• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

World’s first nuclear fusion plant being built in US to power Microsoft data centers

Chock Full o Nuts

Voting for Pedro!
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 28, 2023
Messages
7,973
Reaction score
9,097
Location
Cincinnati, Ohio
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
A Washington-based company has started the construction of a nuclear fusion facility in Chelan County, Orion. Helion Energy aims to produce low-cost, clean electric energy using a fuel derived from water.

The plan is to produce electricity from fusion by 2028 and supply the power to Microsoft data centres.
Helion will continue to work through the remaining steps in the permitting process to construct and operate a commercial fusion power plant on the site.
Shouldn't all the ducks be in a row first before breaking ground on such a thing.

With its previous prototype, Trenta, Helion was the first private company to achieve a fuel temperature of 100 million degrees Celsius (180000032 degrees Fahrenheit), which is generally considered the required operating temperature for a commercial fusion power plant.
That's hot!

Fusion generates electricity by ramming atoms into each other, releasing energy without emitting significant greenhouse gases or creating large amounts of long-lasting radioactive waste. But despite billions of dollars of investment, scientists and engineers still have not figured out a way to reliably generate more energy with fusion than it takes to create and sustain the reaction,
I thought that was still the case. So they are building something that is going to use more energy than they will get out of it? Makes perfect sense.
I assume this 'derived from water' is smashing hydrogen molecules together?
 


Shouldn't all the ducks be in a row first before breaking ground on such a thing.


That's hot!


I thought that was still the case. So they are building something that is going to use more energy than they will get out of it? Makes perfect sense.
I assume this 'derived from water' is smashing hydrogen molecules together?
Rain follows the plow.
 
Is there any serious argument to be had against nuclear energy?
 


Shouldn't all the ducks be in a row first before breaking ground on such a thing.


That's hot!


I thought that was still the case. So they are building something that is going to use more energy than they will get out of it? Makes perfect sense.
I assume this 'derived from water' is smashing hydrogen molecules together?

Yes it is.
 
Is there any serious argument to be had against nuclear energy?
Yes, plenty. The economics of repeated failed nuclear power projects has left that industry on U.S. taxpayer life support. Millions of utility ratepayers in the Southeast are still paying, each month on their bills, billions of dollars for failed nuclear projects that will never produce squat. No new nuclear power plant construction has begun in decades without U.S. taxpayer financing. No insurance company will underwrite a liability policy for a nuclear power plant - only we taxpayers pay for that. Nuclear waste still has no solution after 80 years of temporary storage and broken promises for a permanent waste depository.

Nuclear power is a failed experiment despite the promises made beginning in the mid-1900s. To date, the economics still don't work. We could deploy gigawatts of solar energy by next year, and every year, while waiting the average 10-11 years it takes to build a nuclear power plant.
 


Shouldn't all the ducks be in a row first before breaking ground on such a thing.


That's hot!


I thought that was still the case. So they are building something that is going to use more energy than they will get out of it? Makes perfect sense.
I assume this 'derived from water' is smashing hydrogen molecules together?
"Derived from water" probably refers to Deuterium fusion. Deuterium is a stable, heavy isotope of hydrogen that can be found naturally occurring in water.
 
Is there any serious argument to be had against nuclear energy?

No, but there is an argument to be had against relying on fusion energy, mainly that nobody has actually made it work yet.
 
We could deploy gigawatts of solar energy by next year, and every year, while waiting the average 10-11 years it takes to build a nuclear power plant.

In case you weren't duly informed, solar only works when the sun is up, which is about 8-9 hours a day in the Winter, and peak electricity usage occurs well after peak sun.
 
I have to say, I am very skeptical of this.

No one has built a working fusion reactor. They've promised to have a fusion reactor working Real Soon Now since 2014. And they're going to be done by 2028?

I think they're just saying this stuff to raise capital. I have no idea why Microsoft is lending its name to this.
 
In case you weren't duly informed, solar only works when the sun is up, which is about 8-9 hours a day in the Winter, and peak electricity usage occurs well after peak sun.
What fuel source do you use for air conditioning? When utilities are straining under the summer afternoon load, when brownouts are looming, "when the sun is up?" Huge opportunity for solar here.
 
What fuel source do you use for air conditioning? When utilities are straining under the summer afternoon load, when brownouts are looming, "when the sun is up?" Huge opportunity for solar here.
I have solar and I haven't paid an electric bill in months. Its great. Especially since the cost of electric steadily rises.
 
I have solar and I haven't paid an electric bill in months. Its great. Especially since the cost of electric steadily rises.
I haven't paid for electricity in years. We get heating, cooling, hot tub, EV charging. The $450/mo we save will pay off our initial investment in a few more years.
 
I haven't paid for electricity in years. We get heating, cooling, hot tub, EV charging. The $450/mo we save will pay off our initial investment in a few more years.
Once the solar investment is paid off, its basically like getting free money every month. It adds up over time too.
 
Fusion energy reactors are definitely the energy source of the future ... if they find out ways to produce significantly more energy than what is needed to generate it.

Fusion reactors don't have the nuclear waste that is needed to be stored from nuclear reactors and also don't "melt down" like in Chernobyl or Fukushima.

Once fusion reactors are up and running, it will put coal/oil/gas completely out of business and will power the renewable energy transport systems of the future - making the planet fully green and electric.

Gas powered cars will be seen as something like a stone digging tool from a stone-age period then.
 
Fusion energy reactors are definitely the energy source of the future ... if they find out ways to produce significantly more energy than what is needed to generate it.

Fusion reactors don't have the nuclear waste that is needed to be stored from nuclear reactors and also don't "melt down" like in Chernobyl or Fukushima.
True, fusing hydrogen into helium only creates more helium, a safe and relatively safe and an inert element.

But I wonder what would happen when the 'magnetic containment bottle' containing that 100 million degrees Celsius material has a gap or a breaches in that magnetic field.
With the amount of energy that would be released, would it be like hydrogen bomb going off?

Once fusion reactors are up and running, it will put coal/oil/gas completely out of business and will power the renewable energy transport systems of the future - making the planet fully green and electric.

Gas powered cars will be seen as something like a stone digging tool from a stone-age period then.
 
What fuel source do you use for air conditioning? When utilities are straining under the summer afternoon load, when brownouts are looming, "when the sun is up?" Huge opportunity for solar here.

Air conditioning only accounts for around 10% of energy consumption in the US, and a substantial portion, if not most, of that occurs after solar generation is minimal or nonexistent.
 
Air conditioning only accounts for around 10% of energy consumption in the US, and a substantial portion, if not most, of that occurs after solar generation is minimal or nonexistent.
Some huge fossil fuel plants have been built just to accommodate seasonal peak loads of electricity use. "Only" ten percent of all U.S. energy consumption for A/C is still a massive number. And I disagree that most energy consumed for that occurs after dark.
 
Some huge fossil fuel plants have been built just to accommodate seasonal peak loads of electricity use. "Only" ten percent of all U.S. energy consumption for A/C is still a massive number. And I disagree that most energy consumed for that occurs after dark.

Peak electricity demand occurs around 6pm, when solar production is more or less nonexistent. Our grid needs to have capacity to satisfy peak demand. Without massive grid storage (good luck with that), solar contributes almost nothing to that. The best, safest, and most reliable way to do that without emitting CO2 is nuclear.

You can lead a duck to water....

1754668939627.webp
 
Last edited:
...

But I wonder what would happen when the 'magnetic containment bottle' containing that 100 million degrees Celsius material has a gap or a breaches in that magnetic field.
With the amount of energy that would be released, would it be like hydrogen bomb going off?

No, not remotely. Loss of containment could possibly damage the containment vessel or "magnetic bottle", perhaps, but often doesn't even do that. No explosions. No Three Mile Island radiation leaks.
 
Fusion energy reactors are definitely the energy source of the future...
Yes, if -- as you noted -- we can get them to work.

They definitely don't work yet. They definitely won't be ready for prime time in 2028. And this company has promised fusion in 4 years since 2014.

Fusion power may be real someday. But for now, this sounds like a scam.
 
No, not remotely. Loss of containment could possibly damage the containment vessel or "magnetic bottle", perhaps, but often doesn't even do that. No explosions. No Three Mile Island radiation leaks.
Err.
What's going to happen when 100 million degrees Celsius material escapes its magnetic bottle, which has failed or lost power, and that material comes into contact with matter that is at room temperature?
Seems to me that's going to led to a violent reaction, just on a temperature differential basis, and also because hydrogen is very reactive and highly flammable.

Why would 100 million degrees Celsius material coming on contact with room temperature matter NOT be a violent reaction?
 
The best, safest, and most reliable way to do that without emitting CO2 is nuclear.
If nuclear was so safe then why won't insurance companies write liability policies for power plants? The liability, and it is very large, falls on we taxpayers to take the risks.

Nuclear power is on taxpayer life support. The economics of it are so bad that no private company has broken ground on a nuclear power plant, without federal government guarantees, in decades.
 
Thats not the first fusion plant sorry.
 
Back
Top Bottom