> >Without having read the material not sure what
> >counts as "non renewable resources" but odds are
> >lunar Helium 3 isn't on their list.

> You are missing the point Russell.  Any energy source on the moon might as
> well be a billion light years away because we would expend more energy
> retrieving it than we would ever recover by burning it.

No. I'm not missing the point.
Quite possibly you may not have realised the "energy content" of Helium 3.
It is the "feedstock" for thermonuclear fusion reactors. When/If they ever
get this technology working (involves faith/engineering) the energy required
to deliver a year's supply to earth, including all startup costs and R&D for
the delivery systems are liable to produce immediate payback. IF, of course,
the fuel is actually there as they believe it is :-)

At an energy density of 19 megawatt years* per kilogram it's over 10
US-trillion times more energy dense than fossil fuels. That helps its sej
ratings somewhat. (* about E15 kWh/kg)(!!!!!!!)

Here's a pretty but clumsy PDF presentation that outlines why He3- He3 may
be the "ultimate" power source. (Fusion at 70% efficiency with no
radioactive waste sounds rather attractive).

        http://fti.neep.wisc.edu/FTI/POSTERS/glk_isdc.pdf

Here's an interesting but somewhat lightweight commentary

        http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/helium3_000630.html

Whether lunar strip mining, even if possible, is desirable (or necessary) is
quite another issue. Once you get the first plants going you can set your
sights on getting an ongoing supply from the gas giants further out in our
solar system :-).

Here's some blue sky dreaming on the subject (on a pretty blue (ok, cyan)
page)

        http://groups.msn.com/DaveDietzler/thecaseforsaturn.msnw



        Russell McMahon

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: To leave the PICList
mailto:piclist-unsubscribe-request@mitvma.mit.edu