Quote:
|
Originally Posted by mugaliens
I do. I don't understand the chemistry (nucleogy?) but some friends tell me it was so that in 20 years we'd have a supply of He3 for fusion.
People have tried explanating it, but supposedly fusion using He3 is more obtainable? I think they mean viable energy production using fusion better with He3 than D and T.
|
He3 fusion produces almost no radioactive waste (something on the order of nuclear medicine waste) while D and T will irradiate the walls around the reactor, which will need to be replaced every 20 years or so, and will have the same radioactivity at that time as our current nuclear waste.
At least this is what I recall from reading Jack Schmitt's book a while back. (A book I heavily recommend to people wondering why we should go back to the moon)
__________________
I was just sitting here contemplating the immortal words of Socrates who said, "I drank what?"
"Think of the rivers of blood spilled by all those generals and emperors so that, in glory and triumph, they could become the momentary masters of a fraction of a dot." --Carl Sagan "Pale Blue Dot"
|