Lunar Helium 3 Could Meet Earth's Energy Demands

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.

Comments

And you get it how?

[DaHat]

Even if the collection of H3 and it's conversion to useable energy was cheap... the transport costs alone would have to be killer.

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?

[Fyre2012]

Wouldn't something like this work nicely?

Re:Right.

[vector_prime]

1) There are _maybe_ 5 entities in existance today (US, China, EU, Russia, India; and the last two are iffy) with the technology to actually even try to mine the moon. So three nations able to send perhaps two dozen men each to a planet, I doubt territorial disputes will be an issue.

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.

Re:The ONLY problem is....

[kfg]

Mankind will think their way out of the energy crisis

Certainly, but that doesn't mean you're going to like the answer.

KFG

Re:The problem is growing demand, not lack of supp

[HeghmoH]

In general, standard of living is directly proportional to energy consumption. This may not hold completely true, and conservation may help. However, conservation tends to be on the order of saving 5% here, 10% there. Increases in energy usage, on the other hand, are often orders of magnitude. I want my standard of living to keep going up. The only way to stop demand from growing is to freeze everything the way it is today, and I don't like that idea at all.