4 ms·

Surprise! On Moon there is almost unlimited Helium-3: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helium-3 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helium-3 "Much speculation has been

Surprise! On Moon there is almost unlimited Helium-3: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helium-3 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helium-3 "Much speculation has been made over the possibility of helium-3 as a future energy source. Unlike most other nuclear fusion reactions, the fusion of helium-3 atoms releases large amounts of energy without causing the surrounding material to become radioactive."

hutzlibu 7y ago
"The abundance of helium-3 is thought to be greater on the Moon than on Earth, having been embedded in the upper layer of regolith by the solar wind over billions of years,[5] though still lower in abundance than in the Solar System's gas giants" Sounds a bit different than, allmost unlimited. Also, there are great quantities of gold in seawater on earth. That does not mean, we have those great quantities avaiable.
- mobilio 7y ago
  Well - if we can get to the Moon, use it's H-3 as fuel for some engine, then maybe we can colonize Solar system. I know - energy is one of issues, but there are many more - solving cosmic radiation, life support systems, etc.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
valuearb 7y ago
There is plenty of Helium-3 on Earth too, which doesn't matter because Helium-3 doesn't matter. We can't build working fusion reactors now, and won't be able to do it for decades, and Helium-3 may not even be the best fuel when we do have working fusion reactors. It's like Columbus asking Queen Elizabeth for billions to explore Texas so we'll have fuel for Model Ts.
- microtherion 7y ago
  It might have been difficult for Columbus to contact Elizabeth, given that their lifetimes did not overlap ;-)
  - valuearb 7y ago
    It's even harder than I thought!
mlindner 7y ago
There is no use for Helium-3 at this point in time. The reason Fusion is not getting invented is not because of a lack of Helium-3.
vkou 7y ago
Getting excited about Helium-3 on the Moon in 2020 is like a caveman in Europe getting excited about the easy availability of crude oil in Saudi Arabia. We have zero use for Helium-3 at the moment. It is not at all clear if fusion will ever be solved, and it is absolutely clear that it's not going to be solved in the next two decades.
- throw1234651234 7y ago
  "is absolutely clear that it's not going to be solved in the next two decades" What makes this absolutely clear? I am genuinely asking.
  - vkou 7y ago
    A couple of reasons. 1. Because it takes over a decade for an amazing, clean, cheap, new power-generating technology to reach 3% of overall energy production. Look at how slow the absolute uptake (Or lack thereof) of wind and solar has been. They've been incredibly cost-efficient for a very long time, but actual real-world adoption has been slow. It's taken them two decades to reach a few percentage points. 2. We don't have an amazing, clean, cheap, working version of fusion. 3. We don't even have a working version of fusion, actually. 4. Even if ITER, or some other research group demonstrates commercially viable above-break-even-for-cost energy generation tomorrow, it's still going to be at least a decade of engineering efforts to build out the supply chains that will cheaply be able to manufacture all the esoteric components that go into building fusion reactors. 5. Neither ITER, nor any other group is currently even close to making such an announcement. (See #3) 6. And the reason for that is that there's still hundreds of hard engineering and materials problems to solve in this field. Not solve cost-efficiently - just solve. 7. And then, after we solve them, we'll need to solve them again, but this time in a cost-efficient manner. (See #2) So, there is no way on heaven or Earth that in twenty years, fusion power generation will exceed 3% of overall energy production, regardless of access to He-3. I will take fifty-to-one odds on this. In fifty years? I don't think it's likely, but it is possible.
    - throw1234651234 7y ago
outworlder 7y ago
On that note, you should watch: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt1182345/ https://www.imdb.com/title/tt1182345/

hutzlibu 7y ago

"The abundance of helium-3 is thought to be greater on the Moon than on Earth, having been embedded in the upper layer of regolith by the solar wind over billions of years,[5] though still lower in abundance than in the Solar System's gas giants" Sounds a bit different than, allmost unlimited. Also, there are great quantities of gold in seawater on earth. That does not mean, we have those great quantities avaiable.

mobilio 7y ago
Well - if we can get to the Moon, use it's H-3 as fuel for some engine, then maybe we can colonize Solar system. I know - energy is one of issues, but there are many more - solving cosmic radiation, life support systems, etc.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

valuearb 7y ago

There is plenty of Helium-3 on Earth too, which doesn't matter because Helium-3 doesn't matter. We can't build working fusion reactors now, and won't be able to do it for decades, and Helium-3 may not even be the best fuel when we do have working fusion reactors. It's like Columbus asking Queen Elizabeth for billions to explore Texas so we'll have fuel for Model Ts.

microtherion 7y ago
It might have been difficult for Columbus to contact Elizabeth, given that their lifetimes did not overlap ;-)
- valuearb 7y ago
  It's even harder than I thought!

mlindner 7y ago

There is no use for Helium-3 at this point in time. The reason Fusion is not getting invented is not because of a lack of Helium-3.

vkou 7y ago

Getting excited about Helium-3 on the Moon in 2020 is like a caveman in Europe getting excited about the easy availability of crude oil in Saudi Arabia. We have zero use for Helium-3 at the moment. It is not at all clear if fusion will ever be solved, and it is absolutely clear that it's not going to be solved in the next two decades.

throw1234651234 7y ago
"is absolutely clear that it's not going to be solved in the next two decades" What makes this absolutely clear? I am genuinely asking.
- vkou 7y ago
  A couple of reasons. 1. Because it takes over a decade for an amazing, clean, cheap, new power-generating technology to reach 3% of overall energy production. Look at how slow the absolute uptake (Or lack thereof) of wind and solar has been. They've been incredibly cost-efficient for a very long time, but actual real-world adoption has been slow. It's taken them two decades to reach a few percentage points. 2. We don't have an amazing, clean, cheap, working version of fusion. 3. We don't even have a working version of fusion, actually. 4. Even if ITER, or some other research group demonstrates commercially viable above-break-even-for-cost energy generation tomorrow, it's still going to be at least a decade of engineering efforts to build out the supply chains that will cheaply be able to manufacture all the esoteric components that go into building fusion reactors. 5. Neither ITER, nor any other group is currently even close to making such an announcement. (See #3) 6. And the reason for that is that there's still hundreds of hard engineering and materials problems to solve in this field. Not solve cost-efficiently - just solve. 7. And then, after we solve them, we'll need to solve them again, but this time in a cost-efficient manner. (See #2) So, there is no way on heaven or Earth that in twenty years, fusion power generation will exceed 3% of overall energy production, regardless of access to He-3. I will take fifty-to-one odds on this. In fifty years? I don't think it's likely, but it is possible.
  - throw1234651234 7y ago

outworlder 7y ago

On that note, you should watch: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt1182345/ https://www.imdb.com/title/tt1182345/