Lastly, I should mention Asteroid Mining. Consider the asteroid Eros:
In the 2,900 cubic kms of Eros, there is more aluminium, gold, silver, zinc and other base and precious metals than have ever been excavated in history or indeed, could ever be excavated from the upper layers of the Earth’s crust.
You suddenly begin to see that entrepreneurs like Elon Musk could be the force that pushes us into a space economy.
Brian Wang thinks that there is $100 trillion (10^14) worth of platinum and gold alone there. Of course the price would begin to fall once you had made your first few hundred billion.
Are there actually any materials on Earth that are so rare and precious (and perhaps in danger of running out in the foreseeable future) that it would make sense to mine them from space?
By the way, the claim about aluminum sounds highly implausible to me. Aluminum accounts for about 8% of the Earth’s crust by weight, and even if most of it is difficult to access, I would expect that more than the amount present on Eros would be extractable with methods much easier than any conceivable sort of asteroid mining.
{Platinum, Rhodium, Gold, Iridium, Osmium, Palladium, Rhenium, Ruthenium} are in the $10,000+ per kg range, with {Platinum, Rhodium, Gold} being $30,000+ /kg
If you consider the basket of metals in that table as a whole, there’s obviously a lot of money to be made, and I bet that at least one of them will hold its price relatively well as you mine more of it.
When Brian Wang Says Eros is worth $100 trillion, he’s probably not far wrong.
A cursory googling for “peak rare earth metals” yields a likely affirmative response. Hafnium, Iridium, neodymium, lathanum, cerium, and several others are both necessary for modern electronics and/or EVs, and rapidly diminishing. Barring societal collapse or a new technological revolution on the scale of transistors, we’ll probably want to go out and get more within the century—and that’s not even including the advantage of avoiding the deletorious effects of mining on Earth.
Now that’s interesting! I didn’t know that the prospects for helium-3 fusion are allegedly that good. Still, given the previous history of controlled fusion research, I’m inclined to be skeptical. Do you know of any critical references about the present 3He fusion research? All the references I’ve seen from a casual googling appear to be pretty optmistic about it.
I have no reference, but as far as I understand, deuterium-tritium fusion is easier to achieve than deuterium-helium-3. But deuterium-helium-3 seems cleaner and the energy produced is easier to harvest. So I think that the first energy producing fusion reactor would be a deuterium-tritium one, and deuterium-helium-3 would come later.
The primary reason that D-T is considered to be more easily viable than others is that it has the best numbers under the Lawson criterion. This is also true under the Triple Product test. While Wikipedia gives a good summary I can’t find a better reference that is online (The Wikipedia article gives references including Lawson’s original paper but I can’t find any of them online). The real advantage of He3 Deuterium fusion is that it is aneutronic, that is it doesn’t produce any neutrons. This means that there’s much less nasty radiation that will harm the containment vessel and other parts and that much less of the energy will be in difficult to capture forms. This is especially important for magnetic confinement since neutrons lack of charge makes them not confined by electromagnetic fields. This is a non-technical article that discusses a lot of the basic issues including the distinction between fusion types, although they don’t go through the level of detail of actually using Lawson’s equation.
Lastly, I should mention Asteroid Mining. Consider the asteroid Eros:
In the 2,900 cubic kms of Eros, there is more aluminium, gold, silver, zinc and other base and precious metals than have ever been excavated in history or indeed, could ever be excavated from the upper layers of the Earth’s crust.
You suddenly begin to see that entrepreneurs like Elon Musk could be the force that pushes us into a space economy.
Brian Wang thinks that there is $100 trillion (10^14) worth of platinum and gold alone there. Of course the price would begin to fall once you had made your first few hundred billion.
Are there actually any materials on Earth that are so rare and precious (and perhaps in danger of running out in the foreseeable future) that it would make sense to mine them from space?
By the way, the claim about aluminum sounds highly implausible to me. Aluminum accounts for about 8% of the Earth’s crust by weight, and even if most of it is difficult to access, I would expect that more than the amount present on Eros would be extractable with methods much easier than any conceivable sort of asteroid mining.
Rhodium is currently worth $88 million per 1000kg.
I think that Platinum is an interesting possibility, as well as gold. 1000kg of platinum is currently worth $50 million.
See this table of elements from wikipedia
{Platinum, Rhodium, Gold, Iridium, Osmium, Palladium, Rhenium, Ruthenium} are in the $10,000+ per kg range, with {Platinum, Rhodium, Gold} being $30,000+ /kg
If you consider the basket of metals in that table as a whole, there’s obviously a lot of money to be made, and I bet that at least one of them will hold its price relatively well as you mine more of it.
When Brian Wang Says Eros is worth $100 trillion, he’s probably not far wrong.
A cursory googling for “peak rare earth metals” yields a likely affirmative response. Hafnium, Iridium, neodymium, lathanum, cerium, and several others are both necessary for modern electronics and/or EVs, and rapidly diminishing. Barring societal collapse or a new technological revolution on the scale of transistors, we’ll probably want to go out and get more within the century—and that’s not even including the advantage of avoiding the deletorious effects of mining on Earth.
Helium-3 could be mined from the moon. It would be a good fusion fuel, but it is rare on earth so it makes sense to get it from space.
Now that’s interesting! I didn’t know that the prospects for helium-3 fusion are allegedly that good. Still, given the previous history of controlled fusion research, I’m inclined to be skeptical. Do you know of any critical references about the present 3He fusion research? All the references I’ve seen from a casual googling appear to be pretty optmistic about it.
I have no reference, but as far as I understand, deuterium-tritium fusion is easier to achieve than deuterium-helium-3. But deuterium-helium-3 seems cleaner and the energy produced is easier to harvest.
So I think that the first energy producing fusion reactor would be a deuterium-tritium one, and deuterium-helium-3 would come later.
The primary reason that D-T is considered to be more easily viable than others is that it has the best numbers under the Lawson criterion. This is also true under the Triple Product test. While Wikipedia gives a good summary I can’t find a better reference that is online (The Wikipedia article gives references including Lawson’s original paper but I can’t find any of them online). The real advantage of He3 Deuterium fusion is that it is aneutronic, that is it doesn’t produce any neutrons. This means that there’s much less nasty radiation that will harm the containment vessel and other parts and that much less of the energy will be in difficult to capture forms. This is especially important for magnetic confinement since neutrons lack of charge makes them not confined by electromagnetic fields. This is a non-technical article that discusses a lot of the basic issues including the distinction between fusion types, although they don’t go through the level of detail of actually using Lawson’s equation.