Gas Stores on Moon Fuel Source for Earth?

[materia3]

This came out today.

Moon gas may bail out energy-starving Earth

MIL, Nov 27, 2004. Henry Groover

Scientists claimed on Friday that there is a potential gas source on the Moon, and if it is confirmed, it may bail out energy-starved Earth and the moon's surface could hold the key for meeting the future energy demands which is getting exhausted and the earth's fossil fuels drying up in the coming decades.

The finding says that mineral samples from the moon has contained abundant amount of Helium 3, which is a variant of the gas used in lasers and refrigerators as well as to blow up balloons.

"When compared to the earth, the moon has a tremendous amount of Helium 3," said Lawrence Taylor, a director of the US Planetary Geosciences Institute, Department of Earth and Planetary Sciences. "When Helium 3 combines with deuterium (an isotope of hydrogen), the fusion proceeds at a very high temperature and it can produce awesome amounts of energy," Taylor said.

"Just 25 tonnes of helium, which can be transported on a space shuttle, is enough to provide electricity for the US for one year," said Taylor, who is in Udaipur to attend a global conference on moon exploration.

Complete article including stats and mining strategies are at:

http://internationalreporter.com/news/read.php?id=285

 

[CurtC]

Lemme finish that sentence...

"... is enough to provide electricity for the US for one year, as soon as, and assuming, we can get nuclear fusion figured out."

It's almost like saying that the Earth's oceans have an almost limitless supply of fuel, assuming we can figure out a way to convert water to gasoline.

The pro-space travel people have really tried some nutty ideas to justify thier desire for a Star Trek-like future.

 

[Dr. Imago]

There's a huge, limitless (for our purposes) source of fusion energy currently available to all of us. What's better is that we already know how to harness it. Of course, I'm talking about the sun.

But, no. We have to dream up completely asinine, utterly silly, and totally impracticable ideas like going to the moon to harvest gas, let alone then trying to figure out how to get it back to Earth.

Ask yourself why we aren't spending more money developing these solar-based technologies, including using the sun's energy to hydrolyze water to supply energy for hydrogen fuel cells, that have real, legitimate, and immediately usuable 100% renewable applications that don't pollute the environment.

Hmmm... maybe the Big Oil lobby has something to do with this?

-TT

 

[AWPrime]

limitless......LOL

 

[Rolfe]

limitless......LOL

And there's a reason why you seem to choose to ignore the fact that he said "for our purposes"?

Rolfe.

 

[Rob Lister]

Since others are doing a fine job debunking the most of it, I'll address the last...

"Just 25 tonnes of helium, which can be transported on a space shuttle, is enough to provide electricity for the US for one year,"

I'm trying really hard to picture that. Not just getting it out of the moon, but getting the shuttle out to the moon and back again with 25 tons of cargo. BTW, what's the plan for liquifing the He or otherwise compressing it enough to fit in a shuttle's cargo bay?

 

[Dr. Imago]

And there's a reason why you seem to choose to ignore the fact that he said "for our purposes"?

I guess he plans on being around in, I don't know, about 4 billion years (that's 4,000,000,000) when the sun turns into a red giant and engulfs the earth. I'll be happy to squeak out another 50-60 orbits around it myself.

Like I said (and apparently didn't appropriately qualify so I'll say again), for all practical purposes it's limitless.

-TT

 

[DangerousBeliefs]

What would really kick start the space program...

Moon discovered to contain nymphos

MIL, Nov 27, 2004. Alfred E. Neuman

Scientists claimed on Friday that there are really hot nymphomaniac space aliens on the Moon, and if it is confirmed, it may spark the first mass space program on Earth and the moon's surface could hold the keys to paradise for the coming decades.

The finding says that giant new telescopes on Earth have detected a hitherto unknown race of what appears to be really hot looking woman in skin-tight leotards living on the moon.

"When compared to the earth woman, these moon babes are freakin' the bomb!," said Lawrence Taylor, a director of the US Planetary Geosciences Institute, Department of Earth and Planetary Sciences. "I personally have spent over 12 hours watching them bath one another in hot spring-fed pools. But given the cold nights on the moon, they're always perky, if you know what I mean," said Taylor with trembling hands.

"If this doesn't spark a space race, nothing well," he said, adding that larger telescopes, possibly hooked up to the Internet for live viewing, would be needed.

But there are skeptics.

"How do we know these women, who have never seen a man, will not view us as a threat?" said Dr. Rusty Venture. "I mean who is to say that they won't make us battle each other to the death to win their seductive charms?"

 

[Rob Lister]

There's a huge, limitless (for our purposes) source of fusion energy currently available to all of us. What's better is that we already know how to harness it. Of course, I'm talking about the sun.

But, no. We have to dream up completely asinine, utterly silly, and totally impracticable ideas like going to the moon to harvest gas, let alone then trying to figure out how to get it back to Earth.

Ask yourself why we aren't spending more money developing these solar-based technologies, including using the sun's energy to hydrolyze water to supply energy for hydrogen fuel cells, that have real, legitimate, and immediately usuable 100% renewable applications that don't pollute the environment.

Hmmm... maybe the Big Oil lobby has something to do with this?

-TT

Big Oil does indeed have something to do with it. So long as oil/coal/ng/uranium/ are readily available at fairly low prices, there is no incentive to market solar technologies; they are not yet profitable. Pick one, any one, and run the numbers any way you like and see for yourself.

 

[Dr. Imago]

Big Oil does indeed have something to do with it. So long as oil/coal/ng/uranium/ are readily available at fairly low prices, there is no incentive to market solar technologies; they are not yet profitable. Pick one, any one, and run the numbers any way you like and see for yourself.

Yeah, I agree with this. The law of economics is always paramount.

But...

(1) It would certainly be more cost effective to develop earth-based, hydrogen fuel-cell technology in the short term than it would to figure out how to fly to the moon, harvest this gas, use energy to condense helium gas into a transportable form, fly it back to earth, and then figure out how to contain a fusion reaction in order to harness the energy from all this effort, no? This idea just seems silly.

(2) As long as the big oil lobby exists, there will be no reason for government to create an environment that incetivises other companies willing to develope technologies that are renewable and have less environmental impact. This is a fact. This is the way politics works.

I applaud GM for trying to investing $1B in developing a fuel-cell platform, in the face of TREMENDOUS counter-pressure from Big Oil, as a 20-30 year lead-in to the future of energy technology. If successful, they will force Big Oil to look away from non-renewable resources and to start to develop hydrogen-based technologies. Ultimately, it will be good for everyone.

On a sidenote (and not to necessarily derail or hijack this thread), did anyone see that report about what happened during the big blackout in August of 2003? The air quality in the northeast during that 24 hours substantially improved:

http://www.keepmedia.com/pubs/EnvironmentNewsService/2004/06/10/485836?extID=10032&oliID=213

http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99995038

Such pollution comes almost exclusively from burning fossil fuels.

-TT

 

[Ziggurat]

I applaud GM for trying to investing $1B in developing a fuel-cell platform, in the face of TREMENDOUS counter-pressure from Big Oil, as a 20-30 year lead-in to the future of energy technology. If successful, they will force Big Oil to look away from non-renewable resources and to start to develop hydrogen-based technologies. Ultimately, it will be good for everyone.

What counter-pressure can big oil possibly exert to try to disuade GM from doing this research? Can it refuse to sell gas to GM? Of course not, big oil sells gas to customers, not to car companies, and cars all use the same basic gasolines. Can they lobby the government? Maybe, but if so, that seems to have backfired, since the Bush administration (supposedly controlled by big oil) has been a major backer (both in terms of money and government lab research) for hydrogen/fuel cell research.

The only pressure big oil can possibly exert is by keeping the price of oil low, so that research into alternatives looks less cost-effective. But that's just economic reality, and cheap oil produces significant benefits for society too. I'm all for research, and I too aplaud GM's efforts, but to deny economic reality or to imply that there are sinister, conspiratorial forces at play is really pointless.

 

[Rob Lister]

Yeah, I agree with this. The law of economics is always paramount.

But...

(1) It would certainly be more cost effective to develop earth-based, hydrogen fuel-cell technology in the short term than it would to figure out how to fly to the moon, harvest this gas, use energy to condense helium gas into a transportable form, fly it back to earth, and then figure out how to contain a fusion reaction in order to harness the energy from all this effort, no? This idea just seems silly.

It is silly beyond compare, IMO (novice as it is). For one thing, we can barely get the much easier D+D fusion reaction to work. The D+3H reaction is harder and it's only advantage, sfaik, is that it doesn't produce a neutron.

(2) As long as the big oil lobby exists, there will be no reason for government to create an environment that incetivises other companies willing to develope technologies that are renewable and have less environmental impact. This is a fact. This is the way politics works.

That's life in the big city. But don't spend too much time blaming the oil lobby. They are big players in the game but the game itself is much bigger than they are. I seriously doubt much of their lobbying funds goes to supressing alternative energy sources, except perhaps nuclear (actually, that's probably more the coal lobby than big oil).

I applaud GM for trying to investing $1B in developing a fuel-cell platform, in the face of TREMENDOUS counter-pressure from Big Oil, as a 20-30 year lead-in to the future of energy technology. If successful, they will force Big Oil to look away from non-renewable resources and to start to develop hydrogen-based technologies. Ultimately, it will be good for everyone.

Lobby or no, neither you nor your grandkids will ever see a hydrogen based economy. It has nothing to do with big oil. It has everything to do with being a very silly idea. While it is technically possibly, it will forever remain impractical. The numbers just don't add up. You'll see synthethic fuel (built from H+C) before you see hydrogen fuel stations at every corner.

 

[Dr. Imago]

What counter-pressure can big oil possibly exert to try to disuade GM from doing this research? Can it refuse to sell gas to GM?

I think the pressure is indirect, and it involves lobbying for continued concessions from the federal government on existing technologies. Despite the fact that there is support for research into fuel cells, until the feds heavily incentivise researchers (i.e., they make it really attractive) and commit to penalize polluters there may never be an interest to really jump-starting the development of this technology. It's the classical "carrot and stick" approach, and until the carrot gets big enough or the stick painful enough, current market forces will prevail and we'll continue with the carbon-based fuel burning paradigm.

No conspiracy theory here. Just a reality check.

Lobby or no, neither you nor your grandkids will ever see a hydrogen based economy. It has nothing to do with big oil. It has everything to do with being a very silly idea. While it is technically possibly, it will forever remain impractical. The numbers just don't add up. You'll see synthethic fuel (built from H+C) before you see hydrogen fuel stations at every corner.

Well, I'm not that pessimisstic. And, certainly, GM had better deliver in the next 10-15 years or investors are going to be really pissed. The big thing is getting over the huge front-end cost in changing the infrastructure. What we need are practical transition technologies, and I think we are beginning to see them with the public's acceptance of hybrids (although these are still fossil-fuel burning admittedly).

Still, I think the proper incentive to continue down this path - and to get buy-in from Big Oil (which is occurring in some respects) - will at least begin to show a large scale, if not total, adoption of this technology in my lifetime. At least I hope it will.

-TT

 

[shanek]

Ask yourself why we aren't spending more money developing these solar-based technologies, including using the sun's energy to hydrolyze water to supply energy for hydrogen fuel cells, that have real, legitimate, and immediately usuable 100% renewable applications that don't pollute the environment.

Hmmm... maybe the Big Oil lobby has something to do with this?

Gee, it couldn't have anything to do with the fact that the price of solar power per unit of power generated is several times that of oil? Noooo, it's gotta be a conspiracy....

 

[Dr. Imago]

Gee, it couldn't have anything to do with the fact that the price of solar power per unit of power generated is several times that of oil? Noooo, it's gotta be a conspiracy....

Well, that's now. Or, are you suggesting that additional funding and incentives to pursue this research would not yield far more cost-effective technologies?

I bought an Apple IIe desktop computer in 1982 for about $2000. Today, I own a Pentium 4 laptop running about 10,000 times the computer power for half that price. Is it unreasonable to expect that by proper funding of research - and having the federal government incentivise that research with tax exemptions and federal grants (etc.) - might bring the cost down?

Seems pretty obvious to me.

-TT

 

[Ziggurat]

I think the pressure is indirect, and it involves lobbying for continued concessions from the federal government on existing technologies. Despite the fact that there is support for research into fuel cells, until the feds heavily incentivise researchers (i.e., they make it really attractive) and commit to penalize polluters there may never be an interest to really jump-starting the development of this technology. It's the classical "carrot and stick" approach, and until the carrot gets big enough or the stick painful enough, current market forces will prevail and we'll continue with the carbon-based fuel burning paradigm.

No conspiracy theory here. Just a reality check.

No, there is a conspiracy theory there. And it comes from the idea that Big Oil must be behind the push against alternative energy incentives. But the government IS spending lots of money on research, and the only things they could do to drasically promote alternatives, like raising gas taxes significantly, etc. would hurt the economy in general and put the squeeze on a whole lot of other businesses and individuals. More modest measures tend to have more localised opponents (it's the automakers, not big oil, who really oppose raising gas mileage requirements). The people interested in not having drastic steps taken, including the working poor who have to pay a larger chunk of their income for gas than rich folks and would be disproportionately hurt by increases in fuel price, cut across pretty much all segments of the American population. So to say that GM embarked on its hydrogen research in opposition to pressure from Big Oil is promoting a conspiracy theory. The biggest opposition they probably faced, and probably the only one that ever mattered, was reluctant shareholders who worried (quite reasonably) whether or not this massive investment in uncertain technologies would be able to turn a profit. And that's not a priori obvious, regardless of how supportive the government tries to be, precisely because it IS new and uncertain technology.

 

[AWPrime]

And there's a reason why you seem to choose to ignore the fact that he said "for our purposes"?

Rolfe.

There is always a limit to an energy source.


And if helium3 fusion becomes economical, I will expect the demand/consumption to rise with it.

 

[Ziggurat]

Well, that's now. Or, are you suggesting that additional funding and incentives to pursue this research would not yield far more cost-effective technologies?

I bought an Apple IIe desktop computer in 1982 for about $2000. Today, I own a Pentium 4 laptop running about 10,000 times the computer power for half that price. Is it unreasonable to expect that by proper funding of research - and having the federal government incentivise that research with tax exemptions and federal grants (etc.) - might bring the cost down?

Seems pretty obvious to me.

This isn't nearly as dramatic a comparison as you seem to think. First off, the speed difference is meaningless in relation to solar cells. There were no fundamental physical limits in between the speed of an Apple II and a Pentium 4, it was mostly just a matter of scaling down the size of transistors. But the simple limts of physics mean that there isn't a lot of headroom on the efficiency frontier for solar cells. A factor of two or three improvement may be possible (don't hold your breath), but order of magnitude efficiency improvements are simply not in the cards. Not only is it bloody unlikely to get near 100%, but even if you did, you certainly can't get past it. So progress for solar cells is mostly going to have to come from the cost side. But the cost of your computer, not in performance terms but in absolute terms (the best basis for comparison), has only fallen by a factor of two over the last two decades. That's progress, sure, but it's not really dramatic, and it's probably mostly due to economies of scale. Which you only get over time, AFTER something is already profitable to begin with. Solar cells might indeed get there eventually, but you're kidding yourself if you think the dramatic progress of computers (attributable to shrinking transistors) can translate to solar cells (where shrinking doesn't get you anywhere).

 

[Dr. Imago]

No, there is a conspiracy theory there. And it comes from the idea that Big Oil must be behind the push against alternative energy incentives.

conspiracy theory
n.
A theory seeking to explain a disputed case or matter as a plot by a secret group or alliance rather than an individual or isolated act.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=conspiracy theory

No, there's not, and I'm not suggesting that. You're reading more into my post than is there.

I think it is good business to protect one's business interests, and that's what the Big Oil lobby does. I don't fault them for that. It's not surreptiously done. They are not holding back technology from being developed.

What they do do, and do well, is protect their interests and their infrastructure. If the "stick" gets too big, they will have their lobbiests lobby against it. Likewise, they will support legislation and the opening of new lands that favors further development or expands their already intact infrastructure. As such, this indirectly lobbies against the 'ease' of developing new technologies on the automobile side. If Big Oil isn't on board, car manufacturers can still continue to develop new technology all they want, but it won't be supported by the people who are making the fuel for it - nor the end user's ability to get fuel for it. So, as a result, the 'easier' route for car companies is to continue to make cars that gasoline. That's not a conspiracy, it's a fact of the current state of affairs.

What I'm suggesting is incentivising Big Oil - heavily incentivising them - to shift their infrastructure and support alternate fuels. This can be done in the form of tax breaks from everything to investing in companies with new technologies to promoting cleaner fuels to reducing their green burdens. With that, we also need a bigger "stick" and better enforcement of infringements - and this is where the lobbies have done a great job in quelling oversight of their clients practices. That's not a conspiracy; it's the way big business works. There is plenty of information on the web about this.

-TT

 

[SkepticJohn]

LMFAO

yeah, sounds like a good plan, EXCEPT:

"Just 25 tonnes of helium, which can be transported on a space shuttle, is enough to provide electricity for the US for one year,"

THEN

"Helium 3 can be extracted from the soil and rocks of the Moon. Any planet or Moon having rocks must have Helium. About 200 million tones of lunar surface can produce one tonne of helium. "

Lets see, the Aitik mine in northern Sweden has a output of about 20 million tonnes of ore per year, with 340 employees. So that would be 3400 people for one tonne of helium 3. Times 25 for USA's energy needs, making it a total of 85000 employees. Seem unrealistic yet? I guess you could develop robotics and automation further, but still. I dunno, are mines in the states more automated than over here? guess I could google and see. I'll get back to you all