Slashdot Mirror
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.
If we start "mining" the moon, we will never figure out how all this energy got there in the frist place. The moon belongs in a museum!
I was picturing the reactors on the moon generating the power there and then "beaming" it to the earth (via microwave, or something) where it is collected by huge dish arrays and converted to electricity.
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.
There is much cruelty in the universe, John.
Yeah, we seem to have the tour map.
... is that the energy in question comes from thermonuclear fusion, and fusion can be done with terrestrial elements. We don't _need_ he3 to build fusion power plants; we can build them with deuterium/tritium fuel, or even just deuterium alone. Moreover, D/T fusion only requires plasma temperatures about a tenth those of D/He3 fusion. IIRC D/D fusion is also somewhat more attainable than D/He3 (and uses an incredibly abundant fuel available on Earth - deuterium is a stable hydrogen isotope available in quantity from seawater).
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.
Erotic is when you use a feather. Exotic is when you use the whole chicken.
Our future energy plans are based on going from Llama to Cheetah, taking a shower and coming back to check up on things.
It would be cool if it didn't suck.
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.
Mankind will think their way out of the energy crisis
Certainly, but that doesn't mean you're going to like the answer.
KFG