Helium 3: Clean Energy Source Of The Future?

Even though we have yet to design a practical nuclear fusion power plant that can economically use helium 3 as a fuel, does it really represent a clean energy source of the future?

By: Ringo Bones

All of our experimental controlled nuclear fusion power plants use helium 3 as a starting material. Unfortunately, a lot of experimental fusion power plants working on the ignition principle seems to be only able to sustain nuclear fusion for a few fractions of a second while those more ingeniously designed ones based on the working principles of Ballotechnic Superfluid are woefully underfunded, does this make the promised potential of an atomic isotope of a gas currently used to make balloons float called helium 3 be forever be in the far-off future? But even if we managed to design a practical controlled nuclear fusion power plant to use it tomorrow, do we ever know where to find it? But first, here’s what we know so far about helium 3.

As of 2011, even though it is still a laboratory curiosity, helium 3 can already be purchased at a rather steep price of 3,000 US dollars a liter. Ordinary, low-cost helium used for making balloons float are sourced from natural gas wells – primarily from Texas and adjacent states in the United States - where it comprises 1.75 per cent of the gas with 0.5 per cent carbon dioxide mixed in while the rest is methane. Some natural gas wells in Tajikistan and Turkmenistan contain a higher percentage of helium 3 compared to ordinary helium in comparison to other natural gas wells elsewhere on Earth, but most helium 3 on Earth – given its scarcity – primarily came from Cold War era atmospheric Hydrogen Bomb tests a little over 50 years ago before being halted by test ban treaties.

As we just recently found out, the closest abundant – and might be economically viable – store of helium 3 is on our Moon. Almost all of the helium 3 found on the Moon is primarily produced by our Sun and it got there via the solar wind and the occasional coronal mass ejection or two. Sadly as well as fortunately, the Earth’s magnetosphere deflects most of these radioactive helium 3 particles that came from our Sun to land on the Moon instead of increasing everyone’s incidence of cancer here on Earth. Back in July 1969, Neil Armstrong and his Apollo 11 team set-up the “aluminum foil” experiment on the Moon’s surface. The purpose of which to use the aluminum foil to capture atomic particles thrown off by the solar wind which are otherwise deflected by the Earth’s magnetosphere. Upon bringing back the foil for an extensive lab analysis at NASA, it was found out that the aluminum foil used in the Lunar surface experiment managed to capture a high percentage of helium 3 atoms – as well as atoms of argon and neon caught in the stream of the solar wind.

Integral Fast Reactor: The Safe Nuclear Fission Reactor?

Shaken by the Three Mile Island, Chernobyl, and more recently, the Fukushima Nuclear Power Plant disaster, will the IFR fulfill the nuclear energy industry’s needs for a safe nuclear fission power plant? 

By: Ringo Bones 

For over 50 years, the world has been waiting for the dream of the practical nuclear fusion energy to be realized – but engineers at Argonne National Laboratory had already tested the supposedly safe next generation of that old and much-abused standby – the nuclear fission reactor. Since 1991, nuclear engineers at Argonne had not only tested but had built a kind of nuclear fission reactor that not only is inherently safe but also consumes its own dangerous radioactive wastes – including dangerous radioactive wastes from other older commercial fission nuclear power plants. 

The Argonne nuclear engineers’ design is dubbed the Integral Fast Reactor or IFR that uses high-energy or “fast” neutrons to trigger the nuclear fission chain reaction. In contrast, conventional light-water reactors which are currently used by over 99% of the global nuclear fission power plant industry typically slow their neutrons down with a “moderator” like graphite rods or heavy water. And given that fast neutrons can cause many more types of elements to undergo fission, the IFR is not limited to using uranium and plutonium that conventional commercial nuclear fission reactors use as fuel. 

The IFR can also use the highly radioactive elements with half-lives of tens of thousands or even a few million years that are by-products of uranium and plutonium fission that are deemed as “radioactive wastes” as its own fuel. By separating the long-lived radioactive isotopes out of the waste stream, nuclear power plant operators using the IFR type nuclear fission reactor will finally eliminate the problem of having a huge inventory of radioactive wastes that requires hundreds of thousands, and like neptunium-237, even a few million years of containment. And unlike the more familiar breeder-type nuclear fission reactors still operating in Europe and Japan, the IFR can “burn” plutonium rather than producing it. It thus precludes the possibility that a cache of nuclear weapons-grade fuel might fall into the hands of rogue states and terrorist bomb makers – lessening the headache of the International Atomic Energy Commission when it comes to “auditing” potential nuclear weapons-grade materials used by most typical commercial nuclear fission power plants. 

The other great advantage of the IFR, according to its designers at Argonne, is a safety system that makes it virtually resistant against those catastrophic loss-of-coolant accidents that crippled the Three Mile Island, Chernobyl, and more recently the Fukushima Nuclear Power Plant during the Japanese tsunami of March 11, 2011. The IFR’s fuel assembly is designed in such a way that it would actually expand if it started to get too hot. This thermal expansion would allow more neutrons to escape from the reactor core and since it is the neutrons that trigger fission, the neutron leakage would slow the chain reaction and eventually bring it to a halt – before a disastrous core meltdown could occur. And given the lack of progress in the commercial applications of nuclear fusion, the IFR seems to be the only near-term technology currently available that can provide a huge energy source while addressing global warming and environmental concerns over excessive carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas emissions in commercial power generation.     

Can Germany Phase-out Her Nuclear Power Plants by 2022?

Many see it as a fool’s errand from an economic perspective, but can Germany really wean herself out of nuclear power by 2022?

By: Ringo Bones

It can be quite dramatic what a few months can make. Near the end of 2010, German chancellor Angela Merkel was so busy lobbying for an extension of Germany’s existing commercial nuclear power plants to meet the country’s greenhouse gas emissions quota targets. Then in March 11, 2011, the tragic earthquake and tsunami that hit the north-eastern part of Japan that crippled the Fukushima nuclear power plant. Comparisons to the April 26, 1986 Chernobyl disaster seemed inevitable despite the radiation spread largely confined to the immediate area, nevertheless, the Fukushima nuclear power plant disaster renewed the whole world’s skepticism on commercial nuclear fission energy production. Now the question is; can Germany be able to wean herself out of nuclear power by the year 2022?

As a trained nuclear physicist Chancellor Angela Merkel had always been willing to accept currently assessed risks of nuclear power generation given that it is the only energy production method we that doesn’t emit carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gasses while at the same time being economically viable – make that the only non greenhouse gas emitting energy production method than can economically compete with coal, oil and natural gas. The stakes are high, but if Germany succeeds in replacing all the nuclear power plants currently in operation with wind and solar or other renewable energy alternatives, the whole world would certainly follow. And this would finally solve the problem of where to store all those high-level radioactive wastes and related safety concerns.

The 2011 International Year of Chemistry: Advancing Our Search For Clean and Free Energy?

Given that one of its goals is drawing attention on is sustainable development, can the celebration of the 2011 International Year of Chemistry really aid humanity’s search for clean and free energy sources?

By: Ringo Bones

Even though the declaration of UN’s 2011 International Year of Chemistry was decided as far back as December 2008 in New York and Paris during the 63rd General Assembly of the United Nations when it adopted a resolution proclaiming 2011 as the International Year of Chemistry, humanity’s search for a reliable source of energy to run the global wheels of industry that doesn’t break the bank and the environment was decided even further back. But in what aspects of our search for reliable clean and almost free – i.e. low-cost – energy sources where the celebration of the 2011 International Year of Chemistry can provide the most help?

The field of rechargeable chemical rechargeable battery technologies could probably be the primary beneficiary of this year’s celebration of the 2011 International Year of Chemistry. Given that the current state-of-the-art technology of lithium iron phosphate batteries already made it as having almost the same power-to-weight ratio to gasoline-fueled internal combustion engines, could more cleaver advances in the science of chemistry this year provide us with batteries that has the same power-to-weight ratio of gasoline-fueled internal combustion engines or even better them? That alone could make electric cars run without emitting a single gram of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere – given that the electricity used to charge the batteries are produced via non-carbon dioxide emitting means of course.

Fukushima Nuclear Power Plant Disaster: The Death Knell for Commercial Nuclear Power?

Despite of having been compared to the Chernobyl nuclear disaster even though the spread of radioactivity is still localized does the Fukushima nuclear power plant disaster the death knell of commercial nuclear fission power generation?

By: Ringo Bones

As one of the most famous casualties of the March 11, 2011 earthquake and tsunami that hit the north-eastern part of Japan, the Fukushima nuclear power plant disaster got a Level-7 Rating comparable to that of the April 26, 1986 Chernobyl nuclear power plant disaster, even though the spread of most of the radioactive debris due to the meltdown was confined to the immediate area of the Fukushima plant. Sadly the people and the press at large have perceived it as the death knell for commercial nuclear power generation.

The oft cited reason for the renewed anti-nuclear power activism raised by the Fukushima nuclear disaster is that if it happened in a technologically advanced and rich country like Japan with a culture that holds discipline and dedication to one’s job with such a high esteem that a much worse nuclear disaster could happen anywhere. But is this sound reasoning, or is it rather based on politics – make that the politics of ignorance - rather than the science of nuclear fission power generation? Well, all of this reminds me of what Isaac Asimov once said about “new” problems created by technology – he says: “If technology is the root cause of our current problems, then, it is not through ignorance that we can solve them.”

Sadly, a much bigger problem is looming – i.e. the accelerating greenhouse effect in our atmosphere caused by our inconvenient failure to wean ourselves out of fossil fuel based power generation that could create much stronger storms, longer droughts, higher than average temperatures and raise sea levels before the end of the 21st Century. Commercial nuclear fission power generation has always been touted – and it is the only commercially and technologically viable one we have – of a carbon dioxide and greenhouse gases free power generation. Before solar, wind and other carbon-free alternative / renewable energy power generation schemes can fully replace coal and even nuclear fission power plants, nuclear fission power generation is - unfortunately – here to stay.

Are Oil Companies Out To Destroy Our Environment?

Known for their corporate bullyism in keeping the renewable energy business model stillborn for the past 40 years or so, are crude oil companies really out to destroy our environment?


By: Ringo Bones


Since the disastrous crude oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico back in April 20, 2010 became headline news, crude oil companies has recently spent millions of dollars in advertisement and political spin on how caring they are of our environment and on how they spent millions in search of alternative and renewable eco-friendly sources of energy. Sadly, those millions might have been put to better use in preventing tragic spills – like April’s Gulf of Mexico oil spill from ever happening in the first place.

Exxon Mobil is the main supporter of climate change and global warming denial groups like the Competitive Enterprise Group and the Heartland Group. Exxon Mobil is also not investing enough of its profits into renewable energy research. Even though it is true that major oil companies do spend millions of their own money into renewable energy research. On average, major – make that big – oil companies invest on average 0.01% of their annual profits into renewable / alternative energy research.

Big oil companies’ number one –and oft quoted – excuse for not investing in renewable energy research: “Renewable energy still has to reach a point of economic viability. Thus making everybody ask – if you don’t invest in renewable energy, how can it ever become economically viable? Do these companies exist just to make money for their shareholders with utter disregard to the negative social impact of their company’s profit-making schemes?

Corn ethanol was pushed by the Corn Lobby on Capitol Hill as a response to the OPEC Oil Embargo shock of 1974. With billions of dollars in US government subsidies – courtesy of the American taxpayer and millions more spent in aggressive promotion / ads on TV, is corn-sourced ethanol truly green?

Corn-sourced ethanol may even increase the overall amount of carbon dioxide dumped into our atmosphere given how corn is grown in the US – i.e. extensive use of chemical fertilizers and energy intensive irrigation, etc. Worse still, less than 1% of US gas stations offer E85 ethanol. Given that the corn and oil lobby in the US tend to put profit first at the expense of us at the bottom of the corporate food chain, will a crude oil company product boycott be the answer?

Back in 1995, the environmental group Greenpeace managed to organize a boycott of Shell’s petrochemical products because back then the petrochemical company plans to sink its own decommissioned offshore oil rig platform into the North Atlantic. The Greenpeace organized protest action nearly brought Shell to its knees. Could Greenpeace organize another crude oil company boycott these days to make oil companies take better care of our environment?

Botryococcus Braunii: The Perfect Source of Biofuel?

As the most promising research du jour as a source for biofuel, is Botryococcus braunii really lives up to the hype as the perfect source of biofuel / biodiesel?


By: Ringo Bones


As we race against time to find the best replacement of the fossil fuels we now currently use before their greenhouse gas byproducts cause global warming to become irreversible, an unassuming component of green slime / pond scum might have potential. Botryococcus braunii, a green slime micro-algae is now a subject of an on-going research to coax it to produce more lipoproteins / fatty acids to be processed into biodiesel similar to that of recycled french-fry oil. But will it live up to the hype as the perfect source of biofuel / biodiesel?

On the bright side of things, Botryococcus braunii is not only a perfect source of biofuel / biodiesel because unlike corn or coconuts, it is not currently being used as food by us. Second, it absorbs the excess carbon dioxide in the atmosphere caused by our present use of fossil fuels that if it manages to replace them. If use becomes widespread, it will be a carbon neutral energy source as it just recycles the waste carbon dioxide back into fuel – reversing the worse effects of global warming.

Sadly, there is just one problem of the large-scale farming of Botryococcus braunii green slime micro-algae / pond scum biofuel is that it can only flourish up to a certain depth of water because it requires a lot of sunlight. Thus large-scale production of Botryococcus braunii will have to be truly large scale indeed in order for it to replace a significant portion –never mind totally replacing – all of the crude oil sourced transportation fuels that we currently use.

The ability of Botryococcus braunii to turn back excess atmospheric carbon dioxide back into an energy source is the most attractive aspect of this kind of biofuel production that current researchers are not even the least bit daunted by the scale of production problem. Genetic modification experiments to make Botryococcus braunii still more efficient in producing biofuels / biodiesel might solve the scale of production obstacles. But of all the biofuel / biodiesel sources out there, this unseemly component of pond scum could start an energy production revolution that’s ecologically sustainable in the not so distant future.