|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Mining the moon for unlimited Energy.
Hello Friends,
There is plenty of energy on moons crust that if we can mine Helium 3 Gas out of Moons crust we can solve all our energy needs for 1000 years. A pound of Helium-3 is having energy equivalent of 1 Million ton of Coal. You may view the Full Article he http://www.softtanks.com/Todays_Arti...p?Topic=Energy Fusion of helium-3 does not produce greenhouse emissions, and mining it would do little environmental harm The moon doesn`t have air or water. So, there won`t be any of that kind of pollution. So after Earth next mining target will be Moon. Bye Sanjay http://www.softtanks.com/Todays_Arti...p?Topic=Energy |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Mining the moon for unlimited Energy.
In sci.space.tech Sanjay wrote:
Hello Friends, There is plenty of energy on moons crust that if we can mine Helium 3 Gas out of Moons crust we can solve all our energy needs for 1000 years. A pound of Helium-3 is having energy equivalent of 1 Million ton of Coal. snip Fusion of helium-3 does not produce greenhouse emissions, and mining it would do little environmental harm The moon doesn`t have air or Neither does fission. But nobody has done helium-3 fusion to produce energy. Hell, nobody has done continuous fusion to produce energy. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Mining the moon for unlimited Energy.
|
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Mining the moon for unlimited Energy.
Gordon D. Pusch wrote:
Unfortunately, we do =NOT= have the _FAINTEST_ clue as to how to build a fusion reactor that could burn the stuff without a net _LOSS_ of energy. It takes temperatures and plasma densities more than an _ORDER OF MAGNITUDE HIGHER_ than D/T fusion to "ignite" even the "easiest" He3-burning reaction, and it is not clear that such a reactor could =EVER= "break even," since its bremsstrahlung loss rate likewise exceeds its energy generation rate by more than an order of magnitude. Trying to "burn" He3 is like trying to burn soaking wet paper --- it costs more heat than you get out of it. Where does this 'exceeds its energy generation rate by more than an order of magnitude' come from? The ideal situation I recall (optimal plasma conditions, 'hot ion mode') was 19% of the energy goes into bremsstrahlung. Furthermore, it would be cheaper to _MANUFACTURE_ He3 on the Earth by "breeding" Tritium and waiting for it to decay than to mine it on the Moon and ship it back to Earth. So quite bluntly, this lunatic idea is pure moonshine. A contained, underground 1 MT explosion could produce several kilograms of tritium (and ultimately 3He). The biggest problem with lunar 3He is that the energy required to extract it from the regolith is substantial; even if this energy does not exceed the fusion energy content of the gas, it will be a significant fraction of it. You don't want to have to build a 100 MW powerplant on the moon in order to fuel a 1 GW powerplant on earth; the cost of the former would dwarf the cost of the latter. Paul |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Mining the moon for unlimited Energy.
"Paul F. Dietz" writes:
Gordon D. Pusch wrote: Unfortunately, we do =NOT= have the _FAINTEST_ clue as to how to build a fusion reactor that could burn the stuff without a net _LOSS_ of energy. It takes temperatures and plasma densities more than an _ORDER OF MAGNITUDE HIGHER_ than D/T fusion to "ignite" even the "easiest" He3-burning reaction, and it is not clear that such a reactor could =EVER= "break even," since its bremsstrahlung loss rate likewise exceeds its energy generation rate by more than an order of magnitude. Trying to "burn" He3 is like trying to burn soaking wet paper --- it costs more heat than you get out of it. Where does this 'exceeds its energy generation rate by more than an order of magnitude' come from? The ideal situation I recall (optimal plasma conditions, 'hot ion mode') was 19% of the energy goes into bremsstrahlung. That's not what I remember from Art Carlson's (sadly defunct) webpage summarizing the Rider Thesis. What I remember was that bremsstrahlung losses exceed energy generation by a factor of 15; I will have to dig out the copy of the Rider Thesis Jim Logajan kindly loaned me and see if I can find the exact figure, but I'm pretty sure that a factor of 15 is correct. Note also that one of Rider's main claims was that fancy "non-equilibrium" concepts such as "hot ion mode" don't work: =ALL= "reactor-type" fusion plasmas relax to thermodynamic equilibrium FAR faster than they generate fusion energy, and attempts to _keep_ them far from equilibrium will always cost more additional energy than they will produce. Furthermore, it would be cheaper to _MANUFACTURE_ He3 on the Earth by "breeding" Tritium and waiting for it to decay than to mine it on the Moon and ship it back to Earth. So quite bluntly, this lunatic idea is pure moonshine. A contained, underground 1 MT explosion could produce several kilograms of tritium (and ultimately 3He). If you're willing to do that, then you might as well go whole hog and build a PACER system for power generation --- but not in _my_ backyard !!! 8-( The biggest problem with lunar 3He is that the energy required to extract it from the regolith is substantial; even if this energy does not exceed the fusion energy content of the gas, it will be a significant fraction of it. You don't want to have to build a 100 MW powerplant on the moon in order to fuel a 1 GW powerplant on earth; the cost of the former would dwarf the cost of the latter. Agreed. -- Gordon D. Pusch perl -e '$_ = \n"; s/NO\.//; s/SPAM\.//; print;' |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Mining the moon for unlimited Energy.
Jim Logajan wrote: (Gordon D. Pusch) wrote: "Paul F. Dietz" writes: Where does this 'exceeds its energy generation rate by more than an order of magnitude' come from? The ideal situation I recall (optimal plasma conditions, 'hot ion mode') was 19% of the energy goes into bremsstrahlung. That's not what I remember from Art Carlson's (sadly defunct) webpage summarizing the Rider Thesis. What I remember was that bremsstrahlung losses exceed energy generation by a factor of 15; I will have to dig out the copy of the Rider Thesis Jim Logajan kindly loaned me and see if I can find the exact figure, but I'm pretty sure that a factor of 15 is correct. MIT has placed many of it's students thesis online. Todd Rider's thesis can be viewed entirely online he http://theses.mit.edu/Dienst/UI/2.0/...1?nsections=13 The burning of D-He(3) in a Maxwellian device, i.e. a PLASMAK[tm] engine, is allowed, provided the power recirculation has a high Carnot efficiency. I haven't checked, but has RWBussard commented on the Rider "Thesis"? -- |------------------------------------------------------------| | Paul M. Koloc; Prometheus II, Ltd.; 9903 Cottrell Terrace, | Silver Spring, MD 20903-1927; FX (301) 434-6737: |--PH (301) 445-1075 ; mailto |--Raising Support ; //www.neoteric-research.org |--Grid Power ; //www.prometheus2.net |------------------------------------------------------------| |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Mining the moon for unlimited Energy.
"Paul F. Dietz" writes:
Gordon D. Pusch wrote: Unfortunately, we do =NOT= have the _FAINTEST_ clue as to how to build a fusion reactor that could burn the stuff without a net _LOSS_ of energy. It takes temperatures and plasma densities more than an _ORDER OF MAGNITUDE HIGHER_ than D/T fusion to "ignite" even the "easiest" He3-burning reaction, and it is not clear that such a reactor could =EVER= "break even," since its bremsstrahlung loss rate likewise exceeds its energy generation rate by more than an order of magnitude. Trying to "burn" He3 is like trying to burn soaking wet paper --- it costs more heat than you get out of it. Where does this 'exceeds its energy generation rate by more than an order of magnitude' come from? The ideal situation I recall (optimal plasma conditions, 'hot ion mode') was 19% of the energy goes into bremsstrahlung. Hmph. On re-examining Rider's dissertation, it appears you are correct, and my memory of a factor of 15 was wildly wrong. Assuming quasi-neutrality, separate maxwellian distributions for ions and electrons, =NO_ energy losses except bremsstrahlung, and that =ALL= the fusion-product power can somehow be magically recycled back into heating the fuel ions and _NOT_ into heating the electrons, Rider gets: fuel | P_brem/P_fus --------+-------------- D-T | 0.007 D-He3 | 0.19 D-D | 0.35 He3-He3 | 1.39 p-B11 | 1.74 p-Li6 | 4.81 So assuming "magic power recycling" and the most wildly optimistic energy loss assumptions imaginable short of somehow magically removing all the electrons from the plasma [e.g., "Penning-trap fusion" (which is utterly hopeless due to the space-charge limit)], D-He3 and D-D are marginally possible, but pure He3 burners and other "advanced" fuel combinations cannot generate net energy. And all this does not begin to address the higher ignition temperature needed, or the higher density needed to make up for the lower reaction cross-section without making the reactor unreasonably enormous. So while perhaps He3 burning _may_ not be utterly physically impossible if one is allowed to assume "magic" technology, it certainly still appears to be more than a little implausible! -- Gordon D. Pusch perl -e '$_ = \n"; s/NO\.//; s/SPAM\.//; print;' |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Mining the moon for unlimited Energy.
Gordon D. Pusch wrote:
Hmph. On re-examining Rider's dissertation, it appears you are correct, and my memory of a factor of 15 was wildly wrong. Assuming quasi-neutrality, separate maxwellian distributions for ions and electrons, =NO_ energy losses except bremsstrahlung, and that =ALL= the fusion-product power can somehow be magically recycled back into heating the fuel ions and _NOT_ into heating the electrons, Rider gets: fuel | P_brem/P_fus --------+-------------- D-T | 0.007 D-He3 | 0.19 D-D | 0.35 (other fuels clipped) The separate maxwellian distributions for ions and electrons follows naturally from the energy loss via bremsstrahlung. This process draw energy from the electrons, so to balance their temperature must be lower than that of the ions. I'll also add that the P_brem/P_fus ratio for D-3He in the table assumes a 1:1 ion ratio. Increasing the fraction of D reduces the P_brem/P_fus ratio a bit (see figure 7.3 in the thesis). This also increases the neutron output, but (for the case of rapid removal of T from the plasma) it's still well below that of DT or DD plasmas. It's not clear to me that the P_brem/P_fus ratios for DT include the 80% of the fusion energy that goes into the neutrons. If this is the case, the figure is misleading, since most of the fusion energy from a fusion D-3He plasma will be in charged particles and will be immediately available for heating the plasma. The large tritium inventory in this case (waiting for all that removed tritium to decay back to 3He) is worrisome. Paul |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Mining the moon for unlimited Energy.
You don't want to have to build a 100 MW powerplant on the moon
in order to fuel a 1 GW powerplant on earth; the cost of the former would dwarf the cost of the latter. And if we, as humans, ever have the capacity for such big projects in space, we won't *need* mines on the moon for 3He. SPS is equally doable with a space infrastructure, and its technology, unlike fusion reactors, is currently in being. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Why We Shouldn't Go To Mars | Jon Berndt | Space Shuttle | 11 | February 18th 04 03:07 AM |
Space Program Needs The Right Stuff | Rand Simberg | Space Science Misc | 43 | January 22nd 04 01:11 AM |
NEWS: The allure of an outpost on the Moon | Kent Betts | Space Shuttle | 2 | January 15th 04 12:56 AM |
We choose to go to the Moon? | Brian Gaff | Space Shuttle | 49 | December 10th 03 10:14 AM |