I was watching a movie last night on a science channel here in Canada called Space. In that channel they usually show clippings of science news. Now I like looking at pictures of the galaxies and planets but yesterday I heard something that changed the entire perspective on what the future economy will have to look like. I am no scientist (I can tell you that) so I don’t exactly what this entails, but in order for hydrogen fuel cells to work we need Platinum. The world supply of Platinum is way too low to make a hydrogen economy viable by the looks of it.

World resources of PGM in mineral concentrations that can be mined economically are estimated to total more than 100 million kilograms. The largest reserves are in the Bushveld Complex in South Africa. In 2003, there were 10 producing mines in the Bushveld Complex; of these, 9 produced from the Merensky Reef and the UG2 Chromite Layer and 1 produced from the Platreef, on the northern limb of the Complex.

A mere 100 million kilos in the whole world, South Africa as usual has the largest reserves of Platinum in the world at 70 million. The expert said that the moon may have enough Platinum to allow for the mass production of hydrogen fueled celled cars. Does this mean I support the US moon program? No, the reason being is that the US cannot afford it, but I do support a multi-national and private enterprise to make the moon viable for exploitation. If we want a better economy for our children and for our environment we need to expend billions to make sure it happens.

I am skeptical about hydrogen fuel cells really being any kind of solution to our energy problems. Hydrogen isn't available for free like fossil fuels, you have to use energy to make it.

Hydrogen fuel cells may prove valuable in small devices where it could offer longer periods of operation between recharging/refilling than batteries do, but I think it is not too likely that we will be seeing many hydrogen cars ever. Why bother converting fossil energy to hydrogen? It won't necessarily save pollution, it will just concentrate it at once source. I think it is far more likely that we will look to bio-fuels in the effort for a sustainable energy economy.

Plus you have to figure that moving significant quantities of metal from the moon to the earth would be ridiculously expensive in terms of energy. And again, that too would have to be ultimately based on fossil fuels, nuclear power, wind and solar or bio-fuels.

It isn't really vitally necessary to use platinum in fuel cells. It's the most commonly used material because it has the convenient property of being able to act as both a catalyst and an electrode, but there are ways to make fuel cells with platinum. Of course they would probably be more expensive.

And really, the idea of setting up any kind of industrial-scale platinum mining operation on the moon is pretty laughable with our current launch technology. It's likely that by the time we're able to economically built giant platinum mines on the moon our economy will be powered by something else.

And TaoDervish is correct; since we don't have any good ways to get hydrogen for free, it isn't really a source of energy so much as a way of storing energy that's been produced by some other means.

As the Moon is most likely a chunk of the Earth that was torn off, why is it richer in platinum than what's left behind?

Surely, we just need to dig deeper into our own terrestrial mines.

Getting PLatinum from the moon to the earth is apice of cake. All you need is an electromagnetic launcher, and you can drop huge chunks of metal anywhere on earth. Of course you could also devastate cities, but hey, thats progress for you.

I notice governor Schwarzeneger is wanting to change CAlifornia into a nydrogen economy or something.

Is seems that platinum is not necessarily a requirement for fuel cells - Astris Energi (http://www.astrisfuelcell.com/NE/NE10.php?item=1072846800)

No, the reason being is that the US cannot afford it, but I do support a multi-national and private enterprise to make the moon viable for exploitation. If we want a better economy for our children and for our environment we need to expend billions to make sure it happens.
Cannot afford it? The US can afford to spend almost a trillion in a stupid war but not to go to the moon to get an important resource? Am I mistaken or the US government is simply retarded? :bugeye:

That’s a stupid argument. Wasting money on one thing doesn’t justify wasting money on another. The question isn’t “can we get the platinum?” but rather “is the platinum worth what it would cost us to get it?”

It is better to waste money on something that will give you something thatn on something that will only create debts... :rolleyes: ;)

Cannot afford it? The US can afford to spend almost a trillion in a stupid war but not to go to the moon to get an important resource? Am I mistaken or the US government is simply retarded? : bugeye :
you've just let out a "A VERY TOP, TOP, TOP SECRET" Mister,
DELETE ALL YOUR COMPUTER FILES, HIDE, DON'T ANSWER THE DOOR, MOVE, CHANGE YOUR NAME, NEVER, NEVER UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES, TELL ANY YOUR NEW NAME OR NEW ADDRESS!!! DON'T JUST STAND THERE READING THIS, RUN!!!!

I can just imagine what will happen to the atmosphere and environment after 1) equipment, materials, people will be delivered to the moon 2) 100 millions kilos of Pt will be transported back to Earth by few hundreds thousands of the conventional rockets. It will be a disaster. Face it, without "warp" drive etc., talks about exploiting mineral (or any) resources of other planets/moon are just BS. Humanity may play with space for the curiosity/spying/communication sake. Commercial mining use is way out of the rich of homo sapiens.

BTW, Pt indeed is not required for fuel cells BUT other materials will corrode too fast. So fast that Pt-less fuel cells will be impractical for the use outside of labs.

I was watching a movie last night on a science channel here in Canada called Space. In that channel they usually show clippings of science news. Now I like looking at pictures of the galaxies and planets but yesterday I heard something that changed the entire perspective on what the future economy will have to look like. I am no scientist (I can tell you that) so I don’t exactly what this entails, but in order for hydrogen fuel cells to work we need Platinum. The world supply of Platinum is way too low to make a hydrogen economy viable by the looks of it.



A mere 100 million kilos in the whole world, South Africa as usual has the largest reserves of Platinum in the world at 70 million. The expert said that the moon may have enough Platinum to allow for the mass production of hydrogen fueled celled cars. Does this mean I support the US moon program? No, the reason being is that the US cannot afford it, but I do support a multi-national and private enterprise to make the moon viable for exploitation. If we want a better economy for our children and for our environment we need to expend billions to make sure it happens.


Check this out;

http://search.netscape.com/ns/boomframe.jsp?query=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.electronpower systems.com%2F&page=1&offset=0&result_url=redir%3Fsrc%3Dwebsearch%26requestId%3D5 227a00826d16928%26clickedItemRank%3D1%26userQuery% 3Dhttp%253A%252F%252Fwww.electronpowersystems.com% 252F%26clickedItemURN%3Dhttp%253A%252F%252Fwww.ele ctronpowersystems.com%252F%26invocationType%3D-%26fromPage%3DNSCPResults%26amp%3BampTest%3D1&remove_url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.electronpowersystems.c om%2F


http://www.bionik.tu-berlin.de/institut/xs2solar

http://www.scienceblog.com/community/article3856.html

http://www.dangerouslaboratories.org/h2homesystem.pdf


http://www.hionsolar.com/n-hion96.htm

http://www.chevrontexaco.com/technologyventures/commercialize_tech/hydrogen_production.asp

These are but a few ways rather than using platinum to produce hydrogen. There are others just Google "hydrogen production".

Hi cosmic,
The question was not of producing Hydrogen, but of utilising the hydrogen in fuel cellst o produce energy.

Why not just use the hydrogen that is produced and pump it into tanks located inside the trunk of the cars? As we already use LPG to fuel many cars and trucks they could set up the same way to fuel the vehicles as they use now with the LPG.

http://www.lpga.co.uk/automotive_new%20April%202004.htm

I think one could thing that could be used to generate power is CO2! Because then we would have a cycle where we produce the thing and then we use it as energy! But my question is: can CO2 be an energy source? :confused:

I can just imagine what will happen to the atmosphere and environment after 1) equipment, materials, people will be delivered to the moon 2) 100 millions kilos of Pt will be transported back to Earth by few hundreds thousands of the conventional rockets.There are many types of rockets that don't produce any pollution. Returning vehicles wouldn't necessarily even be powered.BTW, Pt indeed is not required for fuel cells BUT other materials will corrode too fast. So fast that Pt-less fuel cells will be impractical for the use outside of labs.I think that perhaps it would be more economical to give chemists a few billion dollars to solve this problem, rather than giving the aerospace companies trillions.

Making the earth work for our species would be a lot cheaper than trying to utilize the moon.

What scares me about the the space program is that if our elite think they and their families have somewhere to wait out a disaster then they might lose their commitment to avoiding disasters on earth.

What kind of disaster are you talking about?

going to the moon to get any resourse to use on earth is idiotic imo,
as it would be prohibitively expensive

anyhow we have all the energy right here,such as water from which you can extract hydrogen thru electrolysis,perhaps using sunlight PV panels ;)

fuel cells are a pie in the sky fantasy(too expensive and inneficient) and completely unnecesary,
how about something like this
www.mdi.lu/eng/index.php

Fuel cells are impractical (for the past 50 years :)) but they are quite efficient. Theoretical efficiency coefficient of a fuel cell may approach 100% (if memory does not betray me).

going to the moon to get any resourse to use on earth is idiotic imo,
as it would be prohibitively expensive
We can always use them at the moon. We could build a telescope, a space station and the first spaceport! ;)

anyhow we have all the energy right here,such as water from which you can extract hydrogen thru electrolysis,perhaps using sunlight PV panels
Or you can go to the moon and use the water there for energy supply and, of course, water supply. We could even get ome oxigen there, plant some trees inside a greenhouse and use the water to keep the plants going and starting a natural oxigen supply. Of course we would have to do all that indoors, and we would have to use the right kind of material for the walls, so that the oxigen doesn't escape! ;)

fuel cells are a pie in the sky fantasy(too expensive and inneficient) and completely unnecesary,
how about something like this
www.mdi.lu/eng/index.php
Are they any more efficient? How much energy do they supply?

you know what, spaniards thought that columbus was retarded, and maybe they were right, seeing as a nation founded by outcasts in the new world is currently the WORLD'S ONLY SUPERPOWER. It's kinda ignorant to think people won't go out there because "we can't afford it". We're obviously going out there sometime, as soon as somebody or a group of somebodys get the balls and the resources together to do it.

I'm sure companies would drool over what's on the moon: He3, platinum, better solar exposure for solar panels, construction grounds for very-low-G factories, and a perfect launch pad for any sattilite or ship any company on earth wants lobed into orbit (build the thing on the moon and throw it into orbit with a rail gun, save the fuel of launching from earth). Scientists would obviously get kicks out of the astronomy possible on the moon (no atmosphere), not to mention just walking on the moon taking in the sights.

oh my god, I just repeated everything you wrote, okay, I'm stupid, g'night everyone!

What kind of disaster are you talking about?

Nuclear war, biological war, plague, famine, or political chaos that might result from rebellion after income ineqaulity becomes more extreme. Global warming and the global population growth or even plant diseases could threaten the global economy.

Imagine the future earth as one giant Haiti without foreign troops available to help the wealthy keep the poor majority under control. If the Haitian majority become enraged enough to endanger the Haitian elite then the Haitian elite will just flee to America where their Swiss bank accounts will serve them well. Because the Haitian elite can flee to America they do not need to negotiate a peace with the Haitian majority that would limit ability of the elite families to squeeze wealth for themselves out of a broken nation.

When the elite have no where to run to they might not be willing to gamble with the political health of their nations, the health of the environment and the health of the economy, all in exchange for a potential family and class profit.

I don't want one hundred thousand elite families of 2150 to be able move to artificial environments on the moon for a few centuries while they wait for their loyal soldiers on earth to reestablish order on earth. Imagine how profitable vaccine sales for bioengineered viruses could be.

Political and environmental stability for the earth shoud be achieved first, only then should we engage in public funding for exciting but relativly useless feats of science and engineering.






(though I am proud of my dad for designing Apollo's inertial navigation and apprecate the taxpayer wealth that he brought into my family.)

I think it would be on their greatest interests to avoid that. Do you think they would enjoy living in the moon?

Can people enjoy living in highrises in New York?

I think artificial environments on the moon could be safe happy places if enough people lived up there and you poured vast amounts of resources and tax dollars from the earth into building the artificial environments.

what about rebelion factions? if the elite cower away to their moon mansions, all it would take is a handful of crafty geniuses on earth to build a ship, or fleet of ships (you never know, propulsion tech in the future could be pretty easy to muster up compared to now), fit them with guns and rain hell all over the manicured lunar lawns of the rich and powerful! It'd be terrorism, a much different scenario than exists today, but I don't think you can seriously think that ALL THE POPULATION OF EARTH will be the dumb wreched masses they're expected to be. With many billion people, you'll probably have a few geniuses that are crazy enough to do something SO stupid as to go against the social elite!!!

p.s. i'm not promoting modern terrorism, terrorism today is for some of the dumbest causes I've ever heard of and any of the people that are part or affiliated with terrorist groups are heartless b****rds. I'm just saying rebelion is a part of society and is destined to happen.

Why would they do this kind of thing? Even if the elite was on the moon, it would still be on their best interest to keep things well down here.

"Why would they do this kind of thing? Even if the elite was on the moon, it would still be on their best interest to keep things well down here."

Why would a company that depends upon the American consumer, lobby against restrictions on outsourcing? It would be easy to become so enthusiastic while harvesting golden eggs that you would fail to notice that you are trampling to death the goose that lays the golden eggs.

Why would anybody who cares about the future grandchildren of their unborn great granchildren lobby to remove the regulations that were supposed to start being enforced against coal burning utilities? Mercury, acid rain, and global warming are real but the coal industry will not abandon their revenue stream. People will decieve themself and believe whatever they want to believe; therefore the elite who have the power to lead us into self-destruction despite being ordinary self-decieving people, are a threat to themselves and everybody else.

what about rebelion factions? if the elite cower away to their moon mansions, all it would take is a handful of crafty geniuses on earth to build a ship, or fleet of ships (you never know, propulsion tech in the future could be pretty easy to muster up compared to now), fit them with guns and rain hell all over the manicured lunar lawns of the rich and powerful! .
If Rumsfeld gets his way the moon will not be undefended. SDI will not be ready to shoot down ICBMs any decade soon but SDI /(reagan's star wars) may be almost ready to shoot down satellites.

North Korea could send a nuclear weapon to NYC disguised as a yacht if they wanted to or they could use many other methods of delivery easier than ICBMs but star wars pork may still be sold based on the Nort Korean threat.

A perfected SDI might be able to defend the elite on the moon from rebel earth terrorists.

from http://grant.henninger.name/space/ :
During the Clinton Administration, Donald Rumsfeld chaired the Commission to Assess United States National Security Space Management and Organization—referred to as the Rumsfeld Commission—which released a report the week before President Bush took office stating that it is in the United States national interest to "[d]evelop and deploy the means to deter and defend against hostile acts directed at U.S. space assets and against the uses of space hostile to U.S. interests. (vii)" This view was echoed by Donald Rumsfeld again after he became Secretary of Defense. In a press conference he stated, "Our dependence on operations in space, however, makes us somewhat vulnerable to new challenges. It's only logical to conclude that we must be attentive to these vulnerabilities and pay careful attention to protecting and promoting our interest in space." (Rumsfeld)

This is to say, using space for military purposes, with an increased reliance on GPS and communication and spy satellites, has created a new weakness in the military's defenses. Passive satellites are vulnerable to many different types of attack, which none of the satellites are defended against. Because the military has become so reliant upon these satellites it would like to defend them, but that requires putting weapons in space and developing the ability to deny the use of space to any other country.

This is also to say, the military has an interest in denying space access to interests hostile to the United States. With China recently putting its first Taikonaut in orbit, and looking to mount a moon mission within a decade; with Russia looking to launch a manned Mars mission; and with the European Union looking to leap frog over the United States in their war fighting ability, the US has a need to prevent access to space by any one of these countries incase hostilities between them and the US arise.

While it might seem almost silly to talk of hostilities arising between the EU and the US, or even between Russia and the US right now, it is clear that interests between the US and any one of these countries will not always be the same. It is also reasonable to believe that interests will continue to diverge as they have been since the end of the Cold War, and that the EU, Russia, and especially China will become competitive states with the US.

In order to gain the ability to deny access to space for another country the United states must put weapons in space so they may shoot down space bound rockets during their boost phase.

The need for space weapons to deny space access
The American Physical Society has released a report stating that it is next to impossible to shoot down a rocket or ICBM upon assent using ground based defenses (American Physical Society). Unless there is perfect knowledge of when and where the rocket is launched from and its trajectory is known, the military has no hope of destroying the rocket until it is reentering the atmosphere or is in orbit. Since many of the anti-space weapons do not need to be in orbit for long, and the do not need to reenter the atmosphere at all, it is necessary for the military to destroy the rockets upon assent.

In order for the military to destroy rockets upon assent, the military requires space weapons. These weapons could more than half the military's response time to hostile launches. Since these weapons would already be in space, it would not be necessary for the military to launch an anti-missile missile from Vandenberg Air Force Base or Fort Greely, Alaska.

The people's reservations about space weapons
Historically, space has been used for peaceful purposes. It was the most visible battlefield during the Cold War, yet its battles were those of science and engineering, not guns and bombs.
Dating back to the height of the space race and Cold War, the Treaty on Principles Governing the Activities of States in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space, Including the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies, more commonly called the Outer Space Treaty, stated that, "The exploration and use of outer space, including the moon and other celestial bodies, shall be carried out for the benefit and in the interest of all countries (Article I)." Clearly weaponizing space goes against our longest held beliefs about the proper use of space and against ratified treaties, more specifically.

Throughout recent history, there have been two thoughts on space; one way of thinking about space is that it is for peaceful exploration for the benefit of all mankind, as stated in the Outer Space Treaty. The other way of thinking about space, however, is one put forth by the military, where space is the next battlefield and whoever controls space, controls Earth.

you know what, spaniards thought that columbus was retarded, and maybe they were right, seeing as a nation founded by outcasts in the new world is currently the WORLD'S ONLY SUPERPOWER.What does this have to do with anything? We aren't Spain, and the moon isn't North/South America. The Spanish sent Columbus out in search of something that they knew would be fantastically valuable, if they could get it - a water rout to India. There is nothing obviously valuable waiting for us on the moon. There is currently no use for Helium 3. Mining platinum or other materials from the moon would be prohibitively expensive with anything like our current technology, and the demand for them back on earth isn't high enough to justify going through the trouble. The gravity is too high for the sorts of exotic materials-processing that we currently do on space stations. If there was a way to make money off the moon, companies would be doing it already.

On a side note, I don’t think that the Spanish thought Columbus was retarded. If they thought that, they probably wouldn’t have spent a bunch of money funding his trip.

"Why would they do this kind of thing? Even if the elite was on the moon, it would still be on their best interest to keep things well down here."

Why would a company that depends upon the American consumer, lobby against restrictions on outsourcing? It would be easy to become so enthusiastic while harvesting golden eggs that you would fail to notice that you are trampling to death the goose that lays the golden eggs.

Why would anybody who cares about the future grandchildren of their unborn great granchildren lobby to remove the regulations that were supposed to start being enforced against coal burning utilities? Mercury, acid rain, and global warming are real but the coal industry will not abandon their revenue stream. People will decieve themself and believe whatever they want to believe; therefore the elite who have the power to lead us into self-destruction despite being ordinary self-decieving people, are a threat to themselves and everybody else.
Yes. But my point is that they are a threat to themselves too.

"Why would they do this kind of thing? Even if the elite was on the moon, it would still be on their best interest to keep things well down here."

"Yes. But my point is that they are a threat to themselves too."

I believe your point. The answer to why would they do it is that at each step along the path they could fail to understand what they are doing. At each step they would perceive their interests in such a way that would lead them to the next step. They can believe what ever they want to believe. They can think think that their actions are for the good of the majority or they can think the bad guys forced them down their path. IMO It is perfectly normal to be selfishly self-deluded.

There are actually several outstanding invention made by private inventors that have been locked up by some ligation brought by goverment and private corpoartion...Were they charged with violating the laws of thermodynamics?

DwayneD.L.Rabon,

Do you have any links to 'this guy'?
I don't doubt in the possibilities you put forth, and I am beginning to believe that every conspiracy theorist is right. But I'd still like to see some more info.

I call B.S. The science journals would eat it up and make him an instant celebrate if he could demonstrate such a device.

If such devices existed, the chinese would be the first to buy them, as they could break the us elite oil-based hegemony with it

simply water is run over a nickle catalyst the seperates hydrogen from the water molecule, this generates electricty by turning a blade to a generator, and produces a supply of hydrogen for combustion.Basic science lesson time: a catalyst changes the activation energy of a reaction, but cannot change the total energy difference between products and reactants. Diatomic hydrogen and oxygen are in a much higher energy state than water (which is why you can use hydrogen and oxygen as a fuel). That energy still has to be put in – a catalyst doesn’t just magically make the energy appear out of nowhere.