Slashdot Log In
Lunar Helium 3 Could Meet Earth's Energy Demands
Posted by
timothy
on Sat Nov 27, 2004 02:33 PM
from the bring-back-the-rest-of-the-tang dept.
from the bring-back-the-rest-of-the-tang dept.
starannihilator writes "Helium 3, rare on the earth but abundant on the moon, may prove to be a feasible energy source with NASA's Moon-Mars initiative. Despite the American Physical Society's Report that the initiative harms science, the moon may actually benefit humans because it contains 10 times more energy than all the fossil fuels on earth. Long hailed as a potential source of energy, and outlined in detail by the Artemis Project, helium 3 may solve earth's energy crisis without any radioactive byproducts. The only problem: the reactor technology for converting helium 3 to energy is still in its infancy. Read more about the Artemis Project's information about fusion power from the moon here." Reader muditgarg points out that India has just hosted a global conference on Moon exploration and utilization, and adds a link to this related story on KeralaNext.
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
It seems.... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:It seems.... (Score:5, Funny)
rj
Parent
Sure.... (Score:4, Funny)
Wait a second...
Re:Sure.... (Score:5, Funny)
Only, there will have to be some failsafe to prevent the beamed energy from missing the collection dishes and vaporizing a nearby city.
Then we can concentrate on building the arcologies.
Parent
Re:Sure.... (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:Sure.... (Score:3, Insightful)
Are you nuts?! If it can't vaporize a city, how the hell are we supposed to get the funding to build it?
Drop the failsafe and put the DoD on it. You can sneak the failsafe into the plans after we get the funding.
And you get it how? (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm all for new sources of energy... but the transport issue would seem to be the first major hurdle, long before the needed reactor.
Space Elevator maybe? (Score:4, Insightful)
Wouldn't something like this [slashdot.org] work nicely?
Parent
Re:And you get it how? (Score:3, Interesting)
Well, if we've reached reactor feasibility, present transportation costs would be irrelevant. We'd have fusion powered rockets available to use for transport between Earth orbit and the Moon. The rockets would be able to be reusable, long-term cargo taxis, possibly drastically reducing cost. Fusion power would revolutionize everything, from the energy economy to space tra
Re:And you get it how? (Score:3, Insightful)
Last time I checked we were still "50" years away from a commercially practical fusion reactor.
Re:And you get it how? (Score:3, Interesting)
I'm sure we could do it for less than $10billion nowadays - automated space craft flies off, collects the Helium, and flies it back - one way. The space craft does not need to be very heavy, because all it is is effectively a huge cargo container.
You are also forgetting that we could place the energy gene
Re:And you get it how? (Score:3, Informative)
Can I get you to do my taxes?
Apollo didn't cost anything like $110 billion each. Have a look here. [asi.org] The entire budget for the whole Apollo program was less than $80 billion (in 1994 dollars).
Anyway, Apollo wasn't designed to deliver 25 tonnes of Helium from the moon, so it's not surprising to see that it wouldn't be the best tool for the job. You could use Russian Progress spacecraft to deliver over a ton at a time, or actually design a spacecra
Re:And you get it how? (Score:5, Interesting)
Mass of the combined CSM for actual lunar landing missions was 30,329 Kg. (Encyclopedia Aeronautica).
How much of that would be actual He3 in a cargo design is a different question. So is how fast a load of He3 has to return to Earth - Apollo was designed for short travel times, largely because of consumables limits. A tank of He3 doesn't need to worry if it takes months to get across the system.
Realistically, our costs would be those to put a crew on the Moon, sustain them for the time needed to 'mine' He3, and bring them home, plus the costs to put a delivery system for the He3 into place, whether it's one big capsule with all elements including its fuel shipped up from Earth, or a bunch of 10 gallon barrels with cheap transponders, spray on ablative shields and a local He3 powered mass driver throwing them at the Pacific recovery zone.
At pragmatically foreseeable levels of technology, we have to ship some people there and back at least once to get our 25 tons, but we don't necessarily have to ship people back and forth every time we move some He3. If they can process a 20 year supply in a few weeks on the Moon we could be talking about sending up and recovering one living crew, once, for the total life of the program.
Costs might vary widely depending on what percentage of pods you can recover with a given design - maybe cheap ones that we lose 50% to reentry stresses would still actually work out cheaper overall. Can we make He3 tight barrels out of material already found on the Lunar surface? Haven't the foggiest - We don't even know how to get a sustained fusion reaction out of the stuff yet.
If you figure the personnel costs might be only a share of a larger project, to put people on the Moon for several reasons and not just this one, the project requires less to justify itself (but the overall committment required becomes bigger, naturally). Depending on just what methods are possible, transportation costs may be a deal killer, or quite workable.
Parent
Re:I should have said He3… (Score:3, Funny)
(Sorry)
Re:History? We live in 2004, not 1534. (Score:3, Funny)
We live in 4641, you insensitive clod!
Re:History? We live in 2004, not 1534. (Score:3, Informative)
Note that the years relative to the Christian calendar that it has mainly considered to have started on: 2637 B.C. According to Wikipedia, that puts us at year 4641.
I hope you feel more educated about this. See you in metamoderation.
Top three? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Did you miss the scale? (Score:4, Informative)
Parent
Re:Did you miss the scale? (Score:5, Informative)
Indeed. The total stored energy of TNT is about 4 MJ (megajoules) per kilogram.
The kinetic energy of an object dropped from the Earth-Moon L1 point is about 50 MJ per kilogram. Adding explosives to any such device would be entirely a waste of time.
Parent
Re:Did you miss the scale? (Score:3, Insightful)
The moon isn't exactly a small place. What's to stop some other country from setting up a He3 mining base on some remote part of the moon?
I should have gone into more detail. I'm not suggesting soldiers in space suits marching along, lunar rovers with rail guns strapped to the top or whatever. In any case, it's too expensive to ship the marines into orbit - it's costing a fortune just to supply them in Iraq.
What I'm talking about is control of the supply route to and from the moon / elsewhere. You ca
Who would have thought... (Score:3, Funny)
That all of that cheese up there would be the fuel that saved the Earth!
BTW, I thought cheese generally produced methane when broken down?
Sounds Interesting (Score:5, Interesting)
One thing that doesn't sit easy with me wrt this is that even though there is 10x more energy in Helium-3 on the moon compared to 'fossil' fuels here on earth, I have a feeling that we would still deplete it relatively quickly (with exponential population growth and all).
I think that ultimately the answer is going to have to be with solar energy, since that is an incredible source of energy for a long time. But, whether it's looking for efficient means of converting solar energy to something usable, or transporting the Helium-3 from the moon, it's going to take the price of gas skyrocketing before people cry for a change. I just hope that by that point it's not too late.
Re:Sounds Interesting (Score:5, Interesting)
Photovoltaic solar is basically the wrong kind. The focus (if you will pardon the pun) should be on parabolic mirror array systems which heat a boiler. Last I heard they were getting sufficient temperatures to liquefy sodium which had some benefits over water that I can't remember. You can get much more energy out of a system like this (steam turbines are very efficient) and most of the system is relatively inexpensive. Either way you need sun-following equipment to maximize the area of exposure. Even just the copper for distributing power from PV panels is going to be expensive on large scales like that.
PV solar is best used in mobile applications where space is at a premium. In the desert, you can just spread out. That does raise questions of climatological changes however; if you cover the desert with solar power facilities what happens to the normal warming/cooling cycle? There's no free lunch, and as usual we should be looking for more ways to be energy-efficient. We will always need large amounts of energy for some processes (simply by definition) but we are generally quite inefficient. The energy problem needs to be attacked from both ends.
Parent
Re:Sounds Interesting (Score:4, Interesting)
The idea is to build a GIANT tower, use solar energy to heat air at the bottom, and then use wind turbines to capture energy from the air as it rises up the tower.
You can put a heat bank at the bottom (probably a lot of water) that releases heat at night. Because it extracts energy from the heat gradient, it still runs fine at night when it's cooler. Also, maintenance on the turbines is easier because they run at one speed in one direction for 50 years.
They've built several prototypes, and results have been good. However, results get better as the tower gets taller, because the air at higher altitude is cooler. This is why the tower has to be so fucking massive.
Parent
Nice idea, but... (Score:5, Interesting)
On the gripping hand, I do have a friend whose PhD thesis was the chemistry of moon rocks - and her opinion was that mining He3 would be impractical.
The problem is growing demand, not lack of supply. (Score:3, Insightful)
The problem with all these plans to "solve the energy problem" is that they ignore the fact that human energy demand is constantly growing, and growing exponentially. It's the same problem that we have with hard drives; in 1990, my 40MB hard drive was barely enough space. In 2004, my 320GB RAID array is barely enough space. Unless we control the demand for energy, all the new energy sources in the solar system won't solve the problem.
At least, as far as non-renewable resources go. Solar energy, coupled with a focus on efficiency and maybe some population control, would do far more to solve our energy problems than mining space for Helium-3. It would be safer and easier as well. Why go to the moon for energy when the sun delivers it for free?
Re:The problem is growing demand, not lack of supp (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
What they don't mention... (Score:5, Informative)
The only disadvantage of hydrogen isotope fusion is radioactivity. D/T spits out fast neutrons, while D/D can produce radio-isotopes (I think - someone correct me if I've remembered wrong). Neither technology produces hazardous nuclear waste however, and the radioactivity in question would be very short lived, cooling in decades to centuries, rather than millennia. Moreover, in D/T reactor designs, the only radiation is in the core itself, and said neutron radiation can be used to "breed" tritium fuel. Disposing of fusion waste long term, either by sealing the decommissioned cores, or storing the D/D reaction products, is easier than importing he3 fuel from the moon.
Re:What they don't mention... (Score:3, Informative)
Recently, BBC News reported that Europe might finally get on with the job of building ITER [iter.org] - the next stage of fusion power plant development. I believe ITER will use D/T fuel.
Re:What they don't mention... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:What they don't mention... (Score:3, Interesting)
However, that would leave you with the problem of getting the power back to earth. The article is talking about build reactors groundside, and transporting the fuel back, not building them on the moon and beaming back tht power. If we could beam the power back, why not build solar stations in orbit (a la SimCity) and save ourselves some effort? Granted, they'd be less powerful, but also a hell of a lot cheaper, and since real estate in space is not an issue, we could build as many as we liked
The Moon is a Harsh Mistress (Score:3, Insightful)
It's another matter entirely decided how to safely drop this stuff, and the politics behind this.
Keep in mind this is not a solve-our-wimpy-economy-slipping-a-little thing. It's a when-we-run-out-of-really-old-dead-things-to-burn kind of solution.
Re:The Moon is a Harsh Mistress (Score:4, Interesting)
Of course "catching" it without destroying the catching mitt demands some cleverness, but you have to be pretty clever to begin with to hit it at all.
Parent
Seen it before (Score:5, Informative)
Problems:
- The concentration of He3 in the lunar surface may be very low. It could require processing many 100's of tonnes to get a gram/ounce/drop-in-the-ocean of He3. Of course, you could build an automated solar powered mining facility on the lunar surface to do it. You'd need serious $$$ though.
- Getting it back to Earth might be a pain. You could probably wrap it up in some aluminium projectile also mined on the moon, and fire it at Earth with a linear induction track or somthing. The projectile could have an ablative heat shield to protect the tiny precious cargo. More $$$ though.
- You need an efficient fusion power plant to 'burn' the stuff in and convert the heat to electrical energy.
Rather than using it on earth to generate electricity, it might be better used as a propellant for interplanetary spacecraft. The British Interplanetary Society once had plans for something called Daedalus which I think was designed to use He3 mined from the atmosphere of Jupiter. Is that even crazier?Wrong Counterargument (Score:5, Interesting)
Wikipedia Entry on Helium 3 (Score:5, Interesting)
The article there appears to be a stub, so here's hoping that those slashdotters that know a little more on the subject can contribute.
Help the wiki!
Quantum Conversion of Heat to Electricity (Score:3, Interesting)
Think about it. It's clean. It's efficient. And it can be found in every country of the world!
Here's a link: http://quantum.soe.ucsc.edu/publications/01_02/Mi
What do YOU think? Is it a viable solution?
Cheers!
Liberate the Moon! (Score:3, Funny)
I find it amazing... (Score:3, Informative)
The article stated that 200 million metric tons of lunar soil would have to be mined to extract 1 metric ton of Helium-3. It also stated that there is an estimated 1 million tons of Helium-3 on the Moon. Do the math:or 200 trillion tons (billion if you're British
The Moon masses approximately 7.4 x 10**22 kg [hypertextbook.com]. So we're talking about extracting 200 x 10**15 kg (1 metric ton = 1000 kg) from 7.4 x 10**22 kg, or about 2.7 millionths of the Moon's mass.
And that's if we take it all . And that's assuming that we don't develop a more efficient means of extracting the Helium-3 over the next few thousand years.
I really wish people would use their brains more than they do...
Re:Interesting... (Score:3, Funny)
1000s of scientists start to sob "daimn! we didn't think of that..."
Re:Interesting... (Score:3, Interesting)
In Heinlein's The Moon Is A Harsh Mistress, he postulates lunar catapults launching containers equipped with only maneuvering thrusters to deliver grain grown on the moon to earth orbit. Same principle could be applied here.
Of course, in the book, when the loonies get mad at earth (for depleting their natural resources), they load u
Re:Right. (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re:Right. (Score:5, Insightful)
2) Yes, it'll run out. In 10,000 years (RTFA), that's about the scope of human history thus far.
3) Yes, it's the moon. It's a big, cold, dead rock. We can mine to our heart's content and not destroy an ecosystem or create a health hazard for a small mining town. If we have to exploit something, I'd prefer it be the moon to the earth any day.
Parent
Re:Right. (Score:4, Funny)
As a vegan wiccan spirtual guide, with a deep knowledge of naturopathic wisdom, a solid foundation in crystal theory and application, and strong belief that humans not part of the natural world (and should therefor leave it alone) - I implore you to leave the moon in peace. She is a sweet silver virgin - it would be the height of hubris to allow her rape by man. We should all return to nature, live in the forest, and let mother earth and her moon sister guide our life choices.
Parent
Re:It all makes sense now! (Score:3, Funny)
Re:The ONLY problem is.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Certainly, but that doesn't mean you're going to like the answer.
KFG
Parent
Re:Alternitive methods (Score:3, Interesting)
For another, the technology in question is fusion power, which is desirable as a replacement for existing nuclear or fossil fuel power as a means of generating electricity. We could build fusion power plants with terrestrial fuels (see my other post) but people are advocating He3/D fusion because it produces no dangerous radioactivi
Re:Off limits? (Score:5, Informative)
Consider how large the moon is.... Now consider the odds that we could change that in any remotely significant way by mining H3. Get back to me.
Oh, and while you're at it, go read up on orbital physics. changing the moon's mass would not in any way affect its distance from earth. What might affect it (again, in a very, very slight way) would be the rockets firing off from it to return the stuff to earth. Even if that does become a problem (which would likely push the moon away from us, rather than towards), just start launching from the other side and coming around.
Parent
Re:We have the oceans... (Score:3, Insightful)
No. It's harder. It requires higher temperatures, and better containment. The only advantage when used for terrestrial uses would be the lower neutron production as compared to reactions like Deuterium-Tritium (D+He3 still produces neutrons from unwanted D+D reactions).
Deuterium-Tritium produces neutrons, but the only radioactive stuff left behind is the reactor itself, and the isotopes in question have shortish half lives (tens of years for the mos
Re:Wtf? (Score:3, Informative)
If *only* the USA was using this source of fuel to power the nation there would be enough to last 44,000 YEARS.
By the time this becomes viable we could in all probability power the entire planet for a few thousand years...
If the technology behind He3 recactors works as theorised we will have viable and clean nuclear power.
Also, since our moon has tons of He3 lying around, imagine how much more is out t