PowerSwitch

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6533169.stm

Thought this was just going to be another article about a con-artist making his millions by selling chunks of the moon to gullible buyers... but lower down in the article it says:

Data collected from the Apollo Moon landings have indicated that large deposits of an extremely rare gas called helium 3 are trapped in the lunar soil.

Scientists believe that this helium 3 could be used to create a new source of almost inexhaustible, clean, pollution-free energy on Earth.

One of them is Dr Harrison Schmitt, a member of the 1972 Apollo 17 mission and the only trained geologist ever to walk on the Moon.

"A metric ton of helium 3 would supply about one-sixth of the energy needs today of the British Isles," he claims.

Plans are already afoot in the US and Russia to strip-mine lunar helium 3 and transport it the 240,000 miles (385,000km) back to Earth.

The Moon, claims Prof Jerry Kulcinski of the University of Wisconsin-Madison, could become the Persian Gulf of the 21st Century.

"If we had gold bricks stacked up on the surface of the Moon, we couldn't afford to bring them back. This material - at several billion dollars a ton - is what makes it all worthwhile."

Well, on the face of it, this idea seems pretty far-fetched, but just supposed it were possible (in terms of EROEI, not in terms of money), what would the environmental impact be of importing tons and tons of helium 3 back to Earth? Would it be as clean and pollution-free as they allege? If this were carried out on a large scale (come on, bear with me on this sci-fi trip) then wouldn't such imports somehow raise the overall energy balance on the planet and cause a warming effect anyway (most would be converted to heat eventually)?

Or shouldn't we be wasting time even discussing this sort of free-lunch fantasy?!

Sounds like drivel to me. The statement:
""A metric ton of helium 3 would supply about one-sixth of the energy needs today of the British Isles," he claims. "

Is clearly garbage. The "energy needs" of the British Isles are measured in Watts. The energy available from Helium 3 (if we can get any) is measured in Watt Hours. (or indeed Joules if you feel like it)

It can never compute.

Just a stupid an idea as a "Hydrogen Economy". I did a speech recently at the Major Energy Users Council where I suggested that those that were talking about at Hydrogen Economy clearly thought they would mine the hydrogen by sending space ships with big balloons to dip into The Sun.

Just as stupid an idea really.

I suppose they could go for a pipe line

johnhemming wrote:
Is clearly garbage. The "energy needs" of the British Isles are measured in Watts. The energy available from Helium 3 (if we can get any) is measured in Watt Hours. (or indeed Joules if you feel like it)

Minor point, but we measure the energy needs of the UK in watt hours (or more normally kilo-watt hours) as the watt measures power not energy. However, I agree that this would not solve the UK?s energy needs

It's not drivel but it is every bit as unlikely as "conventional" fusion. To liberate the energy they are talking about needs a fusion reactor, only the temperatures have to be even hotter than conventional deuterium and tritium reactions. The benefit is that it doesn't produce the high energy neutrons, only high energy protons and they can be contained electromagnetically. A lot of the material science challenges melt away.

"A metric ton of helium 3 would supply about one-sixth of the energy needs today of the British Isles," he claims.

This sounds about right. Each helium-3 reaction produces 18.3MeV which is 493 megawatt-hours per three grams. A ton would therefore produce 164 TWh. The UK uses around 400 TWh of electricity per year so one ton would represent 41%. However, the heat from the fusion reactor can only be converted into electricity at ~40% efficiency reducing that total contribution from 41% to 16.4% or one sixth as the article says.

The article is absolutely right - however we need a fusion reactor (although arguably a simpler one than we are currently working on for hydrogen fusion). It's not feasible to manufacture the helium-3 on Earth, but if it could be mined with positive EROEI from the moon it has some potential. The challenge is that mining and transportation though. It's not just stacked up like gold bars, but rather in parts per billion concentrations. That is the fact likely to scupper this plan.

And add to that that you have to transport it from the moon

I am sorry to disagree, but any article that gets its dimensional analysis wrong is drivel.

The fact that the rest of it is very far fetched is a separate issue. However, power cannot equate to energy.

isenhand wrote:And add to that that you have to transport it from the moon

No, we can just go and settle the moon and use the energy there!

There appears quite a bit of info here:

http://fti.neep.wisc.edu/proj?rm=he3

johnhemming wrote:I am sorry to disagree, but any article that gets its dimensional analysis wrong is drivel.

There's nothing wrong with the dimensional analysis, the article isn't talking about power, all it says is "energy needs". Sure it's a bit loose in that I'm sure Schmitt means annual electrical energy needs rather than total energy to the end of time but theoretically he's right. One ton of helium 3 can supply about one-sixth of our annual electrical energy needs of ~400TWh as I demonstrated above.

Will no one think of the impact on the Clangers?

EmptyBee wrote:Will no one think of the impact on the Clangers?

And Wallace-no cheese

If we strip mine too much of the moon away, then the Earth will wobble on its axis, meaning unpredictable and extreme weather. The advantage here is you wouldn't need to fly to someplace hot for two weeks, it will come to you.

I guess the Vogons will get the contract? Hopefully once mined out, they'll restore it sympathetically, and clear up after themselves, leaving the popular and familiar crescent shape behind rather than a cube or Henry Moore type odd modern art shape.

Before too long there will be another pressure group formed. Friends of the Moon.

Erik wrote:this idea seems pretty far-fetched

Certainly is! The only remotely practical way I could see it being done would be to mine and convert the energy on the Moon itself. Then beam it to Earth using laser or maser, hopefully frying "Loony Solar Power" John Denver on the way

There was something about all this on the telly last night. I didn't catch it all.

A really optimistic piece that seemed to suggest that the magnificient scientists would have it all sorted by 2020 (or thereabouts).

They interviewed both American and Russian scientists who were convinced of the possibiliites. Interestingly the finiteness of our current source of energy was assumed.

So don't worry folks we won't be short of energy this century.

It looked like a 'south sea bubble' to me. A mechanism of private individuals (in Russia) and scientific organisations (NASA) gaining huge heaps of public money for outlandish techno solutions to problems that we did not have 200 years ago.

Whether it is feasable or not is not the point. The point is we would live a far better quality of life if we as individuals remove the power governments, companies and corps have over us by becoming more and more self sufficient for our own energy and food needs.