If fully developed, the Government planned on "a worldwide network" using the new detection technology that could detect plutonium or uranium in shipping containers. The Government hoped to provide 1300-1400 of these machines at a cost of $800,000 a piece to ports around the world in hopes to deter terrorists from trying to deliver nuclear bombs to big cities. However, these hopes seemed to have been thwarted by the lack of availability of helium 3. Critics argue that although there seemed to be a plentiful amount after the Cold War, researchers should have indicated that although plentiful, the supply would not be sustainable for long term, continued use. Others who did recognize the limited supply however, weren't worried about sustainability, relying on the expectations that new technologies would be developed that would not utilize helium 3 as much, if at all.
Helium 3 was though of as a great resource for such technology because it is neither hazardous nor chemically reactive. Although other materials have been found to have detection capabilities, researchers have found that " No other currently available detection technology offers the stability, sensibility and gamma/neutron discrimination" like that of Helium 3. Helium 3 is rarely found in nature, although the Department of Energy accumulate some as a byproduct of the maintenance of nuclear weapons. However, this declining, small supply is also needed for other reasons including physics and medical diagnostics. The only countries that produce Helium 3 currently are the United States and Russia. In a letter written to President Obama the shortage was named a "national crisis".
The situation surrounding the shortage of Helium 3 has raised a lot of questions, particularly about the importance to sustainability and maintaining resources. The United States is also thinking of other ways to get the material. One way is to create some form of cooperation with Russia in terms of the resource, but that has its own political ramifications. There may be some good news, however. Nasa Researchers have indicated that there may be an abundant supply on the moon of the safe and environmentally friendly resource. Research has also been done on using helium 3 in fusion devices. Although it is still in its theoretical stages, studies have shown that using helium 3 in the fusion process reduces the amount of radioactive waste created in the development of nuclear energy. But commercial-sized fusion reactors are about 50 years away from becoming a reality.
So, should there be a "race to the moon" for this nuclear fuel? I think so. NASA has announced that it plans on setting up a permanent moon base by 2024. But the United States isn't the only one. Russia and China are already making plans, too. Control of such resources could have a huge impact on our nation's ability to provide resources for sustainable, environmentally friendly energy for years to come. Utilizing helium 3 has the potential to mitigate some of the effects of climate change by decreasing dependence on existing fuel sources and does not serve as a health hazard to humans because it produces almost no radioactive waste. It could also provide United States with an edge in the international market in terms of environmentally friendly and energy efficient resources.
This is an extremely fascinating topic that I had never even heard of before. It sounds like helium 3 is a much more valuable resource that I would have ever known. I read more into its other uses, outside of bomb detection, and it sounds like profitable and safe fusion reactions could be a great beneficiary of this diminishing resource. Maybe a reason for our first moon colony or mining operation? ... Sounds a lot like that Kevin Spacey Movie Moon that came out in July.
ReplyDelete