Helium-3

[civhelp121]

Fusion is an incredible process. It gives off energy with no pollution. The big problem, of course, being that fusion is not profitable, and I believe takes more energy than it gives off. For the second problem, I believe that we are making progress in it. If you look at fusion reactors now than decades earlier you will see that they are becoming more efficient. As for the first part, it could be solved by Helium-3

Basically a major problem with fusing two hydrogen atoms is that they give off particles that damage the hull of the reactor, forcing people to have to replace the hull. Helium-3 gives off harmless particles, and so the hull of the reactor doesn't need to be replaced. This, combined with more and more efficient fusion reactors, makes fusion a serious source of energy in the future. However helium-3 is very scarce on Earth because of Earth's atmosphere. However, it is abundant on the moon because of its lack of atmosphere. Hence the second space race:
http://www.wired.com/science/space/news/2006/12/72276

India, China, US, and Russia are racing to mine helium-3 first. The earliest, Russia, plans to mine helium-3 by 2020. Of course there is no guarentee that fusion will work, even if it is becoming more efficient, but I think the fact that the major space powers all want to mine helium-3 proves that fusion with helium-3 is very likely to be profitable and the main source of energy for generations to come.

As I stated before, Russia has the fastest timeline. They want to have a permanent base on the moon by 2015 (or at least start building it) and start industrial level mining of helium-3 by 2020. The U.S is second, and want a permanent base on the moon by 2020 and industrial level mining by 2025. Personally, I have a hard time believing the Russians can achieve their timeline. The drop in gas prices has put a heavy burden on the Russians budget and they have yet to even reach the moon, let alone establish a permanent base.

 

[Perfection]

Article is two years old...

Personally I think the idea is cool, but I'm highly skeptical as to the viability.

The answer to "our reactor walls are being damaged" strikes me as something probably less fantastic then "let's strip mine the moon!"

 

[GoodGame]

I thought the bigger problem was igniting fusion without damaging the ignition apparatus, that and how incredibley hot the reaction needs to reach to start and still be controllable.

Cool if we start an Official Fusion thread? I'd been wanting one.

 

[uppi]

The problem with He-3 is, that it requires even higher temperatures to ignite (because of the higher Coulomb barrier). The burning temperature for He-3/D fusion is greater than 40keV, this is four times as much as D/T fusion with 10keV. A higher plasma temperature means, that the plasma is harder to control and the efficiency is worse, because losses are much higher.

We have to get D/T fusion work, before we can even think about realising fusion with He-3.

 

[civhelp121]

I realize that fusion is still far away, and even its viability is in question. I do not mean at all that fusion is a slam dunk. All I'm saying is that with all four major space fareing countries racing to claim some, there has to be something to it that we the public don't know.

 

[uppi]

I realize that fusion is still far away, and even its viability is in question. I do not mean at all that fusion is a slam dunk. All I'm saying is that with all four major space fareing countries racing to claim some, there has to be something to it that we the public don't know.

You don't get to stay a superpower with only thinking 5 years ahead. The moon is the next accessible territory to be claimed. And if He-3 becomes very important in 100 years, then you want to be the one owning its sources.

 

[civhelp121]

You don't get to stay a superpower with only thinking 5 years ahead. The moon is the next accessible territory to be claimed. And if He-3 becomes very important in 100 years, then you want to be the one owning its sources.

I highly doubt it will take 100 years. Russia would not be industrial level mining by 2020 and the US would not be industrial level mining by 2025 if those rock rot there for another 80 years. I think that fusion will be a major source of energy latest by 2025.

 

[uppi]

I highly doubt it will take 100 years. Russia would not be industrial level mining by 2020 and the US would not be industrial level mining by 2025 if those rock rot there for another 80 years. I think that fusion will be a major source of energy latest by 2025.

No way. If everything goes well, we'll have some data from ITER by then. But even the most optimistic fusion physicists don't believe that there will be any power generating reactor by then.

The current plan is to have the first commercial reactors in 2050-60.

 

[civhelp121]

No way. If everything goes well, we'll have some data from ITER by then. But even the most optimistic fusion physicists don't believe that there will be any power generating reactor by then.

The current plan is to have the first commercial reactors in 2050-60.

can you provide some evidence to back up your claim?

 

[uppi]

can you provide some evidence to back up your claim?

Yes.
http://www.ipp.mpg.de/ippcms/eng/pr/exptypen/fusionskraftwerk/index.html

If research goes according to plan – this being 20 years of planning, constructing, and operating ITER and the same for a subsequent demonstration reactor – fusion could yield economically useful power in about 50 years

And just to show, that I'm not quoting some random site:
http://www.ipp.mpg.de/ippcms/eng/pr/institut/index.html

The research conducted at Max-Planck-Institut für Plasmaphysik (IPP) in Garching and Greifswald is concerned with investigating the physical basis of a fusion power plant. Like the sun, such a plant is to generate energy from fusion of atomic nuclei. With its workforce of approx. 1,100 IPP is one of the largest fusion research centres in Europe.

 

[civhelp121]

it sounds true. However, when it says 50 years in the future, from what point in time is it referring to? scientists have been going at fusion for a long time. In any case, that is the european level of research, one has to wonder at what point the US is at. Like I said before, I highly doubt the US would plan for industrial level mining b 2025 only to store the stuff for decades.

I just saw this in the New York Times Week In Review: There is a column written by Thomas Friedman, a respected journalist, about nuclear fusion. He said that he interviewed people at NIF, and they plan to have a fusion reaction up in two to three years that will yield multiple times more energy than it takes in. It is based just south of San Francisco, and here is a link to their website:https://lasers.llnl.gov/
That, combined with the more profitable helium-3 fusion, will make fusion the biggest fuel source.

Also look at this article: https://publicaffairs.llnl.gov/news/news_releases/2008/NR-08-11-01.html
It states that a pilot program could be built and operatable in the decade of 2020, and become commercially available in the following 10 years. That is precisely the timeline I laid out initially

 

[Perfection]

I realize that fusion is still far away, and even its viability is in question. I do not mean at all that fusion is a slam dunk. All I'm saying is that with all four major space fareing countries racing to claim some, there has to be something to it that we the public don't know.

I'm skeptical of this notion of racing. I would describe it more as "taking tentative steps and sometimes talking about it".

 

[civhelp121]

I'm skeptical of this notion of racing. I would describe it more as "taking tentative steps and sometimes talking about it".

*points to my post just above yours* I think I provide all the proof needed to show that fusion, although no guarentee, has a good chance of being the main source of energy. In any case setting up a permanent base on the moon and creating machines that can mine the moon takes time. It took 9 years for a heavily funded program to just reach the moon, I'd say trying to set up a permanent base on the moon in 11 years, and for Russia in a mere 6, is racing to the moon. These things take time.

 

[Perfection]

*points to my post just above yours* I think I provide all the proof needed to show that fusion, although no guarentee, has a good chance of being the main source of energy.

Did I say fusion wouldn't? No.

In any case setting up a permanent base on the moon and creating machines that can mine the moon takes time. It took 9 years for a heavily funded program to just reach the moon, I'd say trying to set up a permanent base on the moon in 11 years, and for Russia in a mere 6, is racing to the moon. These things take time.

Oh, they always say that. They make grand plans do the initial stuff in hope that they actually get some budget but they don't get the budget and we get to keep hearing that it's 11 years away for the next 20 years.

You gotta learn to understand when the government is lying.

 

[uppi]

it sounds true. However, when it says 50 years in the future, from what point in time is it referring to? scientists have been going at fusion for a long time. In any case, that is the european level of research, one has to wonder at what point the US is at. Like I said before, I highly doubt the US would plan for industrial level mining b 2025 only to store the stuff for decades.

I just saw this in the New York Times Week In Review: There is a column written by Thomas Friedman, a respected journalist, about nuclear fusion. He said that he interviewed people at NIF, and they plan to have a fusion reaction up in two to three years that will yield multiple times more energy than it takes in. It is based just south of San Francisco, and here is a link to their website:https://lasers.llnl.gov/
That, combined with the more profitable helium-3 fusion, will make fusion the biggest fuel source.

Also look at this article: https://publicaffairs.llnl.gov/news/news_releases/2008/NR-08-11-01.html
It states that a pilot program could be built and operatable in the decade of 2020, and become commercially available in the following 10 years. That is precisely the timeline I laid out initially

That's inertial confinement fusion. The opinion of European fusion physicists is that it is only useful for nuclear weapon testing and the energy generation plans are thrown in for the public. Whether this really can be used for energy generation remains to be shown.

And even if it does, the timeline is nowhere realistic:

An aggressive development of this technology could lead to a LIFE pilot power generation plant in the 2020 timeframe followed by commercial deployment in the following 10 years

"An agressive development" has to be read as: "If we get alot more funds than we have now" and "could lead" as "We don't even know if it is possible yet".

Because scientists want to get funding their research always "could lead" to a solution to some fundamental problem of mankind.

 

[civhelp121]

Geez, that is a poor arguement. You start out stating that you are skeptical that it is viable, so yes, you did say that you were at the very least, very skeptical. Not to mention just saying that someone else or something else is lying is no arguement. I can say that the government is lying about wanting to push along solar energy, doesn't mean I'm right. You have to provide some proof. In any case JFK wasn't lying when he said that the US was going to the moon before the 1960s ended, NASA has a whole exhibit in the Museum of Natural History (I think thats the place, I might be wrong but I know I went to an exhibit about the mission to Mars in a science museum in New York City.)

In any case the best evidence I have that the government is not lying is that the government has stuck to the 2020-2025 deadline for years now. The article I gave a link to initally is two years old and NASA still has the same goals. So no, they have not been saying in another 11 years for some odd years now.


"That's inertial confinement fusion. The opinion of European fusion physicists is that it is only useful for nuclear weapon testing and the energy generation plans are thrown in for the public. Whether this really can be used for energy generation remains to be shown."

So just because some European scientist said that it makes it true? I didn't question your sources, why are you questioning mine?And now you are saying that those scientist are lying? why don't you look at their website first. In any case they scheduled years ago for the first test to be done in march of 2009, they have successfully completed their first test as of 2009. They didn't underestimate the time in that.

Europe lags significantly in terms of fusion behind the US, that much is clear.

 

[uppi]

In any case the best evidence I have that the government is not lying is that the government has stuck to the 2020-2025 deadline for years now. The article I gave a link to initally is two years old and NASA still has the same goals. So no, they have not been saying in another 11 years for some odd years now.

No, that's exactly the proof that they're lying:

Construction started in 1997 but was fraught with problems and ran into a series of delays that greatly slowed progress into the early 2000s. Progress since then has been much smoother, but compared to initial estimates, NIF is five years behind schedule and almost four times more expensive than budgeted.

If the deadline really was serious, they'd have corrected it by now. And even if it was: science projects never meet their deadline.

So just because some European scientist said that it makes it true? I didn't question your sources, why are you questioning mine?And now you are saying that those scientist are lying? why don't you look at their website first. In any case they scheduled years ago for the first test to be done in march of 2009, they have successfully completed their first test as of 2009. They didn't underestimate the time in that.

There is a difference between a press release and what scientists really think. If you would ask the scientist who work on those projects themselves you'd get a different opinion.

Europe lags significantly in terms of fusion behind the US, that much is clear.

No, Europe lags significantly in nuclear weapon research.

 

[Perfection]

Geez, that is a poor arguement. You start out stating that you are skeptical that it is viable, so yes, you did say that you were at the very least, very skeptical. Not to mention just saying that someone else or something else is lying is no arguement. I can say that the government is lying about wanting to push along solar energy, doesn't mean I'm right. You have to provide some proof. In any case JFK wasn't lying when he said that the US was going to the moon before the 1960s ended, NASA has a whole exhibit in the Museum of Natural History (I think thats the place, I might be wrong but I know I went to an exhibit about the mission to Mars in a science museum in New York City.)

Well that's the difference! It's the president of the United States of America promising that in a very stirring speech. That's not the same as NASA timelines which change all the bloody time.

In any case the best evidence I have that the government is not lying is that the government has stuck to the 2020-2025 deadline for years now. The article I gave a link to initally is two years old and NASA still has the same goals. So no, they have not been saying in another 11 years for some odd years now.

Well it hasn't reached crunchtime yet. Once they don't get thier budget they'll start backsliding the timeline again.

And besides, lunar mission don't have to be Helium 3!

 

[civhelp121]

No, that's exactly the proof that they're lying:



If the deadline really was serious, they'd have corrected it by now. And even if it was: science projects never meet their deadline.



There is a difference between a press release and what scientists really think. If you would ask the scientist who work on those projects themselves you'd get a different opinion.



No, Europe lags significantly in nuclear weapon research.

1) so lemme get this straight, if they have had a concrete timeline that they have stuck to over a given period of time, that means they are lying about their timeline? That doesn't make sense, if someone is being responsible, that means they are telling the truth.

2) Thats a given. To paraphrase, all the plans of mice and men go astray. It would be ridiculous to expect them to fit their deadline exactly. The point is that for their deadline they give a 10 year window with which to finish, that is a significant chunk of time and leeway.

3) So scientist lie too? The government lies, scientists lie, who the hell tells the truth anymore? Honestly, please back up such claims with proof.

4) The place may have started as a nuclear weapon research lab, but clearly it has moved beyond that. Like I said, actually go to their website and read about it.

"Well that's the difference! It's the president of the United States of America promising that in a very stirring speech. That's not the same as NASA timelines which change all the bloody time."

If it makes you feel any better, Bush announced it in a speech

In all seriousness, as I stated before, NASA has stuck to that timeline for many years now. I don't expect them to finish exactly on time, but nor to I think that this project is going to be finished 5 or 10 years late.

"Well it hasn't reached crunchtime yet. Once they don't get thier budget they'll start backsliding the timeline again.

And besides, lunar mission don't have to be Helium 3!"

1) that can't be determined yet. We have to wait and see if they slide their timeline back or not. For me to claim that I know that they won't, or for you to claim that you know that they will would be false.

2) Certainly not! this is but one aspect of the lunar program. The stated goal is to use the moon as a jumping pad to Mars.

 

[Perfection]

We know NASA is lying here because we've seen this thing before! Where the hell are our space shuttle replacements?

2) Certainly not! this is but one aspect of the lunar program. The stated goal is to use the moon as a jumping pad to Mars.

Everything is always an aspect, what we're looking for here is it being a big bullet point.

Bush annouced the moon, and I think a lunar mission has serious probability. He didn't say jack about helium 3 though.