Because it doesn't cost MS a bean until Helion have something working, but to Helion it means they can raise money for the actual construction of the first-production machine with the investors knowing someone will pay them for it if it works.
You're making the mistake of thinking the person you were replying to was actually wondering why they would do this - and not just jumping to their own cynical conclusions (which they did before "asking" their question) and cathartically posting them here.
No, engaging with good faith isn't a mistake, but the person you were replying to admitted in the sentence before their question that they already had decided what the answer was. This is a common communication pattern I try avoiding engagement with since it's set up to sound like a person is asking a question when they're actually making a statement. (Though agreed that it's not always a fruitless effort.)
I agree with almost everything in your post, but the way you posted this also makes me recognize a feeling I had for too long, maybe it’s time to take a break and get a few deep breaths?
It’s always a bummer to open a thread like this and realize all I can do is open, skim, and promptly exit. I have zero expertise on fusion power so I don’t have much to add in a top level comment - but all the top level comments are not communicating from a perspective of expertise, just broadcasting cynicism. I have this queasy feeling sometimes that HN is really not a healthy social media community any more than the others I have quit.
I’ve learned a lot about fusion power in previous threads on the subject - all you can learn here is how bitter and cynical some people are about this particular company’s efforts.
One thing I'm trying to live lately is it's okay to have reactions and share them.
There's this weird thing with the richer society I've moved into from being in tech, where people think being anesthetized is the same as being happy.
No psychologist I've met advises what I see people assume: you must always hold back negative thoughts.
They then apply techniques for reducing stress from overwhelming thoughts to advise eliminating all negative thought.
Yes, I was cynical and frustrated from so much of PR fluff pieces that imply one thing only end up being smoke & mirrors. I did however genuinely ask “why not say it like it is?!”
Sorry, I do not subscribe to the idea that everybody should just ignore and move on when they see nonsense.. If nobody cares, then what is the point of our collective existence as a society? As an exaggerated example, if we all stopped caring whether a business claiming to do something can actually do it or not, doesn’t it incentivise every business to just lie and deceive as their way of business? Is that the world we should be looking forward to?
I'm referring to scenarios where the nonsense is affecting your psychological well being. If you're in a situation where you see nonsense, see a way to refute or diffuse it, and without it causing an emotional response in that moment, then obviously "block and move on" has different consequential implications and isn't a good formula. But the duty to tell the truth only is actionable if you're not plunged into irrationality or weak arguments because of the stress or emotional frustration overwhelming you.
while not every comment deserves a reply, or your attention, silencing every opposing viewpoint is a great way to end up isolated and without contextual diversity.
I read the comment as being about silencing low value noise from the knee jerk “this news doesn’t mean anything because companies bad news fake nothing to see here” crowd.
If an opposing viewpoint doesn’t have any thoughtful, well reasoned proponents, maybe it’s not that interesting of a viewpoint?
I only recommend people blocking things that they can't handle. If you can't handle opposing viewpoints, that's a big problem, but telling you that you can solve that problem by forcing yourself to be exposed to them is mistaking the symptom for the disease. The cure for that isn't to read opposing opinions but to read arguments as to why emotional reactions to such things is not the path to a well examined life.
> Because it doesn't cost MS a bean until Helion have something working
I doubt that (unless you have some source for it which I missed, in which case sorry). It seems really unlikely that Helion would commit to a contract with penalty clauses if they didn't get money before they got fusion working.
Once (if) they have commercial fusion working they're golden, it will be trivial to raise money on excellent terms, and as such they won't need income from this contract. If this contract only gave them money at that point it wouldn't be worth very much to them.
If the contract gave them money now though... well right now it's hard to raise money. Taking a loan out could make sense. Getting the option to repay that loan by providing services could make sense. And what is a contract where you get paid now on the condition that you pay back more at the end (either in dollars in energy) if not a loan?
Besides, it's a loan which serves as great PR for both companies.
Fair; but I think their problem is that they'd like to get money to start to build the production reactor before they've demoed they have it working - of course that's risky as hell. But if they're right, and can start going the basic building and construction on the next phase while finishing the current phase it chops a couple of years off. But being risky as hell anyone sane would be more worried about making a loan or investment - so some encouragement in the opposite direction from a customer would help them get that loan.
I would assume they can't make it work at a competitive price (yet?), but it is technology Microsoft wants to see come to fruition. So if they make it work Microsoft will pay them 2-3x the market value for electricity.
There seem to have been very few details released so far as to the exact nature of the agreement between Helion and Microsoft, but I think it's almost guaranteed to include an investment in Helion by Microsoft (maybe a series of investments based on meeting development milestones?), in addition to eventual power purchase agreement.
Helion gets continued funding from Microsoft (maybe increasingly expensive at this stage as they scale the tech up and operationalize it). Microsoft gets good PR, a likely profitable investment, and eventually cheap electricity as a bonus.
I believe Sam Altman has most of his personal net worth (to tune of few hundred million) invested in Helion, and no doubt brokered this deal, so it can also be seen as a doubling-down by Microsoft of their relationship with and commitment to OpenAI/Altman.
You don't "just hook it up to the grid". You have to work with the local utility company or companies to negotiate pricing, SLAs, and safety concerns (eg: shutting off power when linemen are working). Helion's fusion reactors are small enough to fit in a couple shipping containers. The idea is that the units can be mass produced in a factory, then transported to data centers and replace the grid hookup as the primary power source. Another potential market is stuff like remote mining operations which currently use diesel generators. The cost of transporting fuel to such sites can be quite high. A fusion reactor, while more expensive up-front, could be cheaper in the long run. And unlike solar cells, the reactor can be easily moved offsite when the operation is complete.
But you do have to compete with grid hookups for pricing in data centers.
I definitely buy that there's a market for small power plants that cost too much to be competitive on the grid (in some sense that's literally what generators already are), but I don't see how datacenters are in that market.
> but I don't see how datacenters are in that market
Are you kidding? If datacenters aren't the majority of that market, they will be soon, and their share will keep growing on the short term. Only factories match their consumption, every other wholesale energy buyer is relatively tiny.
But that market will pay at most a 3x to 5x markup on the grid price. There exists a smaller one formed by far from the grid activities that will pay a much higher price.
Wholesale buyers are willing to pay 3x to 5x (depends on the location) more than electricity distributors.
Electricity distributors may add a markup of over 10x on resale. For many reasons, it's easier to get energy out of them so you just won't pay the full ~10x markup on the wholesale market.
> But you do have to compete with grid hookups for pricing in data centers.
You do, unless you sign a contract with a large datacenter operator that's willing to pay above market price for the PR benefit/green energy credits of a working fusion reactor. Which presumably is the point of this.
And realize this also depends on how much the competition costs. If renewables and storage continue to get cheaper, fusion that "works" in an economic sense could transition back to "doesn't work".
It's the fate of most technologies to fail this way, so it shouldn't be surprising (or a source of dishonor) if the same thing happens to fusion. That doesn't mean money spent developing fusion is necessarily wasted; the size of the energy market -- a quadrillion dollars or so over the 21st century -- justifies longshot investments.
Bear in mind that Helion's reactor is 50MW, about the size of three large wind turbines. If it works they'll be mass-producing them in factories and shipping them by rail, and they'll have a declining cost curve just like anything else.
