mining and energy of the moon? helium 3

Oil, gas, coal, nuclear (PWR, EPR, hot fusion, ITER), gas and coal thermal power plants, cogeneration, tri-generation. Peakoil, depletion, economics, technologies and geopolitical strategies. Prices, pollution, economic and social costs ...
User avatar
Flytox
Moderator
Moderator
posts: 14138
Registration: 13/02/07, 22:38
Location: Bayonne
x 839




by Flytox » 08/10/09, 21:24

freddau wrote:Mining is always a source of problem and ultimately the presence of man too but hey you have to deal with.

And I think doing all of this responsibly is the only solution.


How would mining not be total nonsense?
The cost / amount of energy to overcome the Earth attraction and then that of the moon is properly astronomical. Bring back tons (?) Of ore is anything, power anything. Not even sure if it will be profitable by picking up gold bars directly on the moon's ground. : Mrgreen:
0 x
Reason is the madness of the strongest. The reason for the less strong it is madness.
[Eugène Ionesco]
http://www.editions-harmattan.fr/index. ... te&no=4132
boubka
Grand Econologue
Grand Econologue
posts: 950
Registration: 10/08/07, 17:22
x 2




by boubka » 08/10/09, 21:36

Bring back tons (?) Of ore is anything, power anything. Not even sure if it will be profitable by picking up gold bars directly on the moon's ground. Mr. Green

ok, for now ....
and then it may not be to bring them back, but to use them on the spot ...
at the beginning it is called colonization ... but after ...

it is science fiction ... but there are 6 centuries c was what?
0 x
boubka
Grand Econologue
Grand Econologue
posts: 950
Registration: 10/08/07, 17:22
x 2




by boubka » 08/10/09, 21:47

The cost / amount of energy to overcome the Earth attraction and then that of the moon is properly astronomical.

it's true ... but it's much cheaper to return with a lot more tonnage :?
and if the potential of helium 3 is as interesting as presented it is worth the cost
and the best would be that there is really water and the "c est l america"
and then first should follow a little more aliens, stat trek "etc .. : Cheesy:
0 x
User avatar
Obamot
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 28725
Registration: 22/08/09, 22:38
Location: regio genevesis
x 5538




by Obamot » 08/10/09, 21:55

Pinaise! Mars or the Moon may well wait another thousand years ... If we were more concerned with what is happening here ...!

The 150 billion € uros (cost of Apollo missions in current value) invested in solar energy, would make it possible to solve energy problems in the world forever. It would actually take only a third of that ... to cover the construction of solar thermal for global coverage. That would leave room ...

And it would be doable here and now, which would make de facto fortuitous dependence on helium 3 and nuclear power in general! : Mrgreen:
0 x
freddau
I posted 500 messages!
I posted 500 messages!
posts: 641
Registration: 19/09/05, 20:08
x 1




by freddau » 08/10/09, 21:59

Mmmhh,

for energy efficiency, hum it's the same story for oil .....

a lot of losses to bring all this back on board my good, if it had not been done, who tells me that I would be there in front of a computer?

And we will not stop progress : Mrgreen:

I think you can never stop men from exploiting this if they see an advantage
0 x
User avatar
Obamot
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 28725
Registration: 22/08/09, 22:38
Location: regio genevesis
x 5538




by Obamot » 08/10/09, 22:01

You, you, you. Solar thermal energy is barely more expensive than hydropower. Between 7 and 10 cents per KW / h :D

And besides it is not a question of giving it up, if it can please them for an interplanetary exploitation, the question which is raised there, is a serious question of priority!
0 x
boubka
Grand Econologue
Grand Econologue
posts: 950
Registration: 10/08/07, 17:22
x 2




by boubka » 08/10/09, 22:03

And it would be doable here and now

the pb is that nothing will change and nobody will do it (serious pesimist)
so if we can continue the adventure elsewhere ... why not.
Can't we destroy the whole galaxy anyway?
0 x
User avatar
Obamot
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 28725
Registration: 22/08/09, 22:38
Location: regio genevesis
x 5538




by Obamot » 08/10/09, 22:11

Yes Boubka and Freddau, I understand, the man is only what he is ...

When i say "feasible" This means that technologically the solutions are already operational on several sites on an "industrial" scale.

It is clear that it cannot stop all at once. Otherwise, whole swathes of the economy would falter. To start "now", it is to take into account the transition period which will take between 20 and 50 years ... It all depends on the means that we will put ama.

This means that in 20 years the page of absolute domination of black gold could be definitively turned.
Last edited by Obamot the 08 / 10 / 09, 22: 16, 1 edited once.
0 x
freddau
I posted 500 messages!
I posted 500 messages!
posts: 641
Registration: 19/09/05, 20:08
x 1




by freddau » 08/10/09, 22:15

There you get an Obamot point.

IF we can solve the problem in a simple way, why not.

After me I have nothing against mining on land or elsewhere
0 x
boubka
Grand Econologue
Grand Econologue
posts: 950
Registration: 10/08/07, 17:22
x 2




by boubka » 08/10/09, 22:16

continue the adventure elsewhere

you don't dream you universe :?:
in case of big, big problem it would still be the ultimate solution. right?
a spare tire can still be used!
then take care of the land ok archi ok but why give up the proper of man, the conquest :|

for me the conquest of space is essential and we should not deny our budget is paltry in the eyes of the world economy
0 x

 


  • Similar topics
    Replies
    views
    Last message

Go back to "Fossil energies: oil, gas, coal and nuclear electricity (fission and fusion)"

Who is online ?

Users browsing this forum : No registered users and 243 guests