US Designates Helium As a Critical Material (apnews.com) 119
An anonymous reader quotes a report from the Associated Press: The U.S. designated helium as a critical material on Friday because it's indispensable for making semiconductors that are essential to energy generation, and the global supply is at risk of disruption, according to the Energy Department. The designation by the Energy Department means that more federal financing will be available for helium producers and that the government will monitor it more closely. Helium is primarily produced as a byproduct of natural gas processing. The United States is the world's largest producer of natural gas and of helium. Qatar and Russia are the other top helium producers.
[...] Helium makes balloons rise, but that's not why the DOE is interested in it. Helium plays an important role in wind, solar and nuclear energy production, space exploration, medical imaging and research. Assistant Secretary of Energy Audrey Robertson said helium's unique properties make it irreplaceable, such as the fact that it's non-combustible and has the lowest boiling point of any gas. The nation needs an ample supply for semiconductors, quantum and super computing, and superconducting magnets, added Robertson, who oversees the Office of Critical Minerals and Energy Innovation.
[...] Despite environmental concerns with recovering helium from natural gas, there are also opportunities, said Greeshma Gadikota, director of the Lenfast Center for Sustainable Energy at Columbia University. "If we burn the natural gas, there are a lot of CO2 emissions associated with that," Gadikota said. "But if you just extract the helium and use it, the uses of it don't contribute necessarily to greenhouse gas emissions. "So from a climate standpoint, if we are going to continue down the line of extracting natural gas and recovering helium," she added, "I would prefer to see natural gas being used in a form where we directly produce hydrogen and we produce solid carbon." Hydrogen is a clean burning fuel, and solid carbon can provide permanent carbon sequestration and can be used widely in industrial applications, including rubber and pigments.
[...] Helium makes balloons rise, but that's not why the DOE is interested in it. Helium plays an important role in wind, solar and nuclear energy production, space exploration, medical imaging and research. Assistant Secretary of Energy Audrey Robertson said helium's unique properties make it irreplaceable, such as the fact that it's non-combustible and has the lowest boiling point of any gas. The nation needs an ample supply for semiconductors, quantum and super computing, and superconducting magnets, added Robertson, who oversees the Office of Critical Minerals and Energy Innovation.
[...] Despite environmental concerns with recovering helium from natural gas, there are also opportunities, said Greeshma Gadikota, director of the Lenfast Center for Sustainable Energy at Columbia University. "If we burn the natural gas, there are a lot of CO2 emissions associated with that," Gadikota said. "But if you just extract the helium and use it, the uses of it don't contribute necessarily to greenhouse gas emissions. "So from a climate standpoint, if we are going to continue down the line of extracting natural gas and recovering helium," she added, "I would prefer to see natural gas being used in a form where we directly produce hydrogen and we produce solid carbon." Hydrogen is a clean burning fuel, and solid carbon can provide permanent carbon sequestration and can be used widely in industrial applications, including rubber and pigments.
They literally sold the last bit two years ago (Score:5, Informative)
The USA used to stockpile Helium. They did so for almost 100 years. Then they got rid of it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:3)
This helium crisis is nothing new. It's now 20 years since I wrote a column titled The looming helium crisis [aardvark.co.nz] and little has changed.
Re: (Score:2)
If nothing changed in 20 years, perhaps the looming helium crisis is overblown.
Re: (Score:2)
Something did change. We stopped stockpiling a reserve, and that reserve has been exhausted. That's two things.
Re: (Score:2)
If nothing changed in 20 years, perhaps the looming helium crisis is overblown.
I saw the train coming towards me 1 minute ago, and here I am and it still hasn't hit me despite standing on the tracks is not a very good life philosophy. It's one that leads you to turning into a red stain on the train carriage's windshield.
If you disagree I'll have you know I've never been hit by a car despite j-walking, so I suggest you ignore all red lights, they are clearly meaningless.
Re: (Score:2)
There's actually another source of helium probably buried to not alarm the public - fast fission reactors. You know, the ones that make plutonium. One of the byproducts of actinide decay is helium. The US killed its attempt to modernise fast reactors in 1994 when it killed the Integral Fast Reactor. While plutonium is a byproduct, if it isn't removed through reprocessing, it is also a fissile fuel. Guess what. though - all Gen IV reactors that I've seen are fast fission reactors. Even some Gen II+ designs
Re:They literally sold the last bit two years ago (Score:5, Interesting)
LOL, like private stewardship would ever lift a finger without a government mandate. I was the mandate that mattered and always will be. It was mandated important, then it wasn't, and now it is again.
All this while nothing in the way it gets used has changed in 50 years. Sounds more like corruption, corporates wanting to suckle the government tit.
Re: (Score:2)
You do realize that the reason the helium reserve doesn't exist anymore, was because of passage of the Helium Privatization Act of 1996 [wikipedia.org]?
Yes, see how much better things are under private management?
Not sure if you're being ironic or obtuse; so well done on the irony unintentional or not.
Re: (Score:2)
Seeing the number of morons who don't get in-your-face sarcasm I think it is time to bury slashdot for good.
Re: They literally sold the last bit two years ago (Score:2)
Back then, sometimes Congress did things. And sometimes it was lame. It wasn't just one person running the show.
Re: (Score:2)
Think back to 2+ years ago. January 2024. What sort of government did we have? What Administration was in office?
From the Wikipedia:
" and the Bureau of Land Management extended the auction to January 25, 2024 to allow for increased bids.[14] In 2024 the remaining reserve was sold to the highest bidder, Messer Group.[15] "
Re:They literally sold the last bit two years ago (Score:5, Informative)
So, if you care about the actual history, TL/DR, it was your typical "Government Waste!" panic (an earlier version of DOGE-ism).
The first person to really push for getting rid of it was Rep. Christopher Cox (R-CA), who thought it was a stupid government boondoggle. He and his allies in the '80s and early '90s mocked it as an absurd relic of the '20s intended to supply military blimps and dirigibles and pointed out that it had racked up $1,4B in government debt. In 1984 Reagan, launched the Grace Commission (the President's Private Sector Survey on Cost Control), which was the late 80s equivalent of DOGE (he literally used the phrase "drain the swamp"!), and based on its recommendations, Reagan proposed selling off the reserve in both his FY 1989 and FY 1990 budgets. Then in 1993, under Clinton, VP Gore did his own DOGE (the National Performance Review (NPR)). Once again, privatizing the helium reserve was featured as an objective (Clinton would later, in his 1995 State of the Union, refer to it as one of "over 100 programs we do not need"), but it they decided not to push on it in '93 because Clinton needed the support of Rep. Bill Sarpalius (D-TX), whose district housed the reserve in Amarillo. In congress, Republicans took the lead (Democrats were initially more skeptical, though most still supported elimination); after Republicans won control in 1994, they focused on eliminating "obsolete" federal programs as a policy keystone (Rep. John Kasich and Newt Gingrich in particular). By 1996, there was broad bipartisan support, and congress drafted and passed the Helium Privatization Act (H.R. 4168) with near-unanimous support.
The TL/DR is, elected officials LOVE the idea of "cutting government waste". Their track record of determining what actually is "waste", however, is not nearly so great. It's a lot easier for ignorant elected officials to rail against something to an ignorant public with soundbites ("Lol, we're wasting money preparing for zeppelin-warfare, HAR HAR HAR!") than it is to take the time to understand the full consequences of what you're proposing to eliminate.
Re: (Score:2)
You brought facts to a slashdot Anonymous Coward rant.
Re: (Score:3)
Their track record of determining what actually is "waste", however, is not nearly so great.
The joy of letting lawyers and generals with no real-world experience run a society and an economy they don't understand and have no interest in learning about.
Space Farce (spelling deliberate) budget - $32 billion
NASA budget - $24 billion
2026 Pentagram budget - $780 billion (without the Black Budget, nuclear weapons, 18 intel agencies, or mercenary scum hired by Sec of State)
All NASA budgets combined since foundation - $670 billion (including Apollo, ISS, and *much* R&D for the military)
This is why we
Re:They literally sold the last bit two years ago (Score:4, Informative)
Because Article 1 of the Constitution creates this legislative structure called "Congress" where they pass bills like the Helium Privatization Act of 1996 [wikipedia.org].
Say, who controlled Congress in 1996? Oh, that was a very rabid Republican majority who was looking for any fight to pick with Clinton they could manage.
Obama was following that law (and as amended in 2013) but the damage was already done - the law mandated that helium sales started in 2005 (when Bush was President, which you conveniently ignored) and flooded the market with cheap helium, causing producers to stop producing a worthless product.
I know, it's weird to think about a President actually following the laws the Congress passes, but it used to happen.
Pull your head out of your ass.
Re: (Score:2)
"Say, who controlled Congress in 1996?"
The Helium Privatization Act of 1996 passed the House by voice vote with no objections then passed the Senate by unanimous consent.
The Helium Stewardship Act of 2013 passed the House 397 to 1, Linda Sanchez voting nay, then passed the Senate 97 to 2, Ted Cruz(!) and Jeff Sessions(!!) voting nay.
It doesn't matter who is controlling when you have bipartisan bullshit like that.
Re: (Score:2)
For what it's worth, the 2013 act fixed a lot of the fuckery of the original law. The original law essentially mandated that the government perform market dumping, which put producers out of business.
It's still really stupid and short sighted, but at least it mitigated some of the damage.
Re:They literally sold the last bit two years ago (Score:5, Informative)
It's not like your unstockpiled helium comes magically semiconductor grade pure from thin air.
Re: (Score:3)
So you don't think there's any way to purify it when you draw on the stockpile?
How did it get purified to begin with?
So in the next few days (Score:4, Insightful)
In the near future, I fully expect a new Trump announcement about how we're getting a bunch of helium from Putin, and as a result we're giving Russia Most Favored Nation trading status. And maybe Zelensky's head on a platter.
Re: (Score:2)
This puerile crap passes as +5 insightful on slashdot now.
Great.
Instead of just calling you a politically-motivated retard, I'll quote Mr Bill Clinton, who lobbied aggressively for and then signed the Helium Privatization Act in 1995:
"...We propose to cut $130 billion in spending by shrinking departments, extending our freeze on domestic spending, cutting 60 public housing programs down to 3, getting rid of over 100 programs we do not need, like the Interstate Commerce Commission and the Helium Reserve Prog
Re: (Score:2)
Whataboutism.
Just because idiots in the past did something idiotic, it does not excuse future idiocy that follows the pattern of current idiots doing current idiocy.
Why would you think stupid shit happening today is excused by someone else doing stupid shit 30 years ago, because they happen to be from a different political party?
Don't you think that tells us more about you than your comment tells us about literally anything at all?
Re: (Score:2)
You're the one who politicized this, not me.
Or did you forget that you asserted ex nihilo that Trump was going to get it from Putin and then throw Zelensky in the conversation?
You just used those names what, coincidentally? Having a seizure?
Precisely what "stupid shit" re Helium is happening today, that's not just in your hate-Trump fevered imagination? Looks like the US designated helium as a critical resource - that's not "stupid shit", that's sensible.
I don't see any point in your post BUT the politica
Re: (Score:2)
I did what now? Why don't you have a look at the author of the posts again and think about who your are replying to.
Thanks for proving my point.
Re: (Score:2)
Instead of just calling you a politically-motivated retard, I'll quote Mr Bill Clinton, who lobbied aggressively for and then signed the Helium Privatization Act in 1995
I think most reasonable people understand that politicians are fallible and can be shortsighted and make mistakes. This is part of being human and part of life in government which, at it's core, is just a huge risk management agency. That's not to say that honest mistakes don't carry weight - Bush Jr may have truly believed everything he claimed about Iraq prior to invading it, but it was still a fool's errand, built on a scaffold of lies, and one of the biggest wastes of resources and lives in US history
Re: (Score:2)
At this point a lot of Ukrainians would welcome the latter as well.
It's about time. (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
What makes you say it is irreplaceable? Is it because Helium rapidly floats up into space, never to return? Is it because Helium never binds to anything else and therefore has no home, the way Hydrogen has, before floating off up into space never to return? Is it because Helium shouldn't exist on Earth at all because it all went into space billions of years ago?
It's not like we can ultimately stop Helium leaving. Even if we emptied every last fossil fuel reserve, the Helium would still keep bubbling up
Re: (Score:3)
It is as replaceable as fossil fuels. Or we could mine the sun.
Re: (Score:2)
I guess you didn't read my post. Those fossil reserves can be pumped dry while the Helium still keeps flowing.
Re: (Score:2)
You've lost me. How are you going to catch it? Previous post was hopelessly vague.
Re: (Score:2)
Where do you think Helium comes from? It doesn't bind to anything so it can't be chemically processed like hydrogen say. So why do we have any at all? Because we already catch it is why. It comes free with oil and gas because it gets caught buy those huge sealed cavities of oil reserves. There's no real limit to continuing that capture, even after the oil and gas is depleted.
Re:It's about time. (Score:4, Insightful)
Still talking in circles. You seem to know nothing about resource extraction. Helium comes from uranium and thorium decay over vast time-scales. Being in earth is not enough.
There are 20 million tons of gold in the oceans, but you can't just suck it out.
Re: (Score:2)
So 4 billion years have accumulated through the mantle ... lots to go round then.
Re: (Score:2)
Some people suck more than others.
Re: (Score:2)
There are 20 million tons of gold in the oceans, but you can't just suck it out.
You actually can. It only takes energy and some basic heating equipment. Your progress will either be disturbingly and uselessly slow or you will cause climate change... but it can be done.
Re: (Score:2)
Mining the sun mught be impossible due to the high tenperature. However mining gas giants should be possible.
Re:It's about time. (Score:5, Funny)
Mining the sun mught be impossible due to the high tenperature.
Go at night.
Re: (Score:2)
Mining the sun mught be impossible due to the high tenperature.
Go at night.
What a maroon. Gravity will still be an issue dumbass! ;)
Re: (Score:2)
Whole branch needs a bunch of Funny mods, but I think the peak funny was probably the suggestion about the gas giants. We want Helium, not Hydrogen.
Re: (Score:2)
> I think the peak funny was probably the suggestion about the gas giants. We want Helium, not Hydrogen.
Give them some time and you'll have all the Helium you could ever want.
Re: (Score:2)
Fusion? Where?
Re: (Score:2)
peak funny was probably the suggestion about the gas giants. We want Helium, not Hydrogen.
Gas giants have helium. Was that supposed to be a joke?
The problem is the depth of their gravity wells. https://xkcd.com/681/ [xkcd.com]
I suppose you could try a high-altitude flyby to scoop some of Saturn's atmosphere, 3% Helium. Still insanely expensive.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, when you put it that way, it does sound better than the local source, but mostly thanks for the XKCD link. Always appreciated and usually funny, too.
Re: (Score:2)
Saturn is 3.25%±2.4% helium according to Wiki and could be mined by scoop ship. I've also seen proposals for mining He3 from Saturn which I can't currently find. I did find that https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org] planned to use balloons for mining He3 from Jupiter. Mining Jupiter is a bit stupid due to the radiation, whereas Saturn could work.
Re: (Score:2)
The other reply had the XKCD about gravity wells, but it's one of ones that's really hard to look at because of size issues...
Re: (Score:2)
The gravity wouldn't matter much, basically to scoop, you'd have an orbit that at the low point entered the atmosphere, which would rob velocity. Anyways it is far in the future before we have the technology and the willingness to wait for the returns from it. You could have like a pipeline where ships would regularly make the dozen odd year trip and once the first one returns, it would be a steady flow.
Whether a short sighted species such as us ever implement it is questionable and as mentioned, a ways int
Re: (Score:2)
Basically the ACK though I can't decide if I don't share your optimism or we share slightly different flavors of the same pessimism.
Re: (Score:2)
Yea, I'm not at all optimistic that it would ever happen. Fun to think of though.
Re: (Score:2)
Helium is also a byproduct of nuclear reactions and nuclear decay. So yes, we can "replace" it for various values of replacement, especially with the wealth of Uranium and Thorium in the earth's crust, which emits Helium-4 as an alpha decay.
The math also changes quite a bit if controlled fusion becomes a thing, because Helium is the "ash" product of controlled D-T fusion.
Re: (Score:3)
The math also changes quite a bit if controlled fusion becomes a thing, because Helium is the "ash" product of controlled D-T fusion.
What math? You did none.
Currently earth makes around 10^20 joules of electricity per year. At 3x10^14J/kg, that would require on the order of 1000 tons of DT fuel, and so helium "ash".
Current helium extraction rate is around 30,000 tons per year.
So yeah, fusion on a scale a order of magnitude greater than current total energy production could produce a useful amount of helium.
It is conceivable, barely.
Re: (Score:2)
The only source on earth is radioactive decay of crustal uranium. It takes millions of years for an appreciable amount to accumulate. It's not replaceable on a human time scale.
Re: (Score:2)
Thorium also undergoes alpha decay, and there's a shitload more Thorium (somewhere between 3x and 4x) than Uranium around.
Also, if the fusion crowd ever gets a reactor working, we will have direct industrial sources (for various values of fusion) as a "waste" product.
Re: (Score:2)
Th232 also has a half life ~3x longer than U238 (~14b v ~4.4b years) and only undergoes 6 alpha decays in its decay chain to Uranium's 8, so it is not as much of a bump as you would expect. Either way, it's still not like we will get anywhere waiting around for decay products to replenish our Helium if we run out.
Re: (Score:2)
There's lots of Helium on Earth. All we have to do is catch it as it seeps out. Conveniently, the natural sealed deposits of oil and gas do exactly that for free.
Re: (Score:2)
That Helium is "trash quality" and apparently there is no reasonable way to refine it to the quality needed for semoconductor manufactoring.
Re: (Score:3)
Helium stays pure in and of itself. One atom per molecule. It reacts with nothing. All need do is separate it.
Re: (Score:2)
"All you need to do" is not realistically feasible in this case.
Re: (Score:3)
Great explanation there. Very informative.
Re: It's about time. (Score:2)
How do you have access to slashdot but not Wikipedia?
Re: (Score:2)
Great hyperlink, very helpful.
Re: (Score:2)
I would say you can paypal me some money if you want me to look up shit for you on the internet, but I closed my paypal
Re: (Score:2)
Even more informative. You're so great.
Re: (Score:2)
More excellent info. You're so great.
Re: (Score:2)
Don't bother. You are talking to one of those cretins that think anything they do not understand is easy. And that, of course, they never have to prove anything, because they are right by default.
Re: (Score:2)
It's become a major industry in China, it's large enough that they've managed to reduce their imports even while consumption rises. Of course they have the cheapest electricity on Earth.
Re:It's about time. (Score:5, Informative)
All need do is separate it.
Is that all? Phew. Now back in reality Helium purification is one of the most difficult gas based process systems we have. It's insanely cost and energy intensive, and is not remotely viable unless you do it at scale for the purpose of creating a pure helium stream. The facilities which do this are limited to very specific gas fields which are especially rich in helium and have large scale helium supply chains setup.
Now on the other hand virtually all natural gas fields have some helium in it, and while it's trivial to separate natural gas from by products, separating helium is not. Hence the rubbish quality helium along with whatever else isn't natural gas is sold as a by-product, not remotely financially viable to purify and sell for anything other than throwing into a party balloon.
Re: (Score:2)
Yet it gets done anyway.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes... in very specific gas fields. Did you read my post? Nearly all purified helium in the world comes from 3 specific fields because they are the ones viable for economies of scale. The rest produce party balloons.
Re: (Score:2)
It's becoming a booming industry in China. They achieved 6N9-grade purity hydrogen from their natural gas fields, which have a content of less than 0.05 percent (other exploited fields have content of 1.0-7 percent), at a commercially viable cost a year ago. That's your "rubbish quality helium". Now there are a dozen companies replicating their work.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes hydrogen really is rubbish quality helium ;-)
Now there are a dozen companies replicating their work.
The problem has nothing to do with the process and everything to do with the cost of energy. Energy is ludicrously cheap in China which is why so many companies move process production over there. I worked at a plant in China where our steam boilers were coal fired. COAL FIRED. The cost of steam generation was insanely cheap and not something that could ever be replicated in the west. Suddenly running a compressor from a turbine to run your Joule-Thomson cool
Re:It's about time. (Score:4, Informative)
It isn't that hard to separate. That's why we developed the cryogenic method in the first place. Hydrogen and fluorine are much harder to keep stored and process.
Re: (Score:2)
It isn't that hard to separate. That's why we developed the cryogenic method in the first place. Hydrogen and fluorine are much harder to keep stored and process.
False. "Hard" in this context means output vs cost input. Helium is insanely hard to purify compared to hydrogen which in a pure form is trivial to make (you can split water or reform natgas). The problem with helium is its concentration. Most gas fields have helium but at concentrations that don't make it remotely viable to run a purification plant. The fact that it's just "the cryogenic method" is doing a lot of handwaving. It's not "the cryogenic method". It is "THE cryogenic method". The most energy in
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah! Just pick out all the helium atoms, one by one, and you're done!
Re: (Score:2)
We can save some money by paying foreigners to do the work.
Re: (Score:3)
So there aren't commercial companies that sell industrial helium purification equipment? [allumcorp.com]
That might be news to those companies.
Re: (Score:2)
Time to switch to acetylene for balloons!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
I mean, it's not irreplaceable (despite the fact that atmospheric helium, sourced from radioactive decay, "leaks" to space from the planet). But there is a risk of significant cost increases if we just burn the super helium-rich NG deposits without separation. Helium is still recoverable from poorer NG deposits, non-NG deposits (anywhere that volcanic heat melts old basement rock - for example, the Rukwa Basin), and even as a byproduct of atmospheric air liquefaction (for separation to extract N2, O2, and
Re: (Score:2)
Yep. Back in the early days of Slashdot, when helium usage would come up, I'd grumble about how wasteful the medical industry was with helium.
It still uses a lot, but it's nowhere near as wasteful as it was before.
Re: (Score:2)
I've always been appalled that an irreplaceable resource could be sold as filler for party balloons.
Why? Is filling the Super Bowl blimp more important?
Re: (Score:2)
MRI and other superconductor applications, semiconductor manufacturing, testing ultra high pressure systems.. Lots of high tech relies on having highly purified helium available.
So then, (Score:2)
US Designates Helium As a Critical Material
So then, who have they given themselves permission to attack now?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
They're gonna attack Amarillo?
Anything you can do Argon do better (Score:2)
Well, to continue the song metaphor, no, it can't. But which applications can use a replacement gas?
Nitrogen is good for cooling, but helium is better. Nitrogen is also fairly unreactive. Argon is better, and I gather helium is slightly better still. Both can be extracted from the air.
MRIs need newer materials to use nitrogen, but I think they can. Why can't semiconductors use nitrogen or argon?
Re:Anything you can do Argon do better (Score:5, Informative)
The reason to use helium is clear to the industry which uses it. After all, argon is nearly 30x cheaper and available at scale from ASUs, so someone makes a conscious decision to use helium instead.
As to why, I'm not sure about the technical application requirements, but there are some technical differences I looked up: ... okay this is probably the key point here... 85degC warmer! Helium boils at -269C and argon at -185C. That is a huge difference.
- Helium has 10x the thermal conductivity which makes it critical in any cooling system relying on speed or to achieve a ultra-low temperature.
- Argon boils at
- Argon is denser so more difficult to circulate, compress, liquify, etc, so it's less energy efficient to use in cooling loops, especially small ones.
All the same applies to nitrogen from the looks of things, argon and nitrogen for cooling seem very similar. Everything expect price mind you. Nitrogen is 300x cheaper than helium, so someone must really have thought about why they would need to use the latter.
Re: (Score:2)
Nitrogen is 300x cheaper than helium, so someone must really have thought about why they would need to use the latter.
Compared to the rest of the costs of the systems which use it, the helium cost is not a big problem. It's less than the labor cost of keeping the machine ready for use. An MRI uses over 100 MWh a year, the machine costs millions to start with, the personnel cost is hundreds per hour... The machine uses roughly 100-200 liters of helium, which is now $30-50/liter. So $3000 to $10000 for a full fill. Boil-off rates range from 0 to 0.2%/day. A refill occurs every 6-24 months. So we're looking at a max of about
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Thanks for that info. It stands to reason it was something technical.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
One thing argon can't do, is...float.
I hope the woman announcing this... (Score:2)
Use Hydrogen For the baloons (Score:2)
what could possibly go wrong
Re: (Score:2)
Fusion (Score:2)
Deuterium + Tritium
Its been working well for over 13 billion years...
Re: (Score:2)
50 years late (Score:3)
It was pretty obvious from the start that it was a ridiculous idea to sell it for super cheap.
Fusion... (Score:2)
Produced? (Score:2)