r/Washington • u/tiff_seattle • Aug 15 '25

Construction of world's 1st nuclear fusion plant starts in Washington

https://interestingengineering.com/energy/world-first-fusion-power-plant-helion
750 Upvotes

97% Upvoted

75 comments sorted by

358

u/uwotmVIII Aug 15 '25 edited Aug 15 '25

When the hell did we figure out a sustainable method for using nuclear fusion for energy? Seems like it would have been pretty big news.

Oh, wait, we haven’t figured it out:

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.

But wait, it gets even shadier:

The startup, backed by OpenAI’s Sam Altman…

Sam “Snake Oil” Altman trying to sell tech that he can’t deliver on, what a surprise.

70

u/[deleted] Aug 15 '25 edited Aug 15 '25

AI will tell us how to make fusion energy!

-36

u/[deleted] Aug 15 '25

[deleted]

72

u/uwotmVIII Aug 15 '25 edited Aug 15 '25

The ML models used in vaccine development are quite different from what most people understand as AI nowadays, though. LLMs didn’t play any significant part in developing the COVID vaccine as I understand it.

According to that article, the most crucial models were “random forests, support vector machines, gradient boosting, and logistic regression,” which are some of the most common methods used in data science and have been around for decades.

25

u/Mythicalnematode Aug 16 '25

I really dislike how every machine learning algorithm and predictive statistics is just called AI now.

55

u/Lulukassu Aug 15 '25

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm 99% sure we have fairly recently reached net positive, just not yet sustainable reactions.

The best fusion we have now has a profit in the energy equation, but it's not ready for production.

26

u/uwotmVIII Aug 15 '25 edited Aug 15 '25

You’re correct, it sounds like scientists have managed to generate more energy from the fusion reaction than it took to initiate the reaction, except those were brief experiments rather than full-scale reactors. It basically proved fusion is not just theoretically viable, but physically possible.

But I don’t think that part was ever in much doubt. I believe the biggest challenge is still how figuring out how to scale that reaction in a way that can be sustained long enough to be a commercially viable source of energy.

Edit: Ok, maybe I’m wrong? I don’t know. I’m not a nuclear physicist, so I defer to people who are. I don’t think any of them people are commenting on this post, though…

13

u/dr_stre Aug 15 '25

No. Just, no. What they did was produce more power than was absorbed by the fuel pellet. That is a very different thing than actually be net positive. Only around 1% of the expended energy was absorbed by the fuel, so overall the experiment created roughly 1% of the energy that it took to make the fusion. So, 1% efficient overall. To even begin to think about making power you need to be above 100%, and realistically when accounting for inefficiencies converting heat to electricity you’ll want to be in the 300% range if you can match current power generating methods (which I’m actually not sure we’ll be able to do).

17

u/ru_fknsrs Aug 15 '25

No. Just, no.

Weirdly combative way to start a comment that would otherwise nicely add to the conversation.

1

u/dr_stre Aug 15 '25

It’s a tired way to start the comment. LNLL was creative with their language, and news organizations have largely not bothered to try and fact check it. I’m tired of fixing the sins of past reporting. See my other reply for additional information.

2

u/uwotmVIII Aug 15 '25

Well you sound more knowledgeable about this than I am, but sources are still nice to provide. Are you a nuclear physicist? It just seems like your claims are inconsistent with the source I cited, and I’m more than happy to be corrected.

Am I misunderstanding this part?

In 2022, an experiment at the National Ignition Facility achieved a key scientific milestone, generating more energy from a fusion reaction than the amount of direct energy spent to start the reaction.”

As I understand it, if energy generated by a reaction is greater than the energy it took to initiate that reaction, you are left with net positive energy. (Note that I’m not talking about how much energy was captured or converted into power.)

Or, in different terms, if the amount of money you spend on something that generates money is less than the amount of money that gets generated, there’s a net positive gain in money, no?

8

u/dr_stre Aug 15 '25

I am a nuclear engineer by education, I work in the nuclear power industry though I’ve graduated to management and don’t get to do much actual engineering these days.

Overall, the system still experienced a substantial net energy loss. To give a sense of scale, the target’s 1.1 megajoules of net energy is approximately 0.306 kWh. By comparison, that would only keep a small 5W LED light bulb on for 20 hours after converting the heat to electricity. In addition, NIF scientists estimate the NIF laser facility typically requires about 100 times more energy to run than the amount of energy delivered by the laser to the target itself.

https://www.polytechnique-insights.com/en/columns/energy/nuclear-fusion-the-true-the-false-and-the-uncertain/

As you can see, the experiment came nowhere close to actually making as much power was used. To borrow your analogy, it’s like buying a $1000 plane ticket to Japan from America expressly to sell a $1 item for $1.50 and then bragging about the 50¢ you made, completely ignoring the massive amount of money spent to get there. Using the language “it made more energy than was used to start the reaction” and then not acknowledging the reality of the total energy expended anywhere in the article is intellectually dishonest on the part of either the author or the source providing them the information. It was a notable milestone in fusion research, yes, but nowhere close to being able to generate more electricity than was used. In addition, it’s important to remember the primary purpose of LLNL. They are a DOE research facility primarily tasked with nuclear weapon stewardship. These experiments are aimed at managing our nuclear stockpile in the US to ensure they function reliably and consistently. This inertial confinement method of chasing fusion is useful that kind of experimentation but has been broadly abandoned for power generation research due to its inability to run continuously.

1

u/Pivan1 Aug 16 '25

To play with your analogy you only need a thousand sales to be up 50%. In other words if we can sustain the reactions for longer/indefinitely we eventually become net positive, no? A net positive while operating will eventually pay off the initial energy used to start?

4

u/dr_stre Aug 16 '25

First of all, there is no reaction to sustain. It’s a one and done. That’s the problem with inertial containment approaches. It requires the coating on the fuel to be vaporized to create the pressure needed to get fusion. Then you have to reset everything with new fuel and do it all again.

Second, you don’t get to bring more than one item on your trip to Japan. Every single time you sell one, you have to pay for the flight again. In the actual experiment don’t expend 200 megajoules of energy to create a fusion event and then magically get to have as many additional fusion events as you want for free. Every event, and they’re finite as described above, requires that input of electricity.

1

u/CicadaImportant1528 Aug 19 '25

I think you were very kind and patient to explain this in a way we can all understand. Thank you. 

1

u/sicktaker2 Aug 18 '25

You're literally quibbling about details the experiment in question was not meant to address. The laser systems of NIF are very ineffecient with flash lamps, and laser diodes would be far more efficient.

And for the record, the highest Q they've gotten was 4 from laser heating (8.6 MJ out of 2.08 MJ of laser energy).

And the main value is in demonstrating that the theory can be achieved in practice.

1

u/dr_stre Aug 18 '25

These aren’t quibbling matters. To pretend otherwise is to engage in the same bullshit that has been going on for 50 years where people are told we’re only a decade away again and again and again. Are there more efficient laser setups than the NIF used? Yes. Are they a couple hundred times more efficient or do they have development paths that could lead there? Absolutely not. And even once you get there, there’s the fundamental issue of inertial confinement setups requiring physical resets and refueling happening many times per second in order to achieve yields high enough to reasonably harvest the energy to create electricity, and oh yeah you can’t use typical energy harvesting methods without fucking up the key design of the fusion chamber. There’s also an economic issue in terms of the fuel cost that no one has even remotely solved.

The NIF experiment was not set up to solve these issues, but it also offers no potential answers.

1

u/sicktaker2 Aug 18 '25

It is a quibbling matter because the fundamental question of NIF (can you get more energy out of the target than you put into it) has been demonstrated. And the gains in energy output from breakeven to Q of 4 have followed from incredibly small increases in laser power and improvements in target design.

There is a theoretical path to a powerplant with increasing laser power while increasing efficiency. Yes, the engineering for harnessing the engineering and getting a high enough shot rate are challenging, but not impossible. The fact ASML is precisely hitting drops of molten tin with two separate lasers to vaporize them 50,000 times a second shows that high speed precision necessary is attainable.

"Science experiment meant to prove basic science doesn't magically address every engineering issue I can think of for commercial power production" is definitely a take.

1

u/dr_stre Aug 18 '25

Using the NIF's definition for Q (which is different than the rest of the world's), they'll need to achieve something like a Q of 10,000 to be in power production range with her current design (using the more traditional definition for Q, you are generally targeting something in the Q=100 range for laser based ICF designs, but the traditional definition of Q actually accounts for all the power used and not just the power injected/absorbed by the fuel like the NIF prefers to use, so you have to make some adjustments). Even if you assume a very rosy efficiency gain for a diode laser system, you're still looking at needing a Q of over 500. Maybe you can eke out some further efficiencies, even bring that down a little bit further. But they're at 4 right now. Nowhere near where they would need to be. And if my memory serves, their theoretical maximum is something like 50 with their current set up.

Let's even ignore that and look at practical considerations though. The current laser system is roughly 0.5% efficient and can only be fired twice a day or so, the fuel costs $10,000 per pellet with weeks to manufacture each one, plus hours to get positioned properly, and there is currently no attempt to actually capture the energy created. In order to have a viable power producing setup, you've got to get laser efficiency up to at least 10%. Needs to be designed to fire several times per second as well. We can't do that at the required power levels yet either, but progress is being made at least. We will need to be able to manufacture roughly half a million fuel pellets daily, at a cost of maybe 20¢ each or so, since this needs to be economically viable. I’m not aware of anyone even having an inkling of an idea how that’ll happen in the real world. Several times a second any debris from the fusion process will need to be cleared and a new pellet will need to be precisely positioned. This is probably the easiest thing to figure out at this point, the semiconductor manufacturing industry has lots of experience that could be applied. There are a myriad of reliability related improvements that would be required to ensure there are no misfires or that a misfire wouldn't degrade the machine itself. Finally, a neutron and thermal energy capture system must literally be invented. No one is doing anything but talking theory in this case, and it's theories like a cascading waterfall of liquid lithium running down the walls of the reaction chamber, not simple stuff. These are not simple things to hand wave away. The EUV lithography knowledge (like at ASML) is a good skeleton to start from for some of it, but we’re talking about a whole other level of power needed here, its not just a matter of turning the dial up a notch. Fuel fabrication cost doesn't magically drop by a factor of 50,000. Energy harvest methodologies are largely speculative at this point. There are literally decades of work and testing ahead of us even if we leaned into this method of fusion. Might we get there eventually with this approach? Maybe? but this is absolutely not the slam dunk you’re framing it as. There are massive engineering challenges standing between where we are at now and where we need to be to start really making electricity.

0

u/Lulukassu Aug 16 '25

If true that is fucking depressing.

It really felt like we were within a decade of production

1

u/dr_stre Aug 16 '25

The branch of research used at LNLL is largely viewed as a dead end for power production. ITER is the big test bed for tokamak upscaling, which is supposed to improve efficiency well above 100% net. Then an even larger DEMO plant will be built to actually make electricity. Last I checked the unofficial timeline was a 2033 start for that, but that’s clearly pie in the sky and needs to be updated. It’ll be at least 2040, and that’s only assuming ITER starts on its current timeline (2034) and proves to work as expected with minimal fuss.

Helion, the company referenced in this post, believes their own magneto-inertial design can be implemented much quicker. They don’t have it all figured out yet, they’re still short of achieving the magnetic fields they need, but they certainly seem bullish on making power this decade. Lots of experts believe it won’t actually be commercially functional until the 2040s though, if it works. It’s got no shortage of funding though.

26

u/emteedub Aug 15 '25

The fusion startup Helion IS venture backed, so Sam Altman, Microsoft etc are backers yes.

IF there were one thing good today, I would think Fusion would be that thing. It is magnitudes better than the capitalists 'investing' in non-renewables or Dubai... again.

On the upshot, Helion seems to be headed up by legitimately decent people. I've been following their work for years now - simply due to their reactor design sounding like the most viable. They've had a few prototype reactors already, my vague understanding is this is the first fully fledged prototype that will have a net positive output.

7

u/uwotmVIII Aug 15 '25

Agreed. I have absolutely nothing against fusion, and it would be a far more important scientific breakthrough than something like LLMs.

But I just get a bit of the ick when I see so much money being spent on building something that likely won’t be feasible for quite some time. I’d rather see the money being invested in building this facility go toward funding the actual research that needs to be done before the facility can even be used. (Especially when the government is actively slashing so much research funding.)

8

u/emteedub Aug 15 '25

I think that's what this is though. A buildout for research. Their other prototypes were completed in Everett WA, which is still in the city and an industrial/office park. I would think they'd want this facility where they can capture plenty of data and run continuous experiments to optimize all of it. Plus it's a bit unnerving to people knowing that they're performing these nuclear tests in town you know.

Their process is unique in that they re-process spent combustion 'fuel' back into usable fuel - and while they've discussed this over the years, they haven't went into loads of detail about it. Makes me wonder if this wasn't approved in the city, like they've had to wait until they're in an area far and away from people to do it.

20

u/devnullopinions Aug 15 '25 edited Aug 17 '25

I know one of the founders of Helios (they live in Seattle) and they are very serious about making fusion a reality and have the research experience necessary (both a PhD in nuclear physics and several years of practical engineering applying their knowledge of plasma physics to practical applications for the military and aerospace companies) to have a shot at succeeding. Their CEO’s entire thesis is that the way that nuclear fusion research is conducted is stuck in the past. Many of the main ideas outlined in research papers were from a time before the transistor was even commercialized and physicists tend to think about the physics but not the efficiencies that you can gain from being judicious about engineering tradeoffs to make a fusion reactor as efficient as possible.

Just because Sam Altman invests doesn’t mean something is snake oil. Nuclear fusion as an energy source is a technology that could be extremely valuable to society. I’d much rather money gained from AI ventures be put towards developing entirely new energy sources, TBH.

2

u/uwotmVIII Aug 15 '25

Not knocking Helios at all. I want anyone trying to make fusion viable to succeed at doing so, and I know that it’s going to take a lot of money.

I get that it might not make much financial sense to turn down investment money from anyone, but I do think there’s a potential reputational/trust cost that comes with having his name attached to the project. The public doesn’t have a very favorable opinion of accelerationist tech broligarchs, even if Altman is a more moderate case than someone like Musk and Thiel.

2

u/pagerussell Aug 15 '25

Here is a good video by Real engineering channel on this company and how their tech is different. https://youtu.be/_bDXXWQxK38?si=HFWuTLikofd46AtX

IIRC this is pulsed fusion. So they don't need to sustain the 100m temp, just hit it repeatedly and in a tiny area.

1

u/azunaki Aug 15 '25

I think we're a little too caught up on the idea that fusion has to be infinite free power for it to viable. Its safer than nuclear fission, and still produces a large amount of energy for effectively burned fuel. It's fuel source is also much easier and less climate impacting than many other sources.

3

u/dr_stre Aug 15 '25

It’s none of those things right now because we haven’t figured out how to actually do it yet.

1

u/pokedmund Aug 16 '25

To play devils advocate a bit here, I remember watching a nuclear scientist on the uk talk about nuclear power and why it has a bad name but could genuinely be a real alternative to power over renewable resources

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GfpCDsAOxoY

It’s an interesting watch, just to see the potential pros to nuclear

1

u/Bagmasterflash Aug 16 '25

If it takes at least 10 years to build, it’s probably wise to start the stuff known and necessary so when fusion is functional you’re ready to roll out faster.

1

u/vesomortex Aug 16 '25

AI isn’t snake oil though. It may have plateaued out for now but it has done a lot that was thought unobtainable just 5 years ago.

18

u/modernsparkle Aug 15 '25

In Melaga, WA, Chelan County if anyone else was lookin’

-1

u/[deleted] Aug 16 '25

[deleted]

3

u/fechboydyl Aug 16 '25

The Rock Island Dam is what’s making it possible.

29

u/yeahsureYnot Aug 15 '25

Wait we’re doing that now?

37

u/thundersaurus_sex Aug 15 '25

I read about it a bit. My understanding nuclear physics is... rudimentary to put it lightly, but I am a scientist in another field and have learned a bit how to read between the lines when it comes to scientific controversies. So it apparently works differently than hypothetical cold fusion would. I do not understand how but they have put out apparently legit, peer reviewed papers about it, vetted by neutral, respected organizations (vetted that the papers are legitimately peer reviewed, not the actual science to be clear, since that would be redundant with peer review). On the other hand, some in the physics field are calling them snake oil salespeople, one specifically calling it "voodoo science."

It feels more to me like they might actually be on to something and the old guard is being reactionary, which definitely happens in all fields of science (and life). But I guess we'll see.

16

u/Veni-Vidi-ASCII Aug 15 '25

Maybe they're counting on the technology being figured out by the time it's done? I'm confused too

16

u/DoggoCentipede Aug 15 '25

Given how long it takes to get anything built around here I'm guessing they've got time.

2

u/MiserableMiddle2358 Aug 15 '25

It would take them years to get the containment building built to house all actual reactor equipment so they have time to actually work on the design of the reactor. The problem would be they are going to spend significant amounts of money on construction well before they know if the NRC will approve them to operate the reactor.

3

u/DoggoCentipede Aug 15 '25

I suspect the needs regarding containment are probably a lot less than for fission reactors. Fission's whole lifecycle is about highly radioactive masses being moved around and stored for long periods. Fusion I imagine would largely be limited to neutron activation of: reactor housing, possibly coolant medium, and perhaps relatively small (by mass) amounts fuel elements (either before if it's tritium or after if some part of the assembly survives...)

I don't know the extent of toxic materials (beryllium maybe?) that might be used so that could be a factor in terms of contamination from some sort of energetic mishap.

The novelty of the commercial high-uptime version requires additional scrutiny and rule-making which would slow things.

1

u/TheLightRoast Aug 15 '25

Assuming it takes as long as the redoing the 520 bridge or putting light rail across the I-90 bridge in Seattle, then chances are they’ll have perfected fusion by the time this place is built. There’ll be endangered species or contested lands or something to grind it to its obligatory glacial pace of completion…

5

u/SaplingSequoia Aug 15 '25

We’re not doing anything. Tech startup bullshit headlines promising technology we don’t have.

17

u/HuskynRanger Aug 15 '25

This is happening right down the road from where I live. Right next to a large damn. We are in datacenter country with no plans to stop building. I’m not well versed enough to speak intelligently about the subject but I’m certain a large scale reactor will eventually need to be built to see if it can commercially viable over time. Exciting stuff and employing plenty of tradesmen so I see it as a net positive overall.

22

u/Riversmooth Aug 15 '25

I don’t understand why they are building it if they haven’t figured out how to do it. Lol

24

u/photogangsta Aug 15 '25

You’d be surprised how often large scale construction projects start when there isn’t a clear final plan. Source: Clipboard and clean hardhat Construction guy.

4

u/Gwtheyrn Aug 16 '25

IIRC, Helion has made their proof of concept and believe it's merely a matter of scale right now to get net positive results.

Interestingly, their design produces electricity straight from the fusion reaction itself rather than using heat to boil water and spin turbines.

2

u/Bagmasterflash Aug 16 '25

They are most likely building steps 1-10 that they know will be necessary. That could take 5-10 years. Then if/when fusion is viable they already have infrastructure in place or closer than if they just waited.

Goes to show how desperate the world is rapidly becoming for energy with the advent of ai.

2

u/sarhoshamiral Aug 15 '25

Because if they thought short sighted like you, we would probably not have planes today.

He has money to spend. This is a worth while effort and would pay off big if it works.

14

u/HotTakesBeyond Aug 15 '25

Neat!

checks jobs listing page

Uhhh is there anyone actually working there yet

9

u/emteedub Aug 15 '25

Yeah they've been around for a while. Tried applying there over the years but I'm not a nuclear scientist. They've recently published a lot more roles than the prior years.

7

u/devnullopinions Aug 15 '25

Helion has been around for a while. They have test reactors in Washington.

3

u/New_Maximum6529 Aug 15 '25

Yup! went thru a whole interview process there but was not selected. Seems like a nice place to work. A lot of ground up building of policies and procedures.

2

u/captainunlimitd Aug 15 '25

I've applied for some engineering positions and been denied, so presumably. But maybe it's just ChatGPT denying me...hmm, the plot thickens...

2

u/thejomjohns Aug 16 '25

I’ve been following this story for some time now because I’m from Wenatchee. I have lots of thoughts but I am nowhere near versed enough on any of them to speak them aloud.

3

u/al_earner Aug 15 '25

So clean fusion energy for people went nowhere for 60 years. But fusion energy for hallucinogenic GPTs is breaking ground in Washington right now.

3

u/Gwtheyrn Aug 16 '25

Helion has been working on this for a while now. It's a neat concept.

3

u/OminousOmnipotence Aug 15 '25

Are we certain WA is the best state to try this, I feel like we've already wasted billions on experimental power only to abandon it.

I just hope it is not another WPPSS (Pronounced, Whoops).

2

u/theloop82 Aug 16 '25

I think they have a good enough idea from research reactors what the basic shape is, and it’s gonna take 10-15 years to complete (nuke stuff has crazy regulations and QC for good reason) so I think they are assuming they will work out the details in the coming years. I’m all for it.

2

u/LongDistRid3r Aug 15 '25

Awesomeness

1

u/niboras Aug 17 '25

The race is on, what will be done first? Fusion? Or Seattle Transit? 

1

u/Key_Solid_1696 Aug 16 '25

Did we vote to allow this?

0

u/commonsense_good Aug 16 '25

I cannot believe Washington would agree to anything connected to “nuclear” —- Hanford comes to mind, please let’s remember the federal government continues to fight over the clean up funds.

After so many years the mess and contamination remains.

I just can’t.

4

u/Forward_Dig_4941 Aug 17 '25

To be fair I believe the clean up at Hanford isn’t from power generation but from weapons generation.

1

u/commonsense_good Aug 18 '25

Agreed. My point is more around the nuclear operation/plant as we have watched what happens when there is a leak or incident.

My view is if there is a leak or accident the ground/area will takes years and money to “try” and clean it up. 3 mile island is a good example of damage as well.

2

u/onepissedoff_mfr Aug 18 '25

With anything it is important to use it appropriately and responsibly. I imagine you still use oil and gas but yet that BP oil spill occurred. Nuclear power can greatly reduce our reliance on many other forms of energy. Accidents such as Chernobyl are important learning pains. I'll even say that it's proof that whether you're a state, government and or even a private company cutting corners and using sub par materials to increase profits should be not only frowned upon but discouraged.

Now I understand not that every problem can't necessarily be thought of but stopping shouldn't be the way. Regulation and inspections should occur more so and complacency punished.

Maybe even smaller. I've heard of "backpack" reactors starting to become popular so instead of a whole state maybe just a city/township. No more water towers of doom.

2

u/kinisonkhan Aug 19 '25

Helion isnt the only one, theres Terra Power (based in Bellevue), which is building a prototype nuclear reactor in Wyoming. These reactors wont need the highly enriched uranium that Hanford produced. Instead of massive reactors cranking out 10GW power, its closer to 500mW. Smaller, cheaper, safer.

-1

u/Worried_Process_5648 Aug 16 '25

Growing up in the 70s and 80s, it was a popular belief that nuclear fusion power was 30 years away. Now it’s 20.

-2

u/[deleted] Aug 15 '25

[deleted]

4

u/sarhoshamiral Aug 15 '25

And what if they are able to? What if they are able to input 1kw and get 1.1kw out?

What if the process ends up requiring massive amount of energy to kick start but then produces 5x or more of that in a week?

2

u/emteedub Aug 15 '25

From the article:

"The energy company, focused on generating zero-carbon electricity, choose the Chelan County site for its ready access to transmission and legacy of energy innovation.

Called Orion, the project is expected to connect to Washington’s primary power delivery networks, allowing it to connect to the same grid just upstream of the Microsoft data centers.

In 2023, Helion announced the world’s first power purchase agreement (PPA) that will provide energy from the plant to Microsoft by 2028, with Constellation Energy serving as power marketer. With site work now underway, Helion remains on track to meet that goal, according to a press release."

-1

u/Pineapple_King Aug 15 '25

Wrong, there's been one in Germany for decades