Business Case for Mining Lunar Helium-3
Maghee A. McMullen
Social Considerations for Helium-3 Mining on the Moon
The terrestrial mining industry has faced scrutiny from the public for many years regarding the
potential to create negative environmental and social impacts. [1] This has led to the formation of
regulation and industry best practice that work to appease social concerns over potential negative
impacts of mining. The mining industry is critical to the sustainability of today’s world economy
and is able to make adjustments necessary to survive in a more highly constrained social
environment. [2] Besides meeting necessary environmental regulatory requirements, “the global
mining industry has witnessed the necessity and emergence of community relations and
development (CRD) functions, essentially under the rubric of sustainable development and
corporate social responsibility (CSR).” [3] When considering extraterrestrial mining operations
such as on the moon, it is critical to anticipate social objections and scrutiny and how it may
impact operations. If there were an event at a lunar mining operation that put the space mining
industry on the wrong side of public opinion, the chances of resurrecting the industry are small.
There will be social benefits to the Earth community if nuclear fusion became the primary source
of the world’s energy. A study was done in Belgium to analyze the community’s opinions of
positive outcomes of nuclear fusion energy research. The results showed that 36% of respondents
believed that the most important positive aspect of fusion energy research is that “Nuclear fusion
will provide a nearly unlimited source of energy,” 27% of respondents said, “nuclear fusion does
not produce highly radioactive waste or very limited quantities,” 21% said “Nuclear fusion is
climate friendly because it does not produce greenhouse gasses,” and 16% said “Nuclear fusion
is safe because major accidents are not possible.” [4] With global energy demands growing, and
much of the world still lacking electricity, nuclear fusion energy could be the solution to these
problems as well.
The study done in Belgium also had respondents list what they viewed as the most negative
aspect of fusion energy research. The results showed that 38% of participants thought fusion
energy funds could be spent on development of renewable energy sources, 26% showed concerns
over the use of radioactive materials, 19% named the high energy input that nuclear fusion
facilities need, and 16% thought that nuclear fusion will take too long to develop to solve the
world’s current problems. [4] Many terrestrial mining companies have to consider things like
what ground is sacred to indigenous communities. Although the company may own or lease the
land, a violation of trust caused by damage to ceremonial or sacred grounds can cause serious
damage to a company, as was seen by Rio Tinto in 2020. [5]
An important consideration for mining operations on the moon and the broader lunar economy
are the legal structures necessary to facilitate ethical operation on the moon. Legal framework
will be absolutely necessary to keep the lunar mining industry on good standing in public
opinion, as does mining regulation on Earth. Currently, space law – especially regarding space
resources such as lunar Hemlium-3 – is vague and disjointed, made up of many international
treaties which have been written with various goals, in various eras of space exploration, and
with various combinations of signees. Philip R. Harris wrote in 1994 for NASA Ames Research
Center, “Space law has been expressed in broad, vague principles that have permitted the
maximum flexibility necessary for exploratory space activities. But, as exploration gives way to
settlement, this predominantly international law lacks the specificity and legal certainty
necessary for mature commercial activity.” [6]
Future legal frameworks regarding the ownership and usage of space resources must be written
with social considerations in mind. Otherwise, private companies are left the autonomy to
engage in activities which may ruin the space mining industry for nations such as the United
States which conscribe to a moral code that is largely dictated by the population. After all,
operations on the near side of the moon will be visible to the entire human population and will be
heavily monitored to ensure that no harm is made to the Earth’s only natural satellite.
Business Aspects of Mining Helium-3 on the Moon
Mining for Helium-3 will ultimately be a profit-seeking venture by a private company. For any
new venture to be considered, there are parameters that must be met to incentivize private
industry to invest their resources. For a mining venture, the primary considerations include the
size and grade of the resource, mine life, and market predictions of future demand and value of
the commodity being mined. When mine life is determined, the pre-production timeline is also
estimated, which can be as long as 30 years on Earth and will probably be similar for operations
on the Moon. Pre-production poses a strong risk for lunar mining operations because at this
current time, U.S. mission are still planned, and plans often fall through. According to NASA
Administrator Bill Nelson, NASA plans to launch Artemis I sometime during 2022 (no earlier
than May), a crewed Artemis II in 2024, and a human landing with Artemis III in 2025. [7]
Although progress may seem slow, this is nothing new to the mining industry which will spend
anywhere from 3 years to 26 years as in the case of Rio Tinto and BHP’s Resolution Copper
Mine. [8] The Resolution Copper mine has also cost Rio Tinto and BHP over $2 Billion in
development expenses. [9] Twenty-six years and $2 Billion could be overestimates for a lunar
Helium-3 mine once the nuclear fusion energy technology is developed and ready to bring to
market.
Beyond development cost, using Helium-3 as nuclear fusion energy fuel would have significant
operating expenses. The most glaring cost is the transportation of equipment to the Moon and
Helium-3 back to Earth. While original launch estimates for NASA’s Artemis program were
around $2 Billion per launch, NASA Inspector General Paul Martin recently said at a House
Science Committee hearing, “We found that the first four Artemis missions will each cost $4.1
billion per launch” he said. [10][11] The cost of a launch to the lunar surface may be accounted
for in pre-production development costs, but there will also be missions required for resupplying
of the operations consumables if any, maintenance for equipment, and as mentioned before the
ore must be either processed in situ or stored for transport back to Earth where it will be
processed.
SBIR Award By Year
$4 500 000 000,00
9000
$4 000 000 000,00
8000
$3 500 000 000,00
7000
$3 000 000 000,00
6000
$2 500 000 000,00
5000
$2 000 000 000,00
4000
$1 500 000 000,00
3000
$1 000 000 000,00
2000
$500 000 000,00
1000
$0,00
0
Awarded Amount
Award Count
# Of Firms
To pursue a project with such great capital needs, the company would have to seek investment
capital from outside sources. There are two places to gather such capital: the private sector or
government funding. There are many benefits to gaining private investment capital, as it tends to
be larger than government funding available. However, if the mining company goes public,
shareholders may not have the patience to wait for profits for 30 years. The private investment
market would be limited for a business venture such as this. The alternative, government funding
also has its share of perks and drawbacks. Firstly, there are many ways to gain non-dilutive
funding from the government. This would be in the interest of the mining company’s founder(s).
NASA has been the primary source of funding for many aerospace startups for many years
through the SBIR Program. The figure above shows that SBIR funding has neared or surpassed
$2.5 billion since the turn of the century, reaching as high as $3.8 billion, and has funded as
many as 3,434 firms in a single year. The figure below shows SBIR award by agency, which
reveals that the Department of Energy and NASA provide similar amounts of funding. [12] A
company pursuing energy sources from the Moon should pursue funding from both.
SBIR Award by Agency
$25 000 000 000,00
100 000
90 000
80 000
70 000
60 000
50 000
40 000
30 000
20 000
10 000
0
$20 000 000 000,00
$15 000 000 000,00
$10 000 000 000,00
$5 000 000 000,00
$0,00
DOD
Awarded Amount
HHS
DOE
Obligated Amount
NASA
NSF
Award Count
USDA
# Of Firms
A lunar mining venture would involve great risk. The necessary nuclear fusion energy
technology does not yet exist, and once created may not be the exclusive provider of energy for
the world. The business would be entirely dependent on a launch provider such as NASA or
SpaceX, which may face their own challenges; NASA’s budget may be cut, SpaceX could stop
servicing the Moon after the Human Landing System, etc. There are many potential detriments to
the mining of Helium-3 on the Moon, most of which won’t be encountered until operations are
active. The creates very high risk of investment, both capital and time. As is typical of large
space infrastructure projects, the operation would be vulnerable to overrun and schedule delay.
As discussed previously, a company planning to mine on the Moon must also intensely consider
legal parameters and any potential consequences. The current legal structure for ownership and
use of lunar resources is non-existent for all intents and purposes but will most likely be
strengthened as the prospect of mining the Moon for profit comes closer to being a reality.
Despite the steep financial risk, technical and legal challenges, and high capital requirements, a
private firm may find high enough value in supplying fuel for the world’s energy consumption
via nuclear fusion energy to pursue a lunar mining operation for Helium-3.
Fusion Motivation
Humankind has always been a race of expansion. For better or worse, mankind has spread to every
corner of the globe, using whatever resources it finds. As technology continues to advance, global
population continues to grow, and per capita energy consumption continues to rise, the use of Earth’s
resources will only be expedited. The type of resources generally used have a finite supply on Earth and
the lifetime of the resource exponentially decays as the population and energy consumption grow.
Society has been looking to solar and wind energy in recent years to supplement the energy output
fossil fuels, but at the end of the day, the sun doesn’t always shine, and the wind doesn’t always blow.
Nuclear fission energy was developed as a result of advancements in nuclear technology during World
War 2 and has been subject to controversy in the 21st century. [13] Although nuclear energy is
considered clean because it does not directly produce carbon dioxide emissions, the risk of nuclear
contamination of nature gives it a bad name. [14] Where fission falls short however, nuclear fusion
energy is able to take its place. Nuclear fusion energy is widely considered to be ‘limitless, clean,”
because the energy output is so high, and has a fuel supply of deuterium that could last millions of
years. [15] While current fusion research is being done with deuterium and tritium, the next evolution
will be to used deuterium and Helium-3 as fuel. Helium-3 nuclear fusion brings two major benefits to the
table: higher energy release, and a proton byproduct (as opposed to neutrons produced by deuterium +
tritium reactions). [16] Not only does this reduce radioactive waste but reduces the amount of damage
done to the reactor. [17] There is of course a reason Helium-3 fusion is not regular practice at this point:
it must be mined from the Moon and transported back to Earth to have high enough quantities for
research purposed or for any commercial applications.
Nuclear Fusion Basics
Today’s nuclear energy comes from fission reactions, which is quite different than nuclear fusion. In
nuclear reactors in operation today, nuclear fission reactions occur which are the breaking apart of
atoms. To achieve these reactions with higher efficiency, very heavy elements are used such as uranium.
The larger atoms and instability of radioactive elements allow the fission reaction to occur at lower
energy inputs. In these fission reactors, uranium atoms are bombarded with neutrons until they break
and produce heat. The heat produced is applied to water to produce steam which turns turbines to
produce electricity. [18]
Fusion on the other hand, is the reaction that occurs in stars and is the opposite of fission. In a fusion
reaction, nuclei are combined to produce energy. Accordingly, smaller atoms are optimal fuel for fusion
reactions. Current fusion reactors like JET and ITER plan to use isotopes of hydrogen such as deuterium
and tritium, and helium-3 could be used as a future fuel source as well. The engineering challenge of
nuclear fusion is that in order to recreate the driving force of a star, surrounding conditions such as heat
and pressure have to meet that of a star. To initiate a fusion reaction between deuterium and tritium,
temperatures much reach as high as one hundred million degrees Celsius. [18]
Figure 1: http://butane.chem.uiuc.edu/pshapley/Environmental/L6/index.html [19]
History of Fusion Energy
While current nuclear fusion research is approaching major breakthroughs, the journey towards
achieving a sustainable nuclear fusion reaction that can provide energy has been long. It was in the
1920’s that scientists theorized that fusion might be the primary mechanism of the sun’s energy, and in
the 1930’s fusion labs were established in most of the world’s advanced nations. It wasn’t until 1946,
however, that Sir George Paget Thomson and Moses Blackman registered the first patent related to a
fusion reactor. [20] Through the 1950’s, nations made efforts to create nuclear fusion weapons and this
research ultimately led to the discovery of the tokamak reactor from Igor Tamm and Andrei Sakharov of
the Soviet Union in 1958 [21]. The first controlled release of fusion power occurred in 1991, and
research has since been in pursuit of creating long duration reactions and reaching breakeven energy.
[22]
Current State of Fusion
Because research in nuclear fusion energy has been ongoing since the 1920’s, significant progress
has been made. Generally popular opinion is that energy production from a nuclear fusion reaction
has not been achieved, however, this is not the case. There are several fusion reactors around the
world that have achieved various durations of reaction time. The Tore Supra tokamak in France
holds the record for the longest plasma duration time of any tokamak: 6 minutes and 30 seconds.
[22]
A misconception about whether fusion reactions have been initiated may stem from the problem of
achieving energy breakeven. Current fusion reactors are able to achieve plasma energies, but the
energy required to achieve fusion is higher than any energy output to date. Plasma energy
breakeven has never been achieved: the current record for energy release is held by JET, which
succeeded in generating 16 MW of fusion power, for 24 MW of power used to heat the plasma (a Q
ratio of 0.67) [22] Until plasma energy breakeven is achieved, nuclear fusion energy will not be a
feasible source of energy production. One important issue facing nuclear fusion is the
destructiveness of neutron release from the reaction of deuterium and tritium. Using helium-3 as fuel
for the reaction produces a proton instead which is much less destructive to the rector, and will allow
longer duration reactions to be performed which will move reactors nearer to breakeven energy.
Assumptions
In researching this topic, it becomes clear that much is unknown. First and foremost, nuclear fusion
technology is still in a development stage. This means that production efficiencies are not exactly
known, as well as quantities of fuel necessary, outputs, etc. This research involves many time dependent
variables such as the price of terrestrial fuels and energies, energy demands globally and of different
regions, and launch costs related to developing a lunar mining operation. For example, it is well known
that energy demand in Asia is growing rapidly, but it is not positively known how the upward trend will
change in the future. In order to attempt to account for these unknowns, this analysis will be done for
the year 2050 and it will be assumed that nuclear fusion technology will be in commercial operation and
ready to accept helium-3 for fuel use. Projections for energy demand in the year 2050 will be used for
global consumption calculations. When energy prices are necessary for calculations, current prices will
be used for future scenarios, but historical prices will be used where applicable. Although it may seem
unreasonable to assume equivalent prices so far in the future, we can see by looking at oil prices over
the last 25 years that fluctuations are so drastic within such a large range that prices are often
equivalent to previous prices. For example, predicting in 2008 that crude oil prices would be the same in
2022 would be accurate. [26]
Fusion Fuel Sources
Non-Helium-3 Sources
The problem being analyzed is fueling nuclear fusion. As mentioned, fusion reaction has been achieved,
and can be done without helium-3. As a result, fuel sources used in current fusion reactors must be
analyzed in comparison to helium-3. The main fuels used in nuclear fusion are deuterium and tritium,
both heavy isotopes of hydrogen. Deuterium constitutes a tiny fraction of natural hydrogen, only
0.0153%, and can be extracted inexpensively from seawater. Tritium can be made from lithium, which is
also abundant in nature. [18]
The amount of deuterium present in one litre of water can in theory produce as much energy as the
combustion of 300 litres of oil. This means that there is enough deuterium in the oceans to meet human
energy needs for millions of years. [18]
Helium-3 Sources
While there is occurrence of helium-3 in Earth’s crust, it is very low and not feasible for extraction and
could not supply the large quantities necessary for commercial fusion use. Ratios of helium-3 to helium4 vary greatly in crustal samples, reaching as high as 12 parts He^3 to million parts He^4 a South Dakota
mine and as low as 2 parts per million in other mines. [23]
The atmosphere contains most of Earth’s supply of He^3 but is not any more promising for supplying
nuclear fusion fuel. The Lunar and Planetary Institute estimated a proven reserve of helium-3 in the
atmosphere of 4,000 metric tonnes [24].
Global Energy Demand
This project attempts to provide insight into how much helium-3 is necessary to fuel the global energy
demand. Total global energy demand will be analyzed in the past, present, and future for context but
helium-3 requirements will only be analyzed for the year 2050. This is critical because as energy demand
grows on increasing populations and energy use per capita of Asia and Africa, commercial viability of
nuclear fusion energy will become necessary to meet the global energy demands.
Past
Humanity has been through a few major energy transitions in history. First the discovery of fire, then the
advent of agriculture. Eventually humans harnessed the power of coal and then oil. These transitions
have created drastic changes in the availability of energy and global demand has increased
exponentially. From 1980 to 2018 global energy consumption doubled from 300 to 600 quadrillion
British Thermal units and is expected to continue to increase dramatically in the next 30 years.
Global Consumption (quad Btu)
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
1980 1982 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018
Present
Global energy consumption in 2019 was estimated at around 601 quadrillion BTU, about 100 quadrillion
of which was consumed in the United States. The Energy Information Administration reports a lower
consumption in the U.S. in 2020, although that may be due to the COVID-19 pandemic. IN 2020,
petroleum and natural gas were the largest sources of consumption at 35 and 34% respectively.
Petroleum and natural gas were followed by renewable energy at 12%, coal at 10% and nuclear fission
energy at 9%. [30]
Future
The Energy Information Administration expects global energy consumption to grow by 50% by the 2050,
driven by the growing populations and economies of Asia. The expected global consumption is 900
quadrillion BTU’s. [30]
Helium-3 Reserves on the Moon
Reserves of Helium-3 on the Moon are estimated at 1 billion kilograms. Reserves and production is
typically viewed ‘units’ of 100 kg of helium-3. These units produce about 5.6E7 million BTU, or 5.6 trillion
BTU’s. Current estimates show that harvesting 100 kg of helium-3 will require mining 2 square
kilometers of regolith at a 3 meter depth. Using the Energy Information Administrations projection for
global energy demand of 900 quadrillion BTU’s. Below is a graph of energy demand in BTU’s and the
helium-3 resource in kilograms. Based on these estimates, the resource would be exhausted by the year
2300.
Amount of Helium-3 Needed to Supply Global Energy Demand
IN order to estimate the amount of helium-3 necessary to fuel the global energy demand with nuclear
fusion energy exclusively, several factors must be considered. First, the global energy demand estimated
for 2050 needs to be identified, which is 900 quadrillion BTU’s. Then the energy output of helium-3
nuclear fusion needs to be identified, which will be 5.6 trillion BTU’s per 100 kg unit. Then the density of
helium-3 in the regolith can be used to determine how many kilograms of regolith must be mined to
provide the required amount of helium-3. About 16,000 100 kg units (1.6 million kg) of helium-3 used in
nuclear fusion reactors would supply the global energy, and this would require about 32,000 square
kilometers mined at 3 meters depth.
Gross Value of Helium-3 Market
To find the gross value of the amount of helium-3 required to supply the global energy demand in 2050,
current price per BTU of oil will be used. In Harrison Schmitt’s Return to the Moon, he uses a price per
million BTU’s of $8.62 for crude oil selling for $50/barrel. Presently, crude oil is fluctuating at just above
$100/barrel. This means an equivalent price of $17.24 per million BTU’s can be used. Using the 2050
energy consumption by source projection below, a weighted average price per million BTU can be found
which can be used to find the gross revenue available for helium-3 fuel provisions.
Regarding price per million BTU of each fuel source, several scenarios were evaluated due to the
inability to accurately identify the cost of some sources like hydroelectricity and renewable energy. The
first scenario uses the crude oil price of $17.24 for all sources, which gives a total gross value of 15.5
trillion USD. This value has very high uncertainty because of the loose approximation of energy prices of
different sources today. A much more accurate approximation can be seen below, where oil price is
used for hydroelectricity and renewable energy sources, but more accurate prices are defined for
fission, coal, and natural gas. Nuclear fission energy has a cost of $0.04/MBTU, natural gas has a cost of
$7.96/MBTU, and coal has a cost of $13.54/MBTU. With these more accurate cost assumptions, the
total gross revenue available from helium-3 in one year is 12.1 trillion USD.
Energy consumption by source 2050 statista.com
exajoules
MBTU
Price $/MBTU
hydro
51
7.0% 6.33E+10
17.24
nuclear (Uranium)
31
4.3% 3.85E+10
0.04348
renewable
161
22.2%
2E+11
17.24
natural gas
187
25.8% 2.32E+11
7.96
oil
172
23.7% 2.14E+11
17.24
coal
123
17.0% 1.53E+11
13.54
725
9E+11
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
1,091,470,344,827.59
1,673,230,344.83
3,445,622,068,965.52
1,847,817,931,034.48
3,681,037,241,379.31
2,067,417,931,034.48
12,135,038,747,586.20
This analysis still does not reach a sufficient level of accuracy but does give some insight into the
magnitude of money there is to be made. It is not likely that nuclear fusion will replace the entire global
energy supply, nor is it likely that it’s energy will be sold at prices similar to crude oil. If fusion energy is
sold at an equivalent price of crude oil, however, and supplies enough energy to replace the crude oil
energy supply, it could generate a revenue of 3.7 trillion USD, as seen above.
Future Work
It is clear that this introductory analysis is not sufficient to make an actual business case for mining
helium-3 on the Moon, but it does provide some interesting insight into the scale of revenues that could
be generated. As with a terrestrial mining preliminary economic analysis, the goal should be to
determine whether or not further investigation is necessary. This brief analysis provides motivation to
do so. Future work will focus first on increasing accuracy of calculations and assumptions such as
commodity prices used. Beyond increasing accuracy, the next level of this economic analysis will
incorporate costs to find an NPV and potential net revenues. Costs will include launch costs, operational
costs, capital costs such as equipment acquisition, etc. It is worth noting here again that the feasibility of
mining helium-3 on the moon is dependent on the commercial development of fusion technology.
Bibliography
[1] L. Mancini and S. Sala, “Social Impact Assessment in the mining sector: Review and
comparison of indicators frameworks,” Resources Policy, 28-Feb-2018. [Online]. Available:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301420717301484. [Accessed: 13-Apr2022].
[2] M. Garside, “Mining industry worldwide - statistics & facts,” Statista, 15-Feb-2022.
[Online]. Available: https://www.statista.com/topics/1143/mining/#dossierKeyfigures.
[Accessed: 13-Apr-2022].
[3] D. Kemp and J. R. Owen, “Community relations and mining: Core to business but not ‘Core
business,’” Resources Policy, 05-Sep-2013. [Online]. Available:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S030142071300069X. [Accessed: 13-Apr2022].
[4] A. Prades et al, “Social Research on Fusion,” International Atomic Energy Agency, vol. 50,
no. 9, May 2018.
[5] M. Burton, “Rio Tinto yet to pay compensation over sacred site destruction,” Reuters, 27Aug-2021. [Online]. Available: https://www.reuters.com/world/asia-pacific/rio-tinto-yet-paycompensation-over-sacred-site-destruction-2021-08-27/. [Accessed: 15-Apr-2022].
[6] P. R. Harris, “Space Law and Space Resources,” National Space Society, 1994. [Online].
Available: https://space.nss.org/settlement/nasa/spaceresvol4/spacelaw.html. [Accessed: 15Apr-2022].
[7] C. Cokinos, “First crewed Artemis Moon landing delayed until at least 2025,”
Astronomy.com, 09-Nov-2021. [Online]. Available:
https://astronomy.com/news/2021/11/artemis-landing-delayed-until-2025. [Accessed: 18Apr-2022].
[8] E. Scheyder, “Timeline – rio tinto's 26-year struggle to launch Arizona's Resolution Copper
Project,” MINING.COM, 19-Apr-2021. [Online]. Available:
https://www.mining.com/web/timeline-rio-tintos-26-year-struggle-to-launch-arizonasresolution-copper-project/. [Accessed: 18-Apr-2022].
[9] T. Nansel, “Resolution Copper Project Advances in US permitting process,” Resolution
Copper, 09-Aug-2019. [Online]. Available: https://resolutioncopper.com/resolution-copperproject-advances-in-us-permittingprocess/#:~:text=The%20project%20partners%20will%20have,expenditure%20approved%2
0earlier%20this%20year. [Accessed: 18-April-2022].
[10] R. Skibba, “NASA finally rolls out its massive SLS rocket, with much at stake,” Wired, 17Mar-2022. [Online]. Available: https://www.wired.com/story/nasa-finally-rolls-out-itsmassive-sls-rocket-with-much-atstake/#:~:text=%E2%80%9CWe%20found%20that%20the%20first,as%20unsustainable%2
C%E2%80%9D%20he%20said . [Accessed: 18-Apr-2022].
[11] “RESCHEDULED: KEEPING OUR SIGHTS ON MARS PART 3: A STATUS UPDATE
AND REVIEW OF NASA’S ARTEMIS INITIATIVE.” 2022. Available:
https://science.house.gov/hearings/keeping-our-sights-on-mars-part-3-a-status-update-andreview-of-nasas-artemis-initiative [Accessed: 18-April-2022]
[12] “Award - chart,” Award - Chart | SBIR.gov. [Online]. Available:
https://www.sbir.gov/analytics-dashboard. [Accessed: 18-Apr-2022].
[13] “The History of Nuclear Energy,” Energy.gov. [Online]. Available:
https://www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/The%20History%20of%20Nuclear%20Energy_0.pdf
. [Accessed: 04-May-2022].
[14] “Nuclear Explained - Nuclear Power and the Environment,” U.S. Energy Information
Administration - EIA - independent statistics and analysis, 17-Dec-2021. [Online]. Available:
https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/nuclear/nuclear-power-and-the-environment.php.
[Accessed: 04-May-2022].
[15] S. Lee and S. H. Saw, “Nuclear fusion energy—mankind’s giant step forward,” Journal of
Fusion Energy, vol. 30, no. 5, pp. 398–403, Feb. 2011.
[16] R. Arnoux, “Helium 3: Let's go mine the moon!,” ITER, 03-Jul-2009. [Online]. Available:
https://www.iter.org/newsline/88/822. [Accessed: 04-May-2022].
[17] M. Breathwaite, “Nuclear Fusion!,” 13-Jan-2022.
[18] “Nuclear fusion basics,” IAEA, 07-Oct-2010. [Online]. Available:
https://www.iaea.org/newscenter/news/nuclear-fusion-basics. [Accessed: 04-May-2022].
[19] Shapley, “Nuclear Power,” Nuclear power, 2011. [Online]. Available:
http://butane.chem.uiuc.edu/pshapley/Environmental/L6/index.html. [Accessed: 06-May2022].
[20] T. G. Paget and B. Moses, “Improvements in or relating to gas discharge apparatus for
producing thermonuclear reactions,” 06-Aug-1959.
[21] R. Arnoux, “Which was the first 'tokamak'-or was it 'tokomag'?,” ITER, 27-Oct-2008.
[Online]. Available: https://www.iter.org/newsline/55/1194. [Accessed: 06-May-2022].
[22] “60 Years of Progress,” ITER. [Online]. Available: https://www.iter.org/sci/BeyondITER.
[Accessed: 06-May-2022].
[23] L. T. Aldrich and A. O. Nier, “The occurrence of He3 in natural sources of helium,”
Physical Review, vol. 74, no. 11, pp. 1590–1594, Aug. 1948.
[24] L. J. Wittenberg, “Inventory of Terrestrial Helium-3,” Abstracts Presented to the Topical
Conference Origin of the Earth, pp. 109–110, Dec. 1988.
[25] G. L. Kulcinski and H. H. Schmitt, “Fusion power from Lunar Resources,” Fusion
Technology; (United States), 01-Jul-1992. [Online]. Available:
https://www.osti.gov/biblio/7205575-fusion-power-from-lunar-resources. [Accessed: 03May-2022].
[26] “Crude OIL2022 data - 1983-2021 historical - 2023 forecast - price - quote - chart,” Crude
oil - 2022 Data - 1983-2021 Historical - 2023 Forecast - Price - Quote - Chart. [Online].
Available: https://tradingeconomics.com/commodity/crude-oil. [Accessed: 03-May-2022].
[27] “World Primary Energy Consumption, 1949-2021,” Knoema. [Online]. Available:
https://knoema.com/atlas/World/Primary-energyconsumption#:~:text=World%20%2D%20Total%20primary%20energy%20consumption&te
xt=In%202019%2C%20primary%20energy%20consumption,average%20annual%20rate%2
0of%202.15%25. [Accessed: 03-May-2022].
[28] “EIA projects nearly 50% increase in world energy usage by 2050, led by growth in Asia,”
Homepage - U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA). [Online]. Available:
https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=41433. [Accessed: 03-May-2022].
[29] G. L. Kulcinski and H. H. Schmitt, “The Moon: An abundant source of clean and safe
fusion ... - ntrs.nasa.gov,” 1987. [Online]. Available:
https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/19890005472/downloads/19890005472.pdf. [Accessed: 03May-2022].
[30] “U.S. Energy Information Administration - EIA - independent statistics and analysis,” U.S.
energy facts explained - consumption and production - U.S. Energy Information
Administration (EIA), 14-May-2021. [Online]. Available:
https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/us-energy-facts/. [Accessed: 03-May-2022].
[31] H. Schmitt, Return to the Moon. Praxis Publishing Ltd., 2006.
[32] B. Dunbar, “Mare Tranquillitatis,” NASA, 28-May-2010. [Online]. Available:
https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/LRO/multimedia/lroimages/lola-20100528maretranquillitatis.html#:~:text=Mare%20Tranquillitatis%20(approximately%20873%20km,
than%203.9%20billion%20years%20ago. [Accessed: 03-May-2022].
[33] M. Jaganmohan, “World Energy Consumption by Energy Source 2050,” Statista, 04-Apr2022. [Online]. Available: https://www.statista.com/statistics/222066/projected-globalenergy-consumption-by-source/. [Accessed: 03-May-2022].