Slashdot Mirror


Why the World Is Running Out of Helium

jamie writes "The US National Helium Reserve stores a billion cubic meters of helium, half the world supply, in an old natural gasfield. The array of pipes and mines runs 200 miles from Texas to Kansas. In the name of deficit reduction, we're selling it all off for cheap. Physics professor and Nobel laureate Robert Richardson says: 'In 1996, the US Congress decided to sell off the strategic reserve and the consequence was that the market was swelled with cheap helium because its price was not determined by the market. The motivation was to sell it all by 2015. The basic problem is that helium is too cheap. The Earth is 4.7 billion years old and it has taken that long to accumulate our helium reserves, which we will dissipate in about 100 years. One generation does not have the right to determine availability forever.' Another view is The Impact of Selling the Federal Helium Reserve, the government study from 10 years ago that suggested the government's price would end up being over market value by 25% — but cautioned that this was based on the assumption that demand would grow slowly, and urged periodic reviews of the state of the industry."

475 comments

  1. Probably because of my niece's birthday parties by elrous0 · · Score: 5, Funny

    Jesus, Richard, does she really need hundreds of fucking balloons at *every* party? Isn't it enough we got her ponies *and* two clowns, for crying out loud?!?!?

    --
    SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    1. Re:Probably because of my niece's birthday parties by Mr.+DOS · · Score: 4, Funny

      The balloons are to make up for the clowns.

    2. Re:Probably because of my niece's birthday parties by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Great post. There is some great basic information about the Element at Helium Facts that might be helpful. Where as I think balloons are part of the issue that article shows many other used for helium that might be contributing to the idea that we are running out of the gas. Some include as an inert gas shield for arc welding, a protective gas in growing silicon and germanium crystals and producing titanium and zirconium, as a cooling medium for nuclear reactors, and as a gas for supersonic wind tunnels.

    3. Re:Probably because of my niece's birthday parties by bsDaemon · · Score: 1

      You know, if someone subjected me to clowns, I'd probably be crying out loud, too!

    4. Re:Probably because of my niece's birthday parties by pnewhook · · Score: 1

      You have to stop making light of the situation! Do you really want to live in a world without balloons and funny voices? Not me!

      --
      Tesla was a genius. Edison however was a overrated hack who liked to torture puppies.
    5. Re:Probably because of my niece's birthday parties by tuxgeek · · Score: 2, Funny

      Good link
      Once helium does run out we can still use hydrogen to fill those party balloons for the kids
      And after the kids crap out and go to bed, the adults can play "Balloon meets Cigarette" for some drinking fun

      --
      "Suppose you were an idiot...and suppose you were a member of Congress...but I repeat myself." Mark Twain
    6. Re:Probably because of my niece's birthday parties by elrous0 · · Score: 1

      If you're not careful, you can play "drunk uncle with cigarettes meets balloons meet kids meet emergency room."

      --
      SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    7. Re:Probably because of my niece's birthday parties by JockTroll · · Score: 5, Funny

      Ah, "Balloon meets cigarette". When I was a kid there was this piece of shit on two legs, he loved to pop up on kids at funfairs and blow up their balloons with his cig. He'd go "oops, sorry" and walk away while the kids cried.
      We filled some balloons with a mixture of hydrogen and air, and tied them to an empty pushchair about 30 meters from the fair near the parking lot. Of course, he couldn't resist, thinking the kid would be around to see his precious balloons pop. He took a nice long drag on his cig, touched the balloon with the lit end and...

      To this day, sometimes I still hear the screams.

      Ah, sweet childhood memories. :)

      --
      Geeks are so full of shit that "beating the crap out of them" takes a whole new meaning.
    8. Re:Probably because of my niece's birthday parties by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      Don't mess with nerdlettes.

    9. Re:Probably because of my niece's birthday parties by Mr_Insightful · · Score: 0

      Awesome story, but...

      pics, or it didn't happen.

    10. Re:Probably because of my niece's birthday parties by HermMunster · · Score: 1

      At the end of the day, just before the last balloon is popped who will bid the highest for the last of that precious resource? :)

      --
      You can lead a man with reason but you can't make him think.
  2. Why? by Mikkeles · · Score: 1

    Because it's a finite resource! (Sheesh!)

    --
    Great minds think alike; fools seldom differ.
    1. Re:Why? by WrongSizeGlass · · Score: 4, Funny

      I'd be able to take Mr. Richardson's claims more seriously if his voice wasn't so artificially high ...

    2. Re:Why? by JamesP · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Funny how helium is one of the most abundant elements in the whole UNIVERSE and we have a shortage!!!

      of course, the problem is gravity here is not strong enough for it

      --
      how long until /. fixes commenting on Chrome?
    3. Re:Why? by localman57 · · Score: 1

      You can say the same thing about water. There's lots of it on earth, but getting it to all the right places in a sufficiently pure state is a bit of a challenge.

    4. Re:Why? by TheRaven64 · · Score: 3, Informative

      The other half of the problem is that it is relatively unreactive. Hydrogen is abundant on Earth only because it bonds with oxygen. The resulting water is heavy enough to hang around. If hydrogen did not form compounds like this then it would be lost from the atmosphere too.

      Of course, 100 years is a long time. Helium is formed as a product of hydrogen fusion - that was how most of it formed, in stars, originally. Even without fusion power, we can manufacture helium in tabletop fusors. Even run below break-even energy, they still produce helium as a byproduct, so we're running out but this can be balanced at the cost of energy.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    5. Re:Why? by scorp1us · · Score: 2, Informative

      Um, no, more gravity would only make it worse... because everything else (except for hydrogen) would also be heavier too. Meaning that the helium would be expelled even faster. (its exponentially dense) You'd need a microgravity environment with some turbidity to keep it well-mixed (around)

      --
      Slashdot's rate-of-post filter: Preventing you from posting too many great ideas at once.
    6. Re:Why? by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 0, Troll

      Yeah, we can permanently destroy water to create electricity. Great plan. No such thing as Peak Hydrogen.

    7. Re:Why? by ultranova · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Funny how helium is one of the most abundant elements in the whole UNIVERSE and we have a shortage!!!

      Helium is the second most abundant element at 25%. Hydrogen is the most abundant at 75%. The rest amount to a rounding error at this time.

      Mind you, it's interesting to note that Oxygen and Carbon are the next two most abundant elements in our galaxy, and both are vital for life. Which way the causation runs, I wonder - does the known life in our galaxy use these elements because they are common, or does our galaxy has life because it has the necessary elements?

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    8. Re:Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Looking at the Wikipedia page on Jupiter shows that 10 % of it is helium, which comes out as 30 earthfuls. Saturn has 3 earthfuls of helium, with Uranus having two earthfuls and Neptune having 3.5.

      Businesses won't develop space technology unless they can profit from it. Once the price of helium goes (way) up, and it becomes a truly rare substance, businesses may profit from harvesting the gas giants.

    9. Re:Why? by BrokenHalo · · Score: 1

      Helium is the second most abundant element at 25%.

      No, you should know that the second most common element is stupidity.

    10. Re:Why? by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

      There is enough hydrogen in the oceans to power everything on the earth for several hundred million years in a moderately efficient fusion reaction. That's long enough to find other sources of the most abundant element in the universe. If you're really worried about hydrogen being permanently destroyed, you should probably start petitioning the stars to stop shining...

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    11. Re:Why? by drerwk · · Score: 2, Informative

      Most, if not all, of the Helium on Earth is from alpha decay.

    12. Re:Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      Most of the Helium found on Earth was produced as a product of alpha decay of radioactive elements, including U238, found almost everywhere. These alpha particles were trapped by local geology for a very long time. We cannot currently produce Helium in any meaningful amount and certainly not at the current cost (e.g., you can get 1 cubic meter of Helium from a party supply store for $25 US).

    13. Re:Why? by phyrexianshaw.ca · · Score: 1

      Oh really? would you like to offer some proof of that?

      the understanding we currently hold over physics does not describe that effect at all. as far as we currently know, most of the matter we know about would collapse in on itself if the specific gravity attracting the particles to each other were much higher. as little as a 1% increase could cause the world as we know it to collapse in on itself.

      and on the other hand, we could increase gravity by hundreds of orders of magnitude and it may make no difference in the world. gravity is one of the least understood processes we know almost nothing about it.

    14. Re:Why? by pnewhook · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Yeah, we can permanently destroy water to create electricity. Great plan.

      Yes, and it's up there with groping crops for biofuel. Humans are starving and we are feeding our FOOD to the MACHINES!! Great plan! When the machines realize we are competition for their energy, we're all screwed.

      --
      Tesla was a genius. Edison however was a overrated hack who liked to torture puppies.
    15. Re:Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, we can permanently destroy water to create electricity. Great plan. No such thing as Peak Hydrogen.

      We have so fucking much of it, that if in the millions of years it would take to do a dent, if we don't have the capability to go get it elsewhere in the solar system (where this is a whole fucking lot more of it), we don't deserve to survive as a species.

    16. Re:Why? by demonbug · · Score: 4, Funny

      Yes, and it's up there with groping crops for biofuel.

      To be fair, it was an exceptionally well-formed ear of corn.

    17. Re:Why? by dwinks616 · · Score: 1

      Unless we complete a space elevator and vastly improve ion propulsion, it will almost certainly be far cheaper to break water and fuse the hydrogen.

    18. Re:Why? by morgan_greywolf · · Score: 1

      Tabletop fusors only need energies in excess of 20keV. I'm sure that's no big deal at all.

    19. Re:Why? by lgw · · Score: 1

      A very small challenge, unless you live in a desert far from the coast. I've always been mystified why most Americans like to pretend there's some shortage of water, and that conserving it is useful in some way. Sure, if you live in Colorado or similar, but we mostly live near the coast, or in areas with lots of rainfall.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    20. Re:Why? by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Efficient fusion reaction like we have now? Like almost as much power out as we put in?

      The sun is a runaway fusion reaction. It produces a lot of power and consumes all its fuel as fast as it can, no metering. Please examine its mass.

    21. Re:Why? by struppi · · Score: 1

      From Wikipedia: Jupiter's upper atmosphere is composed of about 88–92% hydrogen and 8–12% helium by percent volume or fraction of gas molecules (see table to the right).

      So, more gravity seems to work. And we can go there and mine helium if we run out of it

    22. Re:Why? by AliasMarlowe · · Score: 1

      Helium is the second most abundant element at 25%.

      No, you should know that the second most common element is stupidity.

      Indeed. And the most common element is ignorance.
      All the others are just a rounding error.

      --
      Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. - Voltaire
    23. Re:Why? by mr+exploiter · · Score: 1

      You're right, but helium made this way would be incredibly expensive.

    24. Re:Why? by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      Hemp grows in more places than corn. Hemp supplies an excellent source of crude biodiesel stock to crack down to kerosene-like fuel oil for non-biodiesel cars (stop pouring near-raw vegetable oil in your car dammit!).

      Petroleum fertilizer doesn't strike me as very sustainable either. We have so much excess farmland and corn grows so close to the surface and depletes so much nitrogen; we should grow peanuts and rotate crops instead of using petroleum fertilizer. Henry Ford made his first car in Ethanol Otto Cycle and Peanut Oil Diesel Cycle models, running directly on distilled corn alcohol or filtered peanut oil. Peanut oil supplies an excellent feed stock to crack into kerosene-like fuel oil.

      Waste peanut and hemp leaves make decent compost. A certain strain of Cannabis has fallen out of favor due to its low THC yield; however, this particular strain produces a high yield of hemp fibers with many industrial uses. Waste peanut and hemp seed stock (i.e. the peanuts and hemp seeds after pressing and removing the oils) contain high amounts of protein and function as excellent animal feed, which recovers the use of these crops as food.

      The specialization of function doesn't solve much. Specializing a growing plot for food, fuel, or fiber (cotton) leads to damaged industry. Instead, consider the full function of all your alternative options. Peanuts supply food, feed, fuel (peanut oil), and fertilizer, with some mutually exclusive functions (food generally needs peanut oil, feed does not, etc). Hemp supplies food (hemp seed butter), feed, fuel, and industrial fiber. Corn supplies fuel OR food OR feed, while switch grass supplies only fuel (ethanol).

      Peanuts thus supply the best versatility due to their use as a fertilizer in crop rotation purely as a beneficial side effect. Because peanut farming simply supports the farm, all other uses act as additional gains; further, this eliminates need for Petroleum fertilizer. The production of useful feed and fuel eliminates the fuel expense for farm equipment and reduces the expense of animal feed.

      Cannabis grows in more places than corn, and also supplies excellent feed and biofuel, as well as other industrial stock useful for paper, textiles, rope, etc. Hemp seeds also supply a food source for people (hemp seed oil tends to have positive health impacts due to essential fatty acid content). Because of the unbelievable amount of peanuts you can grow, hemp may help take some slack up in an abused market; tons of peanut feed isn't as useful when you can efficiently rotate peanuts and hemp on idle land and output tons of biofuel as well as a measure of industrial fiber.

      This is called "Doing it right."

    25. Re:Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thia post is pant. This post is by android.

    26. Re:Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We don't need to set up fusion reactions to get helium.

      Helium is continually being created in the earth's core by alpha decay of heavy elements (radon, etc) and is then filtering up through the mantle and the ground and leaking off through the atmosphere to space. In some areas, where there are large underground spaces under very dense rock, you can find concentrations of helium temporarily trapped by the strata and then extract it. That's where the current stocks of helium came from.

      Even if we "use up" all the stored helium, eventually we will get more from the same places underground where we have collected it previously.

    27. Re:Why? by scorp1us · · Score: 1

      Jupiter is also a gas giant (its 100% gas), farther out where the solar wind is weaker. Solar wind is what causes us to ultimately lose our upper atmosphere. So you have a shell whith hydrogen/helium at the top getting stripped away (also replaced by the solar wind) but ultimately, our reserves will float to the upper atmosphere and be lost forever.

      --
      Slashdot's rate-of-post filter: Preventing you from posting too many great ideas at once.
    28. Re:Why? by scorp1us · · Score: 1

      Changing the gravitational constant isn't what I had in mind. (Because I don't think the parent had it in mind either... changing the constants of the universe would have drastically different effects, many of which can't be anticipated.)

      --
      Slashdot's rate-of-post filter: Preventing you from posting too many great ideas at once.
    29. Re:Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      1 eV = 1.602176487(40)×1019 J

    30. Re:Why? by KDR_11k · · Score: 1

      No, then the solar wind would strip your atmosphere away.

      --
      Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
    31. Re:Why? by eiMichael · · Score: 1

      Rainfall won't help if you're depleting your local water tables faster than rainfall can replenish it. The ocean won't help either if your local economy can't afford the insanely expensive desalination plant.

    32. Re:Why? by scorp1us · · Score: 1

      And it does... here
      and here

      use google for the rest.

      --
      Slashdot's rate-of-post filter: Preventing you from posting too many great ideas at once.
    33. Re:Why? by jpmorgan · · Score: 1

      So what you're saying is really we have a gravity shortage.

    34. Re:Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ... at the cost of how much energy can you make one gram of helium? Because the prospect of having to run 3 large nuclear power plants for a day to fill a balloon with helium is not particularly tempting...

    35. Re:Why? by aix+tom · · Score: 1

      Probably missing formatting:

      1 eV = 1.602176487(40) × 10^-19 J

      An eV is a rally, rally, rally, really, *tiny* amount of energy.

      nice comparison table.

      There you see how much bigger in magnitudes the energy of one second of moonlight on the area of a human face is.

    36. Re:Why? by aix+tom · · Score: 1

      Of course, on second thought, that tiny amount of energy only gives you *one atom* of helium. So to get large quantities of helium you would still need large quantities of energy.

    37. Re:Why? by lgw · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Do you know what doesn't matter to those problems? Inside-the-home water use doesn't matter. The majority of water use is for power generation. The majority of the remainder is used in agriculture. The majority of the remainder is used for landscaping. Yet the federal government tells me how much water I can use when I flush my toilet or takes a shower? It's the worst sort of nonsense.

      If you're on the ocean and have a "water shortage", try using saltwater in your generators (only Cali does, IIRC) before sacrificing basic hygine in pointless "feelgood" measures.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    38. Re:Why? by yurtinus · · Score: 1

      The solar wind doesn't have anything to do with it - only gravity matters. If I'm recalling my physics correctly, hydrogen or helium at "normal" temperatures have enough kinetic energy relative to their mass to exceed escape velocity and be lost to space as soon as the gas is no longer contained.

      --
      +1 Disagree
    39. Re:Why? by Stihdjia · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure you understand why helium floats. It's not because our gravity "is not strong enough." Helium is less dense than other components of the atmosphere. Just like ice floats on water, helium floats on air. Same with hydrogen. Hence the distinction between "lighter-than-air" flight and aerodynamic lift.

      --
      I see the fnords!
    40. Re:Why? by maximander · · Score: 1
      Treated drinking water isn't usually used to water crops, or generate power.

      How much do you really need to flush down straight into the sewer (which also requires treatment)?

    41. Re:Why? by pnewhook · · Score: 1

      What's your point? Hemp's not illegal. I even own a hemp golf shirt - feels great!

      --
      Tesla was a genius. Edison however was a overrated hack who liked to torture puppies.
    42. Re:Why? by dakameleon · · Score: 1

      The problem is not in coastal cities in America, it's outlying villages in developing nations, or in overpopulated cities in rapidly developing nations throughout Asia.

      A little less myopia on the global front, please.

      --
      Man who leaps off cliff jumps to conclusion.
    43. Re:Why? by riT-k0MA · · Score: 1

      Saltwater corrodes metal, especially pipes. That's why you never see shiny metal on ships. It's either painted or rusting.

    44. Re:Why? by TheTurtlesMoves · · Score: 1

      A really really good fusor gets you perhaps 10^8 reactions per second (IIRC). To get just 1 mole (4 grams) of He, you would need to run it for about 190 *million* years.

      --
      The Grey Goo disaster happened 3 billion years ago. This rock is covered in self replicating machines!
    45. Re:Why? by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      Hemp and peanuts are not major products here. We use peanuts for a few things, but the potential is there for much more. Besides that, we use huge amounts of petroleum fertilizer when crop rotation would work just as well-- better, in economic terms, if you don't obsess over producing corn and only corn on this plod of land. Hemp happens to grow in odd places, and could allow utilization of less suitable land for the production of feed, fiber, and fuel.

    46. Re:Why? by scorp1us · · Score: 1

      See my other post on why solar wind matters.

      Also, helium in the upper atmosphere is not at "normal" temperatures.

      --
      Slashdot's rate-of-post filter: Preventing you from posting too many great ideas at once.
    47. Re:Why? by JamesP · · Score: 1

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_escape

      See the first item. You're right that it floats, but it would 'stick around' like oxygen, carbon dioxide, nitrogen, etc

      --
      how long until /. fixes commenting on Chrome?
    48. Re:Why? by skarphace · · Score: 2, Insightful

      What's your point? Hemp's not illegal. I even own a hemp golf shirt - feels great!

      Actually, in the US, it is illegal to grow Hemp. The reason being that the DEA can't tell the difference from the air. The clothes you wear made of the material were most likely grown and manufactured in Canada.

      --
      Bullish Machine Tzar
    49. Re:Why? by lgw · · Score: 1

      Even so, Cali makes it work for all its power generation needs. "Simple matter of engineering".

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    50. Re:Why? by lgw · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Ahh, but that's not a materials scarcity problem, but merely a cost of infrastructure problem. Since we charge money for drinking water, and for sewer, any such problem can be overcome by simply charging the real cost to the end user. That way we all have the freedom to decide between conservation and spending more to get more.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    51. Re:Why? by KlaymenDK · · Score: 1

      of course, the problem is gravity here is not strong enough for it

      I don't think stronger gravity would help -- at any gravity, while heavy elements sink into atmo, the lighter ones would float to the top, as it were, and drift away. The problem is the presence of heavier elements ... as well as what the other respondents say.

    52. Re:Why? by scarboni888 · · Score: 1

      Biofuels got a bad rap because the wrong crops are being used. Instead of food crops that leech from the soil hemp crops should have been used since hemp regenerates the soil and hey - it's a weed - so the yield is much higher.

      How and why corn got used instead boggles the mind.

      From http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/hemp/hempfuel.htm

      "FARMERS MUST BE ALLOWED TO GROW an energy crop capable of producing 10 tons per acre in 90-120 days. This crop must be woody in nature and high in lignocellulose. It must be able to grow in all climactic zones in America. And it should not compete with food crops for the most productive land, but be grown in rotation with food crops or on marginal land where food crop production isn't profitable." - and that would be hemp.....

      It's not that bio-fuels are necessarily a bad idea it's the implementation (thus far) of the idea that sucked.

  3. Just in Time Worrying by eldavojohn · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I like how we can talk about peak helium but the second you try to discuss peak oil or peak coal you're a treehugger, an alarmist or trying to destroy the economy. I guess we have to wait until we're certain we're only a century away from using the last of a resource that took the Earth 4.7 billion years to accumulate before it's okay to start to talk about appropriate measures ...

    --
    My work here is dung.
    1. Re:Just in Time Worrying by Jiro · · Score: 2, Insightful

      People generally don't have political and ideological motives to exaggerate peak helium like they do peak for coal and oil.

    2. Re:Just in Time Worrying by WrongSizeGlass · · Score: 1, Insightful

      People generally don't have political and ideological motives to exaggerate peak helium like they do peak for coal and oil.

      Yet ...

    3. Re:Just in Time Worrying by Xacid · · Score: 1

      And everyone loves balloons.

    4. Re:Just in Time Worrying by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Please explain why people would lie about peak oil when they didn't really think it was true. I can't imagine what political or ideological motive there would be for claiming it when one did not actually believe it.

    5. Re:Just in Time Worrying by PitaBred · · Score: 1

      Because we can make and have alternatives to oil. No such luck with helium.

    6. Re:Just in Time Worrying by Perl-Pusher · · Score: 1

      $$$PRICE$$$ exaggerated scarcity = exaggerated price Especially when demand is high and energy is a necessity. Controlling, production and price of a necessity = power. So there's your motive: Greed & Power

    7. Re:Just in Time Worrying by HangingChad · · Score: 2, Insightful

      we can talk about peak helium but the second you try to discuss peak oil or peak coal you're a treehugger

      Not really seeing how that's a troll, it's the truth. Maybe because helium doesn't have billions in Saudi oil money, funding from the Koch family and The Carlyle Group trying to influence social opinions about balloons.

      --
      That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage
    8. Re:Just in Time Worrying by TheRaven64 · · Score: 4, Informative

      Actually, we can make helium too. A tabletop Fusor can be made for a few thousand dollars and will make helium out of hydrogen as long as you keep it fed with enough energy. The only reason that we don't is cost - it's cheaper to get helium out of the ground than to make it. Exactly the same thing applies to oil.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    9. Re:Just in Time Worrying by easterberry · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Except that the people going on about peak oil aren't the ones with the oil. They're the ones telling us to use less oil and find alternative energy sources.

    10. Re:Just in Time Worrying by lgw · · Score: 1

      The power requirements per atom for tabletop fusors make them a non-starter, but I bet as an industrial process the cost would be reasonable, at least for producing helium as a research material.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    11. Re:Just in Time Worrying by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We have alternatives to Helium too, we just don't like them very much. For the most famous, that of making a structure ultimately lighter than air, we can either use hot air or hydrogen. True, neither really works for the party balloon contingent, but for more serious and important applications where the environment is ultimately more controllable, well, you have two workable alternatives.

      These applications though don't even constitute a significant fraction of real world Helium use. Helium is mostly used either because it's inert (for which many alternatives exist) or because it's got an extremely low vaporization point (the lowest of all elements, but Hydrogen and Neon are close.)

      I'm not saying you can't find an application that absolutely must have Helium, or else it just isn't possible, but I'd suggest the amount of usage by such applications is probably sufficiently low that the eventual elimination of natural reserves wouldn't be too much of an issue, with helium from other sources being viable.

    12. Re:Just in Time Worrying by SoTerrified · · Score: 1

      Coal industry? Substantial.
      Oil industry? Arguably the most powerful conglomerate in the world.
      Helium industry? Wow, look, we can have reasonable discussions without anyone who is paid to subvert the collected data...

    13. Re:Just in Time Worrying by youngdev · · Score: 1, Troll

      Yes like T Boone Pickens and Al Gore Neither of whom stand to make money from a climate/energy crisis!

    14. Re:Just in Time Worrying by aix+tom · · Score: 1

      No "Peak" discussion will ever been taken seriously.

      It's only when we are down to maybe 50% of the former peak will people start do wonder.

    15. Re:Just in Time Worrying by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Peak helium is essentially the same thing as helium comes mostly from oil wells.

    16. Re:Just in Time Worrying by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Bah. Everyone knows that Greenpeace is just a shell company of BP.

    17. Re:Just in Time Worrying by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, we can make helium too. A tabletop Fusor can be made for a few thousand dollars and will make helium out of hydrogen as long as you keep it fed with enough energy. The only reason that we don't is cost - it's cheaper to get helium out of the ground than to make it. Exactly the same thing applies to oil.

      Your talking about nuclear fusion, physics mate, not chemistry, a few billion bucks would be more like it. Besides the Greenies don't like those H Bombs much either.

    18. Re:Just in Time Worrying by Dahamma · · Score: 1

      Hah, I can't decide whether you are making a really subtle joke or trolling. Either way, none of the mods got it.

      Besides the totally absurd estimate of "a few thousand dollars" it's just not physically possible. You can only make Helium from deuterium or tritium (or some more exotic fusion reaction like boron + H1). Without a neutron you CANNOT make Helium from H1. Deuterium, tritium, and boron are all much rarer and more expensive than helium.

    19. Re:Just in Time Worrying by adamofgreyskull · · Score: 1

      Maybe because helium doesn't have billions in Saudi oil money, funding from the Koch family and The Carlyle Group trying to influence social opinions about balloons.

      Yeah, right. That's what They want you to think.

  4. can we make it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    pardon my non science background, but is there a way a to manufacture helium?

    1. Re:can we make it? by hesiod · · Score: 4, Funny

      All you need is a star with a shitload of hydrogen and a few million years. It's pretty difficult to retrieve, though.

    2. Re:can we make it? by Vahokif · · Score: 1

      As far as I know, not unless you have a sun.

    3. Re:can we make it? by sockonafish · · Score: 1

      Yes, but I don't think it's likely that we're going to build fusion reactors to supply floating balloons for children's birthday parties.

    4. Re:can we make it? by Flea+of+Pain · · Score: 4, Funny

      Until we get those fusion generators up and running! I hear it will be in the next ten years!

      --
      Do not argue with an idiot. He will drag you down to his level and beat you with experience.
    5. Re:can we make it? by WrongSizeGlass · · Score: 2, Funny

      There's plenty of Helium-4 & Helium-3 on the moon. Now get crackin' ...

    6. Re:can we make it? by God'sDuck · · Score: 1

      Once we have fusion reactors, yes, in small quantities. Not enough to float blimps, though.

    7. Re:can we make it? by Jeremy+Erwin · · Score: 1

      Yes. Fusion. Similarly, there's a way to synthesize gold from Mercury.

    8. Re:can we make it? by allawalla · · Score: 1

      But we could if we wanted to. It isn't the same as saying that we will "run out". These people are just worried that it might get too expensive to use for their cheap projects because everyone else is using it for their cheap projects.

    9. Re:can we make it? by Locke2005 · · Score: 1

      It is possible in particle accelerators or nuclear reactors, although the production cost is currently many times the market price of gold.

      Damn. There's goes another one of my business plans down the drain!

      --
      I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
    10. Re:can we make it? by Arlet · · Score: 1

      You can make it from radioactive materials that emit alpha radiation. That's how it was made in the earth too. Production volume will be very low, though.

    11. Re:can we make it? by gman003 · · Score: 1

      Well, do you have a better plan for using the resulting helium? IIRC, fusing helium requires even more energy than fusing hydrogen, so we probably can't use it as more fuel. Once the small scientific market is saturated, you might as well use it for balloons. Unless, of course, I'm vastly overestimating the amount of helium fusion reactors will produce.

    12. Re:can we make it? by dkleinsc · · Score: 1

      We have nuclear fusion reactors. It's just that they use up more energy than they create.

      --
      I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
    13. Re:can we make it? by Rich0 · · Score: 1, Interesting

      It is way easier than that - helium is about 25% of the entire ordinary matter content of the universe. It is floating around everywhere. Just pick up any average piece of anything and extract the 25% which is He.

      Oh, one minor caveat - this plan won't work if you happen to live in an area which greatly deviates from the average, such as on a terrestrial planet. Also, if you live in an area mostly devoid of matter (like 99.9999% of the universe) it might not be practical. But, hey, it works great for gas giants and stars, and that is most of what you can see up in the sky at night anyway... :)

    14. Re:can we make it? by Jeremy+Erwin · · Score: 1

      Sounds like your suggestion is a bit more efficient than fusion, though.

    15. Re:can we make it? by Sockatume · · Score: 1

      Depressingly, the actual joke is that it's always fifty years away.

      --
      No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
    16. Re:can we make it? by Amouth · · Score: 5, Informative

      Or we can get it via Alpha decay

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alpha_decay

      that is how most of ours was formed in the oil reserves in the US as a lot of them are encased in layers of extremely low grade radio active uranium.

      --
      '...if only "Jumping to a Conclusion" was an event in the Olympics.'
    17. Re:can we make it? by localman57 · · Score: 1

      No problem. I've got one. It's right up there...

    18. Re:can we make it? by Sir_Sri · · Score: 4, Informative

      Helium can be formed a couple of other ways. One is fusion of course. The other is radioactive decay. We have lots of that, even very low activity decay going on, it's a matter of bothering to trap the helium from it. Of course if you can find some way to induce alpha decay then you could produce helium (e.g. if you could neutron induce it like with fission or something else). Some alpha emitters have a fairly long decay chain where they will spit out several alpha particles before they stop, so it's not like you're taking thorium, and then getting radium and helium, you'd get potentially 6 heliums and lead (or stop somewhere else on the decay chain).

      But overall, yes, the relative lack of helium in future could pose serious problems. Wasting it on party balloons is destroying a potentially very useful product.

    19. Re:can we make it? by BrokenHalo · · Score: 1

      Wasting it on party balloons is destroying a potentially very useful product.

      It's also wasting opportunities for educational noises which are better (and more cheaply) achieved by using hydrogen in the presence of a flame.

    20. Re:can we make it? by kehren77 · · Score: 2, Funny

      pardon my non science background, but is there a way a to manufacture helium?

      Sure we just need to capture a bunch of Hynerians and make them nervous.

    21. Re:can we make it? by kpoole55 · · Score: 1

      There are a lot of replies all over this thread that state all you need is a bunch or hydrogen and you can make helium and we have a shitload of hydrogen locked up in water and such. Unfortunately, the best material for fusion to make helium isn't plain hydrogen but deuterium. This is a hydrogen atom that includes a neutron with it's proton and that's not as common. There's still a lot of it nut not as much as plain hydrogen.

    22. Re:can we make it? by WindBourne · · Score: 1

      Fusion produces it. In addition, we can get more by having our oil well producers separate the He from the natural gas right when the well is first started. Pretty easy to do. And to be honest, we should go back to getting more of it.

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    23. Re:can we make it? by BUL2294 · · Score: 1

      Wasting it on party balloons is destroying a potentially very useful product.

      Can you imagine what "My Super Sweet 16" will look like in a few years?

      "Miffy's party was the best! I mean there were like 20 balloons! You don't see many of those anymore... But Miffy threw a tantrum when she saw that the pink BMW was the wrong shade of pink... But all was good when mom snuck that Valium in Miffy's drink."

      --
      Windows 3.1x calc: 3.11 - 3.10 = 0.00
    24. Re:can we make it? by theArtificial · · Score: 1

      But overall, yes, the relative lack of helium in future could pose serious problems. Wasting it on party balloons is destroying a potentially very useful product.

      I agree with you about the lack of helium potentially posing a problem in the future. However your statement about wasting Helium reminds me of water conservation efforts. Lets take California for example, do you know how much water is used in industry vs residential? Agriculture eats up most of it but residents use about 15%. I find it difficult to believe that balloons are the largest cause of depletion. How much Helium is bled out of natural gas and other wells simply because it's not cost effective enough to capture? The industrial consumption far outweighs that of the squeeky voiced unwashed mass of balloon fillers.

      --
      Man blir trött av att gå och göra ingenting.
    25. Re:can we make it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or we can get it via Alpha decay

      As you say, that's how our existing helium reservoirs formed. But they took millions of years to do so. So no, this is not a viable replacement source.

    26. Re:can we make it? by Crazyswedishguy · · Score: 1

      The technology is set to come out with Duke Nukem Forever.

      --
      This space up for sale.
    27. Re:can we make it? by dwinks616 · · Score: 1

      Everything on the light side of iron creates energy when fused and everything on the heavy side creates energy when split.

    28. Re:can we make it? by gman003 · · Score: 1

      I know that. It's just that the energy needed to begin the reaction increases with mass, and the resulting energy decreases. Since we have yet to break even with hydrogen, it's unlikely we'll be fusing helium for some time.

    29. Re:can we make it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When helium becomes more valuable than gold, by weight....

    30. Re:can we make it? by Sir_Sri · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Very true, some of it is politcal. You don't want people in the habit of wasting helium for the fun of it and then thinking it isn't worth anything.

      It's much the same with water conservation, whether you use a low flow toilet or a low flow shower isn't actually going to change how much water you waste by much (waste I would consider evaporated and lost to the existing water system, relative the amount typically received from similar sources).

      Helium use is broken down here: http://minerals.usgs.gov/ds/2005/140/helium-use.pdf

      Which is the latest I found. Even wasting 4 or 5% is still, IMO a lot of waste if there's something it can be used for that's actually you know... useful.

      All of this somewhat in contrast to oil and water, in that you can always get water, it's just more expensive. And most of what you do with oil can be done with other things, maybe not as efficiently but it can be done, and you can make oil, albeit in a lossy way. What you need helium for is very hard to replace with anything else (notably cooling), but it's prohibitively hard to actually make more of it (for the moment, and banking on the free market resolving the issue is not my idea of good planning).

  5. Re:Running out? by Jeremy+Erwin · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Let's just say that the wasted gas tends to float out of reach....

  6. Re:Running out? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    It is actually light enough it can get high enough to escape into space.

  7. What about the space program? by robot256 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Apparently, they forgot that without a large supply of helium operating their favorite cash cow, the manned space flight program, would become a lot harder. There are also many scientific applications that are virtually impossible without helium, with its boiling point at 4.1 Kelvin. Hydrogen, at 14 Kelvin, is not a perfect replacement, and has a tendency to explode. They really ought to be inflating the price, so we learn to conserve helium now while we still have plenty left.

    1. Re:What about the space program? by localman57 · · Score: 1

      To say "they" should be inflating the price is to say they shouldn't be selling it at all. While the US has extracted the lion's share of it, there's lots of helium other places, lots of which is just allowed to escape while capturing natural gas. We could stop selling it, and other countries would simply produce more, keeping the price relatively stable. Although, if this production was partially due to the capture of previously released sources, you might say that you achieved your goal.

    2. Re:What about the space program? by TheRaven64 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      When the helium on Earth runs out, space flight suddenly looks a lot more commercially interesting. Helium is abundant in the universe, it's only rare at the bottom of our gravity well. There are large deposits on the moon, there almost certainly are on asteroids as well, and it can be harvested from the solar wind. With sufficiently cheap energy, you can also make it from hydrogen in a fusor. If you want something to motivate commercial space flight, use up the helium reserves quickly and then watch people compete to import it.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    3. Re:What about the space program? by thePowerOfGrayskull · · Score: 2, Funny

      They really ought to be inflating the price,

      Yep, they should definitely take steps to make the price balloon now, before it's too late.

      What? Why are you looking at me that way?

    4. Re:What about the space program? by robot256 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      True, but then the concern becomes whether commercial mining activity will ramp up before the local price or sheer scarcity of helium makes speculative exploration impractical. If the price stays artificially low, the commercial incentive won't be there until it's too late, and we'll be up a gravity well without a rocket, so to speak. Somebody on this planet really ought to have a stockpile of helium for when that time comes. That's the whole point of a strategic helium reserve--so that we have it when we really need it, not for f***ing party balloons.

    5. Re:What about the space program? by Sancho · · Score: 1

      Why? The market will sort itself out. Just like it does everywhere else.

    6. Re:What about the space program? by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 1

      That's the whole point of a strategic helium reserve--so that we have it when we really need it,

      It should be noted that we established a strategic helium reserve to supply lift gas for the Navy's dirigibles. What, the Navy doesn't have any dirigibles anymore?

      The only reason the strategic helium reserve wasn't ended back in the 40's is that government programs have a life of their own - they don't end just because we don't need them, they end when enough congresscritters realize we don't need them. Note the telephone surtax to support the Spanish-American War that was ended a few years back as an example....

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    7. Re:What about the space program? by robot256 · · Score: 1

      LOL point taken...all I can is this!

    8. Re:What about the space program? by the+Atomic+Rabbit · · Score: 1

      The main problem with using hydrogen as a coolant is not that it is combustible (though it is). It's that it freezes. At ambient pressures, helium does not freeze, and remains a liquid down to absolute zero.

    9. Re:What about the space program? by microbox · · Score: 1

      They really ought to be inflating the price, so we learn to conserve helium now while we still have plenty left.

      Commie.

      It is well known in conservative economic circles that the economy can fundamentally do without natural resources.

      You are just holding back progress, out of some misguided notion of what is right for you is right for others. Control freak.

      --

      Like all pain, suffering is a signal that something isn't right
    10. Re:What about the space program? by robot256 · · Score: 1

      That's right, I'm sorry, I forgot that Wall Street had figured out a way to create wealth out of thin air. Oh, wait...

    11. Re:What about the space program? by robot256 · · Score: 1

      You are correct. And I believe it is the only substance known to do this, no? Of course, the politicians would care more about the explosions than the laws of physics.

    12. Re:What about the space program? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As I read your first sentence, I was picturing old Pappy Heene telling his kid, "Alright son, get ready to boldly go where no man has gone before!" Then you started talking about sciencey stuff and I kinda zoned out.

    13. Re:What about the space program? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      and we'll be up a gravity well without a rocket

      You mean down a gravity well without a rocket. You only need rockets to get out of gravity wells. Not so much for going down into them. </pedentry>

  8. For the children by Drakkenmensch · · Score: 4, Funny

    Because no generation should be denied the fun of inhaling helium to speak with a goofy high-pitch voice.

    1. Re:For the children by sakdoctor · · Score: 1

      That works with hydrogen too. Xenon is far funnier though.

    2. Re:For the children by Frank+T.+Lofaro+Jr. · · Score: 2, Funny

      That works with hydrogen too. Xenon is far funnier though.

      And funnier still when the anesthetic effects occur.

      --
      Just because it CAN be done, doesn't mean it should!
    3. Re:For the children by Hatta · · Score: 4, Funny

      Helium makes your voice sound funny. N2O makes everyone else's voice sound funny.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    4. Re:For the children by Nerdfest · · Score: 2, Informative

      Actually, N2O makes your voice sound funny as well, but it makes your voice lower, not higher. You can do an excellent James Earl Jones imitation with a lung-full of N2O.

    5. Re:For the children by hedge49 · · Score: 1

      Because no generation should be denied the fun of inhaling helium to speak with a goofy high-pitch voice.

      I was introduced to Senator John Glenn just after having inhaled a balloon full of helium at the FL Democratic Convention years back. "Why, hello Colonel Glenn" came out as you'd expect. He was amused. Momentarily.

    6. Re:For the children by schon · · Score: 1

      Many years ago I was working at a comic con, and our booth had helium balloons. Near the end of day 2, we were all getting bored, and started doing the helium voice to amuse ourselves.

      Right after I took one big hit, I hear a woman's voice behind me.. I turn around and there is one of the most beautiful women I'd ever seen. Realizing I had the opportunity of a lifetime, I raised my eyebrows suggestively and said "Hey baby, you ever make it with a Keebler Elf?"

      While it got a laugh from her, I didn't get her phone #. :)

    7. Re:For the children by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not just the children... don't for Jamie from Myth Busters. And what would you have them to fill their football sized lead balloon with, hydrogen?
      Wait a minute... I would LOVE to see that episode!

  9. Re:Running out? by Zocalo · · Score: 1

    And the helium is retrieved from the atmosphere for reuse by which process, exactly?

    --
    UNIX? They're not even circumcised! Savages!
  10. Re:Running out? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

    From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helium:

    In the Earth's atmosphere, the concentration of helium by volume is only 5.2 parts per million. The concentration is low and fairly constant despite the continuous production of new helium because most helium in the Earth's atmosphere escapes into space by several processes

  11. Re:Running out? by DIplomatic · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Doesn't most of it just get released back into the atmosphere? Sure, it's not contained underground or anything, but it's not REALLY "disappearing", exactly.

    That's the problem. Helium collects in underground deposits and we drill down and collect it as it escapes. When helium dissipates into the atmosphere it is essentially gone to us.

  12. Re:Running out? by hesiod · · Score: 1

    I said nothing of retrieval or reuse.

  13. Re:Running out? by MoonBuggy · · Score: 1

    I was thinking the exact same thing - it's not like we're feeding it all into a fusion plant and leaving none for later generations, they just might have to expend the energy to recapture and re-purify it.

  14. Re:Running out? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Actually, it's light enough to reach escape velocity at atmospheric temperatures. So it is effectively being lost for good. What we have now only managed to avoid being leaked into space because it got trapped in rock cavities with natural gas.

  15. Is this really a problem? by Locke2005 · · Score: 1

    Once we get fusion reactors perfected, won't there be an abundant supply of helium? We only need enough helium to hold out until then. If we run low, the law of supply and demand should make it prohibitively expensive to waste the stuff on parties and get-well balloons.

    --
    I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
    1. Re:Is this really a problem? by clang_jangle · · Score: 1

      Once we get fusion reactors perfected, won't there be an abundant supply of helium? We only need enough helium to hold out until then.

      Fusion is the alchemy of the modern age. It can be done, but will likely be so hideously expensive as to be pointless.

      --
      Caveat Utilitor
    2. Re:Is this really a problem? by Splab · · Score: 0

      Fusion is easily done, the military figured that out ages ago. The problem is containing the nuke used to set off the fusion...

    3. Re:Is this really a problem? by sleeping143 · · Score: 1

      If we run low, the law of supply and demand should make it prohibitively expensive to waste the stuff on parties and get-well balloons.

      RTFS, dammit. The law of supply and demand is not at work here because the government is making the price artificially low.

    4. Re:Is this really a problem? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If we run low, the law of supply and demand should make it prohibitively expensive to waste the stuff on parties and get-well balloons.

      As long as the government does not side-step the concepts of supply and demand by selling it at an unmotivatedly low price, as described in TFS.

    5. Re:Is this really a problem? by Rich0 · · Score: 1

      Uh, sure. Only issue is that fusion is awfully efficient. Something like a hydrogen bomb probably only produces a few kilograms of the stuff. Depending on the technology employed they might need to recycle half of that to replenish the losses from colling their magnets (I'm sure that He recycling isn't 100% efficient).

    6. Re:Is this really a problem? by Sockatume · · Score: 0

      ...and all the guys with catchers' mitts and welding goggles you need to get the helium atoms as they come out.

      --
      No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
    7. Re:Is this really a problem? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Controlled fusion is so nice because it requires small amounts of fuel to produce the energy we need. Well, guess what... As a consequence, it also produces very small amounts of Helium.

    8. Re:Is this really a problem? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      forget the goggles! They do nothing.

    9. Re:Is this really a problem? by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

      That's not really a problem. If you have fusion power, you can use it to run a load of fusors at below break-even rate to produce helium. Or you can just collect it from he solar wind, harvest deposits from near-Aarth asteroids and the moon, and so on.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    10. Re:Is this really a problem? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Quiet, you! This is Slashdot, where wide-eyed deluded dreamers think we're going to mine the Moon for He3 for our fusion reactors! And asteroids to get iron that sells for 1.67$ per ton on Earth, will somehow be worth spending trillions to get from space!

      But seriously, fusion *is* already done, on a small scale that can't generate more power than it consumes... The real problem is that even if we *did* have fusion power plants, the dismally small quantity of helium generated is too small. The amount of liquid helium that ITER will need is about 50 tons, the amount a 1GW fusion reactor will produce is about 15 tons a year. So there's a problem here.

    11. Re:Is this really a problem? by computechnica · · Score: 1

      In other countries they already use Hydrogen for party ballons since it is cheaper. When I was stationed in the Phillipines we would dip the ballon string in lighter fluid, light it, and let it go into the air. It would make a nice little fireball!

    12. Re:Is this really a problem? by Locke2005 · · Score: 1

      So what is stopping a DeBeers-like cartel from buying it all up, storing it, and reselling it at a tremendous profit? One seller being too stupid to charge market prices for a fixed resource doesn't automatically negate all the laws of economics.

      --
      I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
    13. Re:Is this really a problem? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In those other countries the people are cheaper too.

      Not to mention the cost of settling cases/lawsuits.

    14. Re:Is this really a problem? by Waffle+Iron · · Score: 5, Informative

      Once we get fusion reactors perfected, won't there be an abundant supply of helium?

      A quick Google search says the current annual consumption of He is 30000 tons (3e10g).

      D-T fusion produces about 17MeV per molecule of He output, or 4.24e11 J/g of helium.

      World energy consumption is currently around 5e20 J per year. If all power were generated by fusion, that would be 1.17e9 g of helium produced, which is only about 4% of current helium usage.

    15. Re:Is this really a problem? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Controlled fusion is so nice because it requires small amounts of fuel to produce the energy we need. "

      Really? We have commercial fusion power at that scale?

      "Well, guess what... As a consequence, it also produces very small amounts of Helium."

      Hm, about an order of magnitude too small, and there's no helium recovery unit in proposed fusion reactors...

      Too bad you're pig ignorant and prefer to deal in dreams and delusions.

    16. Re:Is this really a problem? by Locke2005 · · Score: 0, Redundant

      the current annual consumption of He is 30000 tons (3e10g). Hold on -- since helium is lighter than air, shouldn't the annual consumption be a negative number of tons?!? Ok, it's mass not weight... never mind. But I'm still a little concerned about how they accurately weigh this stuff.

      --
      I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
    17. Re:Is this really a problem? by Waffle+Iron · · Score: 1

      But I'm still a little concerned about how they accurately weigh this stuff.

      I'm doubt that those in the helium industry need to actually weigh it. They've got pressure gauges, and they know that pV=nRT, and the math from there is trivial.

    18. Re:Is this really a problem? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just for comparison, Aneutronic fusion, being pursued by groups like EMC2 and Focus Fusion, would only increase this output by about a factor of 5. Still not enough.

    19. Re:Is this really a problem? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hence, "hideously expensive". Duh.

    20. Re:Is this really a problem? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Where would you get all those D's and T's?

  16. Re:Running out? by Xacid · · Score: 1

    From the opposite of heavy water. ;)

  17. Re:Running out? by stoanhart · · Score: 4, Informative

    Helium doesn't stay in the atmosphere, it is released into space. So yes, it is lost, since it takes hundreds of millions of years to regenerate via radioactive decay underground.

  18. What ever do you mean... by Nihn · · Score: 5, Informative

    I live in Amarillo Tx, what this article fails to mention is all the helium we still have here, We shut down refining after we had enough stored, we didn't stop because we ran out of helium to refine. Our plant is still here waiting to be used comes the time to gather more. It's good to know people can make up stories about resource and how little we have left to stir up some sort of reaction. Now if oil disappears, worry.....

    1. Re:What ever do you mean... by DarthBender · · Score: 1

      Wow, thank you for that informative post. Unfortunately I've got no mod points right now.

    2. Re:What ever do you mean... by nine-times · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Even if we're in no immediate danger of running out, we're still living on a planet with finite resources. It makes sense to concern ourselves with what happens when those resources run out.

    3. Re:What ever do you mean... by Beyond_GoodandEvil · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Even if we're in no immediate danger of running out, we're still living on a planet with finite resources. It makes sense to concern ourselves with what happens when those resources run out
      Sorry but wasting another finite resource(time) to worry about a non issue like this one is silly.

      --
      I laughed at the weak who considered themselves good because they lacked claws.
    4. Re:What ever do you mean... by Pharmboy · · Score: 2, Funny

      Even if we're in no immediate danger of running out, we're still living on a planet with finite resources.

      But helium isn't burned or consumed or changed into something else, so we still have it when we are done using it. It's not like the helium is going to vanish into thin air.

      --
      Tequila: It's not just for breakfast anymore!
    5. Re:What ever do you mean... by Dachannien · · Score: 1

      There are lots of alternatives to oil. Some of them are even renewable.

      The only real alternative to helium (for some applications) is to make more helium. But the processes for helium manufacture are pretty much (a) nuclear fusion of deuterium, which would be great if we had a sustainable way to do this, and (b) nuclear decay involving the release of alpha particles, which is really where most of our current supplies of helium actually came from in the first place.

      Would running out of helium mean rioting in the streets? Well, no, probably not. The uses for helium really aren't all that key to Joe Sixpack's daily life. Running out of oil today probably would cause mass rioting, but fortunately, we have technology within our grasp to achieve the elimination of oil as a fuel source long before we actually burn it all - the only remaining question is whether the world's governments will do what it takes to cause worldwide adoption of those alternatives.

    6. Re:What ever do you mean... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Troll

      I live in Amarillo Tx, what this article fails to mention is all the helium we still have here, We shut down refining after we had enough stored, we didn't stop because we ran out of helium to refine. Our plant is still here waiting to be used comes the time to gather more. It's good to know people can make up stories about resource and how little we have left to stir up some sort of reaction. Now if oil disappears, worry.....

      Just because we have enough for now, doesn't mean we have to piss it away like cheap beer.

      No wonder I call that state Texass after moving out.

    7. Re:What ever do you mean... by ultranova · · Score: 4, Informative

      But helium isn't burned or consumed or changed into something else, so we still have it when we are done using it. It's not like the helium is going to vanish into thin air.

      No, it's going to vanish to outer space. Temperature of a gas is a measure of the average kinetic energy of a single molecule; since helium atoms don't form molecules and are very light, they tend to have very high velocities in a given temperature. So high, in fact, that they exceed Earth's escape velocity; while molecules at lower atmosphere will likely collide with other molecules before escaping, those in in the upper atmosphere will simply go up and never come down again.

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    8. Re:What ever do you mean... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      wow can't believe you got modded troll for a legitimate opinion. moreover, while helium may not run out in the next year, it is far more important than many people realize. aside from blimps and party balloons, liquid helium is used all over the semiconductor industry for high- and ultra-high-vacuum cryopumps. no helium, no cryopumps. and while there are alternatives, this will still have an impact as helium becomes more and more expensive.

    9. Re:What ever do you mean... by sznupi · · Score: 1

      Time finite? How? (when comparing with some practical & very short base period of course - for example, "timespan of our civilisation")

      Or do you live in a fantasy of n future quarterly statements?

      --
      One that hath name thou can not otter
    10. Re:What ever do you mean... by TheLink · · Score: 1

      Most people die after a while. If you're lucky, you will too.

      Eternity is a very long time to be alive and imperfect.

      --
    11. Re:What ever do you mean... by sznupi · · Score: 1

      Which doesn't change much on the scale of civilisation; pretty much the only one that matters in the end.

      Don't kid yourself otherwise (too much - admittedly, it's fun while it lasts). Or - what can you tell me about your great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-grandmother? You know, the one from the side of your father, then grandmother, great-grandomther, great-great-grandfather, great-great-great-grandfather, g-g-g-great-grandfather, g-g-g-g-great-grandmother, g-g-g-g-g-great-grandmother, g-g-g-g-g-g-great-grandfather, g-g-g-g-g-g-g-great-grandmother. Since I don't want to intrude too much into your family history, basics would be fine - like, a century in which she lived, continent, or language.

      --
      One that hath name thou can not otter
    12. Re:What ever do you mean... by TheLink · · Score: 1

      > Which doesn't change much on the scale of civilisation; pretty much the only one that matters in the end.

      Uh, the OP was responding to this:

      > we're still living on a planet with finite resources. It makes sense to concern ourselves with what happens when those resources run out

      So in case you don't see the connection/context yet. To people who don't live in fantasy worlds, it doesn't matter that the rest of the universe has lots of time or resources, it matters when you don't.

      Hmm, maybe you are one of those AIs with rather long lifespans: http://science.slashdot.org/story/10/08/23/1346228/Look-For-AI-Not-Aliens

      --
    13. Re:What ever do you mean... by sznupi · · Score: 1

      Uhm, all the better reasons why this small place should matter more... A place which generally did demonstrate the capability to sustain complex biopshere on quite long timescales (well, at least so far as the issue of time goes. Rapid destabilisations of equilibrium tended to take their toll)

      --
      One that hath name thou can not otter
    14. Re:What ever do you mean... by hankwang · · Score: 3, Insightful

      So high, in fact, that they exceed Earth's escape velocity;

      No; the thermal velocity of a molecule is srqt(<v^2>) = sqrt(3kT/m), with k Boltzmann's constant and m the molecular mass. At room temperature (293 K), this velocity is 1.35 km/s, while the escape velocity is 11 km/s. (By the way, for nitrogen, the thermal velocity is 0.51 km/s). Statistical mechanics predicts that only one molecule in 10^29 has a velocity exceeding the escape velocity of the earth.

      However, it is true that helium will reach farther than nitrogen and oxygen; the gravitational potential energy is comparable to the thermal energy at an altitude of 62 km (compare 9 km for nitrogen).

      I'm not sure what does cause the helium loss; maybe the helium gets blown away by the solar wind?

    15. Re:What ever do you mean... by jewishbaconzombies · · Score: 1

      Yep - every one of these stupid articles fails to mention that every natural gas producer in the US is throwing away TONS of it instead of recapturing it because of the reserve sell off. Once the reserves are gone, it can be recaptured - hell it "could" be recaptured right now, but with the supply dump, there's no hurry to do that.

      We aren't running out of helium period. It's when it's going to be recaptured.

      They also fail to mention that MRI consumes the most. Party balloons are the smallest segment. This is the same crap science coverage as the morons who talk about the Hindenburg when hydrogen cars are discussed - while ignoring the explosive force of gasoline. America is smrt.

    16. Re:What ever do you mean... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Read the whole article people http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_escape. Earth is pretty much protected from atmospheric escape and solar winds so no we do not loose Helium it just resides in the upper atmosphere. The article applies to planets with smaller gravitational fields and no magnetic field.

    17. Re:What ever do you mean... by jelle · · Score: 1

      Otherwise maybe what's going on is that the volume of space around the planet between those roughly 9km and 62km is so large compared to the amount of available helium that even while it's still there, the helium will be dispersed so much that it will be practically impossible to retrieve (I mean, the gas will be at very low pressure).

      Can somebody do the math?

      --
      --- Hindsight is 20/20, but walking backwards is not the answer.
    18. Re:What ever do you mean... by CraigParticle · · Score: 4, Informative

      While the average thermal velocity is lower than the escape velocity, the high velocity tail of the Maxwell-Boltzmann distribution is what's significant on long time scales.

      It's important to state that room temperature isn't the most important number here. As you pointed out, the equilibrium point is high up in the atmosphere, where the gas is very dilute and can heat to a thousand degrees or more (solar UV heating and some contribution from solar wind). When you plug that temperature into the M-B thermal distribution, the fraction of atoms exceeding the escape velocity of Earth is much larger! In absolute terms, it's still a small number but enough to leak the helium out of the atmosphere over many millions of years.

      Ultimately, it is the high thermal velocity that causes the loss of helium.

    19. Re:What ever do you mean... by jpmorgan · · Score: 1

      Maxwell-Boltzmann is just an idealization and doesn't really apply if you're considering the entire atmosphere. If it told the whole story, blimps wouldn't work.

    20. Re:What ever do you mean... by Paul+Fernhout · · Score: 1

      Guess "Joe Sixpack" does not need diagnostic medical imaging (supercooled by helium)?

      Adequate vitamin D (Dr. Cannell) and eating more vegetables (Dr. Fuhrman) can do a lot of medical good, but not everything. :-)

      --
      A 21st century issue: the irony of technologies of abundance in the hands of those still thinking in terms of scarcity.
    21. Re:What ever do you mean... by hankwang · · Score: 1

      As you pointed out, the equilibrium point is high up in the atmosphere, where the gas is very dilute and can heat to a thousand degrees or more (solar UV heating and some contribution from solar wind). When you plug that temperature into the M-B thermal distribution, the fraction of atoms exceeding the escape velocity of Earth is much larger! In absolute terms, it's still a small number but enough to leak the helium out of the atmosphere over many millions of years.

      Let's say T = 1500 K and E0 is the kinetic energy corresponding to the escape velocity. Then E0/kT=19, which is still the very far tail of the M-B distribution.

      Another poster referred to Atmospheric escape on Wikipedia, which seems to agree with you. I guess that millions of years are a long time.

    22. Re:What ever do you mean... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Absent Helium escaping into space or undergoing a nuclear reaction... how do we "run out" again?

    23. Re:What ever do you mean... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Does the helium go into space after we use it?

    24. Re:What ever do you mean... by ETEQ · · Score: 1

      First of all, the fact that it isn't running right now should prove to you that there is a limited amount. I work in a physics department at a research university, and I can tell you the prices for Helium (esp. Helium-3) have absolutely skyrocketed (just like the helium does, as some later posts point out!) - if it were reasonably economical it would have restarted again by now. The problem is that it's a trace byproduct of other refining processes, and most of the easily accessible oil on the US southwest (where the Helium is most abundant) has become much more expensive. Just like oil, the problem isn't that there will actually be none left - just that it'll suddenly become much more expensive and some crucial applications will become economically infeasible, to the detriment of all.

    25. Re:What ever do you mean... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And there is this one more little tidbit:

      While something on Earth's surface needs an initial velocity greater than the escape velocity to reach outer space, something already on the edge of Earth's atmosphere would need only a tiny nudge. (compared to escape velocity that is)

    26. Re:What ever do you mean... by Nihn · · Score: 1

      Helium isn't a life or death resource, so why are you trying to argue the price of it. Clean water means more that how much helium we have. Your arguing the price of a renewable source. And if it were at a critical stage where we are in desperate need for it the plants will be turned back on. But until it's a national crisis rest assured things will remain as they are.

    27. Re:What ever do you mean... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Energy step up. I see. Thanks. I'll return to working on my Gravity Wheels with increased peace of mind now. www.justgravity.com and www.newpath4.com for the archives to know I'm still working not goofing off.

    28. Re:What ever do you mean... by Pharmboy · · Score: 1

      Yea, I kinda already knew that. It was a joke.

      --
      Tequila: It's not just for breakfast anymore!
  19. "The Earth is 4.7 billion years old" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    Citation needed????!!!!!

    1. Re:"The Earth is 4.7 billion years old" by toriver · · Score: 5, Funny

      Careful, or I'll get a "[citation needed]" stamp and go all stamp-crazy on your Bible...

    2. Re:"The Earth is 4.7 billion years old" by Idiomatick · · Score: 2, Funny

      He means that earth is really 4.54 billion years old not 4.7... 4.6 is our upper limit estimate (oldest meteorites found).

    3. Re:"The Earth is 4.7 billion years old" by sleeping143 · · Score: 1
    4. Re:"The Earth is 4.7 billion years old" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You be careful, mister! The Bible is its own self-sustaining feedback loop of citations and wild claims, teetering on the verge of becoming a singularity. Should you upset this delicate balance, you'll vanish in a puff of logic.

    5. Re:"The Earth is 4.7 billion years old" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Silly toriver, didn't your 5th grade english teacher ever tell you, "just because you can cite a source doesn't make that citation true." (irony intended)

    6. Re:"The Earth is 4.7 billion years old" by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      That says 4.54, not 4.7...

    7. Re:"The Earth is 4.7 billion years old" by thePowerOfGrayskull · · Score: 1

      Citation needed????!!!!!

      Look at it this way - a year is only man's measurement of time, and need bear no relation to the deific concept of time.

      NOW can't we all just get along?

    8. Re:"The Earth is 4.7 billion years old" by spinkham · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Personally, as a Christian I'd like to see the line that says the earth isn't ~4.5 billion years old, because I can't find it...

      Young Earth Creationism (hence YEC) is a hyper-literalistic reading of the book of Genesis that has been always somewhat rare in Judaism, and not always supported by even those considered mainline Christian fathers.

      For YEC to be true, pretty much everything we think we know about physics, astronomy, cosmology, molecular biology and genomics must be wrong.

      The good news is that YEC is not the only, or even the best reading of Genesis. See this FAQ for a brief overview, this book for a much more complete overview, and this book if you want a really good, in-depth study of the book of Genesis from a conservative scholar. It's a bit dry, and doesn't give you conclusions as much as really dig into the text, but it's highly recommended if you're serious about approaching the issue rigorously.

      I've read many books on the topic, and in my opinion these are the best of the lot. Especially Beyond The Firmament, which is fairly easy read and the best introduction to the issues I've seen.

      Perhaps obviously, these books are geared more towards Christians and showing them how to deal with what we believe is an important book, and not towards convincing others that Christianity and the Bible are true. Except perhaps that they might show that not all Christians are (complete) loonies...

      --
      Blessed are the pessimists, for they have made backups.
    9. Re:"The Earth is 4.7 billion years old" by mangu · · Score: 1

      a hyper-literalistic reading of the book

      Isn't that what they call "phariseism"? It's ironic that those who are most adamant in calling themselves "Christians" follow exactly the line of thought that Jesus decried so much.

    10. Re:"The Earth is 4.7 billion years old" by SleazyRidr · · Score: 1

      The good news is that YEC is not the only, or even the best reading of Genesis. See this FAQ for a brief overview, this book for a much more complete overview, and this book if you want a really good, in-depth study of the book of Genesis from a conservative scholar. It's a bit dry, and doesn't give you conclusions as much as really dig into the text, but it's highly recommended if you're serious about approaching the issue rigorously.

      It's too hard to make sure I read the Bible 'the right way.' I think I'll just stick to these experimental reports.

    11. Re:"The Earth is 4.7 billion years old" by superyooser · · Score: 1

      I decided not to give a hyper-literalistic reading to the text of the above post. Let's try a word.

      "Christian" - In this context, it doesn't make sense that the normal definition of "Christian" could apply. What the author really means to tell us that he is a theist who may evolve into a Christian in ~4.5 billion years.

    12. Re:"The Earth is 4.7 billion years old" by spinkham · · Score: 1

      Unfortunately, you have made the mistake of taking a message out of it's original context and readership.

      We know that Slashdot posts are often about a Beowulf cluster of Natalie Portmans with hot grits down their pants, and these things have not yet come to pass. Therefore, perhaps the text would have been taken as part of the apocalyptic literature genre, giving moral and theological lessons through imagery.

      But somewhat more seriously, before people claim that science is wrong because it disagrees with what someone told them about what Genesis claims, there's a lot of study they should be doing into who Genesis claims to be written for, what the styles of writing were at the time, and how the original hearers would have interpreted the message. Those things can make all the difference in the world.

      --
      Blessed are the pessimists, for they have made backups.
    13. Re:"The Earth is 4.7 billion years old" by spinkham · · Score: 1

      Note I'm not necessarily trying to promote a "correct way" to read the Bible, only pointing out that a particular point of view on Genesis is not the only one possible, no matter how loudly some proclaim that it is. I'm not trying to convince you here as much as trying to bring some rationality to the discussions with other people who do already think that reading the Bible is of some value.

      Trying to convince someone that the Bible is valuable in the first place is much more difficult topic to be sure.

      --
      Blessed are the pessimists, for they have made backups.
    14. Re:"The Earth is 4.7 billion years old" by SleazyRidr · · Score: 1

      Well, I was trying to be flippant about it, but there is only one way to read the findings of a scientific report. Yes, we have people who try their best to read them the wrong way too, but if you go to the original source, you will find the only sensible way to interpret it. Contrast with the Bible, where the original source can misleading and you need to go to secondary sources to determine what it actually meant.

      Second point: how did I manage to get myself into another theological debate? I've been trying to quit.

  20. 100 years is plenty by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    With the rate that technology advances, by the time our supply is used up in 100 years, we (a) will be able to make more by fusing hydrogen, (b) will be able to get more by mining the Sun, or (c) will all be dead.

  21. Re:Running out? by jeffmeden · · Score: 2, Informative

    That would be low-temperature gas liquefaction, of course! What, you want it to be as easy and cheap as finding it buried in the ground? Well, keep dreaming!

  22. Re:Running out? by wjousts · · Score: 1

    Distillation of liquid air.

  23. Re:Running out? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Steel mills (or Iron works?) need oxygen for converters. They are obtaining it by liquifying air. Liquid nitrogen and other gases is just byproduct. In my city small amount is sold to university for low temperature research, the rest is just left alone to boil and evaporate back into atmosphere.

  24. Investment oppourtunity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So if i go out and buy a $20 tank of helium then in 30 years it could be worth $200 or $2000?

    1. Re:Investment oppourtunity by shentino · · Score: 1

      If it gets that valuable then either someone will steal it or you'll be spending a dozen times that amount just in security.

      I'd rather invest it in stocks and bonds in the meantime.

    2. Re:Investment oppourtunity by localman57 · · Score: 1

      Really? I can see it now... Commercials selling gold replaced by Commercials selling tanks of helium... Look for them now during Sean Hannity...

    3. Re:Investment oppourtunity by mangu · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I've got some bad news for you. Helium leaks through solid metal, in 30 years your tank will be empty.

  25. Prices and markets, grrrr.... by Urban+Garlic · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Pet peeve wrt the summary, which quotes Richardson as saying that the price was low because a lot of helium became available, which meant that the "price was not determined by the market."

    But this is what markets do, they use the power of pricing to set the balance between supply and demand. If you introduce a large additional supply of a resource with low marginal cost to a market, the market's price mechanism will reduce the price of that resource. The market will determine a low price.

    The observed behavior wrt the price of Helium is the opposite of "not determined by the market".

    There are enough flame wars around about the merits of markets as a means of determining prices, and IMHO they have their limits, but FFS, can we at least have educated professionals know what a market is and what it does? Markets are pitiless, soulless mechanisms for matching up buyers and sellers of resources, and disclosing price information, period full stop. They have no a priori relationship to fairness, justice, accessibility, or legality, and only a tangential relationship to efficiency.

    --
    2*3*3*3*3*11*251
    1. Re:Prices and markets, grrrr.... by operagost · · Score: 0, Troll

      Maybe if we had economists, instead of socialists, writing articles about markets...

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    2. Re:Prices and markets, grrrr.... by lite99 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      But the market is not some mystically separate domain, it consists of people. People in the market speculate, hide information, spread false rumours, break all available laws, make deals with their friends and associates, and sometimes with them only. How can anyone be so naive to believe that the market finds a fair balance between supply and demand, in this particular case where the number of players is fairly limited? Why would it differ from all other commodities - think about gold. The price fluctuates, but mainly not because of variations in supply and demand... In a sense you are right though, that is how markets are supposed to work. But it is only in theory and far from the reality we live in. We greedy bastards :-/

    3. Re:Prices and markets, grrrr.... by radtea · · Score: 1

      The price fluctuates, but mainly not because of variations in supply and demand...

      Err... the price of gold fluctuates entirely due to supply and demand, mostly demand, and most of that demand is speculative. But speculative demand is still demand, just as government supply in the case of helium is still supply. You don't get to decide what supply or demand is "real": it all is.

      The GP is correct that markets are price-setting mechanisms that match supply and demand, however imperfectly. The problem with markets is not that people are greedy but that they are dishonest. The power of markets comes from greed, the flaws from dishonesty. Strong legal protections and various kinds of open, transparent, comprehensible government regulation are required to deal with people's dishonesty.

      --
      Blasphemy is a human right. Blasphemophobia kills.
    4. Re:Prices and markets, grrrr.... by Goldsmith · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I think you're confused. The price was set in the "Helium Privitization Act of 1996," that's simply a fact and has nothing to do with market forces.

      When the government makes a law which says "we will sell our helium for $1.50 per cubic meter until it is gone" and that supply is 1/3 the global total market for two decades, the "market" has not set the price.

    5. Re:Prices and markets, grrrr.... by BradleyUffner · · Score: 1

      I think you're confused. The price was set in the "Helium Privitization Act of 1996," that's simply a fact and has nothing to do with market forces.

      When the government makes a law which says "we will sell our helium for $1.50 per cubic meter until it is gone" and that supply is 1/3 the global total market for two decades, the "market" has not set the price.

      Why does it matter that the government does it? If i had a supply of helium and decided to sell it for $1.50 per cubic meter, that is my choice to supply helium at that price, others are free to set a lower or higher price on their supply. But suddenly when the government does the same thing its bad? The government participates in "the market" as a supplier, just as much as private individuals do.

    6. Re:Prices and markets, grrrr.... by thePowerOfGrayskull · · Score: 1

      for some reason when the government is the one who releases the product into the market, it's no longer consider market dynamics. It would have been market only if a private entity had released the product.

      Best to not tell them about the other industries the government has also engendered - like tax preparation and high fructose corn syrup.

      Markets exist no matter who the players are...

    7. Re:Prices and markets, grrrr.... by Pahalial · · Score: 2, Informative

      Not quite. He was commenting on the price the Fed was selling its helium at, which was set by legislation and has not changed. While it was approximately 25% higher than market price at the time of the act, it has since acted as a ceiling on the price of helium.

      --
      Stuff.
    8. Re:Prices and markets, grrrr.... by TheLink · · Score: 1

      > The problem with markets is not that people are greedy but that they are dishonest
      > The power of markets comes from greed, the flaws from dishonesty.

      In case you haven't noticed, a fair amount of the dishonesty comes from greed.

      Q) How many free market economists does it take to change a light bulb?
      A) Free market economists don't change light bulbs. They keep writing papers in the dark, and wait for Adam Smith's Invisible Hand to do it.

      --
    9. Re:Prices and markets, grrrr.... by MechaStreisand · · Score: 1

      Haven't you been paying attention? The supply of helium on earth is finite, and helium that we use escapes into space. Once it's gone, it's gone. So if the government dumps it onto the market, they're essentially throwing away a non-renewable resource forever.

      --
      Disclaimer: IANAL. This post is, however, legal advice, and creates an attorney-client relationship.
    10. Re:Prices and markets, grrrr.... by Goldsmith · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Because a government is supported by taxes, backed by a military, not accountable to share holders and has several other special privileges.

      Is this really confusing? A government is not the same as a private individual. This case perfectly demonstrates that. Why does the government have this helium? Did they pay for it, or just claim it? Did they pay for the storage space, or just claim it? Do they pay taxes on its sale? These are not hard things to think of.

    11. Re:Prices and markets, grrrr.... by QuantumRiff · · Score: 1

      Why not? if Bobby-Joe's Helium Inc. started selling Helium at $1.25 per cubic meter, people would flock to it. If they could sustain production at that price, wouldn't that become the market price?

      --

      What are we going to do tonight Brain?
    12. Re:Prices and markets, grrrr.... by gerwalk · · Score: 1

      I'm looking at the text of the law at the Bureau of Land Management web site: PDF and I'm not seeing anything about a set price. There's a section about the Secretary of the Interior being able to set a price to recoup costs.

      The USGS site here has PDFs of the prices. Looks like it started ~$1.70/m^3 in 1998 and has risen to ~$2.15/m^3.

      If what the article stated is correct (DoI instructed to sell helium at a constant rate until it was done) then they'd be dumping the He on the market, depressing the price, and altering the market.

      Can anyone comment more knowlegeably? Especially as to WHO is buying all that He?

    13. Re:Prices and markets, grrrr.... by Sancho · · Score: 1

      Haven't you been paying attention? The supply of helium on earth is finite, and helium that we use escapes into space. Once it's gone, it's gone. So if the any entity dumps it onto the market, they're essentially throwing away a non-renewable resource forever.

      Fix that for you. So why does it matter that it's the government, again?

      What's happening here is that there is a store of He the extraction/storage of which has already been paid for, and which is not intended to be restocked. Usually when something like that happens, it goes for a bargain rate.

    14. Re:Prices and markets, grrrr.... by MechaStreisand · · Score: 1

      Are you that dense? A private entity generally cares about profit, and wouldn't generally sell something for less than they can get for it (and I know that there are occasional exceptions). A government, on the other hand, takes money by force, is backed by police and military, and doesn't need to make a profit, so in this case where they are dumping helium below value, there is nothing to stop them from destroying it all. A government and a private entity aren't even close to comparable.

      It may be your username, but you are not Sancho.

      --
      Disclaimer: IANAL. This post is, however, legal advice, and creates an attorney-client relationship.
    15. Re:Prices and markets, grrrr.... by BradleyUffner · · Score: 1

      not accountable to share holders

      Ever hear of elections?

      Why does the government have this helium?

      The article explains this one, so im not going in to it other than to say "Blimps".

      Did they pay for it, or just claim it? Did they pay for the storage space, or just claim it?

      Yes, and Yes... see here http://www.helium.com/items/874929-understanding-the-helium-privitization-act-of-1996

      Do they pay taxes on its sale?

      why would the government pay taxes to it's self?

    16. Re:Prices and markets, grrrr.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's a little silly to just declare that the government isn't a market participant. The fact is, in response to market conditions and their own financial situation, the holder of an asset decided to begin selling that asset. That is a market decision regardless of the manner by which it was executed.

  26. What's the problem? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What's the problem? When you're broke, you'll hock your stuff for less than it's worth down a pawnbrokers.

    The US is broke.

    If you didn't sell the Helium, the US debt would go up and interest rates on the credit loaned would increase. So if you waited 15 years for the market to rise, you'd be 15 years of debt further under.

    And as for the "it's being used in 100 years" bit, unless we're using the earth's reserves in ~4.7billion years, then the helium WILL run out because we'd be taking it out faster than it can be replenished.

  27. Re:Running out? by Ephemeriis · · Score: 1

    Doesn't most of it just get released back into the atmosphere? Sure, it's not contained underground or anything, but it's not REALLY "disappearing", exactly.

    If I recall correctly, it is actually disappearing. I believe I read once upon a time that helium is actually bleeding out of our atmosphere. Once it's gone, it's gone.

    --
    "Work is the curse of the drinking classes." -Oscar Wilde
  28. Re:Running out? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Not only that. It was a strategic reserve for something we do not USE, blimps. Yes blimps. It was created so the USAF and Army would have a place to get helium for blimps. What both of those forces quickly realized is blimps are sitting air targets with any sort of SAM.

    What most of these guys are seeing is a end to the mega cheap way of getting helium and are thinking it will cost them 25% or more to get. They want the Gov to get back into the field of getting them cheap helium.

    Helium still has its place in the national defense. However, does it really need such a large operation to do so at this point in time?

    When the strategic reserve was made it made sense to build. Not so much anymore.

    It had, and is, creating a crazy depression in the market of what helium is worth with tax payers eating the cost. After 2015 when it is scheduled to run out you will see things like party balloons go way up in price. As that will be the comodities market over reacting. Then it will under bounce then wavy back and forth until we end up with a stable price.

    Does having cheap helium today help with things? Yes. Long term however it is not tax payer sustainable. In this case it is not a matter of building infrastructure to help everyone. It is providing a small group a cheap good. They can bear the burden of the cost as they also get all the reward...

  29. Does not compute... by frank_adrian314159 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    In 1996, the US Congress decided to sell off the strategic reserve and the consequence was that the market was swelled with cheap helium because its price was not determined by the market.

    Uh, what? If the helium was sold and not given away, bled into the atmosphere, or some other odd thing done to it, the price was determined by the market. You may question the wisdom of putting it all on the market at the same time and getting a lower price for it than if you doled it out bit-by-bit, but I think the market did fine in determining the price in a glutted market.

    This is the problem when you get experts in one field (in this case physics) talking about things in other fields, like economics - quite often, they are no better informed then any other layman. If the government buys and/or sells something on the open market, it's part of the market, umkayyy? And you don't need to be a Nobel Laureate to understand this. The fact that this was wrapped up in a nasty little bit of anti-government sentiment makes it clear that Richardson was more interested in scoring political points than enlightening the public.

    --
    That is all.
    1. Re:Does not compute... by Volante3192 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Gold is currently going for $1225 US / oz according to NYMEX.

      If someone decided to dump pounds of gold for $600 US / oz, would that be considered 'market value'?

    2. Re:Does not compute... by BradleyUffner · · Score: 1

      If someone decided to dump pounds of gold for $600 US / oz, would that be considered 'market value'?

      If i had a huge reserve of it, and i decided to sell it, then yes. it could be fair market value. By deciding to sell my reserve i have increased the supply, if demand hasn't changed, and supply increases, the the result is a lower price.

    3. Re:Does not compute... by IndustrialComplex · · Score: 1

      Gold is currently going for $1225 US / oz according to NYMEX.

      If someone decided to dump pounds of gold for $600 US / oz, would that be considered 'market value'?

      Depends on how much gold they have. It's possible that someone dumping a large amount of gold on the market could drive the 'value' to LESS than $600/oz as other people panic and try to get as much out of their investment before it falls too low for them to realize a profit. If everyone bought in at $500/oz, you might not see much movement, but for those who bought in at $900-1100/oz? You might see some panic responses.

      I have some land that's valued at around $1000/acre. If the farm next to me folds, and needs to cash out their property, they could EASILY sell for $700/acre and sell their 6,000 acres (it's been in their family for 120 years, so to them, it's pure profit). Do you think my 30 acres would still sell for $1000/acre after that sale? My land may have had a market value of $1000/acre before, but the market value after that sale would certainly not be $1000/acre.

      The market value is really whatever a seller is willing to accept as a minimum price point at any given time.

      --
      Out of modpoints but really liked a post? 1BDkF6TtmmeZ3yqXbz9yhdYVqRYnwFoXDj
    4. Re:Does not compute... by Volante3192 · · Score: 1

      But it could also be considered dumping, which is not looked fondly on by certain groups.

      (Plus the price of helium was set by Congressional law, so the price is static and immune to market shifts.)

      I suppose on a purely technical level, even one person can be considered a 'market' but this price was not set by NYMEX or any other traditional market exchange, so to say 'the market' set this price is at the least misleading.

    5. Re:Does not compute... by Urban+Garlic · · Score: 1

      > Gold is currently going for $1225 US / oz according to NYMEX.
      > If someone decided to dump pounds of gold for $600 US / oz, would that be considered 'market value'?

      Yes.

      If I then want to buy some gold, and I go to the market to do it, I will find that I can get it for $600 US/oz. If someone else wants to sell some of their gold on the same market, they will find that if they ask more than $600 US/oz for it, there will be no buyers, and if they reduce their price to $600 US/oz, they will find buyers.

      This state of affairs will presumbly be temporary, until your hypothetical actor runs out of gold, after which the price will start to rise (from $600) again.

      Markets can be manipulated by holders of significant amounts of resources.

      --
      2*3*3*3*3*11*251
    6. Re:Does not compute... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Technically no it would not. If they dumped enough gold that the market price was only 600$, then yes. If the marginal cost of producing the helium is equal to the marginal benefit of they receive from selling it. Economics would consider that an efficient market. The article seems to be hinting at the marginal cost being higher then the marginal benefit. (ie not an efficient market)

    7. Re:Does not compute... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yep, it sure would.

      Right up until the person selling his gold for $600 / oz sold out.

      Then market price would be at the next lowest price that someone was willing to sell their gold.

    8. Re:Does not compute... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes. That's how the market works. Someone has something, they have a price they want to sell it at. If they can sell it, then that's market value for the period of time that they are selling. If they can't then market value is probably somewhere below they price they are trying to sell at.

    9. Re:Does not compute... by Confusador · · Score: 1

      Yes. And anyone else who wanted to unload gold would have to sell at the lower prices until the increased supply was exhausted.

    10. Re:Does not compute... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If they sold enough of it, yes, that would become the new market price. If not, the new market price is the average price between their lumps of gold at $600 + however many you got for $1225 / oz.

    11. Re:Does not compute... by Chowderbags · · Score: 1

      They'd be what's commonly referred to as a "sucker". But to answer your question, I doubt that gold is really "worth" US$1225 /oz. The market on that has been driven up by fears, speculation, self-fulfilling projections, and a lot of advertising to people who think that gold has never lost value (didn't people say that about houses?). But back in reality, gold has a few uses (in some electronics and the like), but for the most part it's just a shiny somewhat rare metal.

    12. Re:Does not compute... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      It was sold at a mandated fixed price. Dumbass.

    13. Re:Does not compute... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Does any of what you said change the fact that the system in place is set to get rid of a huge amount of an extremely non-renewable resource in a matter of a few years? The bottom line is that the policy for dealing with the helium has to change so that it isn't just wasted on party balloons.

    14. Re:Does not compute... by Sancho · · Score: 1

      Of course, the primary advantage of gold is that it's rare. For all intents and purposes, there's a finite supply, though there is still gold in the ground which we haven't gotten to yet (so the usable supply can increase finitely.) They can print paper money pretty infinitely, which honestly makes it unsuitable for savings and investment if you want real stability. Of course, all that's in theory. In practice, the price of gold has been dropping since a peak in the early eighties.

      For its practical uses, gold should not be at the price that it's at. But it's the longest-standing investment strategy in human history, and I guess that counts for something.

    15. Re:Does not compute... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's the semantics... the price was set within the market -- it was not set by the market rules of supply and demand. The problem is that when most people hear "price was set by the market" they don't think about what the market really is -- they think "by the rules of a free market economy".

      So,, in essence, you're both right and you're both wrong. "The Market" never sets the price; actors on the marketplace set them, and then either survive or don't. In this case, the seller was not impacted by market dynamics (they could have given the product away until it was all gone, and they could keep on operating), but they are, at this point, almost the entire seller portion of the helium market. They provide the product, and they set the price at a fixed rate. The only way they cease to be a part of the market is if buyers are unwilling to purchase at that price.

  30. $100 per balloon! by rmrfstar · · Score: 1
    Right at the end, the number I was looking for:

    Professor Richardson also believes that party balloons filled with helium are too cheap, and they should really cost about $100 to reflect the precious nature of the gas they contain.

    That will be the day all the party stores start selling their Helium reserves to NASA.

    1. Re:$100 per balloon! by Beyond_GoodandEvil · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      Right at the end, the number I was looking for: Professor Richardson also believes that party balloons filled with helium are too cheap, and they should really cost about $100 to reflect the precious nature of the gas they contain. That will be the day all the party stores start selling their Helium reserves to NASA.
      Anybody else get the impression the good professor will start talking about precious bodily fluids next?

      --
      I laughed at the weak who considered themselves good because they lacked claws.
  31. Re:Running out? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    Then your point was what, exactly? Simple pedantry?

  32. Re:Running out? by Mikkeles · · Score: 2, Informative

    Hydrogen and helium are light enough so that they will fairly easily escape from the earth.

    --
    Great minds think alike; fools seldom differ.
  33. "Matter isn't created nor destroyed" by BobMcD · · Score: 0

    "Matter isn't created nor destroyed"... so can't we just collect it back up somehow?

    "Once helium is released into the atmosphere in the form of party balloons or boiling helium it is lost to the Earth forever, lost to the Earth forever," he emphasised.

    No mention of why this would be the case. I thought that all that Carbon we were releasing was staying up there, so why not all that Helium?

    1. Re:"Matter isn't created nor destroyed" by djp928 · · Score: 2, Informative

      Helium is lighter than all the other gasses in our atmosphere. So it floats to the top and is eventually lost. The Earth isn't big enough to gravitationally keep any atmospheric helium, so it all eventually disappears into space.

       

    2. Re:"Matter isn't created nor destroyed" by clgoh · · Score: 1

      It's because helium is so light that it leaks out of the atmosphere.

    3. Re:"Matter isn't created nor destroyed" by Sockatume · · Score: 3, Informative

      We're steadily losing our atmosphere to space by a process rather like conventional thermal evaporation, and we're losing helium far, far quicker than anything else because of its low mass and subborn refusal to form heavy compounds.

      --
      No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
    4. Re:"Matter isn't created nor destroyed" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I thought that all that Carbon we were releasing was staying up there, so why not all that Helium?

      Because Helium is 3 times lighter than carbon, and as previously mentioned, is light enough to escape into space

    5. Re:"Matter isn't created nor destroyed" by Arrepiadd · · Score: 1

      Helium is lighter so, just like hydrogen, it can escape the gravity of the planet. Carbon dioxide is heavy enough to stay around.

      Even if you forget that "minor" detail, extracting Helium from air is expensive (Just to give a back of the envelope example, to extract water out of air you just need to cool it down below freezing point. If the same principle is applied to extract He then you are in need of a lot of cooling [it's not how it's actually done, but it gives an idea].) At this point it's just not commercially viable to do so (and go back to first paragraph to see why it might not be later on either).

    6. Re:"Matter isn't created nor destroyed" by vlm · · Score: 1

      so it all eventually disappears into space.

      For a large enough value of "eventually", correct. It runs about 5.2 ppm of our atmosphere.

      We will never "run out" of helium because it'll always be possible, at great expense, to remove it from the atmosphere.

      Around "sun becomes a red giant" time, it'll have dropped a couple ppm but still be some there.

      We could easily "run out" of cheap helium for $1 balloons. Yes that could happen. But MRI superconductor magnets, spacecraft propellant tank pressurization systems, etc are pretty much assured a lifetime supply.

      Wikipedia claims gold can be economically extracted from ores around half a ppm. Yes I'm well aware of the refining process difference between solid gold ore and helium gas. My point is helium will always be commercially available at "precious gas" prices, maybe an ounce of helium might trade at a small multiple of the cost of an ounce of gold. Plenty cheap for NASA, military, and scientists, not so good for kids birthday balloons.

      --
      "Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
    7. Re:"Matter isn't created nor destroyed" by Rich0 · · Score: 1

      What is the difference between a helium balloon, and one full of your own hot air? Ponder this, and perhaps the answer will become apparent...

    8. Re:"Matter isn't created nor destroyed" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Helium are light enough that the velocity of individual atoms of helium in the upper atmosphere can approach escape velocity at normal temperatures. All it takes is a little kick from the solar wind and it is lost to interplanetary space forever. The problem is that helium (unlike molecular hydrogen, which also suffers the same problem) is non-reactive, so it doesn't bond into larger structures (which would result in a lower mean velocity).

      The helium that we have on Earth was generated by alpha decay in the center of the Earth. Over the last 4 billion years some of those alpha particles got captured by the Earth's crust, where it formed deposits, the most accessible of which coincide with oilfields. Once those deposits are gone, the nearest source of readily available helium will be the atmosphere of Jupiter (whose gravity is large enough to trap the gas).

      If you ask me, you should need a permit to use helium, and any use that allows the valuable gas to be released or boil off should be made illegal (and grandfathered usages by industry phased out).

      Source: I work for NASA.

    9. Re:"Matter isn't created nor destroyed" by nedlohs · · Score: 1

      Please look at a periodic table.

      Now consider what the atmosphere is made of and the mass of CO2 and He compared with it. It should be clear it will end up at the "top" so to speak.

      Then consider the temperature at any point is reasonably constant - the O2 isn't hotter than the CO2, for example. And that temperature is a measure of the kinetic energy of the molecules that make up the gas. KE = 1/2 mv^2, since He has less mass it must have a higher velocity that the heavier gas molecules. Do some number crunching and you'll see that a pretty sizable chunk of the He atoms (by the maxwell distribution which applies in this case) will be moving above escape velocity. Hence some of them don't collide with other atoms/molecules and escape into space.

      H2 is even lighter, but unlike He it reacts with just about everything and hence gets trapped out of the atmosphere (as the oceans, for example) and in heavier molecules in the atmosphere so we aren't going to too much of it...

    10. Re:"Matter isn't created nor destroyed" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We're steadily losing our atmosphere to space...

      Thank goodness all the gas coming from the core is replenishing it. Too bad the oceans can't filter it as good as it used to, since we "deforested" them so thoroughly over the last 300 years

    11. Re:"Matter isn't created nor destroyed" by imsabbel · · Score: 1

      And of course not so good for your MRI machine, which will need a 50 million$ refill every year...

      --
      HI O WISE PRINCE. WHT TOOK U SO DAM LONG?
  34. I'll blame it on the typical BS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...say some aspect of the government is fucked up, or being run poorly, force it to be sold to private interests. Let them run it like crap, screw the public, force the government to come back and take things over again.

    Yay!

    When it comes to most people's problems, they don't even see what they desire isn't going to happen just because they believe in their fairy dreams and bubblegum wishes. Yet they will slash and burn with the sincere delusion that it will.

    It's stupid, it's short-sighted, it's ultimately more wasteful...but they manage to get the populace behind them, because most people are just as stupid.

    1. Re:I'll blame it on the typical BS by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      Some people complain just so they can come out and say, "I told you so." This is a good thing, because people stop and examine the complaint and go, "Huh, maybe. What if?"

    2. Re:I'll blame it on the typical BS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, they don't examine the complaint. They either reject it out of hand because "Nothing could ever go wrong" or go for it whole hog because "It's a danger to the whole world!" even when it's not.

      True story there.

  35. Antropologists with Tape Recorders by Selfunfocused · · Score: 1

    I suggest we start a project dedicated to collecting the sounds of helium squeaked languages around the world. We can't allow this beautiful example of the diversity of human experience to be lost forever. Plus, it sounds funny.

    1. Re:Antropologists with Tape Recorders by PipsqueakOnAP133 · · Score: 1

      I heard Google did it already. It's called "yuu tuubue" or something like that.

  36. In the name of deficit reduction? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And what impact, if any, has this had on the deficit??? Looks like its still climbing pretty steadily to me. This is the primary problem with our government. They take out "loans" essentially from the federal reserve to create these programs, promising billions of dollars to something or other. And we all know a large portion of that is wasted. Then they sell of some resource like this with the promise that it will mitigate some of this absurdity, but none of that money ever makes it to its destination either. Seriously, where the hell is all this money going?

  37. Why isn't the market saving us?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If the government was selling it "too cheap" then surely at least one company would come along and buy up this "cheap" helium and resell it at the "right" price!

    1. Re:Why isn't the market saving us?! by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      No, because they would be outsold by the government. If the government decides to sell you Coca-Cola at 15 cents a can, and everyone else sells it at 45 cents a can, what happens? The government pays Coca-Cola Corp. 45 cents per can, eats 30 cents with taxpayer money, and retailers buy Coca-Cola at 15 cents a can from the government. It will probably make it to the consumer pretty expensive anyway, maybe 40 cents a can instead of $1 a can.

      Now when Pepsi comes along with Pepsi Cola at 35 cents a can (they can make it cheaper than Coke, about 30 cents a can and digging for 5 cents profit margin), nobody is going to buy it! At 40 cents a can, the retailers would make 5 cents instead of 25 cents; at 60 cents a can, the consumer is going to buy Coca-Cola instead. Pepsi can't reduce the price, as they'd be operating at a loss.

  38. Market will work eventually by Arrepiadd · · Score: 1

    Helium is essential for keeping most of superconducting stuff at superconducting temperatures. Current NMR machines, for instance, all depend on He for maintaining their magnets and the market for these is slightly bigger than the market for Large Hadron Colliders.
    So, if the He availability really goes down, prices will go up in the typical "supply vs demand" effect and people will stop using it for such important tasks as keeping children and girlfriends happy with princess and heart shaped balloons.

    (On a side note, there should be enough alpha-decay radioactivity out there to prevent "panic" when this starts really depleting. And if it becomes scarcer, people will take measures to recycle/reuse it, rather than just letting it go to the atmosphere, and other countries (Poland is also "rich" on He) will make sure they don't waste their "gaseous gold".)

  39. One generation does not have the right, eh? by xiando · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "One generation does not have the right to determine availability for ever.", eh? Helium, eh? Let us all form a circle and talk about how we should all help save the helium for our grandchildren and ignore that we already used up more than half the oil, plutonium and other important energy sources. And copper. And we are killing off a whole range of biological diversity. But let us all ignore that and talk about the helium.

    1. Re:One generation does not have the right, eh? by King_TJ · · Score: 1

      No kidding.... but additionally, let's arrogantly assume that today's technology determines what materials and the quantities needed for all future generations to thrive!

      IMHO, nature is all about evolving. Entire species die off over time, and others change over enough time. Why can't we humans accept that this is actually NORMAL, and just use whatever resources benefit us at the present time? If/when we run out of oil, for example, fine ... Humans are equipped with brains, allowing us to come up with NEW ways to power things that don't require oil, or alternately, ways to synthesize oil from other materials. It's a basic law of physics that matter is neither created, nor destroyed -- just converted from one thing into another. There will always be some sorts of "raw materials" around to work with, if we just figure out effective ways to use/convert whatever makes the most sense at a given point in our history.

    2. Re:One generation does not have the right, eh? by PerfectionLost · · Score: 1

      Yes, let's talk about helium while inhaling helium. The ultimate in excess living.

    3. Re:One generation does not have the right, eh? by Wyatt+Earp · · Score: 1

      Umm, we make Plutonium, while a little bit exists in nature, almost all that has ever existed was made.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plutonium

    4. Re:One generation does not have the right, eh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There's a difference, though: burned fossil fuels stay in the global carbon cycle. As bad as we'd want them to disappear, they're turned [mostly] into water and atmospheric CO2 and will one day become fossil fuels again. On the contrary, once extracted from underground reservoirs and released into the atmosphere, helium bleeds to space because it's so light that Earth's gravity isn't enough to retain it.

    5. Re:One generation does not have the right, eh? by TeknoHog · · Score: 1

      You are mostly right, but copper isn't going anywhere from the face of Earth. You can still mine it from the great dumpster continuum, while helium is actually disappearing from the atmosphere into space.

      --
      Escher was the first MC and Giger invented the HR department.
    6. Re:One generation does not have the right, eh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The world has mined less than 10% of the world's copper. Stop talking out your ass.

    7. Re:One generation does not have the right, eh? by Marcika · · Score: 2, Informative

      "One generation does not have the right to determine availability for ever.", eh? Helium, eh? Let us all form a circle and talk about how we should all help save the helium for our grandchildren and ignore that we already used up more than half the oil, plutonium and other important energy sources. And copper. And we are killing off a whole range of biological diversity. But let us all ignore that and talk about the helium.

      The difference: compared to helium, even oil is a renewable resource. Oil can be made reasonably cheaply (maybe $200/bbl) from air, water and sunshine, as any rapeseed or olive farmer could demonstrate. Copper is not "used up", it's merely dug up in one place and buried somewhere else in form of cables. Helium is different: once the cheap stuff from rock fissures is gone, it can never be retrieved again. Then you can only create it by super-expensive fusion processes, which makes it 4, 5 or even 10 orders of magnitude more expensive...

    8. Re:One generation does not have the right, eh? by mr+exploiter · · Score: 1

      "One generation does not have the right to determine availability for ever.", eh? Helium, eh? Let us all form a circle and talk about how we should all help save the helium for our grandchildren and ignore that we already used up more than half the oil, plutonium and other important energy sources. And copper. And we are killing off a whole range of biological diversity. But let us all ignore that and talk about the helium.

      Ok lets talk, those resources are going to disappear anyway, so I say, lets use them ourselves instead of leaving for future generations, after all we don't know them and they are not our friends.

    9. Re:One generation does not have the right, eh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We've used up far more than half the Plutonium. Which is ok, since we made all of what we have to begin with. Plutonium is basically non-existent in terms of what is found naturally occurring on earth.

      There's also more than half the oil left, too. It's just expensive to get at. At least there are, in general cases, replacements for oil. Helium, on the other hand, is quite expensive to create, is not replaceable in many areas of use, and is gone *forever* once it's released in to the atmosphere. We have no way of capturing it that doesn't take more than we gain from trying. At least most of the other materials can be recycled and reclaimed (copper, for example) with a modicum of effort.

    10. Re:One generation does not have the right, eh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Right! Let's never talk about anything unless we talk about everything else. Especially everything else that is important to me! Oh, and xiando. Everything, and especially everything important to me and xiando.

      So no talking about what Paris Hilton is up to these days unless you are also going to talk about Kim Kardashian and Lindsey Lohan. Oh, and those new vanilla Oreos - those are awesome.. Oooh, and you can't talk about Oreos without talking about snickers, Ben and Jerry's Cherry Garcia, and Pringles. And no talking about snacks unless you are prepared to discuss vegetables. And bread and pasta!

      This post is by Shampoo. xiando is Pants!

    11. Re:One generation does not have the right, eh? by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 1

      ignore that we already used up more than half the oil, plutonium

      Umm, plutonium is something we make. Out of U-238, mostly. And we certainly haven't used half the U-238 on the planet....

      Also, am I correct in assuming that since you know we've used more than half the oil in the world that you know about ALL the oil supplies in the world, including the (i had thought) undiscovered ones? If so, got any advice on a good place to buy land with mineral rights?

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    12. Re:One generation does not have the right, eh? by Rob_Bryerton · · Score: 1

      And we are killing off a whole range of biological diversity.

      > 99% of all species that have existed on this planet are now extinct. Do you actually have a point, or just engaging in hyperbole? (Hint: I know the answer)

    13. Re:One generation does not have the right, eh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's such obviously specious reasoning that anyone but the most daft of cretins can see through it. Yeah, 99% of all species that have ever lived are extinct, and that has a bearing on the impact of CURRENT biodiversity loss HOW? Get an education in ecology you fucking twit.

    14. Re:One generation does not have the right, eh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Who said to ignore those things? We can work on them all at once.

    15. Re:One generation does not have the right, eh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      nitpick

      plutonium is an artificial element. its made from uranium
      and we are not anywhere remotely close to using uranium and its relative thorium up

    16. Re:One generation does not have the right, eh? by sFurbo · · Score: 1

      Or you could extract it from the atmosphere, by cooling until everything else is condensed. It will still be more expensive than getting it form natural gas*, but not that much more expensive.

      Unless you are considering a time scale in which it can escape the earth's gravity well, but in that case, we have more pressing problems.

      * From the numbers a quick google came up with, there seems to be about 2000 times more He in He-rich natural gas than in the atmosphere, but that is not all that determines the prices.

    17. Re:One generation does not have the right, eh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Q: How can you recognize an environmentalist?

      A: They're spouting complete nonscientific nonsense without ever checking the facts, and if you ask them to they'll go into a rage about how you don't want to save the planet

  40. Re:Running out? by Zocalo · · Score: 1

    True, but that's splitting hairs. Here we are clearly talking about "running out" in the context of not having it available for our use in some manner and not gone forever. Until we can extract the helium we have used and released into the atmosphere and oceans for reuse, or utilize some other source (the moon?), then the quantity available for our use is indeed running out.

    --
    UNIX? They're not even circumcised! Savages!
  41. Short-term memories. by Mostly+Harmless · · Score: 2, Informative

    How often do we need to repeat the same story?

    --
    "`Ford, you're turning into a penguin. Stop it.'" -Douglas Adams, THHGTTG
  42. Re:I have an idea by shentino · · Score: 1

    Sadly, their constituents would never go for it. Neither would their lobbyists.

    Other than that it's an excellent idea.

    It's a real shame that it would be political suicide to even suggest this.

  43. Re:Running out? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    But think of the children!

  44. Re:Running out? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    I was thinking the exact same thing - it's not like we're feeding it all into a fusion plant and leaving none for later generations, they just might have to expend the energy to recapture and re-purify it.

    Recapture it from SPACE, you ignorant tool.

  45. Re:Running out? by Ice+Tiger · · Score: 4, Informative

    The gas is light enough to escape into space, once released into the atmosphere it is gone forever.

    --
    "Because we are not employing at entry level, offshoring will kill our industry stone dead."
  46. A serious impact on science and medicine by students · · Score: 0

    This topic is complex and much discussed among low temperature and high energy scientists, who need liquid helium to cool their experiments. Unfortunately a large portion of helium usage is waste, such as deliberate dumping by natural gas companies who do not think the helium market (tiny compared to the natural gas market) is worth their time, or welders who still use helium when argon is cheaper.

    In my lab, the liquid helium is the primary cost of doing experiments. We spend around $100 for each four-hour experimental session. It is by far our biggest expense. We try to recover as much as possible, but we only get a small refund for returned gas. So, please don't use helium where it is not needed; you are limiting our science, and you may be limiting your own access to medical technologies such as MRI in the future.

    1. Re:A serious impact on science and medicine by vlm · · Score: 1

      In my lab, the liquid helium is the primary cost of doing experiments. We spend around $100 for each four-hour experimental session. It is by far our biggest expense.

      You have total labor costs are "by far" below $25/hr total for the whole team including benefits? You guys making McDonalds shakes aerated with helium? I'm just saying that even liability insurance for dealing with liq He is probably more expensive than the He itself.

      Adding a little to the discussion liq He costs about $4 to $10 per liter in modest bulk delivered, so "students" is losing at least a couple liters per hour. Not enough to make them speak funny or asphyxiate them. Note that in a miracle of modern technology it only takes about a kWh of energy to liquify a liter of He so its not energy limited like say, heavy water, or U/Pu isotopes.

      --
      "Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
    2. Re:A serious impact on science and medicine by fritsd · · Score: 1
      This discussion is about liquid helium (b.p. 4 K, -269 gr. C). Are you sure you're not confusing it with liquid nitrogen (b.p. 77 K, -196 gr. C)? Liquid nitrogen is much easier to make, and can be stored for a short period in a Dewar bucket (basically a thermos but with an evacuated glass wall), but for liquid helium you need a so-called cryostat to make it, and the only storage of it I've ever seen was an NMR machine taking up most of a room (like this picture).
      A short google brought me this:liquid helium tanks

      "These cryostats comprise an internal casing for storing liquid helium between 1.6 K and 4 K, multi-layer vacuum insulation (MLI) and an external casing subject to the external environment. Heat screens can be added to increase cryostat performance thereby ensuring that the Helium is kept at low temperature for several years in orbit."

      OK, it's for space use, but this doesn't sound like it would cost $4 to $10 per liter?

      --
      To be, or not to be: isn't that quite logical, Slashdot Beta?
    3. Re:A serious impact on science and medicine by students · · Score: 1

      You do not know how science funding works in America. My salary is partly paid by a wealthy private donor and partly paid by the government. My boss is paid by the university (he does not actually participate in the experiment). Since politicians want to provide skilled workers for their corporate sponsors, and politicians subscribe to the theory that having smarter workers will compensate for the fact that our workers expect to be paid more than those in China, they provide lots of money for people to have salaries to work in labs on the thinking that it prepares them to work in industry or to teach people to work in industry. However, nobody will give us money to buy equipment or liquid helium, so I am forced to spend vast sums of salary money to save only somewhat less vast sums on the cost of helium. My boss can't just lay of some of his staff and use the money to buy more helium; the government won't let him divert the money.

      I hear in Europe it is the other way around; the government will buy equipment for labs but they have no staff to use it. This probably has something to do with why high energy physicists are always flying off to CERN.

      I didn't even mention that sometimes we cannot get liquid helium at all when we want it.

      As you said, energy used for liquefaction has little to do with the cost of helium. Liquefiers are expensive to buy. We are fortunate to have enough helium users that the capital expense of a liquefier has been overcome. I think we also indirectly pay the person who runs the liquefier's salary, since that is not the sort of thing the government will pay for. Some of what we return to the liquefier is lost before it can be resold.

  47. Re:Running out? by hesiod · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Yeah, I looked back at the summary and realized my statement was not really useful.

  48. Re:I have an idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And then you'll learn that having a budget surplus doesn't magically make recessions and unemployment go away. You'd have a budget surplus, though, for all the good it'd do you.

  49. We need to run out of helium on Earth immediately by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Because the crust of the moon is full of the stuff, and this would provide an economic incentive to go there and stay.

  50. Re:Running out? by bhagwad · · Score: 1

    But aren't we doing the same thing with fossil fuels? 500 years from now there will be none left...

  51. Blimps vs. 747s, a good reason to keep helium. by EWAdams · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Your basic blimp uses as much fuel in a WEEK of operations as a 747 uses taxiing from the gate to the runway. We need to get people out of these wasteful planes and into a more efficient (and comfortable) form of air transport.

    --
    I piss off bigots.
    1. Re:Blimps vs. 747s, a good reason to keep helium. by Wyatt+Earp · · Score: 1

      And how much cargo can a blimp carry from Japan to Alaska? How many people can it carry from Sydney to LA?

    2. Re:Blimps vs. 747s, a good reason to keep helium. by Arlet · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Your basic blimp is also slow, can't carry much weight, and can't deal with storms very well.

    3. Re:Blimps vs. 747s, a good reason to keep helium. by BBTaeKwonDo · · Score: 1

      Blimps are not a substitute for planes. I don't fly very often (maybe twice a year) but when I do fly, it's because I need to get somewhere faster than the 60 mph speed of a blimp.

    4. Re:Blimps vs. 747s, a good reason to keep helium. by Just_Say_Duhhh · · Score: 2, Funny

      So, since when are Amish encouraged to post on /.?

      Your blimp might be fuel efficient, but going from Los Angeles to Sydney at the mind-numbing speed of 45 MPH doesn't appeal to everyone.

      I'm also guessing you want us to give up those wasteful automobiles, because your horse-drawn carriage uses less fuel, provides you with a cheap source of fertilizer, and is oh-so-comfortable?

      --
      I need trepanation like I need a hole in the head.
    5. Re:Blimps vs. 747s, a good reason to keep helium. by Volante3192 · · Score: 1

      Clearly someone hasn't seen how fuel efficient airplanes, especially the 747, are.
      Some points to keep in mind comparing a blimp to a 747:

      Weight of cargo. Number of passengers. Speed of travel.

      When you can carry 50 tons of cargo halfway around the world in 15 hours in a BLIMP, get back to us.

    6. Re:Blimps vs. 747s, a good reason to keep helium. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A blimp is hardly interchangeable with a 747. It flies around 20-30 times slower which makes it pretty useless for anything planes normally do.

    7. Re:Blimps vs. 747s, a good reason to keep helium. by darkwing_bmf · · Score: 1

      Good post. We currently have cargo "lighter than air" airships in research and development. One of the first places where it might be used is carrying massive objects (oil rigs and such) to the arctic regions where it is difficult for ships and planes to get to. http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/jun/30/blimps-aircraft-freight

    8. Re:Blimps vs. 747s, a good reason to keep helium. by ceejayoz · · Score: 1

      And how much food, water, additional living space, waste storage, etc. does it need for the now-lengthy journey?

    9. Re:Blimps vs. 747s, a good reason to keep helium. by Palshife · · Score: 2, Funny

      Good analogy! "Your basic blimp" vs. a 747 is clearly an apples-to-apples comparison!

      --
      Attention deficit disorder is a complicated issue, spanning several major... HEY LET'S GO RIDE BIKES!
    10. Re:Blimps vs. 747s, a good reason to keep helium. by Fallingcow · · Score: 1

      You know how I know you haven't watched Archer?

    11. Re:Blimps vs. 747s, a good reason to keep helium. by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The Hindenburg had 36 passengers and 61 crew, so 97 passenger load total. 10 crew should be enough (Pilot, Copilot, Backup Navigator, Mechanic, Mechanic, Stewardess, 4 more) on a modern blimp, so 87. "Airship" seems to me an apt term, since these travel at around 80mph or so with a passenger load of maybe 100.

      Although the throughput's lower, this should supply ample cargo load capacity for continuous supply line: taking out the passenger amenities (seats!), a cargo bay has higher capacity by weight due to having less heavy shit like 80 10kg chairs (800kg). Plus nobody says a barrel of oil needs to reach the US coast from Africa in 1 day; just send 10 barrels every day, and after a month you have a continuous 10 barrel per day supply line even though it takes a month for barrel X to get from one continent to another. We could say the same for uncut diamonds, ore, grain, nuts, wood, bottles of Evian, toys, video games, computer software (okay screw that, press CDs locally), etc. Perishables and small shipments need jet craft.

    12. Re:Blimps vs. 747s, a good reason to keep helium. by MartinSchou · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Your basic blimp uses as much fuel in a WEEK of operations as a 747 uses taxiing from the gate to the runway.

      Yes. And just how much stuff can you move with that particular amount of fuel?
      In what time frame?
      What would be the total cost of that journey?
      And what could you move with a 747 in that time period?

    13. Re:Blimps vs. 747s, a good reason to keep helium. by Wyatt+Earp · · Score: 1

      Transportation by tanker costs 2-3 cents a gallon and the ship costs about 120 million dollars for a ULCC (Ultra Large Crude Carrier) that carries 2 million barrels of oil.

      The US consumes 19,497,000 barrels of oil a day, so even a CL160 class won't replace cargo ships.

      Why transport bulk cargo like ore, grain or wood by air anyway? Ships are far more efficient for that stuff.

    14. Re:Blimps vs. 747s, a good reason to keep helium. by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      Because of the fuel cost to transport them by plane, which we also do. My point is airships are like boats in the sky, and thus not very fast; but also not burning quite as much fuel.

    15. Re:Blimps vs. 747s, a good reason to keep helium. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your basic blimp uses as much fuel in a WEEK of operations as a 747 uses taxiing from the gate to the runway. We need to get people out of these wasteful planes and into a more efficient (and comfortable) form of air transport.

      For a one-hour flight, your basic airliner jet will spent half the fuel for the trip taxiing from the gate to the runway.

      Ground movement is inefficient as all hell for a jet. That's not what they were designed for. The industry has plans to solve this problem. One proposal was electrical drives for the wheels, instead of using the turbines for taxiing.

    16. Re:Blimps vs. 747s, a good reason to keep helium. by Wyatt+Earp · · Score: 1

      Bulk cargo is almost never sent by air unless it is time sensitive.

      M-1 tanks to Kuwait in 1990/91, time sensitive and sent by air and sea. M-1 tanks back from Iraq in 2010, not time sensitive and sent by sea.

      Grain, ore, oil, is almost never sent by air unless its fuel, food or supplies going to somewhere ships can't go and there is no road network.

      A CL160 airship was expected to cost 60 million dollars.
      http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/cargolifter.htm

      For 60 million dollars you can get a Suezmax cargo ship that instead of carrying 160 tons, carries 75,000 to 125,000 tons.

      747 freighters have a niche because of speed, if there was a niche for slow airfreight we'd have airship cargo carriers.

    17. Re:Blimps vs. 747s, a good reason to keep helium. by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      Military applications are outside the scope of slow-moving air targets. Not the point, I know.

    18. Re:Blimps vs. 747s, a good reason to keep helium. by Wyatt+Earp · · Score: 1

      The only bulk items I see being sent by air are time sensitive military/government items, fragile industrial items, low bulk high value items and mail/packages.

      So for an airship, what is it for? Low bulk high value items without time sensitivity?

      Also a 747 freighter has an advantage over an airship, if a 747 or other aircraft loses an engine or takes structural damage to the airframe it can still fly and divert.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003_Baghdad_DHL_shootdown_incident

      A manpad hit on an airship engine wouldn't be as survivable.

    19. Re:Blimps vs. 747s, a good reason to keep helium. by IICV · · Score: 1

      Why would you ever do that when you can send a container ship for pennies per pound? It makes absolutely zero economic sense. Even if you're sending the goods somewhere inland, a container ship + trucks is almost certainly more efficient than airships will ever be.

    20. Re:Blimps vs. 747s, a good reason to keep helium. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Your basic blimp is also slow, can't carry much weight, and can't deal with storms very well.

      I'm an average American , you insensitive clod!

  52. Right to determine availability forever? Says who? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "One generation does not have the right to determine availability forever.' "

    Now I am for making best use of our environment for mankind, considering both the present and the distant future.
    However, who decides this 'right' exists or not?

  53. Re:I have an idea by Atlantis-Rising · · Score: 1

    You'd probably cure the budget deficit (but possibly not; it's a substantial deficit) but you'd collapse the economy. Have fun with that.

    --
    "It is possible to commit no errors and still lose. That is not a weakness. That is life." -Peak Performance
  54. Macey's Parade by coldmist · · Score: 2, Interesting

    While watching the Macey's Parade last year, they mentioned that the parade balloons (big charlie brown, etc) makes it the single largest helium user in the US (maybe world?) next to the US Government.

    Interesting stuff.

    --
    Don't steal. The government hates competition.
    1. Re:Macey's Parade by CeruleanDragon · · Score: 1

      While watching the Macey's Parade last year, they mentioned that the parade balloons (big charlie brown, etc) makes it the single largest helium user in the US (maybe world?) next to the US Government.

      Interesting stuff.

      But when it comes to comparison in hot air, the US Government still beats out the balloons for consumption.

      --
      ad astra per alia porci
    2. Re:Macey's Parade by jewishbaconzombies · · Score: 1

      Yes and they were full of hot air when they said it.

      Hospitals are.

  55. Elements are hard to replace. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Energy can be derived from other sources. Yes, we'll use up the U-235, but there will be plenty of U-238 is we must use the element Uranium for something. Oil can be synthesized via Fischer Topp. Helium is an element. It can not be synthesized. And if we use up earth's supply, we'll have to grab it from a gas giant.

    1. Re:Elements are hard to replace. by Zak3056 · · Score: 1

      Helium is an element. It can not be synthesized.

      Try fusing hydrogen, and I think that you will be pleasantly surprised.

      --
      What part of "shall not be infringed" is so hard to understand?
    2. Re:Elements are hard to replace. by spinkham · · Score: 1

      And pray tell, how much helium can be reliably produced this way?

      --
      Blessed are the pessimists, for they have made backups.
    3. Re:Elements are hard to replace. by mdielmann · · Score: 1

      Almost all the helium in the universe?

      --
      Sure I'm paranoid, but am I paranoid enough?
    4. Re:Elements are hard to replace. by spinkham · · Score: 1

      Ok, please fetch me some.

      The engineering problem is: How much helium would a reactor produce, with what inputs, capital costs for buildings, footprint in land, etc. Would this output be enough to fulfill our needs, and what would the costs to consumers be?

      Those are the questions that need a serious answer if fusion is to be our helium supply.

      --
      Blessed are the pessimists, for they have made backups.
    5. Re:Elements are hard to replace. by mdielmann · · Score: 1

      Then I guess production isn't the problem, is it? I'd recommend collecting helium from a sequestered source on earth (I hear oil is a good one). Of course, with our short-sighted corporations, they'd rather throw away a distinctly finite resource than collect it and refuse to sell it at a loss. Prices will rise soon enough.

      --
      Sure I'm paranoid, but am I paranoid enough?
  56. Fear less by NicknamesAreStupid · · Score: 1

    Recorded human history is exclusively about the times we ignored fears of our perceived limitations.

  57. Re:Running out? by darkwing_bmf · · Score: 4, Informative
    It was a strategic reserve for something we do not USE, blimps.

    Air Force Planning Giant Spy Airship
    http://www.military.com/news/article/March-2009/air-force-planning-giant-spy-airship.html

    ILC Dover has extended its contract with Lockheed Martin to provide lighter-than-air "aerostats", very similar to a blimp. The aerostats are used in Afghanistan and Iraq to provide surveillance and communication for U.S. troops.
    http://whyy.org/cms/news/regional-news/delaware/2010/06/24/delaware-company-builds-unmanned-airships-for-u-s-military/40647

    Iraqi conflict brings increased interest in military airships
    http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3738/is_200307/ai_n9258465/

    And in case you were wondering, it's not just the US that's interested in modern airship technology. China has plans for them too.
    http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i=4649479

  58. Re:We need to run out of helium on Earth immediate by Rod+Beauvex · · Score: 1

    Bring democracy to the moon!

  59. That's why we need a space elevator! by Wormfoud · · Score: 3, Funny

    Another reason we need a space elevator - so we can ride to the top and fill our balloons!!

  60. not for balloons, this has real impact by Goldsmith · · Score: 5, Informative

    This is not about balloon animals, and it's not your typical media scare story.

    I'm a condensed matter physicist. It's very common in my field to use helium to examine the properties of materials at very low temperatures. This is how things like superconductors and quantum computing are often worked on in their early stages. Using helium is important, and because universities don't like concentrated hydrogen (for safety reasons), pretty much required.

    The current supply of helium is uncertain. Many research institutes (like the university I work at) have rationed helium. That is, we're allowed to buy a certain amount, and can't get more than that. This is set by the suppliers, who get their helium from the US government. The result is that my experiments compete with the experiments in particle physics, the medical school and other groups for helium. Sometimes I get it, sometimes I can't. From a practical viewpoint, we're not running out of helium in 2015, we're running out now.

    There is helium available somewhere else, but there's no economic incentive for anyone to capture it and sell it. As long as stockpiles are sold off at fixed, below-market prices (TFA says helium should be 20 to 50 times more expensive), no one can economically afford to capture and purify the helium which is available. We're wasting the tail end of potential helium production (most in the stockpiles came from oil processing). Think of it this way: when oil runs out, helium runs out. We can replace oil much more cheaply than we can replace helium. Helium is too light an element to be captured by Earth's gravitational field this close to the sun, so that wasted helium is gone.

    1. Re:not for balloons, this has real impact by Oink · · Score: 1

      If you're spending that much on it, you should really invest in a Pulse Tube Refrigerator. See cryomech.com. We use one. They're $40,000 up front, but they have two stages that can pull up to 1.5W @ 4.2K (or 0W @ 2.8K), and 40W @45K. They make things simpler and they pay for themselves in just a couple of years. Also, the convenience itself is just phenomenal.

      --
      ----------------- Oink. Moo. rarr! -----------------
    2. Re:not for balloons, this has real impact by TheSync · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Many research institutes (like the university I work at) have rationed helium...This is set by the suppliers, who get their helium from the US government...As long as stockpiles are sold off at fixed, below-market prices (TFA says helium should be 20 to 50 times more expensive), no one can economically afford to capture and purify the helium which is available

      I don't understand why the basic science of economics is so often ignored. If government fixes prices, you get shortages. Moreover, you reduce the incentives to find new sources, and you reduce the incentives to obtain the most efficient use of the resources you have.

      This is ECON 101. Thinking that price fixing does not product shortages and inefficient use is the equivalent of physicists thinking that heavier objects fall faster than light objects in a vacuum.

      It should also be noticed that the history of "predicting" resource extinction is full of major mistakes, almost always on the side of thinking things will run out when they actually never do, such as the Simon-Ehrlich Wager. Similarly, estimates of the total amount of oil resources in the world grew throughout the 20th century from 60 billion barrels in 1920 to over 1200 billion barrels today.

  61. Collapse? Really? by SteveFoerster · · Score: 1

    Which one of these proposals do you really think would "collapse the economy", and why?

    --
    Space game using normal deck of cards: http://BattleCards.org
  62. Re:Running out? by morgan_greywolf · · Score: 1

    Hydrogen and helium are light enough so that they will fairly easily escape from the earth.

    However, hydrogen, unlike helium, is a resource that is very, very abundant on our planet. It's quite literally everywhere.

  63. Helium's uses by DJRumpy · · Score: 2, Informative

    Just a few tidbits I found since I assume many will follow the same track:

    REF: http://www.helium.com/items/19276-the-uses-of-helium

    Helium has many uses even though it is inert. There are three major uses for helium.It is used in low-temperature cooling systems and pressure, lighter-than-air objects and purge systems.

    Helium can be very useful in low-temperature cooling because at -270*, or liquid temperature, is able to cool anything because it is so cold. A good example of this as useful is in superconducting devices, because superconducting (electricity can pass from one place to another without wasting any energy) can occur only at very low temperatures.
    In pressure systems a gas is used to pressurize the system but the gas is not acceptable if it is able to react with any of the surroundings. Helium is an inert gas that is ideal for these situations. As well, in a purge system an inert gas is used to sweep all gas in a container without reacting with the contents, being inert it is ideal for these situations as well.
    Helium is ideal for blimps, balloons and other lighter-than-air crafts because it is neither flammable nor have the lifting effects of hydrogen, this makes it much safer. Although only used for advertising and other limited purposes, it is an ideal element to make these possible.....

    Some other common uses for helium include: :leak detection systems :welding :growing silicon and germanium crystals; protective shield :titanium and zirconium production; protective shield :nuclear reactors; cooling medium :diving and others working under pressure; artificial atmosphere with 20% oxygen :supersonic wind tunnels :cryogenic applications :liquid fuel rockets; pressurizing :effecting voice if breathed

    I was then curious as to how quickly we lose helium to space and ran across this:

    REF: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Why_do_gases_such_as_helium_escape_Earth's_atmosphere

    No planet can hold any gas. Everything escapes, the only question is how fast.

    Atmosphere is lost faster, when:
    gas is lighter
    temperature is higher,
    gravity is lower,
    planet has smaller size.

    Potential energy of helium atom near the surface is
    P = -mgRe = -/Na gRe

    Exponential factor in Boltzmann distribution is
    exp(-P/kT) = exp(/Na gRe / kT) = exp(/(RT) gRe)

    Assuming T= 300 K we have /RT gRe = 0.004/(8.3 300) 9.8 6,370,000 = 100

    So once per exp(-100) ~ 10^-43 attempts at escaping helium atom manages to do so. Probabilty 10^-34 is very small, but it sharply depends on temperature. Throw in 1000K and you have p ~ 10^-13, which means rather quick escape.

    I gather from the above that although helium can escape earths atmosphere, it does so very slowly.

    In the end, it seems foolish to me to release a known finite resource (finite as to what our technology can easily harvest today) to the hands of whim.

    1. Re:Helium's uses by fritsd · · Score: 1
      Quote from Wikipedia article about the Thermosphere:

      Temperatures are highly dependent on solar activity, and can rise to 1,500 C (2,730 F).

      --
      To be, or not to be: isn't that quite logical, Slashdot Beta?
    2. Re:Helium's uses by imsabbel · · Score: 1

      The problem is that right at the top, where the helium starts to be around with higher probability than all other gases, the thermal equilibrium no longer has to be fulfilled.

      Helium atoms can get escape velocity by a single colission with high energy radiation from the sun / solar wind particles.

      --
      HI O WISE PRINCE. WHT TOOK U SO DAM LONG?
  64. How did we get all of it if its so emphemeral? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ok, this doesn't make sense.

    Either, Helium is stable enough in the atmosphere that it lasted 4 billion years, long enough for the US government to exist, and decide to refine lots of it. Or it isn't, and so we couldn't have gotten any?

    I guess I question, how could we possibly get 1/2 the world supply, if that supply could possibly evaporate into space in 100 years?

    1. Re:How did we get all of it if its so emphemeral? by Volante3192 · · Score: 1

      Helium is stable enough in the atmosphere that it lasted 4 billion years,

      That's the flaw in your thought process.

      We mine for helium and capture it as it escapes from the crust. We don't (can't, infact) pluck it out of the air.

    2. Re:How did we get all of it if its so emphemeral? by ZenDragon · · Score: 1

      I was wondering the same thing myself. How is it possible that we can harvest that sort of quanity in our life times, yet all the sudden we are worried about losing it? Something just doesnt sound right about that.

  65. Re:Running out? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Not really gone forever. Prohibitively expensive from retrieving because it's distribution in space.

  66. The Ethics of Greed by SMACX+guy · · Score: 1

    "Resources exist to be consumed. And consumed they will be, if not by this generation then by some future. By what right does this forgotten future seek to deny us our birthright? None I say! Let us take what is ours, chew and eat our fill." -- CEO Nwabudike Morgan

  67. Back in Galileo's day by markdowling · · Score: 4, Funny

    They took citations and stamped "Bible needed".

    1. Re:Back in Galileo's day by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In Soviet Russia...

      You get citation for needing Bible.

      Then you get thrown in gulag.

      Too soon?

  68. Re:I have an idea by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

    Cutting subsidies would increase state taxes, so you'd have to lower federal taxes to compensate. Further, the states like to take their money and run with it: if they tax $1Bn for "Highway Maintenance," but spend $600M, they'll find something else to do with the $400M.

    It'd be cool though. The states have to pass laws making 21 the drinking age and 0.08BAC the illegal-per-se level for DUI if they want highway subsidies. This means the government has passed laws it's not allowed to pass by strong-arming the states. They could strong-arm in a mandatory 18 years old flat Age of Consent by tying it to school funding if they wanted, too (what a mess, then you'd have 19 year old college guys dating their 17 year old girlfriend and he gets caught with a hand up her shirt in a theater and gets a permanent SEX OFFENDER registration!).

  69. How much is actually used? by human-cyborg · · Score: 1

    How much Helium are we actually 'using'?

    What I mean is; how much Helium is getting trapped in some form that is not reclaimable? It's not like Helium is burnt, and I don't know what kind of compounds have Helium bonds or otherwise trap a Helium molecule. So where is the Helium going that we are using up?

    To use another element as an example, take Gold. There's only so much Gold on the planet, we know that, and Gold is constantly being bought and sold, melted and reformed, used and then reclaimed. If Gold is 'used', say, for plating electrical connectors, once it is no longer needed it can be recycled, resold, and reused. It is never destroyed, just schlepped around from one place to another. Why isn't it the same for another element like Helium?

    I'm obviously no Helium expert, which is why I'm asking so many questions, but I've never heard of a 'Helium mine', so I'm assuming that most of the Helium we have wasn't trapped in gas pockets underground, so we must have distilled it from the atmosphere. So can't we do it again after the Helium has fulfilled it's 'use'? Like melting down circuit boards to make jewelery?

    My conclusion would be that if there is only so much Helium, and it does not get destroyed, and our supply is running out, then our Helium requirements must be on the rise. Or it must be trapped in some form or another that is still considered a 'use' and therefore cannot be recycled.

    So what use of Helium is growing so fast that we are running out, and that does not release the Helium from it's bondage in a timely matter for recycling?

    1. Re:How much is actually used? by MechaStreisand · · Score: 1

      How much Helium are we actually 'using'?

      All that's extracted.

      What I mean is; how much Helium is getting trapped in some form that is not reclaimable? It's not like Helium is burnt, and I don't know what kind of compounds have Helium bonds or otherwise trap a Helium molecule. So where is the Helium going that we are using up?

      Into space.

      I'm obviously no Helium expert, which is why I'm asking so many questions, but I've never heard of a 'Helium mine', so I'm assuming that most of the Helium we have wasn't trapped in gas pockets underground, so we must have distilled it from the atmosphere. So can't we do it again after the Helium has fulfilled it's 'use'? Like melting down circuit boards to make jewelery?

      Actually, all of it was trapped in gas pockets underground. None of it is distilled from the atmosphere as there isn't enough, as all the helium in the atmosphere eventually escapes into space.

      --
      Disclaimer: IANAL. This post is, however, legal advice, and creates an attorney-client relationship.
    2. Re:How much is actually used? by human-cyborg · · Score: 1

      Well, you learn something new everyday.

      Thanks!

  70. And wildlife everywhere is rejoicing.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    For all the dead and ill animals in the wild that I've seen as a result of eating rubber balloons that have floated from cities and dropped in the wilderness...I'm glad helium is running out. Fucking stupid, irresponsible people that enjoy a few seconds of fun releasing balloons into the air, thinking no harm is caused elsewhere....they should sent the clean up beached whales the died from getting a toy balloon stuck in it's blow hole.

    1. Re:And wildlife everywhere is rejoicing.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Troll

      Or how about the whales that die every time an apostrophe is abused and shoved into a perfectly good possessive to make a needless contraction? Huh, feeling smug now, Mr. Apostrophes Everywhere?

    2. Re:And wildlife everywhere is rejoicing.... by elrous0 · · Score: 2, Informative

      That's natural selection weeding out the wildlife not smart enough to avoid balloons.

      --
      SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    3. Re:And wildlife everywhere is rejoicing.... by toastar · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Or how about the whales that die every time an apostrophe is abused and shoved into a perfectly good possessive to make a needless contraction? Huh, feeling smug now, Mr. Apostrophes Everywhere?

      You got something against Contractions? You must've just popped out a kid or something?

      Sersly... The GP even left out an apostrophe from the "ill". He also forgot to capitalize it.

    4. Re:And wildlife everywhere is rejoicing.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He meant the word ill, meaning sick, not the contraction for 'I will'.

    5. Re:And wildlife everywhere is rejoicing.... by Oligonicella · · Score: 0, Troll

      A swing and a miss.

    6. Re:And wildlife everywhere is rejoicing.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's natural selection weeding out the wildlife not smart enough to avoid balloons.

      Well, we humans failed that test too!

    7. Re:And wildlife everywhere is rejoicing.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      they should sent the clean up beached whales the died from getting a toy balloon stuck in it's blow hole.

      The standard of trolling is really going downhill. Are you making up your own urban myths now?

    8. Re:And wildlife everywhere is rejoicing.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Best grammar flame... Evar!

    9. Re:And wildlife everywhere is rejoicing.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wul hey Grizzly Adams, where can I get a look at a dead squirrel choked on a condom?
      I've spend a good lot of my life outdoors in many wildernesses and have yet to see an animal choked on anything. No balloons, no beer sixpacks, no milk carton seals. Animals seem to be aware of what to eat. I guess Darwin was right about any that don't.
      I bet you been goin around suffocating animals, that's how you're seeing them.
      Shame on you. Did you even skin them?

  71. "Rights"? by Dog-Cow · · Score: 1

    One generation does not have the right to determine availability forever.

    Anything else the article says is also trash. Who the hell determines that a given generation may or not use a resource as it sees fit? This is the most ridiculous concept I've heard in ages. Do we have to preserve the last few atoms of helium so that all future generations will have some? At some point you're going to run out of something. Deal with it.

    People who talk like that should be killed and used as fertilizer so we can save a few ounces of oil for future generations.

    1. Re:"Rights"? by Rockoon · · Score: 1

      I agree 100%.

      Hell, "Future Generations" arent even real people. They are imaginary people. Real people can use helium now, or we can save it for some imaginary people that may exist in the future.

      Prove to me that these mythical future people will exist, and THEN prove to me that THEY wont "waste" this helium in manners equivalent to the way we "waste" it. Only when both of those things can be established can we rationally talk about the value of "saving" it for "future non-wasters."

      --
      "His name was James Damore."
  72. For the love of god, by TehBrando · · Score: 1

    somebody please think of the children!!!

  73. Re:Running out? by pnewhook · · Score: 1, Funny

    We can just start burning Republicans. Between them spitting out hot air and being a bunch of old fossils, we should be able to power the planet for centuries.

    --
    Tesla was a genius. Edison however was a overrated hack who liked to torture puppies.
  74. Re:Running out? by LWATCDR · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Umm.... It leaves the earth. You know is is lighter than air so it goes up and away.
    It is not like Oxygen, or Argon, or Neon, or Nitrogen.
    It also isn't like Hydrogen which when released is so reactive that a good a precentage will combine with other elements and tend to stick around.
    So yes it is pretty much gone.

    --
    See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
  75. Public Finance 101? Basic Home Economics? by Bob9113 · · Score: 1

    In the name of deficit reduction, we're selling it all off for cheap.

    Perhaps the wealthy proteges of Marie Antoinette in DC are no more familiar with fundamental credit counseling than they are with basic public finance. In the interest of spreading the enlightenment that virtually every sub-50th percentile income earner eventually learns, here is a tiny bit of wisdom:

    You can't solve overspending by selling your CD collection.

    Debt reduction, perhaps. Deficit reduction, you are an idiot.

    Part II: Debt Reduction Effectiveness:

    How much is the helium worth at current price? How much is our national debt? So, now, if it's the debt you are trying to solve (since solving the deficit by selling possessions is a non-sequitur), what percentage of the debt will you cover by selling all that helium?

    1. Re:Public Finance 101? Basic Home Economics? by TheSync · · Score: 1

      How much is the helium worth at current price?

      There is only one way to answer what a true price is, and that is to ask the market through auction. The buyers will purchase based on the net present value of the helium based on its potential resale price now and in the future.

      Helium prices will likely rise, and eventually other natural gas producers (such as Russia) will retool to extract helium once the gas reaches a level where it is economically reasonable to do produce it.

      Perhaps the price of helium will rise so high that it is less practical for toy balloon use, but only reasonable for MRIs and scientific research.

      If the price of helium rises enough, it might even become reasonable to extract it from air distillation plants, or possible even helium from fission.

  76. "carrying massive objects" with a dirigible by Kupfernigk · · Score: 1

    I could give you an in-depth explanation of why this proposal is mind-numbingly stupid, but instead I will just invite you to consider (a) how big the dirigible will be and (b) how difficult it is going to be to ballast it with enough ice to get back again. What happens to a blimp when you take the load off? An oil rig weighs thousands of tonnes. When you offload it, you get thousands of tonnes of lift. Either you have to deal with that, an interesting technical challenge, or you have to dump hundreds of tonnes of expensive helium. In either case, as the arctic ice is melting, history is against any long-term dirigible design.

    --
    From scarped cliff or quarried stone she cries "A thousand types are gone, I care for nothing, no not one."
    1. Re:"carrying massive objects" with a dirigible by valadaar · · Score: 1

      'Easy' - you carry storage tanks with the load, and a compressor. If you have a ship big enough to carry the rig in the first place, carrying the compressed gas back would be less of an issue. Of course this might not be economically feasible as we are talking a rather ridiculous volume of helium.

    2. Re:"carrying massive objects" with a dirigible by M3lf.cz · · Score: 1

      Ehm, water balast ?

    3. Re:"carrying massive objects" with a dirigible by Crazyswedishguy · · Score: 1

      (b) how difficult it is going to be to ballast it with enough ice to get back again.

      Not sure I get it, why is that going to be necessary?

      Either you have to deal with that, an interesting technical challenge, or you have to dump hundreds of tonnes of expensive helium.

      Couldn't you just compress the helium you already have contained? i.e. transfer some helium to a compression chamber, compress into storable containers of high pressure, high density helium, repeat process.

      --
      This space up for sale.
  77. Much funnier... by Joce640k · · Score: 1

    are the deep 'monster' voices of really dense gases.

    --
    No sig today...
    1. Re:Much funnier... by Drakkenmensch · · Score: 1

      "It's scientific!"

  78. It's not cheap. we're making bank by blair1q · · Score: 1

    Once the fusion plants come on-line, we won't know what to do with all the helium we make.

    We're earning top-dollar now for something that we'll have to pay to get rid of in the future.

  79. Re:Running out? by LWATCDR · · Score: 3, Informative

    Actually no.
    It was for the Navy. The Army, Army Air Corp, and later USAF really didn't get into air ships much.
    They may have used it for barrage balloons but Hydrogen is just as good since you don't care a whole lot of those burn.
    And it was for not just blimps but also Zeppelins.

    When created it made all the sense in the world. In the 1920s and 30s how could anybody bomb the US? Only by airship. Well maybe if Mexico or Canada decided to go to war with the US but that was unlikely.

    BTW the Navy used it in AEW blimps up till the 1960s I believe and are thinking about bringing back airships as sensor platforms. We are not too concerned about SAMS since SAM sites tend to have a short life time and MANPADs lack the range to hit airships.

    --
    See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
  80. I blame Macy's by Locke2005 · · Score: 1

    Damn you, Thanksgiving Day Parade!!!

    --
    I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
  81. Stop worrying. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Get a job you /. crybabies. Since solutions to producing more helium exist, STFU. You people annoy me. Love /. otherwise.

  82. Re:Collapse? Really? by Daetrin · · Score: 1

    Pretty much the bit about "Cut all federal subsidies" followed by using the savings to reduce the deficit. As things stand now, some of that money gets eaten up in graft, and not all of it is spent efficiently, but a lot of it ends up getting paid out to people as well.

    So all federal subsidies are cut, a lot of farmers go out of business, a lot of construction workers lose their jobs, a lot of teachers lose their jobs, a lot of researchers lose their jobs, perhaps everyone at NASA loses their jobs. (I'm not sure what all is being included under "federal subsidy.")

    So all those people are out of jobs. The economy isn't doing great currently so they certainly can't all find new jobs. They're making no income so they spend less. The economy suffers even more. Kids aren't being taught, the highways aren't being repaired, pretty soon the economy starts suffering even worse. Perhaps the states will step in to fund things like that, but the money would have to come from somewhere, which would mean new taxes and a further strain on the economy.

    One can make arguments either way about which is healthier for the economy, letting everyone keep their money or taking some portion of that money and redistributing it to another area. Both are thermodynamically sound processes (so to speak.) I don't see how you could argue that taking the money out in taxes but not putting it back into the system wouldn't have any kind of negative impact however. Yes paying off the debt is important, and we either need to cut spending or raise taxes to do that. However trying to go "cold turkey," either by getting rid of _all_ spending or raising taxes by an exorbitant amount, would be a bad idea. Whatever we do it should be done slowly and in moderation so the economy has time to adjust to the new situation.

    --
    This Space Intentionally Left Blank
  83. Re:Running out? by lgw · · Score: 1

    But aren't we doing the same thing with fossil fuels? 500 years from now there will be none left...

    Well, there will never be "none left", oil will just become too expensive to use as fuel. But one can hope that we'll have fusion worked out by then! Of course, if fusion were "20 years away" 500 years from now, it wouldn't really surprise me much.

    --
    Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
  84. natural gas boom = helium boom? by peter303 · · Score: 1

    Most helium comes from natural gas deposits. In the richest deposits in the central US, it can actually comprise a couple percent of the natural gas.

    There has been a huge increase (4x) in recoverable natural gas as a result of new drilling technology. Drilling can now traverse horizontally through layers, cracking the rock along the way. Old vertical drilling only sampled a small portion of a deposit. More natural gas = more helium.

    1. Re:natural gas boom = helium boom? by Bruha · · Score: 1

      That drilling process also destroys water tables and worse. Go watch Gasland on HBO..

      It's not worth contaminating our water supplies.

  85. Party time! by srk2040 · · Score: 0

    So who's buying all the helium? You realize that's a lot of gas to breath and sound like donald duck.

  86. Re:Collapse? Really? by SteveFoerster · · Score: 1

    Okay, that's a good explanation. I guess I was assuming that there'd also be some level of tax reduction that goes along with this, but in the absence of that I can see what you're saying.

    --
    Space game using normal deck of cards: http://BattleCards.org
  87. Whereto get Helium by rossdee · · Score: 1

    Apart from fusion of hydrogen, which we will have to get around to soon if we are to survive , isn't helium produced in some fission reactions. An alpa particle is a He nucleus.

  88. Re:Running out? by kpoole55 · · Score: 1

    And, of course, now we have fellows trying to design large helium lifted windmills to generate power from the more consistent winds high in the atmosphere, A wonderful sustainable energy source tapped using a technique completely dependent on a completely non sustainable resource. Well, unless we start using Hydrogen to lift these electric power generators, that is. Yeah, that'll work real good.

    "I don't have an anger management problem. I have an idiot management problem." Hank HIll

  89. The real reason we're running out of helium by WillAffleckUW · · Score: 1

    Is that too many geeks think it's funny to talk in high squeaky voices.

    I prefer Argon myself.

    --
    -- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
  90. Yes by Sycraft-fu · · Score: 1

    Presuming you had large reserves of gold, enough that you could sell to pretty much anyone who wanted to buy, and you decided that you were willing to unload it cheap then yes, that'd be the market price. The price of gold would plummet. Other sellers would have to adjust to meet that price to be able to sell their stocks, or perhaps they'd decide simply to let you sell things, and hold theirs in reserve.

    The market price is the price at which things sell on the open market for. Please note that gold has been far, far less in the recent past. Few years ago you could get it at around $300 an ounce, which is what it tends to float around most of the time. The reason it is so high now is not because it costs a lot more to produce but because there's insane demand and expanding production capacity isn't easy. Thus, the market price is high. However if, say, the US decided to sell off its reserves the price would take a nose dive because of a massive supply influx (not to mention it would shake faith in it).

    Also using gold as an example is a really bad one since gold is used primarily as a hedge, a financial instrument. Thus it is subject to people perceptions more than realities. Most of the gold in the world is useless, commercially speaking. It gets dug up, melted down, assayed, then put back underground in a different place. It's value is largely a product of people's imaginations and a western obsession with shiny things, rather than actual uses.

  91. Republicans Selling the Country by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    The 1996 Congress was the height of the Republican era controlling the Congress 1994-2006 and aggressively changing longstanding policies. That's who sold off the US strategic helium reserve and encouraged the world to run out of helium.

    How many ways did shortsighted Republicans liquidate America's precious assets that were earned over centuries for the minimum prices to be snapped up by crony corporations and foreign competitors? Is everyone who ever failed math or economics given a referral to join the Republican Party?

    --

    --
    make install -not war

    1. Re:Republicans Selling the Country by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thinking more than 2 years ahead is socialism.

  92. one answer by way2trivial · · Score: 2, Informative

    http://www.aerospace-technology.com/projects/cargolifter/
    "The CargoLifter CL 160 is a semi-rigid airship under development by CargoLifter AG, a German company that plans to build airships capable of carrying enormous loads for the bulk air freight market. In May 2002, the CL 160 development was halted due to financial problems and the status of the programme is uncertain. In June 2002, the company made an application for insolvency. In August 2002, work on Cargolifter's other major programme, the CL 75 lifting balloon was also halted."

    whereas these 747's
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_747-400 see to hit bout 124 tons

    --
    every day http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Random
  93. Not the pitch. by imtheguru · · Score: 1

    Because no generation should be denied the fun of inhaling helium to speak with a goofy high-pitch voice.

    The pitch does not change; it's the timbre.

    Cheers.

    --
    Yet Socrates himself is particularly missed.
    A lovely little thinker but a bugger when he's pissed.
  94. Bread and Circuses by SEWilco · · Score: 1

    This is what happens when politicians realize they can buy votes with bread, circuses, and helium.

  95. Re:Collapse? Really? by 0123456 · · Score: 1

    I don't see how you could argue that taking the money out in taxes but not putting it back into the system wouldn't have any kind of negative impact however.

    What exactly do you think happens to that money when you use it to pay down the debt? It doesn't just vanish, it goes to the person who lent that money to the government, who then does something wtih it... and something that's likely to be far more useful than anything a government bureaucrat might decide to do with the same amount of money.

  96. Making helium? by jackbird · · Score: 1

    Can someone who know what they're talking about comment on the feasibility of using a below-unity fusion reactor (like a Farnsworth Fusor) to create helium in useful quantities? At some point, doesn't the cost of helium rise above the cost of the electricity needed to just make some?

  97. Re:Running out? by LWATCDR · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Why not?
    We deal with large amounts of chemical energy every day.
    While putting turbines like that over a city would be dumb even with Helium I don't see a big problem with using Hydrogen for this.
    Don't let the Hindenberg syndrome scare you. That crash wasn't any worse than hundreds of aircraft crashes that have happened since. It just happen to be filmed.

    --
    See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
  98. Re:Running out? by toastar · · Score: 1

    Well once they figure out this fusion powerplant stuff, we'll have all the He we need.

  99. It's all a matter of... by clo1_2000 · · Score: 0

    perspective. Guess my one way 2 hour commute really isn't shit compared to this.

    --
    "In true dialogue, both sides are willing to change" --Thich Nhat Hanh
  100. One generation has whatever rights it needs by ShadoeKnight · · Score: 1, Flamebait

    "One generation does not have the right to determine availability forever", um, actually whichever generation or people are alive at the moment pretty much have the right to do whatever the heck they want. Your righteous indignation means exactly squat. I may agree that we should not waste what we have but the current generation has the right to do anything it wants because none of the future generations have a voice or can stop them. Let's refrain from saying idiotic crap and focus on reality. In reality what you mean to say is that, "one generation should not allow itself to determine availability forever." I don't have any Dodo bird meat available but what can I do about it a past generation gave itself the right to determine its availability forever and I'm screwed.

  101. The market will take care of this by Gorimek · · Score: 1

    If this is true, smart investors are no doubt buying much of this subsidized Helium, and storing it for when prizes go up.

  102. Re:Running out? by MachineShedFred · · Score: 1

    > sed 's/Republicans/Politicians/g' > slashdot_post.sh

    There, now it's accurate.

    --
    Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
  103. One word answer: by Slicebo · · Score: 1

    Inflation

  104. Are you kidding? (again...) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You're worried about HELIUM?? Well, if we use it all, where will it go? I've got another one for you... How do we obtain helium? How do we 'make' it? Where does it come from? Get a life.

  105. Re:Running out? by grasshoppa · · Score: 1

    It leaves the what now? Pop quiz: Why do helium filled balloons float? Because the surrounding environment/atmosphere is heavier. The surrounding air is pushed down, with the natural result of the lighter substance being pushed up.

    However, it won't simply keep going "up" forever. It will reach a point of equilibrium where the force of gravity equals the upward thrust of the surrounding particles.

    For the gas to escape the earth's gravity well, it'd need some external force to act upon it. Perhaps the solar wind, or the moon's gravity.

    --
    Mod me down with all of your hatred and your journey towards the dark side will be complete!
  106. Yes - quite expensive by drerwk · · Score: 5, Informative

    Assume we go the p+B -> 3He + 9Mev.
    1 mole of p yield 3 moles of He - or 24 * 3 liters of gas at STP.
    It also yields 9 * 1.6*10^-13 * 6*10^23 = 9 *10^11 joules = 9*10^11 Watt seconds.

    So for 72 liters ( 0.072 m^3) of He, you would need a giga watt for about 15 minutes.

    Your table top fusor is now plasma, you just used up more electricity than I will likely use in my life, and you can fill a small balloon.

    1. Re:Yes - quite expensive by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or we could just kickstart a fusion process. Get the helium a ton cheaper, y'dig?

    2. Re:Yes - quite expensive by Ichijo · · Score: 1

      It also yields 9 * 1.6*10^-13 * 6*10^23 = 9 *10^11 joules = 9*10^11 Watt seconds.

      That's quite the exothermic reaction!

      So for 72 liters ( 0.072 m^3) of He, you would need a giga watt for about 15 minutes.

      I think I know where you can get that kind of energy!

      --
      Any sufficiently unpopular but cohesive argument is indistinguishable from trolling.
    3. Re:Yes - quite expensive by drerwk · · Score: 1

      Really? Where?

    4. Re:Yes - quite expensive by nitehawk214 · · Score: 1

      It also yields 9 * 1.6*10^-13 * 6*10^23 = 9 *10^11 joules = 9*10^11 Watt seconds.

      That's quite the exothermic reaction!

      So for 72 liters ( 0.072 m^3) of He, you would need a giga watt for about 15 minutes.

      I think I know where you can get that kind of energy!

      Really? Where?

      The sun. It makes both energy and helium. Extracting it is the hard part.

      --
      I'm a good cook. I'm a fantastic eater. - Steven Brust
    5. Re:Yes - quite expensive by bidule · · Score: 1

      So for 72 liters ( 0.072 m^3) of He, you would need a giga watt for about 15 minutes.

      Your table top fusor is now plasma, you just used up more electricity than I will likely use in my life, and you can fill a small balloon.

      72 liters? That's 18 gallons! Do you inflate your balloons to 300 psi?

      --
      ID: the nose did not occur naturally, how would we wear glasses otherwise? (apologies to Voltaire)
    6. Re:Yes - quite expensive by chgros · · Score: 1

      Turing B into He seems like fission, not fusion. Is that what a fusor does?
      Also, you seem to write that the reaction generates energy. If that's the case, you don't "need" gigawatts, you produce them (from that particular reaction anyway)

    7. Re:Yes - quite expensive by drerwk · · Score: 1

      Are you sure p-B11 fusion isn’t fission?

      http://focusfusion.org/index.php/site/article/are_you_sure_pb11_fusion_isnt_fission/

      The original poster was suggesting we could make meaningful quantities of He using a fusor, which requires more energy in than is produced by the resultant fusion. By showing the amount of energy produced by the fusion, and knowing we need more than that to produce the fusion, I hoped to make clear that a table top fusor was not going to solve the He shortage.

    8. Re:Yes - quite expensive by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You have the reaction yielding 900 gigawatt-seconds. Does it yield that much energy upon reaction or require that much energy to react? What does the 'B' represent in your reaction?

      How much of the reaction energy can be supplied by potential energy (increased pressure)? How much of the energy can be supplied by heat? We're not only concerned about the energy requirements @STP. Do catalysts exist which reduce the Gibbs free energy for this reaction?

      You should consider these factors before dismissing the idea. Yes, it will be much more complicated to accomplish the stated goal of supplying the world's helium, but that's OK.

    9. Re:Yes - quite expensive by drerwk · · Score: 1

      B=Boron. This is a proton + Boron fusion reaction that quickly fissions to 3 Helium. I can trivially dismiss his idea given the amount of energy he thinks he is going to have going into a Farsworth Fusor.

  107. Re:Why? Go run the numbers by DCFusor · · Score: 1
    I happen to own a few table top fusors, and while yes, you can see some byproducts after a 20 min run at full power with one of the most sensitive mass spectrometers on this planet -- you gotta be kidding. Even we (and we think we are the current record holders or close) running at a kw input only get relatively tiny amounts of fusion using deuterium as the fusion gas -- the numbers go very close to zero for hydrogen input. The D fusion has two main pathways, one of which makes tritium, the other helium 3, which BTW is in far greater shortage since our DHS decided they need all that exists for He3 portal neutron detectors -- even CERN is hurting on supply for their dilution refrigerators that use it. Here....just try and buy some at any price.

    But at a few million fusions/second/kilowatt -- good luck making a mole of He of any isotope in your lifetime. For those who don't do chemistry a mole is 6.02 e 23 atoms, more or less, or 22.4 liters of gas at STP. Lessee, 23 - 6 is 17, so roughtly speaking, at current production rates you need say 6 e17 seconds of running to get a mole or so of output gas. call it 1.9 e-10 years per mole, running at a kw input with current tech at its best. As we say here, GoodLuckWithThat.

    You can see more about fusors here:

    My homepage (we also have a forum linked on the front page, but it's invite-only)

    and

    The open source fusor forum

    --
    Why guess when you can know? Measure!
  108. Re:Running out? by russotto · · Score: 1

    Umm.... It leaves the earth. You know is is lighter than air so it goes up and away.

    On the other hand, the solar wind is constantly bombarding the planet with alpha particles, a.k.a helium nuclei. Harvest the aurora!

  109. Re:Running out? by aix+tom · · Score: 1

    But once it floats "above" the denser atmosphere, even a slight solar wind is enough to blow it away. It then winds up outside the heliosphere, where it reaches *real* equilibrium between the force of the suns gravity and the upward thrust of the solar wind, about twice as far out as Jupiter.

  110. Fails to take into account all relevant facts... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    > This is the problem when you get experts in one field (in this case physics) talking about things in other fields, like economics - quite often, they are no better informed then any other layman.

    Your comment looks funny when put right next to the other comment, telling us that the Helium Privitization Act of 1996 stated that the Helium reserve (with 1/3 of the Helium supply) would be sold at $1.50 per m^3. Don't you think it causes a bit of distortion if someone with a huge stockpile is selling it at a price fixed by law?

  111. Re:Running out? by LWATCDR · · Score: 1

    Helium balloons stop because you are lifting the balloon. Helium will never reach equilibrium because it is the lightest gas in the atmosphere. It will keep going up until it reaches the top and then be lost to as you said the solar wind.
    Also it is so rare that it will never reach a large enough percentage of the atmosphere to be extracted.

    So yes in simple terms it will just keep going up. As the air gets less dense so will the He. All the way up until it gets blown away by the solar wind.
    That is why there is so little of it in the Atmosphere of the Earth or any of the inner planets.
    Not enough gravity to keep it.

    --
    See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
  112. Re:Collapse? Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yes, except "the person who lent that money to the government" is the Chinese government.

    But hey, the invisible hand of the free market never said anything about keeping America on top.

  113. Re:Running out? by mhajicek · · Score: 1

    The sad part is that when it's almost gone we'll find it's needed for FTL.

  114. Re:Running out? by Unordained · · Score: 1

    And, from a previous Slashdot article (I think):

    Airships: a second age
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/7918762/Airships-a-second-age.html which includes the following:

    There’s a niggling worry I have about the LEMV squatting over Afghanistan: surely a giant white balloon will be vulnerable to attack, despite its lofty position? Fortunately, that’s something they’ve thought about a great deal at Cardington. Indeed, they’ve been thinking about it for many years now, because they also designed ships that were to be deployed over Northern Ireland during the Troubles.

    At that time they tested a full-sized airship against a range of artillery including a Russian mounted machine gun filled with .22 calibre armour-piercing incendiaries and a SAM-7 surface to air missile. What they learnt was this: the airship is almost invincible to attack. Helium is an inert gas, so it doesn’t explode.

    The pressure inside the envelope is so low that when a hole is made, say by a bullet, air seeps out slowly rather than rushing out catastrophically. Missiles need something hard to connect with if they’re going to explode, but an airship is accommodating, not hard-shelled. The material has the flexibility of a plastic bag; make a hole in it and it almost immediately shrinks inwards.

  115. Helium is a component in most natural gas reserves by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...and this recent article in the Journal of Physical Chemistry Letters suggests using a porous graphene-based nanostructure to separate it

    http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/jz100748x

    "Helium Separation Using Porous Graphene Membranes" Joshua Schrier, Department of Chemistry, Haverford College, Haverford, Pennsylvania 19041
    J. Phys. Chem. Lett., 2010, 1 (15), pp 2284–2287
    DOI: 10.1021/jz100748x

  116. Re:Running out? by kpoole55 · · Score: 1

    Problem is that it will work and maybe even work well for some time then there will be an accident. Anything made by man will eventually fail or break. It won't even matter if it's over a city or not although, given the hubris of the species, they'll declare the things so safe that they will find themselves placed over cities just to reduce the cost of the transmission lines.

    Anyway, eventually, one of them will fail and if it's full of hydrogen, it will fail spectacularly. This will prompt the powers that be to take the rest of them out of service until the problem can be determined and solved "so that it will never happen again." (god, i hate that phrase.)

    Meanwhile there will have become people dependent on them and they'll be back to power rationing with little diesel generators or some such.

    I tend more along the lines of solar power generation with solar cells, if people feel the must use high tech, or plain old heat collection and steam turbines; good old ground based boiler plate technology. There was version mentioned recently that used a salt as the medium. It had a high heat capacity and could actually store heat for a while when the sun was not available.

  117. Managing strategic resources by the+Atomic+Rabbit · · Score: 1

    By comparison, let's look at how China has manages strategic resources:

    A draft report by China’s Ministry of Industry and Information Technology has called for a total ban on foreign shipments of terbium, dysprosium, yttrium, thulium, and lutetium... “This isn’t about the China holding the world to ransom. They are saying we need these resources to develop our own economy and achieve energy efficiency, so go find your own supplies”...

  118. Re:Running out? by dmesg0 · · Score: 1

    If fusion really works by then, we won't have to worry about helium, as it is the product of nuclear fusion. The resulting helium-3 is even lighter than the regular helium-4 as found on earth, the party balloons will fly into the stratosphere even faster!

    By then, however, we'll waste all our reserves of lithium-6 needed for production of tritium used in the nuclear fusion. And of course all humans will be killed long before that by the antibiotics-and-everything-else-resistant crazy flesh-eating-for-breakfast bacteria, so it won't matter at all.

  119. Re:Why? Go run the numbers by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

    I didn't say it was feasible now, I said it would be feasible within a hundred years. Fusor efficiencies have increased by almost two orders of magnitude in the last decade or so. Still a long way to go before this is considered a cheap, efficient, or even sensible way of producing light elements, but it's a much easier goal than running fusion at break-even rates, which projects like ITER aim to do in well under 100 years.

    --
    I am TheRaven on Soylent News
  120. Does not compute by Dilaudid · · Score: 1

    This article seems like total bullshit to me. If Helium is going to be valuable, stop complaining and buy the stuff up. Just like these idiot oil pundits who say oil is going to be really valuable in the future. If you really believe your story, buy it and sit on it. If you don't believe your story, why do you expect me to? This is especially ridiculous since the original article was published in New Zealand. Is NZ governed by the US now?

  121. There's no /intelligence/ there I see. by microbox · · Score: 1

    Greed & Power eh? There's no /intelligence/ there I see.

    --

    Like all pain, suffering is a signal that something isn't right
  122. Oh, great. by TheABomb · · Score: 1

    Now when I travel back in time I have to add "Don't accidentally change history in ways that ensure zeppelins remain the de facto form of mass transit for the next two centuries" to my already-prohibitive list of safety precautions. And to think Kitty Hawk was about the earliest I could have hoped for not being burned as a witch.

    --
    MSIE: The world's most standards-complaint web browser.
  123. Not all cargo is organs for donation. by EWAdams · · Score: 1

    Why does cargo need to get halfway around the world in 15 hours? Very little cargo actually needs to move that fast, except perishable food (which we really shouldn't be transporting that far -- grow locally or do without), and organs for donation. Ships take weeks. Some of them are so big they can't pass through the Panama Canal and have to go around the Horn like in the old days.

    Seriously, planes use vast amounts of fuel to generate lift that helium gives you for free. Blimps are a good compromise between wildly excessive airplanes and ships.

    --
    I piss off bigots.
  124. The obvious response is to buy it by tbird20d · · Score: 1

    If someone thinks that the government is selling helium at 25 to 50 times below value, they should buy some and store it until 2020. If there's no one willing to do this, then I'd wager that the government is really not selling it at such a bargain. There's always someone with sufficient resources to capitalize on a government selloff of a critical resource. The current large private helium industry would be a good candidate. Once the government has sold off its inventory, the private industry can sell at true market value, and standard market efficiencies can kick in. Everybody wins.

    There will be no "peak helium", just a slide into higher prices, and a shift to higher conservation and efficiency, as with other non-renewables.

  125. We got plenty of hydrogen by xmorg · · Score: 1

    this is the dumbest slashdot ever. We gots plenty of hydrogen, all you got to do is fuse it together for instant helium. WE will never ever need to worry about floaty balloons again.

  126. Well, we know who to go to next... by billsayswow · · Score: 1

    The greeting card sections at Wal-Mart probably contain 30% of the world's helium supply, inside of Spongebob and Dora the Explorer mylar balloons.

  127. It makes me sad... by Nrrqshrr · · Score: 0

    I am sadened by the fact that, instead of worrying of our consumption of a rather finite resource, the article seems to worry more about the price it was sold at... heck, its a gaz, ffs, it shouldnt be sold in the first place. Sure this covers the cost of the refinement and collection and all... Still, this page makes me sad.

  128. Fusion will not make He very fast. by drerwk · · Score: 2, Interesting

    World energy consumption is 15 terawatts. Assuming my gp calculations are correct, and all energy was produced by fusion, there would be 36 million cubic meters of helium created each year. At that rate it would be 30 years to generate the billion cubic meters that was in the reserve in 1995.

  129. Fuck gold... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Fuck gold... I'm saving up helium!

  130. Send a third stage Guild Navigator to Kaitan by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The helium must flow...

  131. Helium and Nuclear Power by akayani · · Score: 1

    What these articles fail consistently to do is make clear the importance of helium to the future.

    It's not kids party balloons or even aircraft, it is high temperature nuclear power and the fact that helium is the only coolant that by it's nature cannot become radioactive.

    http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf08.html

    Whether we agree with nuclear technology or not, we have not right to limit the choices that future generations may require. This is not a new story, what is sad is that it has not got action to resolve the issue.

  132. Dupe - Enough already!! by cyn1c77 · · Score: 1

    We already heard about it last month and two years ago!

  133. Fission by Thomas+Shaddack · · Score: 1

    Another possibility is fission reactors. Alpha particles - which after neutralization become helium atoms - are trapped in the fuel, together with other gaseous fission and decay products. There's a number of nuclear reactions that produce helium as one of the products. The dreaded nuclear waste storage can pretty well turn into a helium production with just a bit of reprocessing. That should do the job until ITER's children take over energetics.

  134. Re:Running out? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    All it needs is collisions with other particles in the air. Helium is light enough to reach escape velocity in the thermal distribution found in the upper atmosphere.

  135. Re:Running out? by mrchaotica · · Score: 1

    ...if it's full of hydrogen, it will fail spectacularly.

    The Hindenburg failed spectacularly because its paint was made of rocket fuel, which burns brightly. Hydrogen flames are barely visible and therefore boring.

    --

    "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

  136. Re:Why? Go run the numbers by TheTurtlesMoves · · Score: 1

    Fusor efficiencies have increased by almost two orders of magnitude in the last decade or so.

    No they haven't.

    --
    The Grey Goo disaster happened 3 billion years ago. This rock is covered in self replicating machines!
  137. Bullshit about 4.7 billion years. by SharpFang · · Score: 1

    "The Earth is 4.7 billion years old and it has taken that long to accumulate our helium reserves"

    Bullshit. We accumulated our reserves in a little over 100 years, since fraction distillation of air became commonplace. The very useful oxygen gets all used up. There is a surplus of nitrogen, over what we use. Helium over a long time was a by-product with production far over demand, and that's how our reserves were made. And that's why it is so cheap - production was greater than demand.

    Great most of helium "used up" is released back into the air. Being a noble gas, the helium that isn't released, is still stored in whatever it was used in, unchanged. And even if not, there's still a plenty of it.

    Even at 5.2 parts per million in air, that's 5.2cm^3 in a cubic meter of air. If the demand grows enough, air can be distilled for helium alone, surplus oxygen and nitrogen released back into the atmosphere, and by doing so through right mechanisms we can recover most of energy used to liquefy air in the first place. Or use it to cool devices that need cooling - imagine producing helium as a byproduct of cooling a data center.

    This all of course needs infrastructure and infrastructure needs time. So if the policy doesn't change, we're up for a period of helium crisis, when the reserve runs out and the new infrastructure still isn't in place. But it's only the lack of infrastructure to extract it that is missing - natural supplies of helium are nowhere near to depletion.

    --
    45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
  138. Re:Running out? by thegarbz · · Score: 1

    One of the reasons airships ceased to be was the cost and supply of helium. If currently the cost is unnaturally low then airships would seem like a good idea. This however is very short term thinking as a revitalisation of the airship industry thriving on helium would be short lived due to a resulting sudden spike in the cost of helium. Supply and Demand.

  139. Re:Running out? by kpoole55 · · Score: 1

    You're right in that the visible flames were from the coating on the Hindenburg but even if there'd been no visible flames the result would still have been the same, a crashed blimp, people dead and the formation of a distrust of Hydrogen as a lifting gas. The real irony is that it might have been averted if there hadn't been a tight control on who could buy Helium at the time.

    Now, what are these new power generating floating windmills going to be made of? We have a new wonderfully non-flammable material that will be light enough and strong enough to carry the generator. If the gas bag fails, there will be a parachute to lightly waft the machinery to the ground?

    Come on guys, you know that if these things make it into production they'll cut every corner they can to save weight and cost and put off that cost until something goes wrong. When has it ever been different?

  140. Re:Running out? by mrchaotica · · Score: 1

    even if there'd been no visible flames the result would still have been the same

    Except it wouldn't have been spectacular. "Failed," yes. "Failed spectacularly," no.

    --

    "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

  141. Incentives! by hacksoncode · · Score: 1
    Excellent. Perhaps now the physicists will get off their asses and get fusion reactors working.

    Then they can relax about the helium shortage, right? (N.B.: yes, I know)