beats ITER. And that's fine! I don't know if
any of these designs would be where they are if ITER hadn't been funded.

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ITER#Organization_history](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ITER#Organization_history)

[2]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wendelstein_7-X](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wendelstein_7-X)

~~~
kirrent
You're right about better superconductors leading to more compact and cheaper
reactor designs, but many, if not most, of those designs are still tokamaks.
To say that the bleeding edge has moved beyond tokamaks is just wrong.

To take your example of Wendelstein 7-X, the only sources I can find give an
expected Q factor of 0.1. JET was getting 0.75 ages ago. ITER will hopefully
hit 10. While I'm excited about stellarators because they're very interesting
to research, they probably won't be catching up to tokamaks any time soon.

~~~
snakeboy
>ITER will hopefully hit 10.

As a layman, is it right to think that this would mean viable fusion has
arrived at that point? I mean, 10x energy out/in is a victory, no? Is there
another factor that stops ITER from being immediately used and replicated for
energy generation?

~~~
lazysheepherd
Yes and no.

ITER will be first device to produce more _heat energy_ than put in, but it
won't be generating any electricity. [1] It will instead be used to make
research on, so we can plan the next project, codenamed DEMO.

DEMO will produce net energy, but still be experimental, for designing final
version of a commercial fusion power plant. And that commercial plant is aimed
to be working by 2050. [2]

ITER is rather looked upon as risk-free and certain way to fusion, whereas
startups... are startups. IMHO, we need both approaches.

Also there are many more fusion startups than General Fusion, here are some to
follow:

\- Tokamak Energy:
[https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCuSlFJbBUIj1zfJLRnGXSow](https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCuSlFJbBUIj1zfJLRnGXSow)
\- LPP Fusion:
[https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCiBditpj7sdROMYz02qoCMQ](https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCiBditpj7sdROMYz02qoCMQ)
\- TAE Technologies: [https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC-
LHpK7z8vjMq2-pt4wG4ug](https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC-
LHpK7z8vjMq2-pt4wG4ug) \- Commonwealth Fusion Systems:
[https://cfs.energy](https://cfs.energy) \- First Light Fusion:
[https://firstlightfusion.com](https://firstlightfusion.com)

1:
[https://www.iter.org/proj/inafewlines](https://www.iter.org/proj/inafewlines)
2: [https://www.iter.org/mag/3/22](https://www.iter.org/mag/3/22)

------
pfdietz
I used to have a favorable impression of what General Fusion was doing.

Their approach addressed one of the big engineering problems facing fusion:
have materials that can withstand the power/area across the surface of the
reactor, and particularly stand up to neutron and energetic charged particle
bombardment of the reactor structure.

Their first approach involved putting a plasmoid (spheromak, as I recall) in a
cavity in a bath of liquid metal (lithium say), then launching a focused shock
wave inward to compress the cavity and the plasma to very high density. There
would be no solid reactor component exposed to the radiation from the plasma
(a thick layer of liquid lithium would be interposed in all directions), and
the peak pressure could be much higher than structural materials could
withstand (because the compression and reaction would occur on time scale
short compared to the time required for a sound wave to propagate across the
liquid.)

But it turned out this approach was fatally flawed.

While they had trouble with confinement, the big problem is that to get that
fast a reaction, very high density, and therefore very strong magnetic fields
(magnetic pressure goes as magnetic field squared) would be required. Peak
fields in their first approach would be as high as 700 T. But this would imply
very large currents would be flowing in the liquid metal compressing the
magnetized plasma. Beyond ~100 T, these current would be so strong that the
surface of the metal would be vaporized, and non-conducting metal vapor would
flow into and quench the plasma. Game over.

So, they've gone to a slow scheme. The implosion is now subsonic, and also
there's a metal post running down the center of the chamber to increase
stability. But this ruins the main attractive feature of their concept. That
metal post will be subject to orders of magnitude higher average neutron flux
than the walls of typical fusion concepts, and will also be crushed with
magnetic pressure from 100 T magnetic fields. The engineering to make this
work would be beyond heroic. The subsonic compression also means the entire
reactor vessel will experience very high pressures, even if the rest of it is
shielded from the radiation.

------
Communitivity
It will be interesting to see where this is based, and I am wondering if it
will partly be in Singapore. Singapore sovereign wealth fund Temasek led the
funding, and Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong’s wife Ho Ching serves as the
chief executive.

~~~
hinkley
Given the size of Singapore, I think you are far better off with the research
facility safely nestled in some corner of British Columbia rather than in your
back yard.

~~~
patagurbon
Fusion reactors _should_ be fairly safe, no chance of an explosion or meltdown
or whatever AFAIK.

During testing I suppose things could go wrong, but they’d probably be barking
up the wrong tree then.

------
ggm
Given $b investment opportunities, $m investment makes me think this remains
long-range, high risk research. I don't see this as evidence "fusion on earth
for power is now real"

Whats real, is that a lot of money is sloshing around in the hands of people
who are more motivated to put it into this kind of venture, than before. Space
sucked up some of it, but now space is proven to be a viable investment
choice, higher risk money has to look somewhere else.

------
PlasticTank
How do people think nuclear fusion will affect renewable energies when it
comes to maturity? Does this technology make solar and wind some what
redundant?

~~~
zaarn
Fusion is more expensive to construct reactors for, but once we have figured
out how to do it, the cost will go down rapidly. The fuel for reactors is
abundant and cheap, it would effectively end producing power by digging up
minerals of any type.

Renewable energies will probably survive for a while but eventually it'll be
all fusion. In my opinion, the production of fusion energy will be so cheap
that it would be more cost effective to just dump the energy, hence the spikes
in power consumption can be compensated by running more reactors and dumping
the excess.

~~~
pfdietz
Why do you think the cost will go down rapidly? Fusion reactors are going to
be very big, much bigger than fission reactors of the same power output, and
also much more complex. Where does this expectation of them being cheap come
from?

~~~
zaarn
They are big and expensive now. If they prove themselves then the economics of
scale apply and the price goes down. And of course a lot more funding in the
sciences to figure out how to make them cheaper because there is more economic
interest.

~~~
pfdietz
The problem is, the exact same argument can be applied to all the things
fusion would be competing against. In engineering, unlike children in Lake
Woebegone, it's not possible for all competitors to come out on top.

To put it another way, the same argument you're making could be applied to
(say) making computers from vacuum tubes, or balloons out of lead, or any of a
myriad of approaches to solving problems that are losers regardless of effort
expended. Why are we assuming fusion isn't also similarly a loser?

~~~
zaarn
There is a stark difference; the fuel for fusion reactors is the most common
element in the universe. And literally every other energy source derives it's
energy from fusion byproducts.

~~~
pfdietz
But this is no argument either. It's like arguing "vacuum tube computers have
the advantage that they have no moving parts. And all other computer
technologies use the electrons that are manipulated in vacuum tubes."

All that could be true, and fusion could still be hopelessly uncompetitive.
The problem is the complexity, difficulty, and size of fusion reactors. Free
fuel doesn't make up for that. All the long term beyond-fossil fuel
competitors fusion has to beat are also only loosely constrained by fuel
availability.

~~~
zaarn
Well, I would disagree, the computer comparison doesn't really hold since
normal computers don't have a limited and localized supply of electrons
(unless they are a laptop). It's more like arguing that a modern 4U Server has
more performance than a laptop, really. Which is true.

Fusion reactors might be complex and difficult to figure out, but once it has
been figured out the free market will inevitably make it cheaper.

Fuel availability is indeed a problem, IIRC the uranium reserves will hold us
out for another 200 years before running out. At current energy demands. So
realistically more like 100 years. Coal and oil will inevitably run out too.
Sun and Wind don't produce a lot of power compared to Fusion when considering
the rare earths required for the components. Fusion is just a lot more
efficient and energy rich.

~~~
pfdietz
The analogy of course wasn't exact, but it fits the structure of your
argument, so it shows your argument was wrong.

Fuel availability is NOT a problem. There is no shortage of sunlight, or wind,
or uranium (if used in breeder reactors, and why are fusion reactors, which
are breeders, allowed but fission breeders are not?) The 200 year figure for
uranium assumes a once-through cycle. In breeders, ores with 50-100x less
uranium per unit mass of ore would be usable, because breeder get so much more
energy out of each unit of uranium mined.

Oh, and please don't repeat the Rare Earth canard. Solar doesn't use rare
earths, and wind doesn't have to. I think you're just repeating talking points
you haven't bothered to understand.

------
ncmncm
I hope they can get $100M of power out of it before they have to decommision
and bury the whole thing.

Doesn't seem likely, though.

------
andrewmutz
Offtopic, sorry: How does everyone read these paywalled articles? Surely you
all dont subscribe to bloomberg?

~~~
spellcard199
Disable javascript or use a browser that doesn't run it. I am an emacs user so
its browser, eww, works for me.

~~~
jseliger
NoScript is a great addition to Firefox. I kept reading recommendations for it
and when I finally installed it I wondered why I'd waited so long.

------
fidla
I don't understand why they need to raise money if it's backed by Bezos?

~~~
lucasmullens
Lots of companies are backed by billionaires and still have many investors.

------
lallysingh
Sounds like a great way to make disillusioned physicists for the financial
industry.

~~~
cryptonector
So, a win then. It's like using a fusor[0] not for energy (it can't produce
excess energy) but for neutrons. But instead of a physical process, it's an
education process. And instead of producing happy physicists it might produce
well-paid quants. Awesome!

------
hansdieter1337
“If it sounds too good to be true, it’s probably a scam.” \- src: My
cooperation’s IT scam awareness flyers

------
yummypaint
To underscore how challenging magnetic fusion is, here is a thought
experiment: imagine you have a ring collider system that collides d with t at
the energy which maximizes the probability of fusion. Assume the ions
circulate with 0 energy loss except by colliding with the other species of
ions. When an ion loses energy in this way, assume its kinetic energy is
immediately restored with perfect efficiency. Assume fusion energy is
recovered with 100% efficiency. Even with this super idealized head-on
collision setup you wouldn't recover enough fusion energy to power the
accelerator.

~~~
OnlineGladiator
> imagine you have a ring collider system

I'm pretty sure you already lost most people here that isn't a physicist.

~~~
BitwiseFool
Imagine you have a giant magnet and using it makes you lose money.

