Is it possible to produce Helium-3 from natural sources on Earth to satisfy demand and thereby avoid having to source it from the Moon?
No. Helium-3 is found in some natural (methane) gas and CO2 gas reservoirs on Earth but only in trace amounts. There are very good reasons for this.
Helium-3 is a small component of the solar wind, but the ancient solar wind Helium-3 captured during the initial accretion of the Earth has mostly leaked away and escaped into space. The early creation of the magnetosphere around the Earth as it was more fully formed –some 3.7 billion years ago–has rejected any further deposition of Helium-3 on Earth.
But the Moon is different. While the ancient solar wind Helium-3 captured during accretion of the Moon also escaped into space, the Moon does not have a magnetic field surrounding it like the Earth does. Thus, during the ensuing billions of years the solar wind has deposited trillions of kilograms of Helium-3 on the Moon, where it is estimated a retained amount is trapped by the mineral Ilmenite of 1.7 trillion kilograms in the top three meters of the lunar surface–1,700,000,000 kg. By contrast, the trace amounts of Helium-3 retained from Earth’s formation are estimated at a mere 750 kg, and that amount is spread throughout the entirety of the planet at depths of thousands of feet below the surface. That’s over 2 million times more Helium-3 on the Moon.
So, how much Helium-3 could we use? For reference, we have available on Earth today about 5-15 kilograms per year, sourced from the Tritium waste product of heavy-water CANDU nuclear reactors as it radioactively decays to non-radioactive Helium-3 over a 12.3 year half-life. Most of the Tritium is already dedicated for use in the nuclear arsenal, but as the decay product Helium-3 is retrieved from nuclear warheads it is available for purchase at about $20,000 per gram, and is used sparingly for radiation detection, medical imaging, and academic research.
To satisfy demand for fusion power and quantum computing, we may need more than 1,000 kilograms per year by the early part of the 2030s. If we were to power only 20% of USA electricity demand by fusion energy, we would need about 6,700 kilograms per year. Obviously, the entire amount of Helium-3 conceivably available on Earth–ignoring economic viability–could never satisfy that demand. In contrast, the amount of Helium-3 available on the Moon could satisfy Earth’s total energy appetite for many thousands of years.
So, what’s all the hype about producing terrestrial Helium-3? A recent article proclaims:
“Reservoir Yields Helium-3 at Concentrations Rivaling Lunar Samples.” (A. Amiri, “A Rare ‘Fuel of Tomorrow’ Once Believed to Exist Only on the Moon Has Just Been Discovered Beneath Minnesota,” Daily Galaxy, January 9, 2026).” The article goes on to state: “…the company announced that gas samples taken from the Jetstream #1 well contained helium-3 concentrations up to 14.5 parts per billion (ppb). That value matches or exceeds levels found in lunar regolith, based on samples brought back by the Apollo missions and data cited in NASA-backed research on lunar helium-3 reserves.”
While one may be able to “thread the needle” to find a modicum of literal truth in this announcement, it is nevertheless highly misleading. It is the kind of hype that may provide a pop to a stock price but does not withstand serious scrutiny.
As with many technical issues in our “soundbite” media world, the devil is in the details. First, it is important to understand that the produced Helium-3 gas referred to in this article is mixed with lots of other gases: 77% CO2, 13% N2, 10% Helium-4 and other trace gases, but only 0.00000145% Helium-3. Given the likely size of the gas reservoir and projected gas flow rate (neither reported), one might expect about 1.5 kg/yr over a 20-year production life, or about 50 kg total. And even that estimate might be generous given that published information suggests the reservoir is fractured basement (granite). Naturally fractured reservoirs of this type are known for being able to produce at high initial rates but dramatically falling close to zero in very short periods of time–like the shale-gas reservoirs that require fracturing techniques to release the gas. The fractures deplete with little to no incoming flow to replace the fracture volume. Obviously, insufficient to satisfy projected Helium-3 demand, plus one would necessarily also produce an enormous amount of CO2, over 52 million times as much as the Helium-3–inconsistent with greenhouse gas objectives and requiring massive disposal costs.
And that’s only the beginning of the story. There are no reservoirs of Helium-3 on Earth, and this latest announced discovery is no exception. It comes as a very small fraction of other gas flows, here CO2, but more typically natural gas (methane). The Helium-3 isotope in these wells is always associated with Helium-4 (the party balloon inert gas also used in medical and other applications). To get the Helium-3, the total helium component must be separated from the other gases, and then the Helium-3 additionally separated from the Helium-4. Lunar Helium-3 concentrations are 3,000-4,000 times higher than those found on Earth in the total helium gas flow, and that is true according to the USGS analysis report of the Jetstream #1 well in Minnesota. Thus, very difficult and expensive to separate out. Not economic. Not scalable.
The mathematical coincidence that the Minnesota well had a “14.5 parts per billion (ppb)” fraction of Helium-3 as compared to the other gases produced (CO2, N2, Helium-4) is irrelevant to the question whether that well is a viable source of Helium-3 as compared to the lunar Helium-3. The irrefutable fact is the USGS analysis report on Jetstream #1 found the ratio of Helium-4 to Helium-3 to be 7,795,485 to 1; whereas that ratio in the solar wind trapped on the Moon is 2,500 to 1–over 3,000 times more highly concentrated on the Moon.
There are hundreds of natural gas and CO2 wells that produce a small helium gas stream component (containing both Helium-4 and Helium-3). That’s where we get the helium we use in everyday life, and yes, it also has a trace amount of Helium-3 mixed in. But none of those wells have ever produced Helium-3 as a stand-alone product, even at the current price of $20,000 per gram–strong evidence that the business case doesn’t close.
For the Helium-3 demand projected to satisfy fusion, quantum computing, and other uses, the Moon is the only economic viable source–and there is enough available for many thousands of years.
Is recovery of the lunar Helium-3 resource really possible?
Yes, all key operations have been done before – no new technology is required. The hardware has been demonstrated since the Apollo era over 50 years ago in terms of spaceflight requirements, and robotic excavation and processing are well understood from energy industry experience in hostile environments offshore and in the arctic. The reserves of Helium-3 on the moon and associated economics for Full Field Development (FFD) are well understood, as are the mechanisms and preliminary designs for excavation and processing. In addition, Black Moon Energy Corporation (BMEC) has identified the most critical variables and operations on which to gather data with up to two robotic Delineation Missions (DM) to the moon in order to significantly de-risk the FFD endeavor.
What makes you think BMEC will succeed in five years to execute its planned robotic Delineation Missions (DM) to the moon, especially in light of so many recent failures in commercial spaceflight endeavors?
To be sure, there is risk in every spaceflight endeavor. To mitigate the risk, we have partnered with the aerospace industry’s “best-in-class” for each segment of the DM operations, including launch, lunar landing, surface rover operations, and scientific package. Further, our timing in getting these missions done in the next five years will allow further maturation of the commercial industry as happened, for example, when SpaceX first started with a number of F9 launch failures ten years ago, to the more recent virtually flawless flight record.
How much more time and investment will be required for the fusion reactors to be ready?
The fusion industry consensus is that fusion reactors will be in a position to put profitable electricity on the grid by the mid-2030s. However, some predict earlier results. Commonwealth Fusion Systems estimates that it will have a commercially viable machine by 2030, while Helion is targeting 2029. The estimates for additional funding required to commercialize the various fusion reactor configurations vary wildly from several hundred million dollars to four billion over the next 5 to 10 years (somewhat dependent on whether a company will license its technology or act as OEM).
What if the fusion reactors are not ready to utilize Helium-3 when production begins?
If the first production of Helium-3 could be ready to be delivered to Earth in 2033, but a delay occurs in sales (perhaps no fusion reactors ready to use Helium-3), then a slight decrease in the present value economic return may occur if field development capital has been spent before any delay is realized. However, Helium-3 is a stable isotope and may be stored indefinitely in pressurized gas tanks, much like oxygen or nitrogen. Moreover, there are significant ancillary revenue market opportunities for Helium-3 in cryogenic applications (MRI, HTS cooling, quantum computing), medical diagnostics (early lung cancer detection), nuclear security screening, explosives detection (e.g., land mines), and tritium breeding, to name a few.
Should BMEC delay its Delineation Missions and FFD of Helium-3 until fusion reactors are operational?
Can a fusion reactor begin using a Deuterium-Tritium fuel cycle, and then switch to Deuterium-Helium-3 later?
No, not easily. The use of Tritium causes the reactor to become dangerously radioactive, creating waste and operational downtime issues, and such a reactor must be designed to breed additional Tritium fuel as a side product (sapping its useable energy and necessitating a very complex, and as yet, un-tested design). To utilize Helium-3, a much simpler reactor design can be implemented with much lower operating costs.
Why are so many private funders investing in fusion reactor companies if payout is 10 to 15 years out?
They believe fusion is going to happen and predict a tremendous economic upside. Reactor companies see great upside to unregulated off-grid “behind the meter” applications, in addition to replacing the on-grid power plants. BMEC’s advantage in becoming the preferred fuel supplier is that it has de-risked its opportunity because it does not care which fusion reactor configurations become commercially successful. BMEC is essentially placing a diversified bet on all of them to be successful.
Will the lunar environment be changed by BMEC’s excavation of Helium-3?
Not at all. Excavation is limited to 3 meters deep. The end result of the excavation efforts will appear like a farmer’s field after being plowed. The surface of the moon will not look different from Earth, and our operations will not change the gravitational impact on Earth’s Ocean tides.
Could Helium-3 be made on Earth and thereby avoid the lunar costs?
In theory, yes, but in reality, no. It would be more costly to scale up manufacturing Helium-3 on Earth rather than sourcing it from the moon. In addition, making it on Earth would cause significant radioactive, operational, and waste issues. Tritium is a radioactive isotope of hydrogen that decays to stable Helium-3 with a 12.3 year half-life, and is a radioactive waste product of a limited number of heavy water nuclear fission reactors. Currently, this decay process provides less than 5 kg of Helium-3 per year against a projected demand for fusion of thousands of kilograms per year. For example, a 1 GW powerplant is estimated to require 75 kg of Helium-3 per year, after taking into account operational inefficiencies. Even if enough Tritium could be manufactured, the long-term storage required to wait for the radioactive Tritium to decay to Helium-3 imposes serious operational expense and regulatory issues. In contrast, the moon has sufficient Helium-3 to meet the entire anticipated global demand for fusion, quantum computing, and other applications for thousands of years.
Some have proposed manufacturing Helium-3 on Earth by fusing Deuterium with itself – the so-called D-D fusion fuel cycle – because Deuterium is available in sea water. While this reaction is theoretically possible in the laboratory, the D-D fusion process is very hard to do and does not scale economically or operationally. Given the relatively low Helium-3 exhaust rate from the D-D fuel cycle, even when operating at optimum fusion conditions, manufacturing sufficient Helium-3 for a D-He3 fuel cycle reactor will require 3-5 dedicated D-D breeder reactors of equal size to feed sufficient Helium-3 fuel to a D-He3 powerplant. This will require a huge incremental upfront capital expenditure and increased operational costs due to the D-D fuel cycle, and result in a plasma generating both medium and high energy neutrons that damage the equipment and create a dangerous radiation work environment. In addition, there would be added costs and operational difficulties in handling large amounts of exhaust gases, including radioactive Tritium, added costs due to end-of-life decommissioning, and an adverse radioactive environmental impact to consider.
Lunar sourced Helium-3 requires no new technical breakthroughs – there are currently commercial landing systems on the moon, and many companies are building rovers, return vehicles, and related hardware. Lunar sourced Helium-3 has no radioactive footprint and is economical – adding as little as 2¢/kw-hr to the LCOE in the first year of production, to less than 1¢/kw-hr over a 20-year powerplant lifetime as economies of scale are realized. In contrast, breeding Helium-3 on Earth requires solving several new, daunting technological problems, is a financial and operational non-starter, and will cost over 30-times as much.
As some experts have noted about the idea of manufacturing Helium-3 on Earth: At best, the “marketing is misleading – they tout the benefits and ease of aneutronic D-He3 fusion, but still need the harder neutronic D-D fusion to obtain their fuel.” See J. Parisi and J. Ball, The Future of Fusion Energy, 2019, at p.301. Getting Helium-3 from the moon is cheaper, simpler, and cleaner.
What is the fundamental problem that the fusion reactor companies are trying to solve?
Why isn’t the U.S. government developing Helium-3 if it’s so obvious it is the fusion fuel of choice?
The transition to cleaner energy sources is important to the U.S., and indeed to all of us. While the U.S. government is not intended to be a commercial entity, it has been active in providing grants to fund fusion reactor research through DOE’s ARPA-E division and NASA is funding research on Helium-3 extraction mechanisms through its Space Technology Research Fellowship program. In addition, DOE’s Isotope division recently stated that it is interested in building a strategic stockpile of Helium-3, and that it is their position that major markets for Helium-3 will be for fusion and quantum computers. NASA recently stated: “Helium-3, if used as fuel in a nuclear fusion reactor, could become a significant lunar export for power generation around the world.” In addition, the U.S. government has been offering support through various grants and loans, and by instituting a private-public milestone program. While these programs have, in theory, substantial funds to dispense, they often come with other obligations, such as loss of intellectual property, and thus BMEC will examine these programs carefully and weigh them against private funding alternatives.
Still have questions?
Contact us at info@blackmoon.energy or visit our Contact Page for more ways to reach us.