Slashdot Mirror


The Outfall of a Helium-3 Crisis

astroengine writes "The United States is currently recovering from a helium isotope crisis that last year sent low-temperature physicists scrambling, sky-rocketed the cost of hospital MRI's, and threw national security staff out on a search mission for alternate ways to detect dirty bombs. Now the panic is subsiding, what is being done to conserve, or replace, helium-3?"

26 of 185 comments (clear)

  1. Re:an outlaw of balloons by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    based on how the government usually operates I expect this would be a typical response.

    Apples and oranges, Helium 3 is an isotope of Helium. It's kind of like saying we need to conserve water because there's Tritium in it. There will be a shortage of regular Helium as well soon so it's ironic it's still cheap. Helium 3 was a bi-product of cold war weapons making but since we stopped trying to see how many Hydrogen Bombs we could make there's been little or no Helium 3 produced in decades. There were once huge stockpiles but they are largely gone now.

  2. Re:Moon, or harvest from gas giants by Rakshasa+Taisab · · Score: 2, Informative

    For anyone who has problems visualizing the gravity wells: http://xkcd.com/681_large/

    --
    - These characters were randomly selected.
  3. Temporary problem. by Mt._Honkey · · Score: 5, Interesting

    There are large amounts of He3 being made in heavy water reactors that is not being collected. Until now there has been little motivation to go through the trouble and expense of modifying these reactors to extract it, but it's not THAT hard. At some point it will just be done and then we'll be fine. This is only a short-term problem. DNRTFA, of course.

    --

    Don't Bogart the fish sticks
    1. Re:Temporary problem. by MrQuacker · · Score: 2

      It depends on how much gas is produced, and what it costs to capture it. At $1500/L I cant imagine it would take that long to recoup the investment.

    2. Re:Temporary problem. by Mt._Honkey · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Okay, now I've RTFA, and it is one of the worst science articles I've ever read outside New Scientist or Conservapedia. Let us delve in:

      But the isotope, helium-3, like many rare Earth elements, has been in high demand with only limited supply.

      Helium is not a rare earth element. I have a feeling this line was inserted just to pitch the link below it.

      The gas is part of the leftovers that come from cooking up a hydrogen bomb: you know two parts uranium; one part tritium

      No idea where that ratio came from. It's not true and irrelevant.

      While there are other ways of decaying tritium without needing to build a bomb to do it...

      Is the author fully ignorant of nuclear physics or is she gearing up for some kind of scam where she sells "Tritium Decayers" to the government?

      But if a patient takes a breath of helium-3, the resulting MRI is so bright it looks as though the patient inhaled a light bulb.

      Not as bad, but misses a great opportunity to explain HOW He3 helps lung imaging. He-3 doesn't exist in any significant quantities in the body, so you can tune the MRI to look for that nucleus and bam, you can see the shape of whatever you fill with it.

      Until the FDA approves the recycled helium for humans...

      The FDA needs to approve this? That's odd, I wonder why. Too bad you didn't explain why or tell us what stage of approval its in.

      For a party that suddenly saw the balloons all pop, despite the warnings, everyone jumped.

      wat

      --

      Don't Bogart the fish sticks
    3. Re:Temporary problem. by DBHolder · · Score: 5, Informative

      The problem is not as easily solved as you make it out to be for a few reasons. The first being demand and the second being supply. The article doesn't really go into much detail but the real demand issue is the rising use by of He3 by the US gov in portal monitors. He3 tubes are by far the best devices available for neutron detection. Since 9/11 the US gov demand for He3 neutron tubes exploded and pretty much ate the entire stockpile. This has caused major headaches for everyone who uses He3 like the medical field and basic science research.

      On the supply side He3 is created when tritium decays on a 12 year half-life. The largest supply of this for many years was the US nuclear weapons program. Production now, however, is nothing like it used to be. Without the tritium production we don't have the He3. Even if we did we might not meet the kind of demand we have for He3 now. In order to make 1kg of He3 you need to let 2kg of tritium decay for 12 years. Or you need to let much larger quantities of tritium decay for shorter periods of time. Either way you need a lot more tritium than we have.

      Additionally getting He3 from heavy water reactors is probably not an option. The best way (the way the US gov does it anyway) to make tritium presently is by putting lithium rods into a reactor and then removing the tritium from the rods (its a fission product from lithium). While tritium is produced in heavy water reactors by neutron capture, the cross sections are very low. This mean you would need to separate the heavy water out from the tritium rich water (centerfuges) and then remove the tritium form the water molecules with electrolysis and then again separate tritium from deuterium. This ignores the fact that All the commercial reactors in the US are light water (normal H20) and countries that use heavy water (Canada) may not be interested in stockpiling tritium.

      Production difficulties aside tritium is just plain expensive. tfa cites the He3 price at $5000 a liter with a goal of more like $1500/L. This puts the price roughly $37500 a gram. Tritium is presently $25000+ / g and that is a subsidized price. Its estimated that actual production cost is upwards of $75000 / g

      Given all this, if we had a cheap easy solution laying around we would have done it by now.

    4. Re:Temporary problem. by hcdejong · · Score: 2

      Helium is not a rare earth element

      You're right, it's not a "(rare earth) element". Unfortunately, journalists and other Muggles tend to use the term as "rare (earth element)", applying it to any element that's not abundant.

    5. Re:Temporary problem. by peterxyz · · Score: 2

      Helium is not a rare earth element

      You're right, it's not a "(rare earth) element". Unfortunately, journalists and other Muggles tend to use the term as "rare (earth element)", applying it to any element that's not abundant.

      The original text said

      But the isotope, helium-3, like many rare Earth elements, has been in high demand with only limited supply.

      badly worded, yes, but plausably trying to draw a link to the recently reported shortage of rare earth elements

    6. Re:Temporary problem. by Enigma23 · · Score: 2

      The FDA needs to approve this? That's odd, I wonder why. Too bad you didn't explain why or tell us what stage of approval its in.

      Most medical apparatus is single-use, unless you can autoclave it to ensure it is totally sterile for subsequent uses. The FDA would need to approve the recycling and filtering system to ensure that future patients won't catch anything from previous ones. IANAD.

      --
      Ceci n'est pas une .sig
    7. Re:Temporary problem. by rgmoore · · Score: 2

      The question is not with (rare Earth) element vs. rare (Earth element); it's with referring to 3He as an element at all. It isn't an element at all. He is an element, 3He is an isotope. This is an important distinction, and one that any competent science writer should get right every time.

      --

      There's no point in questioning authority if you aren't going to listen to the answers.

  4. Quite obvious by antifoidulus · · Score: 5, Funny

    The reason the helium is becoming scarce on earth is because it's too light and escapes from the earth's atmosphere. So how do we stop that? Simple, make it heavier like we did to our own fat asses. If there is one thing we are great at it, it's getting fat, why can't we extend that to Helium? "So Mr. Helium 3, would you like to supersize that today?"

    By the time we are done with helium it won't even be able to get off the floor, let alone escape the atmosphere.

  5. Re:Being done? by NalosLayor · · Score: 2

    Your metaphor would be valid if oil was a byproduct of automobile manufacturing.

  6. Re:Other sources by XiaoMing · · Score: 5, Informative

    It's actually a fundamental physics + policy issue, but a different policy than the one you're referring to. As the article very briefly touched on, He-3 comes from the decay of Tritium. Tritium is the stuff that we put into the H-bomb (Fusion reaction rather than the atomic bomb's Fission reaction, basically redonkulously more powerful). The policy in question came from the end of the Cold War, where nonproliferation, disarmament, and the end of tritium creation.

    The physics comes in because tritium has a half life of ~13 years. This means that if someone gave you a canister of pure tritium, after two decades it'd be 1/4 tritium, and 3/4 He-3. Do the math for when the cold war ended, and you start to see why we're feeling the hit from the end of this "production cycle".

    It's also important to note that H-bombs, crafted from Tritium (Hydrogen-3), have a different yield once enough of the warhead has decayed into He3, which is actually one of the real main reasons why we're reducing our stockpile even though we didn't agree to the nonproliferation treaty. We're re-refining what tritium is left and putting it into new warheads (as a tanent: using more advanced warhead designs than the previous ones they replace too, so nonproliferation/stockpile-reduction in this case is a very generous casting).

    While there are many "alternative" ways to create He-3, it's pretty obvious from this situation that trying to buy $150 dollars of decayed bomb innards is definitely going to be cheaper than trying to buy refined nuclear-reactor extract. But at the same time, that was probably taken into account for the final price adjustment to $1500/L.

  7. Re:decomission more nukes by MrQuacker · · Score: 2

    The bombs dont give off the gas. Making the stuff that goes into the bombs makes the gas. So to get more He3 we actually need to build more bombs.

  8. Re:Free market by ue85 · · Score: 2

    Lung x-rays? I work in healthcare and have no idea what this "lung x-ray" you speak of even is. I am assuming you are referring to MRI techniques. In any case realize there are plenty of cost effective alternatives for lung imaging, from plain film chest x-rays to CT (with or without pulmonary angiography) and nuclear ventilation with either xenon or aerosols. The if cost increased there wouldn't be fewer people getting treated, they would simply just go to alternate modalities of equal worth.

  9. Re:an outlaw of balloons by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    If the government is so stupid then how did it make all of that Helium-3 to begin with? That stuff didn't come from your beloved "free market," quit making a fool of yourself.

  10. Re:Free market by sjames · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Because, naturally, the vagaries of the market are so much more important than human life. We live only to serve the economy, OH WAIT!

    The economy and the market exist ONLY to serve us, never the other way around. Their "goodness" may be judged exclusively by how well they accomplish this.

    I doubt a shortage will be allowed to continue though since DHS needs it to check our Chinese diethylene glycol laden toothpaste for bombs.

  11. Re:Other sources by afidel · · Score: 2

    By naturally occurring Tritium I mean from sources like cosmic bombardment and the decay chain of other radioactive materials. Since the He-3 itself doesn't decay that means it should accumulate over geographic time and some percentage of any large concentrations of He will obviously contain some non-trivial amount of He-3. My question was around how feasible it would be to extract whatever amount is present in the Billions of liters of He we have stockpiled.

    --
    There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
  12. Re:Mining the Moon, of course by shawb · · Score: 2

    More information about some of the unexpected difficulties in Lunar mining can be found in this documentary I just watched today.

    --
    I'll never make that mistake again, reading the experts' opinions. - Feynman
  13. A consequence of the tritium shortage by Animats · · Score: 4, Informative

    This is a consequence of the decline in the U.S's nuclear industry. Tritium is usually produced in nuclear reactors. It's useful for several purposes, from boosting nuclear weapons to exit sign lighting in aircraft.

    Tritium is made by irradiating lithium with neutrons Tritium decays with a half-life of 12 years. He3, which is stable, is one of the decay products, and that's where He3 comes from. (This is a commercial application of transmutation.)

    The US used to have a reactor at Savannah River to produce tritium, but that was shut down in 1988. Since the early 1990s, there have been efforts to set up a new source, and presently, two power reactors of the Tennessee Valley Authority are used to produce tritium, A few extra lithium rods are put in, and changed out occasionally to recover the tritium.

    The He3 shortage is a side effect of the tritium shortage.

  14. Re:This is easy by dryeo · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Spread very thin though. From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helium-3#Extraterrestrial_supplies

    The Moon's surface contains helium-3 at concentrations on the order of 0.01 ppm in sunlit areas,[40][41] and concentrations as much as five times higher in permanently shadowed regions.[2] A number of people, starting with Gerald Kulcinski in 1986,[42] have proposed to explore the moon, mine lunar regolith and use the helium-3 for fusion. Because of the low concentrations of helium-3, any mining equipment would need to process extremely large amounts of regolith (over 100 million tons of regolith to obtain one ton of helium 3),[43] and some proposals have suggested that helium-3 extraction be piggybacked onto a larger mining and development operation.[citation needed]

    --
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
  15. Re:first post by couchslug · · Score: 2

    That would send the price of American "beer" skyrocketing due to the reduced supply of the key ingredient.

    --
    "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
  16. Re:Moon, or harvest from gas giants by BrokenHalo · · Score: 3, Funny

    Build some more atomic weapons.

    That's a really silly idea. They shouldn't build any more atomic weapons until they've used up the ones they've got.

  17. Re:an outlaw of balloons by Danse · · Score: 2

    I won't bother with a list of anecdotes.. they're easily searchable. you are wrong.

    I love it. The old "my argument is so good, I don't even have to make it" argument.

    --
    It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
  18. Re:an outlaw of balloons by Rei · · Score: 4, Informative

    That's incorrect.

    Helium-3 is a *byproduct* of the *existence* of hydrogen bombs. More specifically, byproduct of the existence of tritium. Tritium decays into helium-3. Helium-3 was unwanted, while tritium was wanted; there were actually some projects to attempt to convert the helium-3 back into tritium.

    This shortage has absolutely nothing to do with how easy or hard helium-3 is to produce or acquire, nor is it a testament to how "free market planning" works so much better than central planning. Quite the opposite, this is a well known phenomenon of free markets: products which are of lower value and which are produced in a limited number of places as a byproduct of producing a more valuable goods can be extremely vulnerable to price swings.

    --
    Present day. Present time.
  19. Re:Moon, or harvest from gas giants by Rei · · Score: 2

    "Just get it from the moon" -- as though it doesn't cost $5-15k per kilogram just to get a *vehicle* into *low earth orbit*. Let alone the surface of the moon. Let alone a return trip to the moon. Let alone a return trip to the moon and hauling enough manpower and equipment to mine the moon. For something that's found in parts-per-billion quantities, mixed in with parts-per-million quantities of something that's essentially chemically identical (He-4).

    It's way, way easier to produce He3 here on earth; it's a decay product of tritium, which is bred from lithium which is exposed to a neutron flux (aka, a lithium blanket in a nuclear reactor). Which is why it was a byproduct of our thermonuclear weapon stockpile; as they sit, their tritium slowly decays.

    --
    Present day. Present time.