this post was submitted on 02 Mar 2024
369 points (97.4% liked)
Technology
59030 readers
3053 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
This is actually incredibly good news
Not really, because we're still pissing away invaluable helium because of capitalism...
If we keep doing that, it doesn't really matter how much we find.
We need to stop wasting it first, then finding huge supplies is a good thing. As long as we're not dumb enough to start wasting it again.
Ah yes, we're wasting helium, so finding more isn't a good thing. Of course. 🙄
Yeah it'll hopefully see us through to when we're collecting it in space - there's plenty up there and they've already come up with some good ways of collecting it
Imagine we found out climate change predictions were a decade early, so we kept pace and didn't use the extra time to try and fix it....
It's not bad news that we got another decade, but it doesn't matter that much in the long run if we still don't fix the underlying issue
I don't disagree with your general point. But finding a new source of Helium, regardless of the rate of use, is a good thing.
That aside -- are you saying Helium is related to climate change? Curious to know how, if so.
Edit : minor addition. I was reading a comment the other day and found out helium can also result from other reactions outside of a star, such as the decay of a radioactive element, which ejects an alpha particle (which is just a helium molecule with special attributes, aka no electrons). The alpha particle crashes into something, picks up electrons and suddenly its a helium.
No, they are clearly making the following comparison.
For climate change : World is heating up, heading toward the result of mass extinctions. The most valuable resource is the time to act. Ten extra years to work on the root cause. Unsustainable emissions.
For Helium : A finite resource is being exhausted, heading toward a world with no helium (helium is typically created by one of the fusion cycles in the core of a star, fusion is a nascient technology on earth). The most valuable resource is time to act, +X% helium extra supply to address the root cause, unsustainable consumption.
In both cases, the root cause is being (mostly) ignored.
So they're pointing out that if you have 800 finite helium, then suddenly you find out you have 880 helium.. that hasn't changed the finite nature of the helium. The root cause remains a "spending problem". And they are likely annoyed that 880 ~> 880 results in, " Omg yay!" vs what should be, "Oh thank goodness, more time to address the root cause of consumption."
Idk, was that not obvious? I'm not being facetious here, I'm really asking. Brings to mind the "curse of knowledge" fallacy where when you understand something you assume others do, and they often don't, resulting in disjointed communication where the listener can't grasp the idea. As condescending as this sounds I assure you its only because I'm not a writer, I'm legitimately making an attempt to communicate neutrally with you as we both seem to have genuine interest.
Anyway, corrections and such always welcome. All numbers in this post made up for illustrative purposes only.
I sincerely appreciate your effort to relate your perspective. I think I did originally interpret the comment how you described, but I over thought it and wondered if there was a connection I was unaware of.
Ah! Makes sense to me.
There is always a chance I misinterpreted as well, I def have whooshed on many jokes on Lemmy. Can't win them all lol.
That argument makes sense, it's hard to view finding new helium deposits as good news if we keep wasting helium. As far as I can tell though, helium is already becoming much more expensive which may lead to less waste. It will become more scarce and expensive before the technology gets better at capturing it and storing it. https://www.technologyreview.com/2024/02/25/1088930/global-helium-market-semiconductors/
How are we wasting it? Keep in mind that the helium used for stuff like balloons is not the same as the helium used in medical equipment. Also keep in mind that even if it were, the amount of helium used in balloons would be less than 1% of total usage.
So I ask again, how are we wasting it?
https://www.npr.org/2019/11/01/775554343/the-world-is-constantly-running-out-of-helium-heres-why-it-matters
Tldr:
It takes an insanely large timescale for it to be produced on Earth, and it rarely accumulates because it's fucking helium. It's so light that it will literally just float out into outer space as soon as it's vented to the atmosphere.
Using any for nonessential purposes is a waste.
And can you give an example of nonessential purposes we're wasting it on?
Per the article, helium escapes Earth naturally; we’re harnessing the only element on Earth that doesn’t stick around anyway.