Slashdot Mirror


Mine The Moon For Helium-3

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."

6 of 644 comments (clear)

  1. See, Bush was right. by Medievalist · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    And you guys thought descending the moon's gravity well and coming back up was a stupid way to get to Mars!

    See, we'll just deficit-spend a bajillion dollars in tax credits to Halliburton, to build our mighty Helium-3 mines on the moon (staffed with happy prisoners from the efficient corporate-franchised prison system) and the Mars rockets will have all the fuel they need right there on the lunar surface.

    The man's a visionary, I tell you!

  2. Re:This explains everything! by prgrmr · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    Seriously, say what you will about him, the President is a man who understands the approaching energy crisis.

    You misspelled manipulates

  3. Re:This explains everything! by jafac · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    Hot potato?

    You realize you're talking about the starvation or military slaughter of hundreds of millions, possibly billions of civillians, so that the few elite rich can continue to live in luxury, don't you?

    Think you're hot shit with your programmer job?

    Think computers are going to matter when the electricity to run them is going to be $20/kwh?

    You'll be a burden at that point.

    --

    These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
  4. Re:Energy crisis? by tgd · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    You know the idea that we'll run out of oil in 2040 is an unproven theory, right?

    Its a good theory, based on hard science, but there's pleanty of evidence thats been found that suggests its not such an accurate theory.

    The truth is, we've got no idea how much oil is around. There's even doubt in some corners whether or not oil is a replenishable resource of active biological origin.

    We just don't know.

  5. Re:This explains everything! by DAldredge · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    WTF are you talking about?

  6. Sure, Chernobyl was harmless... by nairolF · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    after all, it only killed 34 people, right? Besides, it happened somewhere in the Evil Empire, so it doesn't matter.

    Perhaps you have missed the fact that a large portion of the Ukraine (and parts of other countries) is now contaminated with radioactive waste to the extent that it is uninhabitable. For the next 5000 years. Besides that, the population in the region has been affected: cancer and birth deformity rates have gone up significantly since the accident.

    You may argue whether such accidents are likely to happen again (NEVER underestimate human stupidity), but to claim that Chernobyl was a minor mishap, comparable to a fire in a coal power station, is complete bullshit. It's a whole other ballgame once your contaminants are radioactive.

    --
    "...Look on my works, ye mighty, and despair!"