Mine The Moon For Helium-3 644
Rob Kennedy writes "A story at The Daily Cardinal is reporting that UW-Madison researchers are looking to mine the moon for helium-3 as an energy source, which supposedly would yield about 1000 times more energy per pound than coal. Although there are several hurdles that would need to be cleared, The Associated Press mentions one catch in particular: 'The researchers still are working on building a helium-3 reactor that would produce more energy than it takes in.' Indeed. SciScoop has a more in-depth discussion of the prospect."
Associated Press (Score:5, Insightful)
Is there REALLY anything wrong with Fission power? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Associated Press (Score:5, Insightful)
Actually, that's a serious problem. No one has yet built a fusion reactor that, for sustained periods, produces more energy than it takes to keep running.
Re:Is there REALLY anything wrong with Fission pow (Score:0, Insightful)
Back to Earth (Score:3, Insightful)
100 years ahead of their time (Score:4, Insightful)
I love it. We don't even have economic fusion yet, and these guys are talking about mining the fuel from the moon.
It would seem that with standard deuterium and tritium fusion, involving only plentiful isotopes of hydrogen found on Earth, there's utterly no need to get helium from the moon.
The main problem is the mastering the fusion process itself, not where we're gonna get the fuel from!
Or they could just leave the moon alone (Score:1, Insightful)
What they need to do instead of wasting money on this sort of enengy production is look at finding better ways of using solar power. It is free and it does not requre the need to blow holes in anything to get access to it. And then there is Coldfusion which seems like a pretty good idea as well and does not need for us to leave the planet.
I am a bit of a hippy when it comes to this stuff
This explains everything! (Score:3, Insightful)
Seriously, say what you will about him, the President is a man who understands the approaching energy crisis. If it's true that the fossil-based economy will expire by 2040 (the number quoted by my college professor), then we're looking at a very violent game of hot potato over the remaining fuel. Controlling the next generation energy supply could be important if fossil fuels remain the most efficient way to get to space.
Of course, I'd much rather see renewable Earth sources of fuel (like solar, geothermal, corn oil, etc)...but then, nobody CONTROLS the sun. So there's no economic or political incentive like there is with an exclusive source like oil or nuclear.
No... what he was trying to say is... (Score:2, Insightful)
Why? (Score:5, Insightful)
Thousands of years? (Score:5, Insightful)
"Gee Bob, some journalist wants to know how much energy is on the moon. Should I assume that the reactor we may or may not be able to come up with will be 99% efficient or 5% efficient?"
"I'd go with 99%. We're running low on grant money."
Re:First get it working with tritium... (Score:3, Insightful)
It's just like cooking dinner, you don't wait for each thing to finish cooking, you start things off at next to each other so when you want things to be done, they'll be ready at the same time.
Re:This is Neither News nor Stuff that Matters (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't claim to know how much effort has really been put into He-3 fusion research, given how scarce He-3 is on Earth. The U Wisconsin guys seem to think it's an easier problem than traditional fusion research has tried to tackle (based on this document [wisc.edu]).
Re:Associated Press (Score:5, Insightful)
Not sure if you were attempting humor or just being pedantic. Nobody's claiming to create a perpetual motion machine on the moon. I think we all know what they meant by that statement (i.e. not including energy stored in the Helium itself, which is presumably somewhat abundant), and it gets to the heart of the problem.
Re:Is there REALLY anything wrong with Fission pow (Score:5, Insightful)
Considering that there have been zero civilian deaths from nuclear power use in the US, and that thousands die every years from diseases brought about by coal-burning, I have to wonder what type of design they want. Perhaps a nuclear power plant that produces power but doesn't actually have a reactor?
Re:Or they could just leave the moon alone (Score:3, Insightful)
Furthermore, I'm quite conviced that mining any substance on earth will harm more lifeforms than mining helium from the moon would.
Re:Associated Press (Score:3, Insightful)
OTOH I don't see working fusion reactors turning up any day soon either.
Re:Is there REALLY anything wrong with Fission pow (Score:3, Insightful)
Which is just plain goofy. Uranium is one of the most common substances on the planet. All you need is a process to separate and enrich the stuff.
Next, they are highly profiliated targets for terroristic attacks, and are in need of strong protection.
Just about anyone with the proper resources can build an atomic nuke (H-Bombs are a little trickier). The main problem is shaping the triggering explosion correctly to instill "super-critcial" fission into the material. The only ways to make sure you got it right are:
1. Test it. This is sure to be noticed by someone when you succeed.
2. Use a computer model. This is why Saddam wanted Playstations.
3. Drop it on your enemy and hope like hell it works.
The third is the only option for terrorists right now (because of technology embargoes and such), but has issues with moral in the case the bomb fails.
Which is all inherent to the fact that they use and need very refined and radioactive fuel and produce waste with similar attributes.
1. Breeder reactors
2. Atmoic batteries [google.com]
Nuff' said.
You're looking at things wrong... (Score:3, Insightful)
What they're talking about here is the fact that man has been unable, to date, to produce a Fusion reactor that was sustained that liberated more energy from the fuel than was put in to IGNITE it.
Chairface Chippendale (Score:3, Insightful)
So let's say we end up with a huge energy glut from this moon idea. Ubiquitous energy will mean no need for efficiency, and consumption will grow unchecked. We'll need a new moon in no time.
Re:Is there REALLY anything wrong with Fission pow (Score:5, Insightful)
More unilateralism (Score:2, Insightful)
Note that it's not "enough energy to last the World", only the US.
Of course it would probably be enough for the US for 1,000 years or 10,000 years for the rest of the planet.
On another note covering 60% or so of the sahara desert in solar panels is enough to supply the entire world with more then enough electricity, so really you don't have to go that far from home for "unlimited" clean energy
Solar Power Still Beats the Pants off H3. (Score:3, Insightful)
Heck. Combine just a little solar power with this H3 stuff (assuming they CAN do this) and the "energy crisis" is basically solved. Until the Moon runs out.
Re:In other news (Score:2, Insightful)
Do you think we can bring it back from the moon for less than several hundred bucks per litre?
you are barin-washed by US govt (Score:5, Insightful)
I spoke in person with engineers and nuclear physists who worked with Academic Alexandroff, who was a project leader to design Leningrad reactor which design has been used later in Chernobyl. Those guys know how it works. Moreover, Soviet nuclear phisists, who designed first Soviet nuclear bomb (Kurchatov and others) new exactly how nuclear physics works.
It was US engineers who learned from German physists. Saying that Soviet Nuclear engineers do not understand how the reactor works is the sign that you watch way too much TV and read way to many tabloids. Your brains are washed by US propaganda.
Coming back to Chernobyl, the Leningrad reactor was innovative in many ideas to reduce the cost of protection. That created an illusion that it's absolutely safe. It is safe, but not absolutely, just more safe than other reactors of that time. When its design has been re-applied in Chernobyl, they made more shortcuts on safity, thinking that it's safe anyway. Not only design shortcuts, but also in the technological process of the construction as well as n in organization of its support (like shift and like that). We all know the result.
Re:Is there REALLY anything wrong with Fission pow (Score:4, Insightful)
Chernobyl was extremely expensive. Pointing out that it was only 44 people is kindof silly. So what.
Re:In other news (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Is there REALLY anything wrong with Fission pow (Score:3, Insightful)
Nope. According to that paper, Thyroid cancer was the biggest problem. Thankfully, only 14 people have died of it so far. You and your family were actually treatable.
I really don't want to downplay the fact that Chernobyl was a huge tragedy. You and your family have probably suffered quite a bit and I am not immune to that. My only point is that Chernobyl was not much worse than other industrial accidents. For example, a coal burning plant in London managed to kill 3500 people in one week back in 1952. Areas of the United States have seen their property values go to zero as chemical spills made the areas uninhabitable. There are much worse things that can go wrong than a nuclear melt-down.
There is no such thing as 100% "safe" industry and nuclear power is far from the worst. That is my point. Nothing more, nothing less.
Re:Sure, Chernobyl was harmless... (Score:2, Insightful)
A few comments:
1. That looks like someone spray painted a globe rather than scientific data. Still, it looks like someone took care to try to portray the wind paths.
2. Radiation does not "spread" on the wind. Radioisotopes do. Chernobyl put out nowhere NEAR the amount of radioisotopes that the US and Russia put out during nuclear testing. Look up the EPA reports on Strontium-90 in the environment. You might be surprised.
3. Radiation falls off at the same rate as light. i.e. The amount of radiation is inversely proportional to the distance.
4. Radiation shielding abounds. Standard building materials are quite good at reducing radiation. Air and water also shield, although it takes much more air than say concrete.
There's a reason for a push to make fusion work. It's not only cheap and plentiful, it's SAFE.
Don't be so sure about that.
coal (Score:3, Insightful)
So unless you can go to the moon, process the helium 3 and bring it back from the moon for less than $78.50/lb its not worth it. Currently it costs $10,000 to send a lb of material to Low earth orbit. Its at least 5 times as much to put a lb on the moon. Not to mention, How do you get it back to earth? you need to get it back through the atmosphere that means you have to send up some sort of capsule to bring it back with, again at great expense. Until you have enough manufacturing capability on the moon to manufacture all the stuff you need to send he3 back, its just not worth it.
In my opinion, yes, there is... (Score:5, Insightful)
Last Friday the Tennessee reactor called WATTS BAR was SCRAM-ed. A SCRAM is an emergency procedure where the core's control rods are rapidly inserted to halt the reaction. SCRAMs are routine. Reactors SCRAM themselves and are manually SCRAM-ed under a large number of conditions.
Here is a quote from the WATTS BAR report to the NRC on this "event"; "The licensee also reported that all control rods inserted on the reactor trip, no primary or secondary system relief valves operated, and that reactor temperature is being maintained using steam dump to the condenser. Steam generator water levels are being maintained using auxiliary feedwater. The station electrical system is available and in a normal configuration. All ECCS equipment is available. The reactor is currently stable at 2230 psig, 559 degrees Fahrenheit."
Something about having to report the condition of control rods and water levels directly to the Federal Government makes me doubt exactly how safe this stuff actually is. That paragraph follows a template that varies based primarily on which parts of the back-up systems fail post SCRAM, and this is an unusual report in that none did.
Machine's break, people mess up, things get neglected, overlooked and forgotten. The consequences at a coal or gas power generating facility are localized deaths and equipment damage. The consequences at a fission reactor range from trivial to catastrophic, in a biblical sense. We have never suffered the worst case. Chernobyl did not even begin to approach it.
Also, last Friday, the DAVIS BESSE facility in Ohio reported that, according to their simulations, a steam line break could potentially compromise all low-voltage systems and battery backups available at the reactor by overpressuring some doors. That's a useful discovery. Too bad it took 27 years to notice. It probably isn't coincidental that this particlar facility is being scrutinized with a microscope and thus rendering interesting new discoveries like this. Two years ago refueling workers discovered that boric acid had eaten through the steam generator casing down to the stainless steel inner lining [nrc.gov]. 8" of low alloy steel gone and all of the pressure generated by the nuclear reaction retained by a 3/8" layer of stainless steel.
I have no animus towards the power companies. I am not an activist exaggerating to support an agenda. Paranoia about nuclear waste is nothing more than trumped up NIMBY. "Deregulation" isn't causing a degradation of safety. It's just the nature of any large industrial system; everything breaks eventually. Hell, everything is already broken and we have simply failed to notice, yet.
I now believe that fission reactors are inherently dangerous, including recent improved designs. It is the nature of a fission reactor to melt down unless prevented from doing so. We are very good at preventing this. We are not, however, perfect. We are people operating machines.
In contrast, fusion appears much safer. The challenge of fusion is getting more power out of the reaction than you put in. By definition the reaction will stop if the input fails. It is the nature of a fusion reactor to stop unless prevented from doing so. Unless some foul-up closes the loop it can't spiral out-of-control.
Re:Yes. (Score:2, Insightful)
Give me a break. Killing everyone for hundreds of miles around means you're talking about an area hundreds of thousands of people live on. The wind isn't going to make that much of a difference.
Sure, it was bad - this story [bbc.co.uk] seems to be about as bad as it gets, though. And 15,000 dead over 14 years is quite a bit different than hundreds of thousands dying with no exceptions.
Oh, and finally, remember that the Chernobyl incident was due to incredibly stupid operations by the people there, in addition to a bad reactor design - neither of which apply to U.S. reactors. Three Mile Island wasn't a big deal because we do have the checks in place to stop the large accidents.
Re:Sure, Chernobyl was harmless... (Score:1, Insightful)
So? I live in a (western) country with one of the blackest areas of that picture, and what we had was something like temporary restrictions on eating wild mushrooms. Big deal.
Now you CANNOT say that something of that magnitude only caused a handful of deaths.
That picture tells you NOTHING about the "magnitude" of this event. Where's the scale of dosage vs. color? Where's the background radiation readings for comparison? Besides, it really looks like it came out of photoshop, not real data.
Re:Yes. (Score:2, Insightful)
The Chernobyl accident boils down to to reactor overheated, the graphite (purified coal) moderator caught fire, and vaporized the core all over the place. White hot coal does tend to catch fire you know.
Now in comparison, TMI overheated and the water moderator... didn't catch fire.
Boy we sure are "lucky" that water doesn't burn as well as coal. I guess it's all just luck that water didn't catch fire.
Re:crock (Score:2, Insightful)
It's not possible to estimate how much petroleum EXITS. It IS possible to estimate how much EASILY FINDABLE and EASILY EXTRACTABLE petroleum there is - and THAT is what we are running out of.
There is more oil in the 'tar sands' of northern Alberta in Canada than ever existed in Saudi Arabia! It's just that we can't get the damn stuff OUT economically! Same goes for 'oil shale' beds. Grillions of barrels of oil - all out of reach by any known economical methods.
The usual response is "yes, but we'll get to that when we have all the cheap oil developed" - which is probably true. We'll NEED the oil, so we'll get it. But that STILL doesn't make it CHEAP oil. We'll get it, at 5-10 times the current development costs ($15 a gallon gasoline anyone?) - PROVIDED someone doesn't stumble across an amazingly simple and cheap extraction method - which might happen, but who can tell?
However, even if we discovered the Red Sea was really made of prime grade crude, it STILL doesn't mean we shouldn't be looking at cleaner and cheaper forms of power.