The Outfall of a Helium-3 Crisis 185
astroengine writes "The United States is currently recovering from a helium isotope crisis that last year sent low-temperature physicists scrambling, sky-rocketed the cost of hospital MRI's, and threw national security staff out on a search mission for alternate ways to detect dirty bombs. Now the panic is subsiding, what is being done to conserve, or replace, helium-3?"
Mining the Moon, of course (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Of course, real gamers know that the hardest part of doing anything on the moon is just landing [wikipedia.org].
Re: (Score:2)
You think that's the worst? That's just the beginning. Wait 'till the freakin' Russians show up. [wikipedia.org] The helium is just a cover. It's really about the biometal.
Re: (Score:2)
Funny this should come up today. I just started watching Moonlight Mile [animenewsnetwork.com] the other night.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Great film but they could have skipped making hundreds of clones by sending me. I would love to live on the moon.
Re: (Score:2)
Lag.
Re: (Score:2)
"Thats some very nice helium-3 you have there. Be a shame if something would happen to it. ssssssssssssssssssssss"
Being done? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Your god gives you oil when you stick your head in the sand??? Boy did I pick a loser then!
Re: (Score:2)
Please look up the background in answers.com.
What it means that in imminent danger somebody does not address the issue, looks away and perishes.
This applies with peak oil and other environmental issues.
Re: (Score:2)
just sayin'
Re: (Score:2)
Irreplaceable - alternatives need to be found and implemented but...
Gross... (Score:2, Funny)
The MRI imaging requires the patient hold his or her breath for 10 seconds. Instead of just breathing out normally, the patient exhales into a helium-impermeable bag
Note to self: next time doing MRI in the hospital, do not inhale that stuff, don't want to imagine where it came from...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The MRI imaging requires the patient hold his or her breath for 10 seconds. Instead of just breathing out normally, the patient exhales into a helium-impermeable bag
Note to self: next time doing MRI in the hospital, do not inhale that stuff, don't want to imagine where it came from...
And why do they talk about a X-Ray of a chest then compare it to inhaling He-3 for an MRI? Wouldn't it make more sense to compare a normal MRI scan and an He-3 enhanced scan?
Temporary problem. (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
It's the same as the situation with indium. Indium is found in conjunction with most copper, lead, tin, etc ores. However, there's historically been such a low demand for indium that just a couple mines had recovery circuits. And right as indium demand started to rise, one of the mines went out of business as its primary ore was no longer economical. So indium prices went through the roof in 2004/2005. Of course, that triggers more mines to install recovery circuits, but it takes time to get a new reco
Re:Temporary problem. (Score:5, Insightful)
Okay, now I've RTFA, and it is one of the worst science articles I've ever read outside New Scientist or Conservapedia. Let us delve in:
Helium is not a rare earth element. I have a feeling this line was inserted just to pitch the link below it.
No idea where that ratio came from. It's not true and irrelevant.
Is the author fully ignorant of nuclear physics or is she gearing up for some kind of scam where she sells "Tritium Decayers" to the government?
Not as bad, but misses a great opportunity to explain HOW He3 helps lung imaging. He-3 doesn't exist in any significant quantities in the body, so you can tune the MRI to look for that nucleus and bam, you can see the shape of whatever you fill with it.
The FDA needs to approve this? That's odd, I wonder why. Too bad you didn't explain why or tell us what stage of approval its in.
wat
Re: (Score:3)
Helium is not a rare earth element
You're right, it's not a "(rare earth) element". Unfortunately, journalists and other Muggles tend to use the term as "rare (earth element)", applying it to any element that's not abundant.
Re: (Score:2)
Helium is not a rare earth element
You're right, it's not a "(rare earth) element". Unfortunately, journalists and other Muggles tend to use the term as "rare (earth element)", applying it to any element that's not abundant.
The original text said
But the isotope, helium-3, like many rare Earth elements, has been in high demand with only limited supply.
badly worded, yes, but plausably trying to draw a link to the recently reported shortage of rare earth elements
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The FDA needs to approve this? That's odd, I wonder why. Too bad you didn't explain why or tell us what stage of approval its in.
Most medical apparatus is single-use, unless you can autoclave it to ensure it is totally sterile for subsequent uses. The FDA would need to approve the recycling and filtering system to ensure that future patients won't catch anything from previous ones. IANAD.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You're just using it wrong:
http://uncyclopedia.wikia.com/wiki/HowTo:Play_Conservatroll [wikia.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Minkowski space is predicated on the idea of four-dimensional vectors of which one component is time. However, one of the properties of a vector space is that every vector have an inverse. Time cannot be a vector because it has no inverse.
I've studied quite a bit of abstract and linear algebra and a chunk of relativity but this is news to me. "Time" is both a vector and a component of a vector! And of course it can have no inverse--no more reasoning or justification could possibly be necessary or reasonably expected
Re: (Score:2)
The article has problems, but that "rare Earth" comment is merely confusing. It means elements or isotopes rare on Earth. People will misread it or associate it with the "rare earth" materials, as you did. That confusion is a very understandable one, and the editor should have noticed it.
If it were spelled "rare earth", then it would be clearly wrong.
Re: (Score:2)
Yea this was almost as bad as a lot of stuff on wired.
The simple solution is to start producing tritium again. It really isn't even that hard to do.
1. Build some heavy water reactors like the CANDU.
2. collect the the H3.
3. Wait.
4. Profit.
Actually the US needs to restart tritium production anyway to keep our nuclear weapons functioning as along as we are going to keep them. As too keeping them or not being a good idea others can debate that to their hearts content.
Also HE3 is only used for a few very rare ty
Re: (Score:2)
No idea where that ratio came from. It's not true and irrelevant.
Probably came from the Starfleet Tech Manual. You know, the section that also specifies the proper matter/anti-matter intermix ratio.
Re:Temporary problem. (Score:5, Informative)
The problem is not as easily solved as you make it out to be for a few reasons. The first being demand and the second being supply. The article doesn't really go into much detail but the real demand issue is the rising use by of He3 by the US gov in portal monitors. He3 tubes are by far the best devices available for neutron detection. Since 9/11 the US gov demand for He3 neutron tubes exploded and pretty much ate the entire stockpile. This has caused major headaches for everyone who uses He3 like the medical field and basic science research.
On the supply side He3 is created when tritium decays on a 12 year half-life. The largest supply of this for many years was the US nuclear weapons program. Production now, however, is nothing like it used to be. Without the tritium production we don't have the He3. Even if we did we might not meet the kind of demand we have for He3 now. In order to make 1kg of He3 you need to let 2kg of tritium decay for 12 years. Or you need to let much larger quantities of tritium decay for shorter periods of time. Either way you need a lot more tritium than we have.
Additionally getting He3 from heavy water reactors is probably not an option. The best way (the way the US gov does it anyway) to make tritium presently is by putting lithium rods into a reactor and then removing the tritium from the rods (its a fission product from lithium). While tritium is produced in heavy water reactors by neutron capture, the cross sections are very low. This mean you would need to separate the heavy water out from the tritium rich water (centerfuges) and then remove the tritium form the water molecules with electrolysis and then again separate tritium from deuterium. This ignores the fact that All the commercial reactors in the US are light water (normal H20) and countries that use heavy water (Canada) may not be interested in stockpiling tritium.
Production difficulties aside tritium is just plain expensive. tfa cites the He3 price at $5000 a liter with a goal of more like $1500/L. This puts the price roughly $37500 a gram. Tritium is presently $25000+ / g and that is a subsidized price. Its estimated that actual production cost is upwards of $75000 / g
Given all this, if we had a cheap easy solution laying around we would have done it by now.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
From that same article: "Wittenberg also writes that extraction from US crustal natural gas, consumes ten times the energy available from fusion reactions."
i.e. it's just not worth it.
And I would not say 0.5 to 5 ppm is a large fraction.
Re: (Score:2)
So we have to build bombs, in order to detect bombs?
Re: (Score:2)
All the commercial reactors in the US are light water (normal H20) and countries that use heavy water (Canada) may not be interested in stockpiling tritium.
I'm sure Canada is up for the challenge; they have a real can-du attitude. ;)
Other sources (Score:2)
Re:Other sources (Score:5, Informative)
It's actually a fundamental physics + policy issue, but a different policy than the one you're referring to. As the article very briefly touched on, He-3 comes from the decay of Tritium. Tritium is the stuff that we put into the H-bomb (Fusion reaction rather than the atomic bomb's Fission reaction, basically redonkulously more powerful). The policy in question came from the end of the Cold War, where nonproliferation, disarmament, and the end of tritium creation.
The physics comes in because tritium has a half life of ~13 years. This means that if someone gave you a canister of pure tritium, after two decades it'd be 1/4 tritium, and 3/4 He-3. Do the math for when the cold war ended, and you start to see why we're feeling the hit from the end of this "production cycle".
It's also important to note that H-bombs, crafted from Tritium (Hydrogen-3), have a different yield once enough of the warhead has decayed into He3, which is actually one of the real main reasons why we're reducing our stockpile even though we didn't agree to the nonproliferation treaty. We're re-refining what tritium is left and putting it into new warheads (as a tanent: using more advanced warhead designs than the previous ones they replace too, so nonproliferation/stockpile-reduction in this case is a very generous casting).
While there are many "alternative" ways to create He-3, it's pretty obvious from this situation that trying to buy $150 dollars of decayed bomb innards is definitely going to be cheaper than trying to buy refined nuclear-reactor extract. But at the same time, that was probably taken into account for the final price adjustment to $1500/L.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Apologies, forgot to mention but my "separation" scenario was an indirect reference to a couple threads up regarding light and heavy water nuclear reactors (as well as any that have the balls to use a Li breeder blanket).
As an aside, calling tritium "naturally occurring" is about as much of an oxymoron as one can make, since any naturally occuring tritum that was on this planet would have turned into helium before it even cooled down and solidified. Within 100 years, of the Earth's composition settling dow
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I could be wrong, but my understanding is that He-3 and He-4 aren't distributed uniformly across the various helium reservoirs on earth. In particular most of the deep reservoirs of helium are the byproducts of nuclear (alpha) decay, and so are very rich in He-4. On the other hand cosmic rays generate a lot of tritium (and therefor He-3) in earths oceans and earths atmosphere.
Re: (Score:2)
(as a tanent: using more advanced warhead designs than the previous ones they replace too, so nonproliferation/stockpile-reduction in this case is a very generous casting).
I had a friend who as a translator on one of the old nuclear weapons and delivery systems stockpile reduction treaties with the old USSR before its collapse. She referred to the treaties as a scam because both sides wanted to get rid of their old weapons anyway, and this was just a way for each of them to get some positive PR out of it.
S
Re: (Score:2)
Well, yes, if you want a boosted design. But you pay for the U238 tamper in terms of mass and a dirty burn. The largest nuclear weapon ever detonated, the Tsar Bomba, was actually the cleanest, as they replaced the U238 tamper with a lead one -- cutting its yield in half, but making it so 97% of its yield was from fusion.
Quite obvious (Score:5, Funny)
By the time we are done with helium it won't even be able to get off the floor, let alone escape the atmosphere.
outfall? (Score:2)
Am I the only one noticing the plummeting quality in journalism across the board? Besides the drawbacks of relying on spell-check and other automation, the gradual shift in the publishing industry towards the Internet seems to have dented profit margins significantly enough to affect the QA process. Books, papers, magazines ... they all seem to be suffering from this malaise.
A consequence of the tritium shortage (Score:5, Informative)
This is a consequence of the decline in the U.S's nuclear industry. Tritium is usually produced in nuclear reactors. It's useful for several purposes, from boosting nuclear weapons to exit sign lighting in aircraft.
Tritium is made by irradiating lithium with neutrons Tritium decays with a half-life of 12 years. He3, which is stable, is one of the decay products, and that's where He3 comes from. (This is a commercial application of transmutation.)
The US used to have a reactor at Savannah River to produce tritium, but that was shut down in 1988. Since the early 1990s, there have been efforts to set up a new source, and presently, two power reactors of the Tennessee Valley Authority are used to produce tritium, A few extra lithium rods are put in, and changed out occasionally to recover the tritium.
The He3 shortage is a side effect of the tritium shortage.
The Problem Is (Score:2)
He3 fusion (Score:2)
Another possible use for He3 is in fusion reactors that can directly generate electricity with little radioactive by-product.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:an outlaw of balloons (Score:5, Informative)
based on how the government usually operates I expect this would be a typical response.
Apples and oranges, Helium 3 is an isotope of Helium. It's kind of like saying we need to conserve water because there's Tritium in it. There will be a shortage of regular Helium as well soon so it's ironic it's still cheap. Helium 3 was a bi-product of cold war weapons making but since we stopped trying to see how many Hydrogen Bombs we could make there's been little or no Helium 3 produced in decades. There were once huge stockpiles but they are largely gone now.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:an outlaw of balloons (Score:5, Informative)
That's incorrect.
Helium-3 is a *byproduct* of the *existence* of hydrogen bombs. More specifically, byproduct of the existence of tritium. Tritium decays into helium-3. Helium-3 was unwanted, while tritium was wanted; there were actually some projects to attempt to convert the helium-3 back into tritium.
This shortage has absolutely nothing to do with how easy or hard helium-3 is to produce or acquire, nor is it a testament to how "free market planning" works so much better than central planning. Quite the opposite, this is a well known phenomenon of free markets: products which are of lower value and which are produced in a limited number of places as a byproduct of producing a more valuable goods can be extremely vulnerable to price swings.
Re: (Score:3)
I won't bother with a list of anecdotes.. they're easily searchable. you are wrong.
I love it. The old "my argument is so good, I don't even have to make it" argument.
Re: (Score:2)
Combine this with the fact that it takes us an incredibly long time to reach one of those planets, and we're looking at something that is still quite a long ways off. If anything, we're going to need a substantial economic boom before it becomes possible to dump funding into space programs again.
The thing is, we're looking at a problem that exists right now and we need solutions right now - not decades down the road.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
For anyone who has problems visualizing the gravity wells: http://xkcd.com/681_large/ [xkcd.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Obviously, we should be scooping He3 from Deimos or Phobos.
Re: (Score:3)
"Just get it from the moon" -- as though it doesn't cost $5-15k per kilogram just to get a *vehicle* into *low earth orbit*. Let alone the surface of the moon. Let alone a return trip to the moon. Let alone a return trip to the moon and hauling enough manpower and equipment to mine the moon. For something that's found in parts-per-billion quantities, mixed in with parts-per-million quantities of something that's essentially chemically identical (He-4).
It's way, way easier to produce He3 here on earth; i
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Build some more atomic weapons.
That's a really silly idea. They shouldn't build any more atomic weapons until they've used up the ones they've got.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
Perhaps, this is an indication that animals shouldn't be given X-rays. I know it's going to drive the PETA people nuts, but the bottom line is that animals < humans.
Re: (Score:2)
Fine you pedantic cock, Humans > (The set of all animals excluding humans)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I know it sounds silly.... but RTFA
a simple X-ray will show the lungs as black holes in the body, a mystery box of trouble. But if a patient takes a breath of helium-3, the resulting MRI is so bright it looks as though the patient inhaled a light bulb
Re: (Score:2)
Not to deny the effectiveness of that technique but I had a collapsed lung a year ago and it showed up on X-Ray without and He3, granted it was rather faint but I guess it all depends on what you're looking for.
Re: (Score:2)
I am no doctor, I just read the article, a rare occurrence on /. :-). I had pneumonia a couple of years ago and that also showed up on X-ray. I guess this refers to some specific problems with the lungs.
Re: (Score:2)
And like he said "nuclear ventilation with either xenon or aerosols"... in other words, there are other compounds, such as hyperpolarized xenon-129, that can achieve very similar results to helium-3. So yes, helium-3 is very useful in this area, but there are good substitutes available.
Re:Free market (Score:4, Insightful)
Because, naturally, the vagaries of the market are so much more important than human life. We live only to serve the economy, OH WAIT!
The economy and the market exist ONLY to serve us, never the other way around. Their "goodness" may be judged exclusively by how well they accomplish this.
I doubt a shortage will be allowed to continue though since DHS needs it to check our Chinese diethylene glycol laden toothpaste for bombs.
Re: (Score:2)
I hadn't heard of that one but it makes sense. Interesting... thank you. (toothpaste with diethylene glycol impurities)
Re: (Score:2)
This has always bothered me. "Free-market" fundamentalist (usually neo-liberals here in Sweden) seem to think of the "market" as a living organism that has precedence over all else, including human life (except their own of course). We all have different values I suppose, live to work or work to live, but they just seem completely out of touch with the real world to me...
Re: (Score:2)
"The economy and the market exist ONLY to serve us, never the other way around."
"Respond to" /= "serve".
Re: (Score:2)
Nay. Serve is a proper choice of words. They are INSTRUMENTS with which we manage our resources. A set of tools. Not an entity comparable to us in any way.
The moment you lose control of your tools, you modify them to get control back or destroy them. In this regard, to reference popular culture, skynet is a great example.
Re: (Score:2)
Because, naturally, the vagaries of the market are so much more important than human life.
Sure, you can think of it that way. Or you can think of it as claiming one life is better than all lives.The label you use "the market" is just shorthand for everyone else's activity including such things as chest x-rays. Those activities are important in their own right (else they wouldn't be buying helium 3).
One effect of the higher price of helium 3 has been the invention of means to recycle helium 3. That wouldn't have been discovered in the absence of strong incentives (that is, high prices for heli
Re: (Score:2)
Market forces can be used for positive effects such as encouraging the development of recycling techniques. However, we must carefully temper that or it will instead create mostly human suffering.
The market *IS* often meant as a shorthand for everyone else's activities, but it's a terrible over-simplification that is more often used to sweep some of those activities under the rug. It is also far too often treated as some sort of oracle that automatically produces the most moral answer (naturally the people
Re: (Score:2)
Market forces can be used for positive effects such as encouraging the development of recycling techniques. However, we must carefully temper that or it will instead create mostly human suffering.
There's another way to say this. I want to impose (or continue to impose) on the freedom of a lot of other people so I can get my health care cheaper. The problem is that your life isn't that valuable.
The market *IS* often meant as a shorthand for everyone else's activities, but it's a terrible over-simplification that is more often used to sweep some of those activities under the rug. It is also far too often treated as some sort of oracle that automatically produces the most moral answer (naturally the people who believe that tend to be the ones who have enough money to never have to do without).
Tell you what. Come up with a better way and then we'll have something to talk about. "Socialized medicine" might not be another command economy, but it commits the same mistakes. A central authority decides what everything costs, which medical care provider gets what resources, and how much people pay for it.
Re: (Score:2)
When you find yourself feeling seriously ill, be sure to sit on the curb next to the trash cans. Otherwise I'll have to charge your family 10 strips of latinum to drag your corpse there myself. For another 10, I'll try to keep the dogs from peeing on you till the trash men come.
As for your claim that I am out to get something for nothing, I haven't even needed healthcare for the last 25 years fortunately. Any benefit to me would be merely theoretical at this point.
There is a common pattern in socialized med
Re: (Score:2)
As for your claim that I am out to get something for nothing, I haven't even needed healthcare for the last 25 years fortunately. Any benefit to me would be merely theoretical at this point.
Since you haven't needed health care for the last 25 years, you probably won't need it for the next 25 years either, theoretically. Which is good given the general trend to more expensive health care. I can see no reason for self-interest either, theoretically.
There is a common pattern in socialized medicine I have seen over and over. That is people complaining about it until I tell them that in the U.S. they would just have to wait until their illness gets life threatening to get treated, then declare bankruptcy after. The look of horror on their faces tells the story well.
You must talk to some pretty stupid people then. There are two alternatives to this horror story. First, buy health insurance. Second, self-insure by saving a lot of money.
In other words, here in the U.S. the government has already seriously curtailed my rights to provide my own medical treatment and to find others who will do it cheaply, and so it owes me a suitable replacement for that.
You don't have a right to force anyone, people, businesses, or governments to p
Re: (Score:2)
You don't have a right to force anyone, people, businesses, or governments to provide you cheap health care. Your rights are only being curtailed in your imagination.
So, if I in my own considered personal opinion need a splint, a few doses of Penicillin G (for prophylaxis) and a couple days on morphine (and it's a good thing I know these things because doctors are too expensive) I can just pop on down to the pharmacy and buy it (not asking for a freebie here, I'll pay cash)? Nobody has passed any silly market distorting laws to prevent that have they?
Perhaps I'm industrious but cash poor, I'll grow poppies and make my own morphine, that should be OK shouldn't it? I'm pr
Re: (Score:2)
OH! Look! the cops are coming. I'll bet they want me to give them a checkup too! What do you mean possession of a controlled substance? Practicing medicine without a license? Possession and distribution of a dangerous drug without a prescription? Never heard of it! I assure you, according to khallow my rights are only being curtailed in my imagination. Now SHOO!
Oh look, descent into madness. None of the above were relevant to my assertion. Getting arrested by the mean police for any of the above activities doesn't mean that you magically have a right to force someone to give you cheap health care.
Some people can take disagreement, even thrive on it. Others snap.
Re: (Score:2)
You claimed that nobody was in any way limiting my rights to self care. I showed through a narrative the the limitations are so pervasive they're obvious but overlooked.
Oh look, descent into madness.
Where is the madness? Is it madness to apply my own knowledge to better my own situation or is it only madness if I want to help my neighbors who might otherwise do without basic needs?
Getting arrested by the mean police for any of the above activities doesn't mean that you magically have a right to force someone to give you cheap health care.
How do you figure? From a standpoint of ethics, if you take something from someone, you owe them something of at least equal value in return. If you force the
Re: (Score:2)
The economy and the market exist ONLY to serve us, never the other way around. Their "goodness" may be judged exclusively by how well they accomplish this.
The problem with your statement is the definition of "us".
Re: (Score:2)
Yes. A great many assume when a politician says "us" he means citizens of the country when he actually means himself, his closest friends, and the corporations they run.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
False. It's the tritium in the warheads that decays into He3.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
There's tons of it on the moon....
So all we have to do is to solve the Sam Rockwell clone shortage problem.
Re: (Score:2)
There's tons of it on the moon....
So all we have to do is to solve the Sam Rockwell clone shortage problem.
I believe he has an Infinite Improbability drive so cloning him should be just a matter of finding how improbable it is.
Re:This is easy (Score:5, Interesting)
Spread very thin though. From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helium-3#Extraterrestrial_supplies [wikipedia.org]
The Moon's surface contains helium-3 at concentrations on the order of 0.01 ppm in sunlit areas,[40][41] and concentrations as much as five times higher in permanently shadowed regions.[2] A number of people, starting with Gerald Kulcinski in 1986,[42] have proposed to explore the moon, mine lunar regolith and use the helium-3 for fusion. Because of the low concentrations of helium-3, any mining equipment would need to process extremely large amounts of regolith (over 100 million tons of regolith to obtain one ton of helium 3),[43] and some proposals have suggested that helium-3 extraction be piggybacked onto a larger mining and development operation.[citation needed]
Re: (Score:2)
Also the regolith is quite dense and tightly packed. Astronauts had trouble pushing a probe more than 20cm or so into the surface. So your mining equipment would have to skim the surface and deal with a lot of rocks and irregularities. Thats a lot of problems to solve for a little bit of Helium 3.
Re: (Score:3)
That would send the price of American "beer" skyrocketing due to the reduced supply of the key ingredient.
Re: (Score:2)
You still have to deal with an unnecessary gravity well launching from the moon. Solar sails and asteroid mining present some fascinating economics: Solar sails can act as solar mirrors, providing rocket free orbital guidance, power for electricity generation and magnetic funneling of the solar wind into a centrifuge for refininng deuterium and tritium out of the solar wind.
There are interesting reasons to build lunar bases, but this is not one of them. If you need mining operations, use the solar sails to
Re: (Score:2)
We also need it for fusion reactors.
No we don't, in all probability. There are essentially limitless quantities of deuterium available for fusion in Earth's oceans. If we want to get practical fusion earlier, we need to invest more on fusion research. Betting billions on a long shot like Helium 3 reactors doesn't make a lot of sense - you might just as well convert your car to run on powdered diamonds.
Re: (Score:2)
lifetime is actually quite short.