The Enthusiasm for Fusion Energy: Expert Explains Industry “Revitalization” As Technology Attracts VC Dollars

Chris Hansen, senior research scientist in the William E. Boeing Aeronautics and Astronautics Department at the University of Washington. (UW photo)

For decades, the promise to harness the power of fusion on a commercial scale to produce vast amounts of carbon-free energy has been out of reach for scientists. At last this tantalizing dream seems closer to reality and the money begins to flow.

This week, fusion energy startup Helion attracted a lot of interest when it announced a $ 500 million round – and the Everett, Washington-based company could land an additional $ 1.7 billion if there are upcoming milestones Achieved. Other fusion energy companies, many of them also on the west coast, have announced venture capital investments in the double- and triple-digit million range for this year.

“Helion Energy’s $ 500 million Series E marks the biggest clean energy deal ever and could mark the beginning of a new era: plenty of clean energy from commercialized fusion technology,” said Svenja Telle, aspiring technology analyst at PitchBook.

So what is fusion energy and why the fuss?

Fusion takes place in a plasma – a superheated gas and the most energetic of the four states of aggregation – in which two nuclei collide, form a new atom and release energy. The most advanced method of fusion uses strong magnets to contain the plasma. The energy generated can be captured and converted into electricity.

The best-known example of the power of fusion is the sun, a giant fusion reactor that produces enormous amounts of energy, of which we are now capturing too much on earth thanks to excessive greenhouse gas emissions.

GeekWire caught up with Chris Hansen, a senior scientist from the University of Washington in the United States, this week William E. Boeing Aeronautics and Astronautics Department to learn more about the area. His lab examines various aspects of fusion energy and works with start-ups, including the Seattle-based UW spin-off CTFusion and other universities.

Questions and answers have been edited for clarity and length.

GeekWire: Why was it so difficult to use fusion to generate electricity?

Hansen: We always speak of fusion as “we want to use the sun” and recreating the sun on earth sounds pretty difficult, doesn’t it? But we really need to do a lot more. The sun uses fusion, but the sun’s energy density is comparable to a compost heap. It actually has a very low energy density and only works because it is massive. It’s just gigantic.

But on earth we have to do a lot better than a compost heap. You’re talking about 10 times higher temperatures [about 100 million degrees Celsius] and a million times higher energy density. So there are very difficult conditions to create. We can do it scientifically, a lot of experiments have shown it is possible, but doing it in an inexpensive way is the hard part.

GW: Damn it! That sounds crazy hard. Why bother with Fusion?

Hansen: It’s a very interesting problem. There are so many different aspects of the merger that have yet to be resolved and so many things that go together. This great scientific challenge requires us to advance almost every type of technology that society uses.

Related: As interest in fusion energy grows, Helion receives $ 500 million from OpenAI CEO, Facebook co-founder

It’s very exciting to be pushing the boundaries of what we can do as human beings.

And then, when you think about whether you are capable of being successful, just like it would dramatically change the entire landscape – the energy, of course [production] on the planet, but in the aerospace engineering department it opens up all sorts of other things that we don’t even really consider. Do space missions and travel with people further out in the solar system and make it a lot easier to think about generating large amounts of energy on planets that don’t have the traditional resources we have.

GW: Then why is the industry finally taking off?

Hansen: In some cases 20 years ago we simply did not have the appropriate technology to do this. There are a lot of … new magnetic technologies, new materials, but I think one of the biggest impacts that not only affected the merger but also made these other technologies possible is computer technology.

Our ability to model and drive some of these scientific and technological developments due to the increased computing power has really made a difference. It is very difficult to take measurements in a fusion reactor because 100 million degrees are quite hot. Hence, we really rely on models and computer simulations to interpret and understand some of the things we see.

As computing has expanded, the complexity of these models has improved, and we’re really getting to the point where we have sufficient understanding that we believe we can take some of these big steps again, and we’re confident we can do some of predictions. And that is exactly what is evident in the revival of the industry.

Hansen’s lab is working on a plasma-related technology that could lower the cost of the merger. In this video of their work, the hourglass shape is the wall of a plasma containing device. Inside the vessel, the plasma naturally relaxes into a donut shape. The ghostly image of the plasma is created because hotter regions emit light at different wavelengths and the high-speed camera that is used to take the image is only sensitive to one of the wavelengths.

GW: If either company is successful, how quickly could the merger deliver electricity?

Hansen: Once you get this thing working, there are plenty of other things that need to happen. Fusion reactors are extremely safe and we don’t have the risks that we traditionally think of with nuclear power, but there is also no wind or solar power, so some regulatory structures need to be put in place. There are other materials and things like all of the rest of the power plant needs to come together.

But depending on how quickly someone can get the fusion part up and running, it can happen very quickly.

I’m pretty familiar with the concepts of Zap Energy which are very cheap and relatively small. If something or something like Helion is on that smaller, cheaper side, you could see it ramping up pretty quickly. It would be very different from those big power plants that you traditionally think of when you think of fusion energy or other systems.

GW: Fusion power has been in development for decades, and there must still be naysayers. What are your arguments against the technology and how do you respond?

Hansen: People who associate it with traditional nuclear power have concerns about the history of how it has been handled [see Chernobyl and Fukushima disasters] … But we really need to make it clear that Fusion is fundamentally different. The reason that [commercialized fusion energy] has not yet happened, it is so difficult to create the conditions that make it possible. But that’s part of what makes it so inherently safe because you can just shut down the system immediately. All of the fuel that is in it is now inert. You don’t have any of those things that can lead to dire consequences in current fission systems.

The other thing is people who basically think we should put all that money into other types of renewable resources. But you have a challenge with intermittent sources [like wind and solar that aren’t always available]. Right now they’re extremely cheap and they’re great, and that’s where we should definitely invest. But there is one little open question, if you are trying to approach 100% carbon free, this interruption is something you have to deal with. And that will add to the cost.

I think Fusion would fit in very well. Personally, I’d argue that’s a good investment, but I can see the other side. There are some battery people and smart grid people who would say we can do it differently. But with government funding at least, there are all the different peer-reviewed and competitive proposals out there to try to get your point across.