Slashdot Mirror


Congress Reaches Agreement ... On Helium

Despite the wrangling that's resulted in a government shut-down, Congress managed last week to agree on one thing: Helium. Reader gbrumfiel writes: "The U.S. holds vast helium reserves which it sells to scientists and private industry. According to NPR, a new law was needed to allow the helium to continue to flow. Congress passed it late last week, but only after a year-long lobbying effort and intense debate (and in the end, Senator Ted Cruz opposed the measure). Can a new bipartisanship rise out of this cooperation? Or will hot air prevail on Capitol Hill? (Insert your helium joke here.)" Apparently, helium is not yet so scarce that it's not available in balloons at the grocery store.

255 comments

  1. Balloons by AmiMoJo · · Score: 3, Informative

    Children's balloons use recycled or low grade helium which can't be used for other more worthy purposes. It's not really a waste.

    --
    const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
    SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    1. Re:Balloons by somersault · · Score: 4, Funny

      What could be more worthwhile than sounding like a chipmunk for 10 seconds?

      --
      which is totally what she said
    2. Re:Balloons by gl4ss · · Score: 1

      ..replace can't with "too expensive right now".

      anyways, come up with that fusion already so there'll be some use for it.

      --
      world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
    3. Re:Balloons by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      sounding like a chipmunk for 20 seconds.

    4. Re:Balloons by Sockatume · · Score: 2, Insightful

      "Children's balloons use recycled or low grade helium which too expensive right now be used for more worthy purposes."

      What?

      --
      No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
    5. Re:Balloons by plover · · Score: 5, Funny

      Laughing at the guy who tried to sound like a chipmunk for 30 seconds, but passed out and fell over!

      --
      John
    6. Re:Balloons by Russ1642 · · Score: 5, Funny

      As you know, gases are composed of atoms or molecules that are constantly bumping into one another. After a while these collisions can cause dents in the atoms causing them to lose their shine. While ok for balloons and such, medical and aerospace applications require new shiny helium atoms.

    7. Re: Balloons by jd2112 · · Score: 1

      Please. If I have to sit through another Alvin and the Chipmunks movie I'll scream!

      --
      Any insufficiently advanced magic is indistinguishable from technology.
    8. Re:Balloons by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Low grade helium? What could possibly be wrong with helium? Does it have an extra neutron or something?
      Seriously, I'd like to know. Perhaps it's contaminated with some other gas that's too difficult to separate...

    9. Re:Balloons by gameboyhippo · · Score: 1

      It's called "balloon air". Supposedly it is the byproduct of helium used for scientific and medical purposes. It's not pure helium. Personally I'm not sure if this is lobbying or true. It certainly sounds plausible.

    10. Re:Balloons by Sockatume · · Score: 1

      I get that there's a lower grade of helium, but I can't make hide nor hair of what gl4ss was trying to say.

      --
      No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
    11. Re:Balloons by somersault · · Score: 2

      Because you can still extract the helium from "low grade" sources - it's just not worth it unless you get a good return on the cost of extracting it.

      --
      which is totally what she said
    12. Re:Balloons by gl4ss · · Score: 2

      the helium in balloons isn't as far as I know any different isotope or magically soiled. just that purifying it costs a bit. it could be used for the purposes which require pure helium, if it was purified.

      --
      world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
    13. Re:Balloons by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Low percentage helium mixture would be a better name. I'm guessing its hard to remove from a mix, because it doesn't react with much. Noble gas and all that. They should just use hydrogen, it worked for the Hindenburg.

    14. Re:Balloons by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Interesting

      Corporatist propaganda, more likely. Helium is extracted from natural gas - and that's a damn sight lower grade than 'balloon air'. No, this is just another example of whistling past the 'graveyard' of global resource exhaustion.

    15. Re:Balloons by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      Balloon grade helium is still 90-95% pure typically. The only reason it is "waste" is because helium is so cheap to get already refined, there is no need to refine it. It is still a symptom of helium prices being really low, at all grades. It is not like helium comes out of the ground at 99.995% pure, and it is not like all science work needs the high purity stuff. Depending on the exact impurities, the helium can be purified with just activated charcoal sometimes, or other times it needs to be separated cryogenicly when there is a large neon impurity.

    16. Re:Balloons by circletimessquare · · Score: 0

      that doesn't make any sense

      it's a gas. it's an elemental gas. and a noble element at that. it can't even be chemically degraded

      it's not like an old sweater whose threads have come loose. you can easily extract pure helium from mostly helium mixed with whatever: recycling

      it's like you are saying "you can't recycle an aluminum can, you can only throw it out"

      of course children's balloons are a waste of helium

      --
      intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    17. Re:Balloons by gameboyhippo · · Score: 1

      Ah... What threw me off was that you quoted AmiMoJo rather than gl4ss. I wasn't sure what gl4ss was saying either.

    18. Re:Balloons by Entropius · · Score: 0

      What does "low grade helium" mean? Is it the alphas or the electrons that get worn out?

      It seems that chemically separating a gas whose chief property is not reacting with anything from other gases that are either very reactive or have a molecular weight different by an order of magnitude shouldn't be *that* hard...

    19. Re:Balloons by Joce640k · · Score: 1

      Children's balloons use recycled or low grade helium which can't be used for other more worthy purposes. It's not really a waste.

      LOL!

      It's not 100% helium, it's mixed with air to make it cheaper, but the idea that they couldn't separate it out is silly.

      Also: What's "low grade" helium? Helium is an element, it's one of the few elements that can't be contaminated with anything - it has no stable compounds.

      Separation? Medical/scientific helium is usually liquid. Helium liquifies at a different temperature than air so separation of helium from air would a trivial/automatic part of the cooling process (throw away everything that forms a puddle above -270 degrees K).

      --
      No sig today...
    20. Re:Balloons by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But if it is just mixed with air (and balloon grade helium still only has ~5% impurity), you don't need the helium to react, just everything else. The only problem is when you need really high purity and the impurities are other noble gases, which then involves passing the gas over a cold filter that condenses the heavier noble gases. Even the latter is pretty straightforward, just requires energy that is pointless to pay if you can just get the purer stuff from elsewhere cheap.

    21. Re:Balloons by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In some cases it's not so much the percentage of Helium that differentiates 'Balloon Gas' from the Helium gas used for medical/scientific puposes (although that is a factor), it's that they can tell you what the other stuff is.

      i.e. Balloon gas = 90% helium, 10% no idea, might kill you, might not, no guarantees.
      'Pure' Helium = 95% Helium, 2% x, 1.7%y, 1.3%z, manufacturer says it won't kill you if you use it safely according to their directions.

      (Well, this is what I was told by a model airship enthusiast several years ago - could easily be wrong).

    22. Re:Balloons by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      or other times it needs to be separated cryogenicly when there is a large neon impurity.

      And in many cases this part comes for "free" because the customer wants it as a liquid, and many cases it is liquefied to make transportation and storage cheaper by the gas supply company. Considering the substantial difference in boiling point between helium and components of air, even neon, this step can be easily done by any place that has the liquefaction equipment.

    23. Re:Balloons by Hatta · · Score: 1

      And helium cannot be enriched or purified? Is it really better to let a (practically) non-renewable resource escape into space than save it for when it becomes economical to refine?

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    24. Re:Balloons by dkleinsc · · Score: 1

      According to August Strindberg, Iron and Sulfur.

      --
      I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
    25. Re: Balloons by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      Please. If I have to sit through another Alvin and the Chipmunks movie I'll scream!

      ... in a high-pitched voice.

    26. Re:Balloons by DeathToBill · · Score: 1

      Other inert gases like, say, Nitrogen?

      --
      Slashdot - News for Nerds, Stuff that Matters, in ISO-8859-1 Has just realised that beta makes this signature redundant
    27. Re:Balloons by DeathToBill · · Score: 2

      Sort of. The US government paid for a lot of helium to be extracted from natural gas and has been sitting on a big reserve for a long time. For a decade or so now they have been selling it below cost to encourage science applications etc. So the cost of extracting from natural gas is above the current 'market' price of scientific helium - but only because the 'market' is a single seller who is selling below cost.

      What will happen when that reserve is exhausted is uncertain. The price of helium will rise, but it's not clear how much. Probably quite a lot at first, but it will probably also settle down as new producers come online.

      --
      Slashdot - News for Nerds, Stuff that Matters, in ISO-8859-1 Has just realised that beta makes this signature redundant
    28. Re:Balloons by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Low percentage helium mixture would be a better name.

      Helium Light? Diet Helium? Helium Zero?

    29. Re:Balloons by DeathToBill · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It can be mixed with something else. Water isn't chemically degraded when it's mixed into sewage, either, but you don't go drinking it. You need to separate it first - or just drink other water that's already pure, since it's cheaper to do that than to purify sewage. This is exactly what is happening in the helium market.

      --
      Slashdot - News for Nerds, Stuff that Matters, in ISO-8859-1 Has just realised that beta makes this signature redundant
    30. Re:Balloons by Hoi+Polloi · · Score: 1

      Whew! Thank goodness we aren't wasting it on something frivolous.

      --
      It is by the juice of the coffee bean that thoughts acquire speed, the teeth acquire stains. The stains become a warning
    31. Re:Balloons by DeathToBill · · Score: 1

      It means it is mixed with other stuff that's difficult enough to separate out that it's cheaper to buy new refined hydrogen than to refine the 'low grade helium'.

      --
      Slashdot - News for Nerds, Stuff that Matters, in ISO-8859-1 Has just realised that beta makes this signature redundant
    32. Re:Balloons by DeathToBill · · Score: 2

      You answered your own question; low grade helium has been mixed with air (or other gases). Not to make it cheaper; it is usually a waste product from other helium uses (and so it *is* cheaper than refined helium, but that's not the point).

      And of course separation is possible, but it's more expensive than buying already-refined helium. This is because the US government has a large reserve of refined helium that it has been selling below cost for many years now, distorting the market.

      --
      Slashdot - News for Nerds, Stuff that Matters, in ISO-8859-1 Has just realised that beta makes this signature redundant
    33. Re:Balloons by mark-t · · Score: 1

      Nitrogen isn't inert.

    34. Re:Balloons by somersault · · Score: 1

      If breathing it could kill you, I don't think it would be legal to use it for kids' balloons.. considering that people sue for the slightest things in the US.

      --
      which is totally what she said
    35. Re:Balloons by JazzLad · · Score: 1

      Breathing water can kill you, doesn't stop them from selling balloons intended for water balloons ...

      --
      "If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear." - Every fascist, ever
    36. Re:Balloons by ninjagin · · Score: 1

      If I may, I'd like to sharpen your point a little bit.
      Helium isn't extracted from natural gas, per se.
      Helium comes out of the ground alongside the natural gas (mixed with it, at a low percentage), and is separated from it, where it can be captured in sufficient concentrations.
      Technically, it's a leftover waste or by-product of the process, but not all helium is captured (it requires infrastructure to capture and transport it) and a lot of it is simply vented away. If I recall correctly, there's a fraction of a percent of helium in the output of almost all natural gas wells, but until you get somewhere around 1%, there is little incentive to create and maintain the support structure to capture and transport it.
      Anyhow, my point is that you can't just take a bunch of natural gas and somehow squeeze or pull helium out of it. There is still a finite amount of helium in the planet no matter now much natural gas may be trapped in the crust of the planet.
      To your point, we'll have to see what happens to prices as supplies dwindle. I'm not so optimistic that any reserves we have now will be sufficient to meet the demands of current industry or research. I am hoping that we can exercise alternative gases or cooling methods to reduce the amount of helium needed in the future.

      --
      .. pa-ra-bo-la, pa-ra-bo-la, 2 pi R, 2 pi R, where's your latus rectum, where's your latus rectum, 2 pi R
    37. Re:Balloons by somersault · · Score: 1

      You sell them yes, but restaurants don't hand them out to kids to play with.. I hope :p

      --
      which is totally what she said
    38. Re:Balloons by Megane · · Score: 1

      What could be more worthwhile than sounding like a chipmunk for 10 seconds?

      Having all of Congress sound like a chipmunk for 10 minutes.

      --
      #naabhaprzrag, #sverubfr-000, #agi-fcbafberq, negvpyr[pynff*=' negvpyr-ary-'] { qvfcynl: abar !vzcbegnag; }
    39. Re:Balloons by Dr_Barnowl · · Score: 1

      And the reason it's cheaper is because of the artificial price depression caused by selling the US National Helium Reserve.

      Once you let that helium leak into the atmosphere, it's gone.

      Just like how oil shale is now considered profitable, despite it's much lower EROI compared to light sweet crude, extracting helium from low-grade gas mixtures would one day seem economically attractive. If we weren't chuffing [1] it away by handing it to kids in 2 litre containers.

      [1] to "chuff" is a North UK slang for farting. Seemed more appropriate than pissing, for a gas.

    40. Re:Balloons by Megane · · Score: 1

      There is still a finite amount of helium in the planet no matter now much natural gas may be trapped in the crust of the planet.

      Not quite finite.

      --
      #naabhaprzrag, #sverubfr-000, #agi-fcbafberq, negvpyr[pynff*=' negvpyr-ary-'] { qvfcynl: abar !vzcbegnag; }
    41. Re:Balloons by sylvandb · · Score: 1

      And the reason why the Hindenburg used hydrogen...

      The U.S. Congress passed the Helium Control Act and Teddy signed it.

      Almost 80 years later and gov't is still making a mess of things.

    42. Re:Balloons by SuricouRaven · · Score: 1

      They also dilute it with air to make it even cheaper - just barely enough helium to lift the balloon and a little string.

    43. Re:Balloons by ColdWetDog · · Score: 1

      No, you don't have to go a restaurant. Just a food store - getting Nitrous oxide is trivial around here. Hell, I can go to the welding store and get a entire cylinder of the stuff. Really, He is way down on the list of things I worry about even stupid people possessing.

      What do you all do about glue?

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    44. Re:Balloons by SuricouRaven · · Score: 2

      I managed to get through the first verse of 'still alive' on one breath, but by the end of it the edges of my vision were turning green. I recognise this as the first sign that my brain really, really would like some more oxygen, so hurried the last few words and hastily commenced breathing.

    45. Re:Balloons by SuricouRaven · · Score: 1

      There was an incident a while ago (This year, I think? Maybe last) with a girl who died after breathing helium. Burst lungs.

      Idiot tried to breathe it direct from the high-pressure canister.

    46. Re:Balloons by somersault · · Score: 1

      We don't give or sell solvents or NO2 to kids to play with :p

      --
      which is totally what she said
    47. Re:Balloons by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your link isn't that well educated it lost me 3 seconds after its start, telling "F" was iron.
      Actually no, F is Fluor, when Fe is iron.

    48. Re:Balloons by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It is easy to get equipment and material that will adsorb nitrogen for purification of noble gases. There are chemical means too, but usually more expensive unless you need really portable equipment or need a particular byproduct.

    49. Re:Balloons by Rockoon · · Score: 0

      Exactly.

      There is no element that we cannot make in a lab and thusly even on an industrial scale. While its expensive to make elements, it does put an upper limit on how much any element is worth.

      As time marches on, it gets cheaper and cheaper to do. At some point the nominal cost will approach the cost of shipping much as it has with food in the western world.

      --
      "His name was James Damore."
    50. Re:Balloons by asylumx · · Score: 1

      Breathing helium can kill you much the same way that putting a plastic bag over your head can kill you. It stops you from breathing oxygen-enriched air which your body requires. It has nothing to do with whether the helium itself is damaging your body.

    51. Re:Balloons by CCarrot · · Score: 2

      It can be mixed with something else. Water isn't chemically degraded when it's mixed into sewage, either, but you don't go drinking it. You need to separate it first - or just drink other water that's already pure, since it's cheaper to do that than to purify sewage. This is exactly what is happening in the helium market.

      Uhh...that's a pretty picture. A useful metaphor, but still...eww.

      "Here you go kids! Sewage balloons! Have fun!"

      --
      "I love animals! Some are cute, others are tasty, what's not to like?" - Betsy Schroeder, Jeopardy contestant
    52. Re:Balloons by Bengie · · Score: 1

      What?

      I also wonder what is so hard about separating helium, an inert gas that is incredibly light, from almost anything. I would assume Helium would quickly stratify.

      Could someone explain what is so hard about increasing the "grade" of the helium?

    53. Re:Balloons by hubie · · Score: 1

      The Government wasn't selling it below market cost to encourage scientific applications or for any other reason based upon intelligence, foresight, or reality. It is because Congress passed a law forcing the helium reserve to be sold off (Helium Privatization Act of 1996). The pricing mechanism worked into the law bears no relationship to the market price of helium. It was as much a horrible idea at the time as it is now. Too bad it only took almost 20 years to address.

    54. Re:Balloons by Bengie · · Score: 1

      Just don't fall face forward when you pass out, you should start breathing again on your own.

    55. Re:Balloons by Bengie · · Score: 1

      N2 is inert and that's about the only Nitrogen we encounter.

    56. Re:Balloons by dkleinsc · · Score: 1

      That link is to what is known in the trade as a "joke", which means that the laws of reality can be bent in order to make things funny.

      --
      I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
    57. Re:Balloons by Khashishi · · Score: 1

      What is low grade helium? Helium is not petroleum. It mostly doesn't react with anything, so at worst, it is mixed with some other gases. Surely they can be separated.

    58. Re:Balloons by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ignoring the amounts of oxides and ammonia based compounds that comes up in plenty of industrial and scientific processes... N2 is only relatively inert. Industrial plants handling significant amounts of gas are already going to be dealing with it pressurized, reactions form various complexes that allow regeneratable filtering through solutions, or reactions with lithium to produce lithium nitride are well within reach. But currently, unless you need a specific byproduct (e.g. lithium nitride or ammonia), it is just far easier to separate it through fractional distillation.

    59. Re:Balloons by nmr_andrew · · Score: 1

      Actually, the US reserve is crude helium - the big industrial gas companies buy it and then purify it more.

    60. Re:Balloons by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The reason it's cheap is because it's literally farting out of the earth at every place they have a natural gas well. He is a non-insignificant part of natural gas. Even the stuff that you heat your water and cook with. It's too damn expensive to capture it all. Oh my! It's going to space!

    61. Re:Balloons by squiggleslash · · Score: 1

      Kinda makes you wonder if anyone has tried to pass off hydrogen as helium selling canisters for balloon inflation purposes.

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
    62. Re:Balloons by nmr_andrew · · Score: 4, Interesting

      And helium cannot be enriched or purified? Is it really better to let a (practically) non-renewable resource escape into space than save it for when it becomes economical to refine?

      Emphasis mine

      That's exactly what's been happening. Most of the natural gas extractors decided that as long as the government was selling helium at a very low price, it wasn't economical to collect it. AFAIK, Exxon-Mobil has one major site in Wyoming and that's about it (and it's currently down for "maintenance"). Of course, this is complete crap - they just don't want to be bothered.

      Currently the BLM charges $84 per million cubic feet of crude helium (scroll halfway down the page or so). It takes ~27 cu.ft. of gas to make 1 liter of liquid. We get pretty good pricing and pay roughly $10/L of liquid helium. If we assume it costs $1 to purify and liquefy gas to make one liter, heck, if it costs $5 and the gas is only 50% pure, the "big 3" suppliers aren't losing any money and could easily pay more if the natural gas producers collected and sold the helium.

    63. Re:Balloons by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Would you settle for having them sound like baboons?

    64. Re:Balloons by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe gl4ss was breathing in too much helium

    65. Re:Balloons by InvalidError · · Score: 1

      Any generally harmless gas can kill you through oxygen displacement leading to asphyxiation.

      Helium is generally considered non-toxic and it even replaces nitrogen for deep-diving. Not a problem as long as the helium-oxygen mix is within the right range for humans. Breathing directly from an helium canister though fills your lungs with 100% helium and that would knock most people out within a minute or so.

    66. Re:Balloons by TheCarp · · Score: 2, Insightful

      > Out here in the Wild and Woolly World of America, we sell all sorts of dangerous things that can kill
      > you if you breath them - we laugh at silly things like helium (and especially nitrous oxide). Hell son,
      > we'll even sell you a gun.

      all sorts of dangerous things, including guns are available just about everywhere in the world. Do you mean to imply people in other places do not use paints or glues? If so, then I certainly did not know that. Also, as far as drugs go, nitrous is pretty innocuous as long as you don't do something monumentally stupid (like doing it while driving, standing, or in ways that leave no air supply for your soon to be lifeless body), or decide that being safe to use means you can use it every single day for a few weeks or months (few amusing case studies on that about the very special people who went down that road)

      > We can do things that nobody else in the frikk'in world can do.
      > Like shut down the entire government over health care.

      Entire what? I assure you the ENTIRE government is NOT shut down, just the "nonessential" stuff....you know, like everything that might benefit you or I. Anything that benefits politicians or their corperate masters are, most assuredly, still open for business as they are "Essential".

      Health care is just the cover story, this is really just about making people hurt enough to remember who writes the checks and whose life and well-being is non-essential

      --
      "I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
    67. Re:Balloons by TheCarp · · Score: 1

      Not for nothing but, welding supply gas doesn't have to be terribly clean, not like stuff rated for food service use. You likely don't actually want to inhale the nitrous used in welding supply unless you happen to know for sure that it really comes from the same big tank as the medical and food grade.

      --
      "I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
    68. Re:Balloons by mark-t · · Score: 1

      No, it's not. It will react with hydrogen to produce ammonia, for example. Helium is completely inert, and does not exist in a stable form combined with any other element.

    69. Re:Balloons by taiwanjohn · · Score: 1

      Gotta post a link to the classic "helium scene" from Woody Allen's "Broadway Danny Rose"...

      --
      XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve your problem, you're not using enough of it. --AC
    70. Re:Balloons by Megane · · Score: 1

      Are you trying to make a joke? Then I don't get it. Because they already do sound like baboons.

      --
      #naabhaprzrag, #sverubfr-000, #agi-fcbafberq, negvpyr[pynff*=' negvpyr-ary-'] { qvfcynl: abar !vzcbegnag; }
    71. Re:Balloons by Newander · · Score: 1

      Despite what they try to tell you when you buy new tires.

      --

      Jesus saves and takes half damage.

    72. Re:Balloons by dcollins117 · · Score: 2

      The U.S. Congress passed the Helium Control Act and Teddy signed it. Almost 80 years later and gov't is still making a mess of things.

      That's because Congress knows quite a bit about blowing hot air.

    73. Re:Balloons by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      helium! is not inert either

    74. Re:Balloons by macdaddy357 · · Score: 1

      If that runs out, just use hydrogen. What could possibly go wrong?

      --
      How ya like dat?
    75. Re:Balloons by St.Creed · · Score: 1

      Breathing directly from a Helium canister will kill you if the canister holds enough pressure. A stupid idea in any case.

      --
      Therefore, by the (faulty) logic you're using, you're just a cow with a keyboard - osu-neko (2604)
    76. Re:Balloons by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The problem is that "cold filter" needs to be really, really cold - as in <20K, and you will still have hydrogen present.

    77. Re:Balloons by mark-t · · Score: 1

      Incorrect. Helium does not chemically combine with any other element to produce a stable compound. Nitrogen exists stably in many molecular compounds.

    78. Re:Balloons by kimvette · · Score: 1

      If we ever perfect fusion reactors, then the helium supply will be for all practical intents and purposes infinite - and just think, nuclear fusion is only (5|10|25|50|200) years away!

      --
      The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50
    79. Re:Balloons by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The U.S. Congress passed the Helium Control Act and Teddy signed it. Almost 80 years later and gov't is still making a mess of things.

      That's because Congress knows quite a bit about blowing hot air.

      They both know hot air, but despite JFK and Clinton, I think the Repubs know a bit more about blowing...

    80. Re:Balloons by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Adsorption based schemes don't necessarily require temperatures below the boiling point, although it can help its efficiency. There are helium neon separation schemes that use only LN2 and sometimes a pressure based adsorption stage. It would be rather rare to have a large amount of neon mixed with the helium though, especially since the neon worth recovering itself. For separation of air, LN2 temperature adsorption is more than enough for decent throughput, and hydrogen is not a problem (at least for the typical research grade purities) because you can react it with oxygen and water is easily removed.

    81. Re:Balloons by careysub · · Score: 1

      Kinda makes you wonder if anyone has tried to pass off hydrogen as helium selling canisters for balloon inflation purposes.

      It doesn't work.

      The hydrogen escapes through latex rubber balloons very quickly, in a couple of minutes the balloons collapse.

      --
      Starships were meant to fly, Hands up and touch the sky - Nicky Minaj
    82. Re:Balloons by bdwebb · · Score: 1
      Uhm. You can't have a low 'grade' fundamental element. You can have a lower purity level (which may be what you mean by grade) which can then be refined into a more pure 'higher grade'. Since there is a worldwide shortage outside of the US' apparent cache of helium, though, doesn't it make us look like we are metaphorically wiping our asses with our extra helium because we have so much when we throw it into balloons instead of treating is as a valuable resource?

      I like balloons and I don't want to ruin a child's birthday, but I don't think it is necessarily a good use of the resource to have a floaty thing on a string that makes your voice sound funny and I don't think that the lack of floating balloons at parties will ruin anyone's day. Also, IANAScientist but I'm pretty sure that the 'low grade' helium is still suitable for experimentation and, with minimal refinement, can be used for medical purposes as well:

      http://www.balloontime.com/about/FAQ.aspx (This is simply a balloon site offering helium in their kits so may be inaccurate but I figure it is close enough)

      What is the purity of the helium in Balloon Time tanks?

      There are many types of helium concentrations based upon the application for the helium. Medical helium is over 99% pure. Balloon grade helium is approximately 94% - 96% pure. Our helium has been tested to be at least 98% pure, with most readings over 99% pure.

      Ultimately it isn't like balloon helium is somehow a different thing than medical helium...in my opinion we are simply wasting an important resource for something frivolous. Balloons can be put on sticks...actually I think that might be more fun so that the children can beat one another with the balloons. But then one of them loses the balloon and stabs another child and....wait...ALL BALLOONS SHOULD BE ON STICKS.

    83. Re:Balloons by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If the entire ~150 PW-hr global, annual energy usage came from fusion that was 100% efficient, we would generate about 1 million kg of helium a year, but current usage is around 30 million kg a year. So unless fusion is somewhere around ~5% efficient while still being economically implementable, or there is a drastic difference in the demand growth for energy vs. helium, fusion alone will not provide the majority of helium.

    84. Re:Balloons by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've used cheap, generic party balloons filled with hydrogen as part of a science demonstration show before. While they do seem to deflate a little faster, they still easily last a day. For some events they had to be prepared ahead of time in the morning and sit around until an evening show. Don't forget that a helium atom is smaller than a hydrogen atom, which is smaller than a hydrogen molecule. The ability for hydrogen to penetrate various materials comes down in large part to chemistry in addition to its small size.

    85. Re:Balloons by Demonantis · · Score: 1

      Entropy. The most expensive laws of thermodynamics. Seperating mixtures is unbelievably expensive.

    86. Re:Balloons by Andtalath · · Score: 1

      You have about 40 seconds of oxygen depravation before you pass out.

      So, yeah, about right.

    87. Re:Balloons by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      it mixd wid other stuffs 2 exponsve 2 refix dat dey just by knew heliom

      Wanna try asking again, like the other 40 people?

    88. Re:Balloons by DeathToBill · · Score: 1

      Fair enough.

      --
      Slashdot - News for Nerds, Stuff that Matters, in ISO-8859-1 Has just realised that beta makes this signature redundant
    89. Re:Balloons by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Out here in the Wild and Woolly World of America, we sell all sorts of dangerous things

      Except for Kinder Surprise. Can't have that. Too dangerous.

    90. Re:Balloons by GoogleShill · · Score: 1

      I know that automotive-grade nitrous has sulfur dioxide intentionally added to prevent recreational use, so I imagine the welding gas does as well. The clean, food-grade, fully-huffable stuff is harder to come by, but certainly not impossible.

    91. Re:Balloons by multicsfan · · Score: 1

      Congress and house both sounding like the chipmunks they are ;)

    92. Re:Balloons by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If only someone had presented this argument to Ted Cruz, he would have finally understood the issue. He's a science guy, just a Kindergarten Science guy. (and a Graduate School of Evil guy as well).

  2. Thank god we have Ted Cruz by TWiTfan · · Score: 1

    Thank god we have politicians in America willing to stand up for not doing their jobs.

    --
    The cow says "Moo." The dog says "Woof." The Timothy says "Thanks, valued customer. We appreciate your input."
    1. Re:Thank god we have Ted Cruz by intermodal · · Score: 1

      Wait, keeping the US in the wholesale heilum business is a senator's job? I don't follow your logic here.

      --
      In SOVIET RUSSIA... erm...NSA AMERICA, the Internet logs onto YOU!
    2. Re:Thank god we have Ted Cruz by rujholla · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Note from TFA that the disagreement that Senator Cruz had with the bill was that he and the House supported the version of the bill that said that the money from Helium sales should go to defecit reduction and the bill that passed that he voted against had the money going for national parks and "environmental issues."

    3. Re:Thank god we have Ted Cruz by Bill_the_Engineer · · Score: 4, Insightful

      So he voted against a bill that earmarked the funds in favor for a version that uses the funds for "deficit reduction" which is political speak for money into my pork project. Funding is fungible and no one knows how to use smoke and mirrors to hide budgeting irregularities like a congress person.

      At least he didn't waste anyone's time by filibustering it and then voting for it immediately afterwards.

      --
      These comments are my own and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of my employer or colleagues...
    4. Re:Thank god we have Ted Cruz by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why not let private companies take care of selling helium? I mean, I'm definitely not one of those who think the free market is the best solution for everything, but I can't imagine just one reason why it shouldn't be in the case of helium.

    5. Re:Thank god we have Ted Cruz by rujholla · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Funny. I feel that environmental issues is political speak for putting money into pork projects like Solyndra.

    6. Re:Thank god we have Ted Cruz by operagost · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      So he voted against a bill that earmarked the funds in favor for a version that uses the funds for "deficit reduction" which is political speak for money into my pork project.

      Thanks, Captain Democrat, but national parks and "environmental issues" ARE pork. Some states have more parks than others, and for those who do it has great pork potential. The same for "environmental issues", which today means subsidies for solar panels from failed corporations like A123 and Solyndra.

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    7. Re:Thank god we have Ted Cruz by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      So now deficit reduction is a pork project but national parks aren't? Wow. Just wow. No wonder we can't find a common ground between the goose steppers of the two major parties when that's the kind of rhetoric being thrown around.
       
      And don't get me wrong, I'm for national parks. If the government is going to step outside of the constitution and spend my dime I think parks are a good place to do it. Better than feeding the unwilling-to-work masses with HoHos, cheap vodka and smokes. But the bottom line is that the nation has a crisis on its hands that so far has been covered up by a couple generations of administrations using creative accounting and flowery language. When is America going to wake up to what it has become and who is paying for it?

    8. Re:Thank god we have Ted Cruz by intermodal · · Score: 1

      The only reason for what we presently have as far as government involvment in the helium business is that the Strategic Helium Reserve was created for military reasons, and now we're simply selling off the stockpile. The stored quantity is massive. I think the government needs to get out of the business, but at the same time, I think it's doubtful that they are taking measures to make that possible.

      --
      In SOVIET RUSSIA... erm...NSA AMERICA, the Internet logs onto YOU!
    9. Re:Thank god we have Ted Cruz by Bill_the_Engineer · · Score: 3, Insightful

      So now deficit reduction is a pork project but national parks aren't?

      National parks have a fixed budget. For FY14 they only requested $2.6 billion dollars (an increase of $ 56.6 million dollars from last year). Even with this budget they had to lower their employment levels by 242 FTE (basically a labor force reduction of approximately 242 people). The NPS manages 84.4 million acres of protected lands spread across every state in the US. They existed since 1916 and their total operating budget is barely a blip on the radar inside a $3.8 trillion dollar budget. Since 42 national parks have or will soon have natural gas wells, it seems only fair that the national park system have some financial benefit from having to monitor these projects (Helium is extracted from natural gas, especially from states like Wyoming where the Grand Tetons are located).

      Pork projects tend to be a short-term investment for the benefit of a very small region. Like a new bridge in Alaska, Light Industrial Zone (with only a single customer) in a southern state, a project to document the history of minority colleges in the deep south, or 22 very expensive fighter jets that the DOD says they don't need.

      "Deficit reduction" actually means if we get 16 billion dollars of income from helium, we have 16 billion dollars to spend on anything we like before we reach that imaginary debt ceiling.

      You didn't notice they used the term "deficit reduction" instead of "debt reduction". If it was for debt reduction then all the money would go towards the principal of debt already owed. This is not the case.

      --
      These comments are my own and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of my employer or colleagues...
    10. Re:Thank god we have Ted Cruz by DeathToBill · · Score: 1

      You would think there is a business opportunity here - given enough cash, you could buy out the government's stake in the helium reserve and become a monopoly supplier overnight...

      --
      Slashdot - News for Nerds, Stuff that Matters, in ISO-8859-1 Has just realised that beta makes this signature redundant
    11. Re:Thank god we have Ted Cruz by intermodal · · Score: 1

      that's one thought. But I don't know that the demand is high enough for the supply to really pay off anytime soon. Especially when natural gas could easily re-enter the business.

      --
      In SOVIET RUSSIA... erm...NSA AMERICA, the Internet logs onto YOU!
    12. Re:Thank god we have Ted Cruz by ColdWetDog · · Score: 1

      Read the parent post again until you understand it.

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    13. Re:Thank god we have Ted Cruz by Jawnn · · Score: 1

      Note from TFA that the disagreement that Senator Cruz had with the bill was that he and the House supported the version of the bill that said that the money from Helium sales should go to defecit reduction and the bill that passed that he voted against had the money going for national parks and "environmental issues."

      Wow. I am impressed that Senator Cruz has taken such a principled stand against doing anything to improve our national parks or to protect the environment. That asshole is nothing if not consistent.

    14. Re:Thank god we have Ted Cruz by operagost · · Score: 1

      No, he got it right. I agreed with him, then some Groupthinker modded me down.

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    15. Re:Thank god we have Ted Cruz by rsmith-mac · · Score: 1

      "Environmental issues" being the code word for pork. Specifically, most of the money from the sale of helium not going to the National Park Service is going to fund a continuation of the Secure Rural Schools Act. The SRSA itself is essentially a hand-out program for dying, rural counties that ran into budget problems after logging and other natural resource extraction activities were significantly scaled back, which had left those counties with no other significant economic activity to tax for income (and the voters, already hurting, always shoot down income/property tax hikes).

      This is one of the bigs reason for why Congress has been raiding the helium reserve, despite the fact that they've cratered prices in the process, as helium is seen as one of the few natural resources and/or assets under exclusive Federal control that can be quickly sold off to raise much needed revenue. Which doesn't really solve the issue - we'll run out of helium eventually - but it at least kicks the can down the way for a while longer.

    16. Re:Thank god we have Ted Cruz by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

      When is America going to wake up to what it has become and who is paying for it?

      When the oil producers switch away from the USD, and the Bretton Woods illusion comes crashing down. That's why taking over Syria and Iran are so important and why Putin won a major victory.

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    17. Re:Thank god we have Ted Cruz by saleenS281 · · Score: 1

      So you didn't actually read the senate version, you just assume because it was written by democrats it must be for "pork projects"? Slashdot: where rather than attempt to gather facts, we spout political rhetoric!

    18. Re:Thank god we have Ted Cruz by Bill_the_Engineer · · Score: 1

      If you read the text of the bill the environmental issues are: abandoned well mediation, national parks maintenance backlog, abandoned mine reclamation, county school taxes based on royalties made from wells within their counties as well as some soda ash royalty payments, and they actually reduced the appropriations made by the energy independence and security act of 2007 by $6 million.

      The bill still has some money destined for "deficit reduction" and some money for actual debt reduction. This was a bipartisan approved bill. The only language that I see related to pork projects like Solyndra is the $6 million defunding.

      --
      These comments are my own and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of my employer or colleagues...
    19. Re:Thank god we have Ted Cruz by Bengie · · Score: 1

      Since Helium is primarily created by heavily regulated nuclear reactors and Helium is a relatively scare resource that is almost entirely consumed by Government funded Research or Medical services. So the government is the primary producer and consumer, other than medical, which is also regulated to make sure people have access to MRIs and stuff.

    20. Re:Thank god we have Ted Cruz by Bill_the_Engineer · · Score: 1

      Thanks, Captain Democrat...

      Nice assumption based on my support of a bipartisan bill that actually states where the revenue will go instead of a version that allows continued budgeting tricks like making assumptions on incoming revenue to project the margin between money allocated and the self imposed debt ceiling. If anything the stereotypical liberal democrat would love "deficit reduction" revenue since it would allow them to justify large spending bills by offsetting the expense by over confident revenue projections from "deficit reduction" bills.

      I'm for clearly defined spending goals and revenue allocations. I'm also for real debt reductions and not imaginary deficit reductions. If deficit reductions were real then congress would agree on a debt ceiling first THEN create a budget based on the money allocation. Instead they pass a budget knowing full well that in a few months time they'll be able to make more grandstanding gestures during the authorization to raise the debt ceiling.

      Politicians on both sides of the aisle love "deficit reduction" bills because it makes them look good. In reality these bills are nothing more than tools to hide the every increasing expenditures by the government. The left use these bills to offset their spending and the right use these bills to offset their revenue reductions.

      --
      These comments are my own and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of my employer or colleagues...
    21. Re:Thank god we have Ted Cruz by Valdrax · · Score: 1

      Don't be so naive. This is nothing but a lobbyist-funded ploy to undercut helium as an alternative to America's strategic hot air reserve (aka Congress).

      --
      If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
    22. Re:Thank god we have Ted Cruz by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Again, you're calling deficit reduction a pork project? Let's focus on that a bit before you go off on some tangent. Thanks for trying to skirt the question but I'm not buying your bullshit.

    23. Re:Thank god we have Ted Cruz by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      - Bretton Woods ended in 1971, when the US moved to a full-on fiat currency.
      - Taking over Syria is important for natural gas, for supplying Europe from the mideast rather than Russia; there's a pipeline being built from Qatar through Turkey, bypassing Israel, and it has to go smack dab through the middle of Syria. Qatar wants a puppet regime that will allow the pipeline to be built and keep it safe (not to mention that both Qatar and Saudi Arabia would like to be rid of the Shiite Alawites in Syria, preferring instead a Sunni government). But, the pipeline will be of far more benefit to Europe than the US, and much to the detriment of Russian ambitions, whose grip on the European natgas market (and thus heat in winter) will be challenged once the mideast pipeline comes online. Don't blame the US for this one; they're just the Qataris' and Saudis' mercenaries.
      - Iran; Shiite. See above, regarding the Saudis wanting Shiites out of power, although there's still some personal grudge between the "Death to America" crowd and the guys whose embassy got stormed years ago.

    24. Re:Thank god we have Ted Cruz by Bill_the_Engineer · · Score: 1

      Again, you're calling deficit reduction a pork project? Let's focus on that a bit before you go off on some tangent. Thanks for trying to skirt the question but I'm not buying your bullshit.

      It is not my fault that you can't understand the difference between "deficit reduction" and debt reduction. Please look up the term "fungible".

      There is no bullshit involved here. Due to the fungibility of the general fund, "deficit reduction" frees up money to be spent on a project or to justify a tax break while in reality both of those are being financed and will have to be paid for eventually.

      --
      These comments are my own and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of my employer or colleagues...
    25. Re:Thank god we have Ted Cruz by Khashishi · · Score: 1

      The correct way to encourage sustainable practices isn't to subsidize some companies, but to tax polluters.

    26. Re:Thank god we have Ted Cruz by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In regards to the SRSA:

      I live in a rural county with a large amount of US Forrest Service land. Property taxes are used to fund the schools in my county, and the federal government pays no property taxes on any federal land to any state or local entity. This severely limits the funding available to my school district.

      The money received from the county payments program (of which the SRSA is an amendment) provides some additional funding for the schools, but is much less than the property taxes owed if the feds had to pay them. As with most "hand-outs", there are limitations on how this money can be spent.

      Have the federal government pay property taxes like any other landowner, and I would have no problem with removing the county payments program and SRSA.

    27. Re:Thank god we have Ted Cruz by nmr_andrew · · Score: 1

      It probably shouldn't be the federal government's job, but the problem is that they were going to shut off the spigot essentially overnight. The helium reserve we're talking about supplies nearly 45% of all helium used in the US and roughly worldwide.

    28. Re:Thank god we have Ted Cruz by nmr_andrew · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Oddly enough, that's essentially what at least 2 of the big 3 industrial gas suppliers suggested during the month or so leading up to the new bill - that they would pay 100% of the costs to run and maintain the facility. But the government (or at least BLM) told them they couldn't do that.

    29. Re:Thank god we have Ted Cruz by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Funny. I feel that environmental issues is political speak for putting money into pork projects like Tesla Motors.

      Doesn't sound so bad anymore, does it?

    30. Re:Thank god we have Ted Cruz by nmr_andrew · · Score: 1

      Wrong on several levels:

      • I don't know of any fusion reactors, other than maybe a few on again/off again research ones that require more energy in than they put out, so we're not getting helium from nuclear reactors but extracting it from natural gas mining.
      • Government labs and research products use a lot of the supply, but nowhere near "almost entirely". MRIs are probably the biggest use overall. Now, a lot of the helium is purchased using government research grants, but that's another story.
      • I'm unaware of any particular regulations as far as who can or can't buy helium. During the shutdown threat, the industrial gas providers were planning to prioritize "healthcare users", and some supply was to be guaranteed to federal users, but that's different than any sort of true regulation.
    31. Re:Thank god we have Ted Cruz by intermodal · · Score: 1

      I would tend to agree, but surely contracting the operation out for a fee and a cut would be more reasonable than funding it.

      --
      In SOVIET RUSSIA... erm...NSA AMERICA, the Internet logs onto YOU!
    32. Re:Thank god we have Ted Cruz by radarskiy · · Score: 1

      Is there a Canadian helium cartel?

    33. Re:Thank god we have Ted Cruz by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 1

      This is one of the bigs reason for why Congress has been raiding the helium reserve

      Of course, thee only reason Congress has a helium reserve to raid is that helium was once considered essential for the big new thing in long-range aircraft - zeppelins!!!

      Yes, we have a Helium Reserve because the Army and Navy (no air force at that time) wanted to hang onto it for the exclusive use of US Army and Navy dirigible airships....

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    34. Re:Thank god we have Ted Cruz by nmr_andrew · · Score: 1

      The reserve has been turning a profit (a small one by federal standards at a few $10s of millions/year) for a while now. Depending on who you believe, all debts previously incurred by the reserve have been or are about to be paid off within the next 2 weeks. So, keeping it running costs taxpayers nothing at this point. And the larger companies using it do pay fees for access although I'm not completely sure what the fee structure is.

    35. Re:Thank god we have Ted Cruz by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why do they bother with nuclear when they could tap into such rich sources of pneumothermal energy?

    36. Re:Thank god we have Ted Cruz by intermodal · · Score: 1

      For me, it's not a matter of cost. It's a matter of role. I don't have a problem with the government selling off their helium. I just have a problem with the fact that the government basically controls the market for helium by sheer volume of stock.

      --
      In SOVIET RUSSIA... erm...NSA AMERICA, the Internet logs onto YOU!
  3. Dispensing our reserves? by i+kan+reed · · Score: 0

    I'm not sure how I feel about this. Does every competing hospital in my region need to run its own MRI machine(and yes, that's the biggest use of helium) wasting dozens of kilograms of liquid helium a year? That won't lower the price of my procedure substantially, but it does throw away literal tons of the most irreplaceable resource on the planet.

    When it counts, you can always count on congress to come together, and do the wrong thing.

    1. Re:Dispensing our reserves? by schneidafunk · · Score: 2

      You consider using helium for MRI machines a waste?

      --
      Some people die at 25 and aren't buried until 75. -Benjamin Franklin
    2. Re:Dispensing our reserves? by i+kan+reed · · Score: 1

      I consider the number of machines we keep constantly running at super-cooled temperatures compared to the overall usage rate a waste.

    3. Re:Dispensing our reserves? by schneidafunk · · Score: 1

      So you think the supply outweighs the demand, can you back that claim up? I was under the impression most hospitals were profitable and would not keep around an expensive machine if it weren't being used. However, I just did a quick search and cannot find any evidence either way.

      --
      Some people die at 25 and aren't buried until 75. -Benjamin Franklin
    4. Re:Dispensing our reserves? by i+kan+reed · · Score: 1

      Comparison to any other first world nation?

    5. Re:Dispensing our reserves? by plover · · Score: 2

      Profitable doesn't imply that it isn't consuming a resource. It just means that the price charged covers the current costs of that resource, and still yields profits to the machine owners. As the supply of He dwindles, its price will go up, and MRI machines will become increasingly expensive to operate. Those costs will be passed to the patients (and their insurance companies.) Eventually the procedures will become unaffordable, and some hospitals will shut them down as a result.

      Meanwhile, engineers will continue to look at alternate cooling solutions, such as liquid hydrogen. As hydrogen is the most abundant element on the planet, we won't be limited by availability. However, the hazards of liquid hydrogen will certainly increase risks, and those will come with their own costs.

      So the lesson our management is taking away from all this is: get your MRIs now, while they're cheap! :-)

      --
      John
    6. Re:Dispensing our reserves? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I'm not sure how I feel about this. Does every competing hospital in my region need to run its own MRI machine

      The reality is as long as America wants a for-profit health-care system, and each hospital is an independent entity, you're never going to fix this.

      There is no room in the US for efficiencies in the system, because the system is being ran as a bunch of separate businesses. Nobody is going to stop running their very profitable MRI machine to conserve helium or for any other reason unless there's a benefit to them.

      In the parts of the world which have a single-payer public system, they mostly shake their heads over the US and their attitude to this.

      Your system is set up so that whoever can pay the most can get treated first, and the rest are welcome to suffer and go without.

      For a 'civilized' country, America is shockingly indifferent to the fate of the rest of the populace. Which means any time the US does something altruistic, you have to assume there's a financial angle you're not seeing.

      When it counts, you can always count on congress to come together, and do the wrong thing.

      America has elevated being a selfish bastard to a religion. Which is what this is about is one group loudly saying "we should be completely selfish bastards and fuck the rest of the country".

      Which in some circles makes your Republicans essentially terrorists because they're goal is to more or less undermine society and let the rest burn. In their mind, as long as the rich stay rich and government is small, the rest of the consequences are irrelevant.

      So as long as your politicians idealize profits at any expense, and not giving a shit about people, this is what you'll get. And, quite frankly, what you deserve.

    7. Re:Dispensing our reserves? by necro81 · · Score: 4, Informative

      One problem in American healthcare is that, despite designs to the contrary, there is little intelligence or justification behind capital equipment purchases. That is, a hospital is going to buy and use an MRI machine whether there is sufficient medical demand for it or not. As you say, such machines are expensive, and so in order to be profitable, they need to be used. At the same time, there is a phenomenon that excess capacity in a system, particularly medical systems, tends to get used whether it is needed or not. Result: more MRI scanners are out there than are strictly needed for diagnostic purposes. But, being out there, they tend to be used to their fullest capacity, which means a lot of unnecessary MRI scans going on, which is a lot of unnecessary medical spending. Hospital planners then look at all of their MRI machines being used 20 hours a day, and their competing hospital down the road installing a new machine, and suddenly decide that they, too, need a new machine.

      This is one reason why the U.S. has per capita medical spending several times that of the rest of the developed world.

    8. Re:Dispensing our reserves? by TWiTfan · · Score: 4, Funny

      This is America. Competition among hospitals is a big part of what makes our healthcare system the envy of the developed world.

      --
      The cow says "Moo." The dog says "Woof." The Timothy says "Thanks, valued customer. We appreciate your input."
    9. Re:Dispensing our reserves? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If your region has enough hospitals that own a MRI then you should consider yourself lucky. You live in a area with enough population to justify having that many available. The next question becomes is there enough time available to meet the demand for the test? I lived in an area where the state hospital owned 2 MRIs. One that was fixed in place at the hospital, and a portable version that was trucked to all the small hospitals in the neighboring rural counties.

      I don't know about your region, but in mine the state regulates the number of hospital beds in a county based on population. The permit is for a fixed number of beds and the state doesn't always update the total beds allowed fast enough to meet demand. There have been times where non-emergency procedures were delayed due to lack of room for overnight hospitalization. My point is that, at least in my area, hospitals are heavily regulated and they wouldn't have an MRI unless there was enough demand to justify the expense (aka will we be able to pay for it?).

      Anyway there is a company out there (Cryogenics) that offers a "dry" method of super cooling the MRI magnets. The medical centers trade increased energy use in exchange for only needing to use a half liter of helium versus the typical 1700 liters of helium.

    10. Re:Dispensing our reserves? by Joce640k · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure how I feel about this. Does every competing hospital in my region need to run its own MRI machine(and yes, that's the biggest use of helium) wasting dozens of kilograms of liquid helium a year? That won't lower the price of my procedure substantially, but it does throw away literal tons of the most irreplaceable resource on the planet.

      When it counts, you can always count on congress to come together, and do the wrong thing.

      If it's a closed system then none is wasted.

      "Dozens of kilograms" is nothing, eg. look at how much The Mythbusters have wasted over the years....

      --
      No sig today...
    11. Re:Dispensing our reserves? by i+kan+reed · · Score: 1

      They aren't closed systems. That's the end of that.

    12. Re:Dispensing our reserves? by i+kan+reed · · Score: 1

      I've heard people say this not as a joke before.

    13. Re:Dispensing our reserves? by Artifakt · · Score: 1

      Federal grants to buy machines such as MRI mean getting one can be dirt cheap for a rural or poverty zone hospital. However, by act of congress, these grants are for the equipment only, not for training or paying for operators or maintainers, which still has to be funded locally, and is an ongoing cost that can eventually eclipse all the original costs. Having the item offline for lack of trained personnel by definition means actual working supply may or may not exceed demand, but if you include the stuff that is installed and just awaiting actual workers, (or in many cases, still sitting in crates), you get a much bigger number for supply. A real economic analysis would also have to include situations where scarce technician support means a hospital or clinic gets to run a machine for, say, 4 hours every second wednesday, and that one area tech gets paid (inefficiently) to drive to multiple locations each day..
              How this affects helium use is a different issue. I'd figure if it's not hooked up yet, it's not being kept supercooled while just sitting around, but if it's being run on a very part time basis, it probably entails a seriously less efficient use of Helium..

      --
      Who is John Cabal?
    14. Re:Dispensing our reserves? by MancunianMaskMan · · Score: 1

      This is America. ..our healthcare system the envy of the developed world.

      I'm not envious, I live in the UK and our healthcare system works fine, thank you very much - and it's much cheaper per person.

      The government is hard at work wrecking it at the moment but, the NHS being the biggest organisation in the country, a wrecking job like that takes time and it's still going strong.

    15. Re:Dispensing our reserves? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "the envy of the developed world"

      Nope, I looked hard at the earlier posts, and I still don't get how this is funny.

      It was supposed to be a joke, yes?

    16. Re:Dispensing our reserves? by MancunianMaskMan · · Score: 2

      If He were a little more expensive, a helium recovery system would be economical. Those machines are feasible in most scientific institutions in Europe, University physics and chemistry departments typically share a mains of helium reflow pipes, leading to a huge rubber bladder, and when that's full (once a day or whatever) they spin up the compressors and liquify the stuff again.

    17. Re:Dispensing our reserves? by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

      The only reason that politicians idolize profits is because the voters do the same, and it wins the election. It is a conditioned reflex. You won't get any better politicians without voting for them. They don't just waltz in and take over.

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    18. Re:Dispensing our reserves? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If only you opted in to the national humor system.

    19. Re:Dispensing our reserves? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      *whoosh*

      I'll admit that the peculiarities of sarcasm in American English are subtle, but spend enough time on Slashdot (say, more than 30 seconds) and I think you'll get the hang of it.

    20. Re:Dispensing our reserves? by ColdWetDog · · Score: 1

      Don't ever make the mistake of linking medical profitability with ANY other metric in the US. It's completely divorced from reality and impossible to pin down.

      Rather like the US Government budget. And people say we don't have socialized healthcare.

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    21. Re:Dispensing our reserves? by ColdWetDog · · Score: 1

      Seems pretty energetically expensive. Is He in Europe so expensive that compressing it down is economically feasible given your traditionally high energy costs? Or is compression not that difficult (from a power expenditure view)?

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    22. Re:Dispensing our reserves? by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 1

      You consider using helium for MRI machines a waste?

      Yes. There is little evidence that they lead to better health outcomes for patients, especially if you consider the alternatives. Heart disease is our number one killer, but the most effective remedy is not fancy technology that can build a 3D model of the arteries, but low dose aspirin at a cost of $4 per year. But there is no profit in that, so we get the fancy technology instead.

    23. Re:Dispensing our reserves? by dj245 · · Score: 1

      Profitable doesn't imply that it isn't consuming a resource. It just means that the price charged covers the current costs of that resource, and still yields profits to the machine owners. As the supply of He dwindles, its price will go up, and MRI machines will become increasingly expensive to operate. Those costs will be passed to the patients (and their insurance companies.) Eventually the procedures will become unaffordable, and some hospitals will shut them down as a result.

      Meanwhile, engineers will continue to look at alternate cooling solutions, such as liquid hydrogen. As hydrogen is the most abundant element on the planet, we won't be limited by availability. However, the hazards of liquid hydrogen will certainly increase risks, and those will come with their own costs.

      So the lesson our management is taking away from all this is: get your MRIs now, while they're cheap! :-)

      Not only that, but helium is basically subsidized by the US government. Our consumption of it is higher than it should be, because the cost is artificially low.

      --
      Even those who arrange and design shrubberies are under considerable economic stress at this period in history.
    24. Re:Dispensing our reserves? by SuricouRaven · · Score: 1

      The most effective remedy is to get people to stop pigging down pizza and fries, but every time the government tries to do something about that someone starts screaming 'nanny state!' and 'The Gubmint wants to stop parents raising their children!' That, and the corn industry has a very, very good lobby.

    25. Re:Dispensing our reserves? by Bengie · · Score: 1

      Because flying someone to a hospital 2+ hours away to get an emergency MRI is a good idea? MRIs have become fairly regular such that a hospital isn't quite a hospital without, more like a glorified clinic.

    26. Re:Dispensing our reserves? by CTachyon · · Score: 1

      [...] Meanwhile, engineers will continue to look at alternate cooling solutions, such as liquid hydrogen. [...]

      This doesn't work. There's no viable substitute for helium, not even hydrogen. The reason helium is so useful is that it boils at 4 K (by far the coldest boiling point of any substance), remains liquid all the way down to absolute zero at standard pressure, and becomes superfluid at 2 K (the only bulk superfluid achievable on Earth).

      The boiling point is important because that's how cryogenic cooling works: when you use a circulating liquid coolant, the temperature of the (coolant plus apparatus) system cannot exceed the boiling point of the coolant until the coolant has entirely boiled away, so you get a very consistent and predictable temperature (right up until the coolant is gone). 4 K is below the critical temperature of the most common materials for superconducting electromagnets: niobium-titanium (10 K, relatively cheap) and niobium-tin (18 K, highest known T_c for a traditional superconductor). Hydrogen is not a substitute, because it boils at 20 K; that's noticeably too warm for any traditional superconductor, and even if it weren't, superconductors can handle stronger magnetic fields the colder you chill them, so they'd be less useful in an MRI machine. And you can't chill hydrogen much colder than its boiling point before you hit its melting point, 14 K, at which point it stops circulating and becomes much less useful as a coolant.

      The superfluidity is not quite as useful day to day, but it's used to study the behavior of other quantum mechanical systems, such as neutron star interiors, that we can't recreate in a lab. It also forms a rigorous analogy with superconductivity, especially in the case of fermionic He-3, so it gives us a chance to play with a bulk fluid that propagates fluid currents in the same way that superconductors propagate electrical currents. Nothing else can replace it for this purpose.

      (Side note: helium is not a truly expendable resource. Of the helium present on Earth, not a single gram is left over from the formation of the solar system; Earth doesn't have the mass to retain helium in its atmosphere. All our helium comes from the alpha particle decay of heavier radioactive elements, like radon. When the alpha particles relax and become neutral helium gas, the gas is trapped by the same gas-impermeable rock formations that trap natural gas. However, the natural recharge rate from radioactive decay is much slower than the rate that we're extracting it and venting it, so if we don't curtail our waste we're going to run out regardless.)

      --
      Range Voting: preference intensity matters
    27. Re:Dispensing our reserves? by nmr_andrew · · Score: 1
      The newer ones are, or close enough. A direct quote from the director of our research MRI facility when I was looking to see if he'd be interested in possibly going in with our NMR facility on a helium recapture and liquefaction system:

      Our current scanner already has a cryo-cooler built into the system. This can keep up the general boil off, but we do exceed the capacity of capture when the gradients are pulsing. It might be be hard to retro-fit this system with a secondary system to capture this residual boil off. The new 7T actually has two cryo-coolers and is zero boil of even when the gradients are running.

      So, the older, less efficient, and smaller system boils off a bit of helium only when the MRI is actually collecting data, and the monstrous new scanner nearly never needs to have helium added to it.

    28. Re:Dispensing our reserves? by aaarrrgggh · · Score: 1

      The energy use is mainly a function of the quantity and not the pressure (within reasonable limits).

    29. Re:Dispensing our reserves? by tsotha · · Score: 1

      One problem in American healthcare is that, despite designs to the contrary, there is little intelligence or justification behind capital equipment purchases. That is, a hospital is going to buy and use an MRI machine whether there is sufficient medical demand for it or not.

      I don't see how a hospital that provides emergency services can get around having an MRI machine. I don't think "We'd love to see what's going on with your child's brain as a result of the crash, but we thought buying an MRI machine would be a waste of helium" is really going to fly.

    30. Re:Dispensing our reserves? by tsotha · · Score: 1

      How much contact have you really had with the NHS? People I know in the UK who've actually had nontrivial health problems (back surgery and heart problems) weren't happy with it at all. One guy described it as "third world quality". I get that the NHS has its fans, but mostly when I ask why what I hear is "when I have a sore throat I just show up and flash my card".

    31. Re:Dispensing our reserves? by jbengt · · Score: 1

      Considering it costs millions of dollars for the installation of an MRI in a hospital, and it produces tens of thousands of dollars a day in revenue for the hospital, and that before this agreement the price of liquid helium has jumped to $25-30 per litre from $8 last year., I doubt that it would significantly affect the cost or availability of MRIs.

    32. Re:Dispensing our reserves? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      it is best to compress helium, into it's liquid state. at it's lowest energy level. so that less helium will permeate through it's container. of course it would be far, too expensive to try to compress it to a solid. which would be the most ideal, way to store helium in it's lowest energy solid state..

    33. Re:Dispensing our reserves? by afxgrin · · Score: 1

      It takes quite a bit of time and liquid helium just to cool any cryostat not to mention a full body MRI. The larger the thermal mass the more time and helium you'll need. The ideal is to pre-cool with liquid nitrogen, then do a helium fill but even so - you still have probably 100+ kg of rf coils and magnets. I imagine manufacturers of the MRI units also design them to only go through a limited number of cool down / warm up phases considering you have in-vacuum assemblies at low temperatures. So eventually after x number of warm up / cool downs a superconducting coil may no longer be superconducting and a quench will occur. That's a costly repair and serious down time. This isn't my primary field of work but I'm familiar with similar technologies and these are typically the issues I've heard about.

      If you have any sources about the number of machines and usage feel free to share I'd be curious to know.

    34. Re:Dispensing our reserves? by Livius · · Score: 1

      So many Americans actually believe this that it's more tragedy than comedy.

    35. Re:Dispensing our reserves? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Can someone please trade this man a shift key for his comma and period keys?

    36. Re:Dispensing our reserves? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      **WHOOOSH!!!**

  4. Forgive my ignorance by schneidafunk · · Score: 1

    How did the U.S. start stockpiling helium? I see no mention in the article of the actual process for collecting and storing it.

    --
    Some people die at 25 and aren't buried until 75. -Benjamin Franklin
    1. Re:Forgive my ignorance by plover · · Score: 5, Informative

      The US has maintained the Strategic Helium Reserve for about ninety years. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Helium_Reserve

      --
      John
    2. Re:Forgive my ignorance by Sven-Erik · · Score: 1

      It is mostly a by product of production of natural gas, but it can also be generated by radioactive ore.

      --
      - "Every demand is a prison, and wisdom is only free when it asks nothing." Sir Betrand Russell
    3. Re:Forgive my ignorance by Sockatume · · Score: 1
      --
      No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
    4. Re:Forgive my ignorance by Victor_0x53h · · Score: 1

      The radio story I heard mentioned this stockpiling began WWI when zeppelins were a top-of-the-line and helium was safe in contrast to hydrogen.

      Federal Helium Program

    5. Re:Forgive my ignorance by petermgreen · · Score: 1

      Some natural gas reseves contain helium and if the price is right (how high the price has to be depends on how much helium is in the gas) that helium can be extracted from the natural gas by liquifying the other gasses in the mixture.

      Many years ago the USA decided helium was strategically important for airships (and later nukes) and stockpiled it in a depleted gas well. However in 1995 they decided it was no longer strategically important enough to stockpile and started selling off the reserves.

      --
      note: i'm known as plugwash most places but i screwd up registering that here somehow in the past and now can't register
    6. Re:Forgive my ignorance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      all the helium that permeates through the earth, is the result of alpha particles produced in the radioactive core of the earth. and it will collects in pockets, where it's permeation is slowed by the earths crust. alpha particles, are helium nuclei without electrons, and steal electrons from either beta decays, or other ionized atoms along the way.

  5. YAY! I'm going diving next month. by olddoc · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I plan to do some deep Scuba dives next month and I will be breathing high quality, pure Helium mixed in with my Oxygen and Nitrogen to prevent Nitrogen narcosis at depth. I'm glad the supply will continue in the future and I hope there is a plan to replace what the US Government has stockpiled.

    --
    Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.
    1. Re:YAY! I'm going diving next month. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "I hope there is a plan to replace what the US Government has stockpiled."

      Oh that's easy, there's loads of it *in the sun*.

    2. Re:YAY! I'm going diving next month. by SJHillman · · Score: 4, Funny

      We should sneak in at night and scoop it up. The sun will never know.

    3. Re:YAY! I'm going diving next month. by operagost · · Score: 1

      The supply continues because of businesses mining natural gas, not the government stockpiling it. The government also stockpiles petroleum; does that mean the government is responsible for producing it?

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    4. Re:YAY! I'm going diving next month. by Artifakt · · Score: 1

      Plus, Helium is a waste product of Hydrogen fusion. Getting it out of there should make the sun stay on the main sequence longer before converting to higher order fusion and becoming a Red Giant. Sounds like we could use all the Helium the sun's got, and save the solar system from the menace of bloated communist stellar conversion..

      --
      Who is John Cabal?
    5. Re:YAY! I'm going diving next month. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      To clarify parent: the sun is like Sauron's burning eye staring right at us and will see us coming, unless... we sneak up on it from behind, ie. at night.

    6. Re:YAY! I'm going diving next month. by aaarrrgggh · · Score: 1

      Go green... use Hydrogen instead. (Just be sure to keep that PPO2 under 4% and not breathe the stuff above 20m.)

      Seriously though, isn't the point of Trimix to limit O2 toxicity more than nitrogen narcosis? Maybe compared to using EANx10 at 60m...

      Back OT though, with all the natural gas liquification isn't distilling out the helium easy enough?

    7. Re:YAY! I'm going diving next month. by olddoc · · Score: 1

      No Trimix (Helium) is to mitigate Nitrogen Narcosis. If you were worried about Oxygen toxicity from breathing air below 60M you could just add dirt cheap Nitrogen. With 80% Nitrogen in the mix, you have significant narcosis after 40M. So add Helium after 40M and cut down Oxygen below 21% after 60M. Interestingly Xenon is an anesthetic. 80% Xenon in Oxygen would cause complete unconsciousness at 10M! Hydrogen works as a non narcotic gas to replace Nitrogen but I'd hate to cause a spark near a tank of Hydrogen/Oxygen! I wonder if it has been studied and if it would be explosive in a mix with 3% Oxygen and say 40% Hydrogen. It sure would save a lot of money at 100M.

      --
      Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.
    8. Re:YAY! I'm going diving next month. by aaarrrgggh · · Score: 1

      They problem with HydrOx is that you need very deep deco stops as the bubbles will form with smaller pressure gradients. It was studied for a while, but I don't think it ever got too far. Well, that and you don't want to open the valve to clean your regulator any where near the boat. The tank itself is stable though...

  6. Apparently, helium is not yet so scarce ... by MouseR · · Score: 2

    Apparently, helium is not yet so scarce that it's not available in balloons at the grocery store.

    Depends where you look. Many outlets around the region of Montreal stopped selling helium balloons because of the scarcity. Some voluntarily due to local hospitals having difficulties keeping their MRIs runnings and some due to prices going up.

    1. Re:Apparently, helium is not yet so scarce ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What I don't get is, why use helium in children's balloons?

      Gaseous hydrogen is plentiful, half the density, and the molecules are way larger, hence the balloon will stay inflated for significantly longer. As far as I can see, the only argument against it is that it's flammable, but I find it hard to believe you could get much of an explosion out of a balloon's worth.

    2. Re:Apparently, helium is not yet so scarce ... by wonkey_monkey · · Score: 1

      but I find it hard to believe you could get much of an explosion out of a balloon's worth.

      a) No explosion would always be preferable to any explosion in this case.
      b) Any idea what kind of explosion you'd get from a pressurised cylinder's worth of hydrogen? Cos that's where it waits before it goes into the balloons.

      --
      systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
    3. Re:Apparently, helium is not yet so scarce ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You can look up plenty of videos of it on youtube of such explosions as it is a common science demonstration (or even do it yourself using stuff from a hardware store without having to buy a cylinder of hydrogen). It probably isn't going to kill anyone with a single balloon, but could be bad for any kid that is unlucky to have it next to their head in terms of eye or hearing damage.

  7. renewable resource by schneidafunk · · Score: 1

    If helium can be produced from renewable natural gas, for example landfills, why not sell off the entire stockpile?

    --
    Some people die at 25 and aren't buried until 75. -Benjamin Franklin
    1. Re:renewable resource by SJHillman · · Score: 4, Informative

      Helium isn't produced from natural gas, it's found trapped underground in natural gas fields. So unless you can power a hydrogen fusion plant with renewable natural gas, we only have what we can find in the ground for the time being.

    2. Re:renewable resource by beernutmark · · Score: 2

      I am pretty sure that Helium is not produced from natural gas but is extracted from it. Helium is produced and trapped underground via radioactive decay and it happens to get trapped in the same areas as the natural gas gets trapped. The gases being produced in landfills via decay are not helium. Just because you have natural gas doesn't mean you have helium.

    3. Re:renewable resource by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Helium is an element. The only thing nearby that produces it is the sun. And it's not sharing.

    4. Re:renewable resource by schneidafunk · · Score: 0

      I was under the impression it could be extracted from natural gas, which is made up of elements. The way they extract methane and propane from it. You are aware that we can get hydrogen and oxygen from water?

      --
      Some people die at 25 and aren't buried until 75. -Benjamin Franklin
    5. Re:renewable resource by circletimessquare · · Score: 5, Informative

      you are free associating and winding up at an incongruous thought

      helium is associated only with old, deep natural gas deposits. it collects there because radioactive elements decay deep in the earth, releasing helium, and that helium has to go somewhere. if it doesn't percolate up and vent into the atmosphere, it collects with likewise entrapped methane gas deposits

      meanwhile, natural gas from landfills would not have this helium, as it is a much more shallow and much more recent source of methane, it hasn't been around long enough to gather very slowly formed byproducts of radioactive decay

      --
      intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    6. Re:renewable resource by necro81 · · Score: 1

      Your ignorance that "helium comes from natural gas" is understandable, because it is a subtle point usually glossed over in most reporting on the subject.

      Although abundant in the universe, helium on Earth comes from the radioactive decay of certain elements in bedrock, mainly uranium and thorium. The helium tends to migrate up to the surface and, eventually, wafts away into space. However, the helium can be trapped in certain geologic formations, such as salt domes, which also happen to be the kinds of places that trap natural gas and other fossil fuels. When we drill to get the natural gas, we extract the collected helium as well. Because helium has some value in the marketplace, some natural gas facilities separate out the helium, thereby making it available for use.

      It is not the case that helium is created from the natural gas, we just happen to find them together geologically. You might find some helium offgassing from a landfill, but it wouldn't be because of the gas being produced from biologic breakdown. I suspect you wouldn't find very much helium in a landfill; not a commercially valuable amount, anyway.

      Although helium is continuously generated in the Earth's crust from radioactive decay, it would be an overstatement to think of it being a renewable resource, just like it is an overstatement to say that (geologic) natural gas is renewable. The production of helium is both slow and widely distributed, so you would have a tough time collecting any useful amount if not for the fact that it can be captured and accumulated in geologic formations over eons. But once those formations are depleted, it'll take millions of years to refill.

    7. Re:renewable resource by swillden · · Score: 2, Informative

      Helium isn't produced from natural gas, it's found trapped underground in natural gas fields. So unless you can power a hydrogen fusion plant with renewable natural gas, we only have what we can find in the ground for the time being.

      OTOH, the earth creates a great deal of new helium every year, as a byproduct of the decay of various radioactive elements in the crust and core. It's not an unlimited resource, but neither is it something we're easily going to deplete even though close to 100% of the helium we use for various purposes ends up being released into the atmosphere and floats off into space.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    8. Re:renewable resource by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      And this, ladies and gentlemen, is what failing chemistry and geology class (and probably physics, too) looks like.

    9. Re:renewable resource by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I believe the natural gas that contains helium come from areas with large deposits of uranium ore. I don't think your local landfill meets this condition.

    10. Re:renewable resource by Joce640k · · Score: 1

      I am pretty sure that Helium is not produced from natural gas

      Not 100% sure...?

      --
      No sig today...
    11. Re:renewable resource by schneidafunk · · Score: 0

      Hmm, shouldn't feed the anonymous trolls but here you go jackass. http://www.naturalgas.org/overview/background.asp

      Trace amounts of He are in natural gas. You know natural gas is a chemical compound consisting of multiple elements?

      --
      Some people die at 25 and aren't buried until 75. -Benjamin Franklin
    12. Re:renewable resource by LoRdTAW · · Score: 1

      Pretty much all of the Earths helium slowly accumulated there via radioactive decay over millions or billions of years.

      Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helium

      On Earth it is relatively rare - 0.00052% by volume in the atmosphere. Most terrestrial helium present today is created by the natural radioactive decay of heavy radioactive elements (thorium and uranium, although there are other examples), as the alpha particles emitted by such decays consist of helium-4 nuclei. This radiogenic helium is trapped with natural gas in concentrations up to 7% by volume, from which it is extracted commercially by a low-temperature separation process called fractional distillation. Helium is a finite resource and is one of the only elements with escape velocity, meaning that once released into the atmosphere, it escapes into space.

    13. Re:renewable resource by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ou know natural gas is a chemical compound consisting of multiple elements?

      Natural gas is not a single compound when it comes out of the ground, but a mixture of several different gases, which can vary from place to place. This is why you can have people talking about some natural gas being "sour" because that particular location has a high amount of hydrogen sulfide (which makes a mess of equipment). Just like having a landfill with no sulfur in it would produce gas without hydrogen sulfide, and landfill that doesn't already contain helium will not release helium in any noticeable quantity (unless it had a lot of radioactive waste).

      The only reason natural gas in the ground has helium is because millions of years of slow radioactive decay via alpha particles produces helium that accumulates the same place other gases do (otherwise it is trapped in trace amounts or escapes). Renewable sources that produce some of the compounds found in natural gas in the ground won't be able to produce helium. Helium doesn't naturally form compounds, and it is not found in any significant quantity in organisms or trash, so there is no where for that helium to come from for renewable sources of hydrocarbons. You can stock pile large amounts of radioactive waste and get a very small amount of helium, but that process is very slow compared to finding stuff in the ground that had a long time to accumulate.

    14. Re:renewable resource by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, it's just a theory based on empirical evidence. There is an alternate theory that says Helium is produced from natural gas by a process of divine respiration, but the evidence is lacking.

    15. Re:renewable resource by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Good job. Now explain how a elemental noble gas is produced from the renewable natural gas sources you mentioned. Perhaps some new type of bacteria capable of nuclear reactions in its metabolism? Seriously, a high school level of chemistry would sort you out. You can get hydrogen and oxygen from water because it is made of hydrogen and oxygen. Notice the lack of helium in any stable molecule. That's why you can't "make" it out of natural gas or anything else. You can separate it from natural gas, but it has to be there already. I would explain how it gets there, but I don't have time to bring you up to speed. Back to school with you!

    16. Re:renewable resource by Nimey · · Score: 2

      Natural decay only produces so much helium so fast, much like petroleum and coal. It's definitely possible to use up what we've got and then not have enough for what's important.

      --
      Hail Eris, full of mischief...

      E pluribus sanguinem
    17. Re:renewable resource by DeathToBill · · Score: 1

      No, if you think extracting helium from natural gas is the same as extracting hydrogen and oxygen from water then I'm pretty much with the AC on this one.

      --
      Slashdot - News for Nerds, Stuff that Matters, in ISO-8859-1 Has just realised that beta makes this signature redundant
    18. Re:renewable resource by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'll have you know that "100%" is very pretty.

    19. Re:renewable resource by DeathToBill · · Score: 1

      And no, natural gas is not a "chemical compound consisting of multiple elements". And yes, it seems very likely that you either failed chemistry or should have.

      Natural gas is a gas mixture of various substances. Some are compounds, such as methane and propane, and some are not, such as elemental helium.

      --
      Slashdot - News for Nerds, Stuff that Matters, in ISO-8859-1 Has just realised that beta makes this signature redundant
    20. Re:renewable resource by SuricouRaven · · Score: 2

      No, but we can deplete all the helium that is economical to extract. Then prices will go up. A lot.

    21. Re:renewable resource by Joce640k · · Score: 1

      Helium isn't "produced", it's "extracted".

      "Produced" is when you make it. AFAIK we still haven't mastered alchemy.

      --
      No sig today...
    22. Re:renewable resource by Joce640k · · Score: 1

      And this, ladies and gentlemen, is what failing chemistry and geology class (and probably physics, too) looks like.

      Take a peek in a mirror sometime.

      Things in natural gas are "extracted" using distillation, helium among them.

      --
      No sig today...
    23. Re:renewable resource by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Look at the whole thread though: the original question was why it could not be extracted from renewable sources of natural gas. Saying that natural gas is made up of elements and that elements can be separated from a compound (e.g. water) still doesn't make helium extractable from renewable natural gas sources. The implied idea was that helium is a part of one of the defining compounds of natural gas, which is a fundamental misunderstanding of the chemistry and sources of helium. Yes, helium can be produced as a byproduct of natural gas production from the ground, but not from biological and other short timescale natural gas equivalent sources.

    24. Re:renewable resource by Valdrax · · Score: 1

      I was under the impression it could be extracted from natural gas, which is made up of elements. The way they extract methane and propane from it. You are aware that we can get hydrogen and oxygen from water?

      Okay, let's walk through this. Natural gas is a combination of a number of separate gasses, each molecules composed of different atoms/elements, with methane (CH3) as the primary component.

      Helium gas is one of those gasses in geological sources of natural gas. It is created by the process of radioactive decay, which splits heavier elements into lighter elements, often including helium as a byproduct. As a noble gas it does not form stable molecules with other atoms outside of extreme conditions.

      It is not the byproduct of a chemical reaction, like the methane released by landfills. No amount of processing of landfill waste will generate helium. It is effectively a non-renewable resource since its method of generation is extremely slow.

      --
      If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
    25. Re:renewable resource by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Natural decay only produces so much helium so fast, much like petroleum and coal. It's definitely possible to use up what we've got and then not have enough for what's important.

      Considering that the entire world is currently being fed by the stockpile created by one nation back when zeppelin lift-gas was a strategic resource. I'm going to have to call "citation needed" on the claim that the projected future usage of helium is significant to meaningfully deplete the supply in the forceable future (say 100 years).

    26. Re:renewable resource by Nimey · · Score: 1

      Fuckwit. And then in 100 years (or 500 years, or whatever) after we've used it up, are we going to mine the Sun to get more helium?

      Thanks for illustrating the short-term thinking of your kind.

      --
      Hail Eris, full of mischief...

      E pluribus sanguinem
  8. The TL;DR answer to your question by intermodal · · Score: 2

    The Strategic Helium Reserve began in the early 20th century as a gas supply for airships, and because the prime source of coolant for the space/missile programs of the Cold War. Most of our helium is collected during natural gas production.

    --
    In SOVIET RUSSIA... erm...NSA AMERICA, the Internet logs onto YOU!
    1. Re:The TL;DR answer to your question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You have the helium. Why not build some airships then? The world is better with airships! and they are useful for dragging tourists around . . .

    2. Re:The TL;DR answer to your question by intermodal · · Score: 1

      We've seen how the US government does in the railroad business. Do you really want them in the tourism business?

      That said, if we could convince someone to start an airship service over national parks like the Grand Canyon or Alaska's wilderness, I bet you'd see a lot of takers. But it had better be privately-run instead of operating at a taxpayer-subsidized loss.

      --
      In SOVIET RUSSIA... erm...NSA AMERICA, the Internet logs onto YOU!
  9. republicans should just shut up and play nice... by crutchy · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    ...cos if they let the democrats get their way the phony overstimulated US economy will implode that much quicker, all the keynesian bullshit can be shown as the total fraud that it is, and then a real free market recovery can commence in ernest.

    as long as the world remains addicted to cheap keynesian money printing, central banking, price-fixing of counterfeit fiat money, and ever increasing government spending, deficits and debt, the burden on taxpayers (aka the working middle class) will always increase till they are pushed into poverty and everyone ends up dependent on government welfare except for the wealthy buddies of politicians in washington dc... which is pretty much where the ussr was before 1985

    jfk said "communism has never come to power in a country that was not disrupted by war or corruption, or both" and he was right

  10. Re:republicans should just shut up and play nice.. by i+kan+reed · · Score: 3, Funny

    "I'm cranky and off-topic. Listen to me because of how much I hate those I disagree with"

  11. Helium is not scarce at all by cirby · · Score: 2

    Helium production is just lacking. There is more than enough helium - at reasonable concentrations - in many natural gas fields to cover all of the demand on the planet for literally thousands of years, at current rates.

    There are also some helium extraction plants either under construction or in the process of coming on line right now. There's a new one, in Qatar, which will account for 25% of the world's production when it's fully on line. Russia is expanding their own production, and India is starting to build helium extraction into their natural gas production lines.

    The only thing that kept the big natural gas producers in the US from adding helium extraction equipment to their production stream was the artificially-low price mandated by the Federal helium reserve. Some US companies already have their extraction equipment in use, and others are starting to build them. It's not hard - basically 1920s tech.

    1. Re:Helium is not scarce at all by Trepidity · · Score: 3, Informative

      To be somewhat more precise, there isn't a mandated price, in the sense of formal price controls. But the federal helium reserve accumulated huge stockpiles, and has been slowly selling them off since 1996, which has kept the price low by flooding the market. On the one hand, that discourages private investment, but on the other hand, it's not clear it's entirely a bad thing: if we don't actually need this helium reserve lying around forever, selling it off slowly seems like a reasonable thing to do.

    2. Re:Helium is not scarce at all by oh_my_080980980 · · Score: 1

      Try lobbied price. The private sector has lobbied Congress to keep the low prices. The problem is with the private sector unwilling to give up their cheap supply.

    3. Re:Helium is not scarce at all by hubie · · Score: 1

      if we don't actually need this helium reserve lying around forever, selling it off slowly seems like a reasonable thing to do.

      One of the many problems with the Helium Privatization Act of 1996 is that it mandated that the sell-off was to be linear, not based upon supply, demand, or any other aspect of the marketplace. So every year the Bureau of Land Management had to sell of X many units.

    4. Re:Helium is not scarce at all by tsotha · · Score: 1

      The problem I have with that is we're using natural gas like never before, and just at a time when the price of helium is too low to make recovery economical. So an element that's literally irreplaceable is being discarded because the price is being artificially depressed by the government.

    5. Re:Helium is not scarce at all by jomama717 · · Score: 1

      Completely off-topic, but you inspired my new sig (works out of the bag in a mac terminal). Will have to check out that book, thank you.

      --
      while [ 1 ]; do echo -n -e "\xe2\x95\xb$((($RANDOM&1)+1))"; done
    6. Re:Helium is not scarce at all by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      the whole earth surface, leaks helium that is produced in radio-active decay in the earth's core. it is just a matter of collecting it, in cavity concentrations before it reaches the surface. monoatomic helium will, permeate through any known material. and in fact the helium, that leaks through the balloons is a method of concentrating. even protium will not leak through, most materials because it is diatomic. helium even leaks through, high pressure tanks. steel tanks does not stop, helium from leaking out, it just slows it down a lot.

  12. Re:republicans should just shut up and play nice.. by crutchy · · Score: 0

    you must be a democrat

  13. Re:republicans should just shut up and play nice.. by i+kan+reed · · Score: 4, Funny

    "I'm cranky, off-topic, and immediately conclude people who aren't as dumb as me are a category of people I hate."

  14. I wonder ... by dbIII · · Score: 0

    Is Ted Cruz on China's payroll or do they get this outcome for free?

  15. Congress Agrees by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That helium makes them all sound like Mickey Mouse.

  16. The quickest way to extract helium by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

    is *through the planet core*. So far, we've hardly scratched the surface, so to speak. The vast riches beneath the crust are there for the taking.

    --
    “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    1. Re:The quickest way to extract helium by Gavagai80 · · Score: 1

      Daza setten yous up. Goen through da planet core is bad bombin!!

      --
      This space intentionally left blank
    2. Re:The quickest way to extract helium by ColdWetDog · · Score: 1

      Just the wee little engineering issues of working at temperatures and pressures where we don't understand the basic physics well.

      No problem, we'll just use the tractor beam.

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
  17. C&EN article about it: by Hartree · · Score: 2

    Here's a Chemical and Engineering News article from last month about it.
    http://cen.acs.org/articles/91/i37/Helium-Headache.html

    The problem isn't the amount of helium in the earth. It's the dislocation caused by the government selling it at an artificially low price for some years, thus undercutting building new refining capacity. This current mess that we just mostly avoided would have been from suddenly shutting off the government supply and causing a price/availability problem.

    Full Disclosure: This effects me directly. I work with Dean Olson, the guy quoted in the article. Unavailability of helium (the price wasn't so bad, but it just wasn't available. i.e. The supplier says it costs N dollars a liter of liquid helium, but you need X liters, and we have one fourth that amount available.) kept a new NMR system here offline for some months, thus delaying a bunch of research (And of course, that has a knock on effect of increased cost down the line. You have to keep paying the salaries of the researchers while they wait and do something else.)

    Hopefully we can get back to our usual form of governmental funding neurosis soon rather than reaching a new and interesting level of insanity.

    1. Re:C&EN article about it: by oh_my_080980980 · · Score: 1

      Suddenly? The Federal government for decades has told industry the Federal government is pulling out of the helium business. The private sector has sat on its hands and done nothing. Instead they lobby the Federal government to maintain the helium reserve and continue to sell it at artificially low prices.

      FYI the helium reserve that the Fed maintains will only last another 3-5 years.

    2. Re:C&EN article about it: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      and it is amazing when you think about it because Natural Gas mining should lead to Huge amounts of Helium, but the morons don't want in, because the feds sell it so cheap. If they want to get the private sector to get it's ass in gear, it should raise the price. Otherwise, get back to refining to keep the supply up.

      Either go Full state control, or full Private control, stop waffling about as it doesn't accomplish anything

    3. Re:C&EN article about it: by Hartree · · Score: 1

      Yes, suddenly.

      That's from the view of the users. Having the reserve shut down on the 7th and not even be able to extract the helium owned by others creates a disruption to the end users. This has been developing for a long time as you say.

      The part about could have and should have makes little difference to the physics when a magnet quenches.

      There's plenty of time for assigning well deserved blame, but it doesn't change the temperature of the magnet "right now".

    4. Re:C&EN article about it: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The problem with deferring blame is, in the words of Seinfeld, "nobody grows, nobody learns". And when the problem comes back around, well we're right back where we started, only worse.

    5. Re:C&EN article about it: by Hartree · · Score: 1

      Oh, it's not getting deferred. Take a look at the other threads and you'll see it's well underway. There's little this thread could add to that.

      But, the reality is that Slashdot isn't where the blame assigning is going to make much difference.

    6. Re:C&EN article about it: by TheSync · · Score: 1

      The Federal government for decades has told industry the Federal government is pulling out of the helium business. The private sector has sat on its hands and done nothing.

      How often does the Federal government actually shut off a program that it runs (regardless of what is says)???

      How about the USDA raisin board that has regulated that strategic resource, the raisin, since the New Deal...

  18. Re:republicans should just shut up and play nice.. by dragonsomnolent · · Score: 0

    supply side economics? That's your answer to this? Really? Man, way off topic.

    (I've got the karma to burn)

    --
    I got nuthin
  19. Methane by Fnord666 · · Score: 1

    Or will hot air prevail on Capitol Hill? (Insert your methane joke here.)"

    FTFY

    --
    'The tyrant will always find pretext for his tyranny.' - Aesop's Fables
    1. Re:Methane by QRDeNameland · · Score: 1

      Actually, my joke was to simply move one spot down the periodic table...

      Congress Reaches Agreement...On Lithium

      ...and clearly that's what it would take for the lot of megalomaniacs to agree on anything.

      --
      Momentarily, the need for the construction of new light will no longer exist.
  20. Using Encrypted GPS Signal? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hopefully they don't make the same mistake as the Army with their drone, and use a safe GPS signal that cannot be spoofed.

  21. Still very cheap by HtR · · Score: 1

    Although it's getting scarce, it's still very cheap.

    I went out to buy a pound of helium, and they wound up paying me $50.

    --
    Have you tried turning it off and on again?
  22. We don't have competition amongst hospitals by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We have competition among insurance companies who owe it to their stock holders to not pay the bills, and they have a large contingent of lawyers on call to make sure this is all legal. Problem with health is that it is too dam expensive. If actual PEOPLE and not third parties were paying for health care you might get some market forces involved. But this would mean that there would be some poor people who could not afford health care. Wahh. As the system currently works noone can afford health care.

    When in the history of humanity have the poor ever had it as good as the rich. Market forces just allow the most people to get comparatively wealthy so that society as a whole can advance. The current system works great if you are a lawyer, head of the AMA (an anticompeitive trust), work for an insurance company, or a government oversight committee, but not so much if you are sick.

    The good is the enemy of the best. Sometimes the best health care is that which you can afford. Today the United States is largely broke (unless u work for 1 of the above groups)

  23. The most non-renewable of all resources by Squidlips · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Once it is gone, it is irrevocably gone. We should be a LOT more careful with this resource.

  24. it's all gas by golfnomad · · Score: 1

    of course they all reach agreement on Helium it's the one thing they all have in common, and they are full of GAS

  25. balloon gas by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Please... balloon gas is a mix of helium and air. It is this way so when people try to do there best chipmunks impersonation they dont suffocate, you know save the children and all.

  26. Historical note: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hindenburg was the first German passenger airship designed to use Helium as a lift gas (Helium lifts less per cubit foot than Hydrogen but is of course FAR safer) and this is why it has a very different profile from all but one of the other German zeps (LZ-130 Graf Zeppelin II was the other and also designed for Helium). Dr Eckener was negotiating with the US for the Helium to fill these two ships when the US (then the only source of significant quantities of Helium) got cold feet and worried that with Hitler running Germany these ships would be made into military platforms (made less vulnerable by the American lift gas). In the End, LZ-129 and LZ-130 both flew with Hydrogen (benefitting from the extra lift) and LZ-130 did indeed end-up flying as a military platform which Germany used to scout England and its defenses in the pre-WWII period before it was scrapped and its metal recycled into warplanes.

  27. All that's required for evil to succeed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...is for ignorant morons to NOT read the details and instead glom onto left-wing shrieking headlines about some Republican "hating" something when he's actually trying to stop corrupt Democrat pork-barrel spending

    Cruz was NOT "anti-Helium" and he was NOT "anti-national-park" or "anti-environment" ... He was against the President taking the Helium money and dumping it into a political slush fund.

    It's depressing to see how easily geeks (who like to THINK they are intelligent) have been converted into mindless political drones who decide what's happening based on sources like TV comedy shows, and left-wing political sites that are partly funded by actual NAZI-collaborator George Soros. He's the only ACTUAL (as opposed to "Godwin's Law" nasty invalid assertion) Hitler-era NAZI collaborator I am aware of who not only never apologized, but has said he is proud of what he did, and has dedicated his billions to bringing national or international socialism to the US.

    WAKE THE HELL UP!

  28. The spice must flow by TrixX · · Score: 1

    I meant... helium

  29. i guess that's better than... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...Congress pumping out more hot air

  30. Re:republicans should just shut up and play nice.. by crutchy · · Score: 0

    definitely a democrat