Peak Oil News and Message Boards

Posted: **Wed 22 Oct 2008, 21:25:06**

First of all, I'm not 100% sure this topic belongs in this forum, but it does pertain to current events. Admin, please move to appropriate forum if this is not the place.

Has anyone else noticed lately that there is a renewed interest in going to the Moon?
Selene <-- Japan
Chang'e 1 <-- China
Chandrayaan <-- India
NASA

How will space travel be possible without oil?

Moved to Open Discussion = “Post off-topic (non-peak oil) current events news & media here.” –FL

Posted: **Thu 23 Oct 2008, 02:41:54**

They are after Helium-3 on the moons surface to power fusion reactors so we can carry on consuming and growing.

Posted: **Thu 23 Oct 2008, 02:45:56**

Ainan wrote:They are after Helium-3 on the moons surface to power fusion reactors so we can carry on consuming and growing.

You are probably correct. They are after incredibly expensive fuel (which would be far cheaper to produce on the Earth anyway) and it would be used to run reactors which do not exist.

However there is also other explanation: Going to space is used to fuel national hubris at taxpayer expense. So if China sent men to space, why Indians should not send probe to Moon?

Posted: **Thu 23 Oct 2008, 14:18:40**

vaseline2008 wrote:Has anyone else noticed lately that there is a renewed interest in going to the Moon?
Selene <-- Japan
Chang'e 1 <-- China
Chandrayaan <-- India
NASA

Alice Kramden <-- Ralph Kramden Bang, zoom!

Posted: **Thu 23 Oct 2008, 14:21:08**

Ainan wrote:They are after Helium-3 on the moons surface to power fusion reactors so we can carry on consuming and growing.

What use would helium be in a fusion reactor? Helium is what you get OUT of a fusion reaction.

Posted: **Thu 23 Oct 2008, 17:46:00**

vaseline2008 wrote:First of all, I'm not 100% sure this topic belongs in this forum, but it does pertain to current events. Admin, please move to appropriate forum if this is not the place.
Has anyone else noticed lately that there is a renewed interest in going to the Moon?
How will space travel be possible without oil?

The same way anythign else will be, Petroleum is just a cheap energy source, it is not the ONLY energy source. Not to mention that most spacecraft are launched with either SRB's or liquid fueled rockets that use artificially created fuels. Even a Methane/LOX rocket uses processed and manufactured fuels, not petroleum.

Posted: **Fri 24 Oct 2008, 04:43:00**

Nickel wrote:
Ainan wrote:They are after Helium-3 on the moons surface to power fusion reactors so we can carry on consuming and growing.
What use would helium be in a fusion reactor? Helium is what you get OUT of a fusion reaction.

Theres an article about it here.

Posted: **Fri 24 Oct 2008, 07:38:06**

Ainan wrote:
Nickel wrote:
Ainan wrote:They are after Helium-3 on the moons surface to power fusion reactors so we can carry on consuming and growing.
What use would helium be in a fusion reactor? Helium is what you get OUT of a fusion reaction.
Theres an article about it here.

I stand deflected.

Posted: **Fri 24 Oct 2008, 07:49:58**

Nickel wrote:
Ainan wrote:
Nickel wrote:
Ainan wrote:They are after Helium-3 on the moons surface to power fusion reactors so we can carry on consuming and growing.
What use would helium be in a fusion reactor? Helium is what you get OUT of a fusion reaction.
Theres an article about it here.
I stand deflected.

Hopefully it won't work out though, I can just see them strip mining the moon... Then the rich will move out into space while the earth is turned into a giant waste dump.

Posted: **Fri 24 Oct 2008, 17:09:59**

They obviously haven't heard about Olduvai theory. Deny is so powerfull that our cornucoppian growth obsession is respected as a religion.

Posted: **Sun 30 Jun 2013, 14:52:35**

Novus wrote: Cutting off Nasa would mean turning off the spigot to a large part America's innovation pool.

How about we just intelligently prioritize our funding, since we can't afford everything?

For example, telescope technology, and what the major planned telescopic missions can teach us is astounding. Yet we are also cutting significantly into even THAT.

I would say let's learn all we can, safely and cheaply, via observation and analysis -- until we manage to return to financial soundness. If we happen to discover something worth visiting for the enormous expense (at this stage, the moon is unlikely to be it) -- then that issue can be evaluated.

....

But that is the problem with all government generally, isn't it? The mental 9 year olds (voted in by the population) can't prioritize intelligently, if at all. Pick ANY class of government programs -- this seems to be true.

Yes, we learn from space exploration, and as a geek I am happy to fund that. As a realistic tax-paying member of a basically bankrupt country though -- again, I see a serious need to prioritize.

Posted: **Thu 07 Aug 2014, 21:16:41**

The Moon Could Meet the World's Energy Needs for the Next 10,000 Years

Mining the moon to meet our energy needs may sound like the plot from a sci-fi movie, but China is considering doing exactly that. Helium 3 is an extremely valuable isotope that could be used in clean fusion plants to generate energy – and it’s available in vast quantities on the moon. Some scientists say that the moon is so rich in Helium 3 that it could solve the world’s energy problems for at least 10,000 years.

Helium 3 is a light, non-radioactive isotope of helium with two protons and one neutron. It’s dumped upon the moon’s surface by solar winds, and is available in relative abundance. Two fully-loaded space shuttle cargo bays filled with the material (about 40 tons) could power the United States for an entire year at the current rate of energy consumption. This would require mining an area on the moon the size of Washington DC. Helium 3 is rare on Earth because our planet’s atmosphere and magnetic field prevent deposits from reaching the surface – but the moon doesn’t have this problem.

inhabitat

Posted: **Thu 07 Aug 2014, 21:47:18**

This is irrelevant, because we can't go back to the moon, according to Washington politicians. We used to be able to go there, back in the previous century, but in this century, it's out of the question.

Posted: **Thu 07 Aug 2014, 21:55:04**

Not for China.

Posted: **Thu 07 Aug 2014, 21:55:49**

http://edn.com/electronics-blogs/powers ... h-reactors

Here is a thumbnail about it from Electronic Design News.

Posted: **Fri 08 Aug 2014, 04:49:02**

I suppose the impressive thing in this article is that they actually think they know what energy needs the "world" has for the next 10.000 years.

Posted: **Fri 08 Aug 2014, 08:07:00**

He-3/Deuterium fusion is the one reaction we know how to make work, that in theory produces enough power to make a cheap and clean and powerful fusion power plant.

We just do not have enough He-3 on Earth to produce a technology demonstration pilot plant. Can we scale up the laboratory process in a short period of time?

Nobody knows. In 1964 I opened one of my textbooks and saw a wondrous sight: a hydrogen-fusion-powered spacecraft, in which Americans would explore the galaxy. Fifty years later, that dream has died.

IMHO we should definitely try He-3/Deuterium Fusion, which means going to the moon and mining this resource. If it works out, we might keep our global civilization going another century, until there are 15 to 20 Billion of us trying to live on the surface of the Earth.

But....that's not the same as being saved, is it? At best, we kick the can down the road a far piece.

Incidentally, He-3 fusion is the topic of the 2009 movie Moon, starring Sam Rockwell and Kevin Spacey. Low budget but good. Sam plays the Lunar miner, mining He-3 from Lunar dust.

Posted: **Fri 08 Aug 2014, 08:08:59**

Posted: **Fri 08 Aug 2014, 08:27:19**

So a technology that is always thirty years ahead and a location extremely difficult to get to, and a resource available in extremely small and scattered quantities...

The future is cloudy, but our asses won't be saved by moon dust, I'm pretty sure of that.

Posted: **Fri 08 Aug 2014, 09:02:13**

I grant you that overall, its a long shot.

So you would reject a clean, carbon-free (in fact totally pollution-free) source of electrical power?

And I never said it will save us. This tech would just "kick the can" 50-100 years. Then we would have to deal with "peak Helium-3".

Peak Oil News and Message Boards

Moon Helium Meet World Energy Need 10000 yrs

THE Moon Thread pt. 2

Re: Next Stop: The Moon

Re: Next Stop: The Moon

Re: Next Stop: The Moon

Re: Next Stop: The Moon

Re: Next Stop: The Moon

Re: Next Stop: The Moon

Re: Next Stop: The Moon

Re: Next Stop: The Moon

Re: Next Stop: The Moon

Re: Next Stop: The Moon

Moon Helium Meet World Energy Need 10000 yrs

Re: The Moon Could Meet the World's Energy Needs for 10000 y

Re: The Moon Could Meet the World's Energy Needs for 10000 y

Re: The Moon Could Meet the World's Energy Needs for 10000 y

Re: The Moon Could Meet the World's Energy Needs for 10000 y

Re: The Moon Could Meet the World's Energy Needs for 10000 y

Re: The Moon Could Meet the World's Energy Needs for 10000 y

Re: The Moon Could Meet the World's Energy Needs for 10000 y

Re: The Moon Could Meet the World's Energy Needs for 10000 y