Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

If Climate Change Is a Problem Then Lunar Helium-3 Fueled Fusion Is the Solution (examiner.com)

Posted by timothy on from the easier-said-than-done dept.

MarkWhittington writes: With the Paris Climate Conference apparently ending in failure and experts such as Matt Ridley suggesting that, in any case, global warming is not a cause for immediate concern, the private sector is casting about to fund "green" energy solutions. Bill Gates and Mark Zuckerberg are starting a renewable energy research and development fund, for example. The Chicago Tribune pointed to a possible area of investment that Gates and Zuckerberg might look into if they would like to get out of the solar and wind box that many green energy enthusiasts find themselves in. The key to evolving from a fossil fuel energy economy, perhaps, is fusion energy powered by helium-3 from the moon.

7 of 267 comments (clear)

  1. Oh, for... by jeffb+(2.718) · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Well, golly, as long as we can discount the decades of research, engineering, and implementation that would be required to (a) establish a huge industrial presence on the Moon, (b) extract helium-3 in bulk from the lunar crust, (c) transport that He3 in bulk to Earth's surface, and (d) successfully fuse that He3 on an industrial scale to produce power, why don't we hedge our bets with giant space-constructed solar shades and thorough terraforming of Mars?

    1. Re:Oh, for... by riverat1 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The problem with shades for the Earth is that by reducing the sunlight that hits the Earth you also reduce the amount of photosynthesis that occurs. That would lower crop yields and the general productivity of the biosphere. Also it doesn't do anything to stop ocean acidification.

  2. On What Planet by denissmith · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Is Matt Ridley an expert?

    --
    I have nothing to hide. So, why are you spying on me?
  3. Re:Lunatic by Megane · · Score: 5, Insightful

    As long as we're nowhere near practical nuclear fusion, Helium 3 is indeed the domain of lunatics. (and yes, I see what you did there) Anyone who seriously suggests it be used as an energy source in any time scale less than 50 years from now is either completely clueless or batshit insane.

    3He isn't even a first-generation fusion fuel, so until we have any fusion at all, it's not worth spending a single penny on. Unless you want exceptionally light party balloons, I suppose.

    --
    #naabhaprzrag, #sverubfr-000, #agi-fcbafberq, negvpyr[pynff*=' negvpyr-ary-'] { qvfcynl: abar !vzcbegnag; }
  4. The Betteridge answer. by AnotherBlackHat · · Score: 5, Insightful

    OMG, not the stupid lunar He-3 myth again. - http://www.thespacereview.com/article/2834/1

    There are currently NO better-than-break-even fusion reactors.

    There are no He-3 fusion reactors.

    Any currently purposed theories/technologies which could (theoretically) use the difficult and rare He-3 + H-2 could instead use the far more common B-11 + H-1.

    Saying that there's a lot of He-3 on the moon is like saying there's a lot of gold in the ocean.
    Technically true, but practically useless.

  5. It gets crazy by PopeRatzo · · Score: 5, Insightful

    So, solar, wind, geothermal and other renewable energy sources are just pie-in-the-sky hippie fantasies because technological advances are just too far off, but energy from Moon helium is a solid, practical solution?

    --
    You are welcome on my lawn.
  6. Re:Lunatic by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 5, Insightful

    That summary sounds like something you'd read in The Onion.

    That is where it belongs. Helium-3 is the dumbest, most impractical solution to our energy problems imaginable. Unicorn farts would be a more realistic power source. We don't actual have any helium-3, and even if we did, it is far harder to fuse, with far less energy out, than deuterium, and deuterium fusion still isn't anywhere near breakeven after 60 years of effort.