US Defense Department Funds Design Analysis for a Transportable Micro Nuclear Reactor (defense.gov) 120
America's Department of Defense recently exercised a contract option with X-energy, a private nuclear reactor engineering company, seeking "a thorough analysis of design options" for a transportable micro nuclear reactor. The Department says its ultimate goal is "a reactor design which is ready for licensing by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission for both commercial ventures and military resiliency."
Their announcement also notes that additional work is already underway by another company, BWX Technologies, on a prototype micro reactor: "Due to their extraordinary energy density, nuclear reactors have the potential to serve multiple critical functions for meeting resiliency needs in contested logistical environments," said Dr. Jeff Waksman, Project Pele program manager. "By developing two unique designs, we will provide the Services with a broad range of options as they consider potential uses of nuclear power for both Installation and Operational energy applications in the near future."
The Defense Department uses approximately 30 Terawatt-hours of electricity per year and more than 10 million gallons of fuel per day — levels that are only expected to increase due to anticipated electrification of the vehicle fleet and maturation of future energy-intensive capabilities. A safe, small, transportable nuclear reactor would address this growing demand with a resilient, carbon-free energy source that does not add to the Defense Department's fuel needs, while supporting mission-critical operations in remote and austere environments...
"The Strategic Capabilities Office specializes in adapting commercial technology for military purposes," said Jay Dryer, director. "By nurturing and developing multiple micro reactor designs, SCO will not just provide options for the military Services, but will also help jumpstart a truly competitive commercial marketplace for micro reactors."
Their announcement also notes that additional work is already underway by another company, BWX Technologies, on a prototype micro reactor: "Due to their extraordinary energy density, nuclear reactors have the potential to serve multiple critical functions for meeting resiliency needs in contested logistical environments," said Dr. Jeff Waksman, Project Pele program manager. "By developing two unique designs, we will provide the Services with a broad range of options as they consider potential uses of nuclear power for both Installation and Operational energy applications in the near future."
The Defense Department uses approximately 30 Terawatt-hours of electricity per year and more than 10 million gallons of fuel per day — levels that are only expected to increase due to anticipated electrification of the vehicle fleet and maturation of future energy-intensive capabilities. A safe, small, transportable nuclear reactor would address this growing demand with a resilient, carbon-free energy source that does not add to the Defense Department's fuel needs, while supporting mission-critical operations in remote and austere environments...
"The Strategic Capabilities Office specializes in adapting commercial technology for military purposes," said Jay Dryer, director. "By nurturing and developing multiple micro reactor designs, SCO will not just provide options for the military Services, but will also help jumpstart a truly competitive commercial marketplace for micro reactors."
Microsoft looking for a Nuclear PM (Score:2)
https://jobs.careers.microsoft... [microsoft.com]
AI datacenters have huge power requirements?
Re: (Score:2)
This is for military use. There is not a remote chance that this reactor, if developed, will provide power that's cheaper than the grid. It's meant to replace supply lines where tankers carry fuel long distances through potential warzones, which is very, very expensive. So, this is meant to beat the cost (and cost in human life) of those convoys. For that matter, it may not even beat the cost of those convoys in economic terms because the military will see the ability to operate with reduced supply lines as
Re: (Score:2)
at least, until the price gets cheaper because the research has been paid for and production lines have been set up.
Re: (Score:2)
Which is why the Apache helicopter used to cost 13+ million but now only costs $200K and just about anyone can finance it...
Or, maybe specialized military equipment is expensive pretty much no matter what. It is highly unlikely there is ever any way that this will ever be cheap in absolute terms. Cheap compared to carrying fuel overland in trucks through warzones with a heavy protective detail, maybe. Cheap compared to grid power, exceedingly unlikely.
Re: (Score:2)
MIL-SPEC Nuclear Power. (Score:2)
In one hand, I'm rather thankful that a voice from the half-century old nuclear age is still reminding us of the reality that is nuclear power. As in the necessity to rely on it until 'green' solutions can actually prove themselves well beyond what Greed is selling you.
On the other hand...
(Soldier) "Well yeah, I can hook it up to my truc ...wait, why are these warning labels glowing?"
MIL-SPEC, doesn't exactly convey "best" or "safest"..
Re: (Score:2)
What took so long? (Score:3, Insightful)
The military has had portable low(ish)-power (10MW) nuclear reactors since the 1950s [wikipedia.org].
What's are the major technical (or at least more technical than political) hang-ups getting them "commercial-use-ready"/ready for licensing?
Re: (Score:2)
Sub reactors are not economical and are not failsafe.
The main design criterion is being compact.
Re:What took so long? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
How many meltdowns have you heard the Navy having?
What kind of moron are you for even asking a classified question?
Grow up, or wake the fuck up. Choose, stupid.
Re: (Score:2)
Because the families of the dead sailors wouldn't notice the sub never returned to base.
Like a bad tv show everyone in the military would just magically hush up a huuuuuuge event like a sub's Nike melting down.
Or wait, you believe the moon landing was faked and we have long established diplomatic relations with the Greys and 6 other alien races. Got it.
Re: What took so long? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Sure, and no one would detect any radiation. Unfriendly nations such as Russia and China wouldn't nose around and leak it to the world.
C'mon, this is deep conspiracy stuff just shy of an X-Files episode.
Re: (Score:2)
As another poster pointed out, they don't have to reveal why the sub went down. Also though, nuclear subs are pretty big and the reactors are relatively small. It's pretty likely that all the bulkheads between the sailors and the reactor would provide enough shielding that they wouldn't get acute radiation poisoning in a nuclear event. Sure, they might get a few years knocked off their lives from radiation exposure, but the Navy could avoid exposing that. A simple look at history shows that various branches
Re: (Score:2)
Yikes. So jet fuel and oil, etc. were collecting in the ship's bilges and getting into a potable water tank through a bad gasket, and just the gasket is the problem. It sounds like the bilges being full of flammable liquids is just par for the course.
Re: (Score:2)
Sub reactors are not economical and are not failsafe.
The Navy having an excellent safety record does not make this statement false. A nuclear sub does not have to be constrained by economics or proximity to civilian infrastructure and a dozen other differences. Just the fact they operate on highly enriched uranium already presents a multitude of problems that would have to be accounted for.
Re: (Score:1)
You realize that subs eventually dock at bases, many of which are right next to big cities, right?
Re: (Score:2)
Sure, and how many operating reactor hours take place at those bases compared to out at sea? How secure is a literal military base compared to civilian installation?
Similar, but not comparable. "Just use sub reactors" isn't an answer to getting more nuclear power.
Re: (Score:2)
They're also designed to depend on having the ocean available as a coolant.
Re: (Score:2)
Fewer hours docked at a big city is not the same as no hours. I wouldn't want to be the guy who has to,write the PR statement explaining how the unlikely event of a nuclear sub exploding at port was just a rare event.
So either they're pretty safe or a bunch of navy folks need to get fired for this.
Re: (Score:2)
And a couple hours driving in to get hooked up to shore power is not the same as running at 80-100% capacity 24 hours a day like a power reactor or when they are out at sea.
I never said they were not safe, I actually stated the Navy has an excellent safety record. That doesn't make them suitable as civilian operated, built on land and less complicated than existing and future designs.
We can and should probably look at their training and safety procedures, take the things they do right and adapt those but "
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
How many meltdowns have you heard the Navy having?
Depends. Which navy are you referring to?
North Sea: [thesun.co.uk]
Over 17,000 objects are scattered on the sea bed, with 18 nuclear reactors and sunken nuclear submarines.
The waste from one submarine, the Kosmomolets, is one million times higher than the safe limit.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
How many meltdowns have you heard the Navy having?
The depths of the world's oceans tell no stories.
Re: (Score:2)
How many meltdowns have you heard the Navy having?
How many meltdowns on navy vessels would not be classified? Zero, you say? How fascinating. That is also the number of navy meltdowns we've heard of.
This isn't to say there have been any, only that your argument is nonsense because it would be illegal to tell us about them.
Re: (Score:2)
Subs have unlimited water for cooling. Try that in a field, etc and suddenly you need a new reactor design.
To many people think we get electricty directly from nuclear reactions. They all forget there is a steam driven generator. And that the nuclear reactor is just boiling water more effeciently than burning wood or coal or Gas,.
Land based mobile reactors have to figure that part out.
Re: (Score:2)
I'd worry about leaving radioactive material around in a warzone.
It could fall into the wrong hands, be sold on the black market and the next thing you know, some 17 year old kid rips a hole in spacetime by creating a temporal paradox through sleeping with his own mother at her high school dance.
Re: (Score:2)
Right. And one of the reasons sub reactors are so compact is that they run on enriched uranium -- in the case of US subs the uranium is so highly enriched it's bomb grade [intechopen.com].
That is not stuff you want to risk leaving behind if you have to retreat in a hurry.
Re: (Score:2)
It's a good thing then that they have no plans to use weapon grade fuel in these micro-reactors.
If someone can enrich the fuel in some abandoned micro-reactor then they can enrich any uranium, and uranium isn't that hard to find in some random dirt or in some seawater. So we make things a bit easier for them, big deal. But then as soon as the reactor is turned out the fuel would be contaminated with fission products, and difficult to remove "neutron poisons" like U-234, which makes using this fuel dangero
Re: (Score:1)
Sub reactors are not economical and are not failsafe.
The main design criterion is being compact.
Good to know our military members are as expendable as they've ever been. And Government wonders why recruitment numbers are down.
In this case there's a considerable radioactive perimeter around that expendable carcass. Post Chernobyl, pardon the public for being slightly concerned. Along with every parent of a military member.
Re: (Score:2)
At what time and location in all of human history were soldiers not expendable, by definition?
Re: (Score:2)
At what time and location in all of human history were soldiers not expendable, by definition?
I basically already stated they're not any more today than they've ever been, followed by the very reason why this might be slightly different...?
Was it the glowing carcass that gave it away, or your cancer diagnosis?
Re: (Score:2)
I was responding to when you said this:
> Good to know our military members are as expendable as they've ever been. And Government wonders why recruitment numbers are down.
If soldiers have always been expendable then that can't be the reason recruitment is down.
Re: (Score:2)
I was responding to when you said this:
> Good to know our military members are as expendable as they've ever been. And Government wonders why recruitment numbers are down.
If soldiers have always been expendable then that can't be the reason recruitment is down.
Fair point but in America, every male that reaches the age of 18 is technically expendable whether they know it or not, because they are required to register for Selective Service.
Expendable is hardly advertised when you need people to volunteer. Otherwise we might as well be telling our kids to prepare for the draft again. Not to worry about that though. From the looks of it Government has been trying to march the country into a mild Depression in order to "bolster" those volunteer numbers via no other c
Re: (Score:2)
Oh I assure you I'm quite familiar with the selective service process and all it means being on that list. Totally agree with you on that. Anyone filling that out either understands or is a damned fool.
Just curious are you American? I gulped hard when I dropped mine in the outgoing mail.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think you understand the situation. The folks that run those reactors are highly trained, and aren't under (current) economic pressure. (I'm not talking about when they're off the sub.) And they are overseen by officers who are sticklers for detail.
Yeah, those things aren't "fail-safe", but they are run to avoid failure modes. (Submarines are expensive!)
You want someone who's treated "as expendable", talk about a fighter pilot. (That may not be true this decade, with the wildly increasing cost
Re: (Score:1)
One hang-up seems to be the licensing. "The DOE strongly supports new reactor types, and its Idaho National Laboratory is an international hub for research into civilian nuclear power. But the NRC, which is a separate agency, has been less welcoming of new technology." https://cen.acs.org/energy/nuc... [acs.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah the NRC is need of some major reform, they basically need a new or second mission mandate to expand capacity, not just the safety of the existing capacity They appear to be in a 40 year state of paralysis after TMI.
Re: (Score:2)
These need a rather large steel hull and a 24/7 reactor watch team and pretty smooth handling all along (ships do not do abrupt vector changes). These things also assume that a melt-down will be mercifully swallowed by the sea and that assumption is not wrong. Having one of these blow up on land would be a major disaster though.
That will be interesting (Score:5, Insightful)
The reason nuclear reactors are built so large is because their cost sucks badly and the smaller they get, the worse this becomes. Obviously cost means not only labor, but ressource waste, whether in spare parts, building the thing, fuel, cooling, etc. My take would be these micro-reactors will be massively worse than fossile energy sources with full carbon capture (which is pretty bad). Of course, the military does not care about the environment or cost, they care about being able to project force.
Now, the trick will be to get actually honest numbers if these things will actually ever materialize.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, keep dreaming. The problem was never making a small reactor core. The problem is all the surrounding systems and measures you need. And this goes up to decidedly non-technical systems. For example, you still need that secure fence and 24/7 armed guard team for a small reactor. No problem for the military, but a significant cost factor for a civilian installation.
Re: (Score:2)
There are multiple efforts to make modular micro nuclear reactor reality.
And so far, ZERO PROTOTYPES.
They are cheaper to build in factory at scale
[citation needed]
Hint: Nobody has actually proven this. It is an empty assertion until someone is actually doing it.
and you flex up and down how many you need when you plan the site out.
Reactors have per-unit costs. It will never make sense to put a ton of tiny reactors on one big site when you could build one big reactor more cheaply.
Building bespoke giant reactors onsite is going away.
Says you, economics say otherwise. This is not like clustering computers because computers don't melt down when they fail. Stop thinking your expertise in one industry translates to others, it doesn't.
There are numerous use cases for civilian or military applications.
The theoretical
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
True.
Thankfully we haven't learned a thing about building and maintaining nuclear plants since the 70s.
Technology has completely frozen since then.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, the EPR is not a "historic" installation. It confirms these considerations are still completely valid. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Oh, and the usual: Massive delays, massive cost-overruns, and, a French special, fake safety certificates for the pressure vessel! Well, come to think of it, Japan has one of those too.
No innovation. (Score:2)
>> Technology has completely frozen since then.
For Nuke Power, that is actually pretty much the case, interestingly....
No major innovation.
Re: (Score:2)
Seriously? Since the 1970s we haven't learned anything about nuclear power? C'mon, that's a wild statement on its face. How many links to different nuke technologies developed after the 70s would you like?
Re: (Score:2)
Research is nice.
But nuclear electricity technology in real life is now on the declining slope because it could not reduce costs.
Re: (Score:2)
My point was about technology. You're moving goal posts.
And you're perfectly aware that anti-nuke greens and nimbyism has dramatically increased costs. The same treatment for anything would dramatically increase costs. Try to build Hoover dam today. The environmental impact study would take years and be in court for another 10-15 years before ground was even broken.
Re: (Score:2)
Who needs safety ?
Only green NIMYsts ?
Yeah. Right.
Nope.
Re: (Score:2)
More goal post moving.
How many links would you like showing nuclear power technology advances since the 70s?
Re: (Score:2)
>> How many links would you like showing nuclear power technology advances since the 70s?
None. Your fantasy research is irrelevant.
Re: (Score:2)
Lol, so funny, I love this place. Can offer up links to real advances and thumb sucker runs away with some pansy ass comment.
Ok ok ok you're right, I am wrong. There has been no nuclear power research conducted since the 70s. All those government labs working on it in this and other countries are really just drinking beer and playing ping pong all day. You caught me.
Re: (Score:2)
real advances that are completely irrelevant ?
Nice. Feeds researchers.
Re: (Score:2)
Yup yup, anything that makes you wrong is irrelevant. Because you said so.
Got it.
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly.
Re:That will be interesting (Score:4, Interesting)
My take would be these micro-reactors will be massively worse than fossile energy sources with full carbon capture (which is pretty bad).
And here we encounter yet another instance demonstrating why your perspective on matters should not be regarded with seriousness. I appreciate your clarification.
Now, the trick will be to get actually honest numbers if these things will actually ever materialize.
You, talking about being honest with numbers. That thought is amusing.
Re: (Score:2)
There are very good reasons to believe that smaller nuclear reactors will have a worse cost/performance ratio than larger reactors. For military purposes, cost often doesn't matter as long as it provides a material advantage on the battlefield. Being able to significantly reduce your supply convoys would be that advantage. For civilian use, economics rules. If 100 of these reactors cost just as much as one big reactor, but they only provide 1/2 the power, then they're not useful for general use in the civil
Re: (Score:2)
There are very good reasons to believe that smaller nuclear reactors will have a worse cost/performance ratio than larger reactors.
Yes, but you are arguing about a different thing. The OP said "My take would be these micro-reactors will be massively worse than fossile energy sources with full carbon capture (which is pretty bad)."
Talking about full carbon capture on a fossil fuel plant, to produce the amount of energy a SMR could produce over its lifetime, just shows that OP has no clue how it works. Saying that a fossil fuel plant (coal, or even gas) will produce less CO2 than a SMR is just pure ignorance. Or blatant lies. Or someone
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, but you are arguing about a different thing. The OP said "My take would be these micro-reactors will be massively worse than fossile energy sources with full carbon capture (which is pretty bad)."
Actually, you're the one who seems to have cherry picked from what the OP said. The OP also said:
The reason nuclear reactors are built so large is because their cost sucks badly and the smaller they get, the worse this becomes
Now, the OP wasn't clear in which way they would be worse, but highly likely that they would be far worse in terms of cost.
Saying that a fossil fuel plant (coal, or even gas) will produce less CO2 than a SMR is just pure ignorance
They did specifically say a fossil fuel plant with full CO2 capture. Not a very realistic thing at this point, but neither are these "micro" reactors. Comparing one vaporware to another seems fair enough.
Then, you can see that this is gweihir posting. This guy has a history for being anti-nuclear first and foremost. This is what he does. He doesn't care about facts, environments, climate change or anything else.
Ok. I realize you can't see the irony there, but the irony is palpable coming from an ac
Re: (Score:2)
Thanks. It is nice to see that some people here actually have reading comprehension.
Re: (Score:2)
Ok. I realize you can't see the irony there, but the irony is palpable coming from an account which I pretty much only ever see posting to promote nuclear power. gweihir does not agree with you that nuclear is the only answer.
I actively promote all low-carbon energy sources. I specifically said several times that the only viable proven solution for a decarbonized electricity grid, is a grid which combines a mix of nuclear, hydro, solar, wind, storage. Nuclear alone doesn't work. Hydro alone can work actually, but relies too much on local geological features that are just not available in every country. Solar/wind alone doesn't work. Storage alone... well, doesn't work... what would you store?
You got it backward when you say that
Re: (Score:2)
You got it backward when you say that gweihir does not agree with me that nuclear is the only answer. Because again, I never said or promoted that nuclear was the only answer. The reality is that gweihir doesn't agree with me (and science in general) that nuclear is part of the answer. That's a big difference.
You basically insist that any carbon-neutral energy solution must be largely nuclear. Like MacMann, you pop up in just about every article on energy to say it plus you pop up to promote nuclear power in plenty of conversations that don't really have anything to do with power generation to promote nuclear power. I see no evidence that gweihir does not believe in science. They simply do not agree with you. There has not, to date, been one inevitable power source that has been scientifically proven to be the b
Re: (Score:2)
You basically insist that any carbon-neutral energy solution must be largely nuclear.
Nope. Hydro would be better, where it can be applicable. I insist however that not one country has achieved a decarbonized grid today while not having at least some nuclear in its electricity grid. Sweden for instance has a decarbonized grid (~20g CO2eq/kWh in 2022), while only having 20% nuclear. 20% is not "largely", as you like to think.
France on the other hand has a decarbonized grid with 65% nuclear, and that is largely. But this is just another example, not the norm.
Germany on the other hand, has 0% n
Re: (Score:2)
Nope. Hydro would be better, where it can be applicable.
Which is almost nowhere. Pretty much all possible major locations for Hydro have been tapped in the US. There are some countries with significant hydro resources, both tapped and untapped, but that's not common enough for it to be a general solution.
I insist however that not one country has achieved a decarbonized grid today while not having at least some nuclear in its electricity grid. Sweden for instance has a decarbonized grid (~20g CO2eq/kWh in 2022), while only having 20% nuclear. 20% is not "largely", as you like to think.
Sweden, of course, is one of those rare countries with a very large amount of hydro potential. It's not really a model for the rest of the world because you have to have the advantageous geography and meteorological conditions to allow it. Another thing Sweden h
Re: (Score:2)
"All" meaning including nuclear. Regardless of what you're saying here, it's obvious that you promote nuclear above other power sources. It's the only power source I see you regularly go to great lengths to champion. Whatever else may be in the mix, you insist that the grid must include nuclear. You have a very clear favorite.
Yes, "All" means including nuclear. Including hydro as much as possible. Including solar/wind because given that nuclear can actually work in load-following mode, and because Uranium is also in limited supply (especially since more and more countries are moving toward nuclear), using wind/solar when possible is a good idea. I am really not sure what you are getting it. Oh wait, did you mean that for gweihir or you, "All" means "All, except nuclear"? I guess that is where we diverge, and where we see who is
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, "All" means including nuclear. Including hydro as much as possible. Including solar/wind because given that nuclear can actually work in load-following mode, and because Uranium is also in limited supply (especially since more and more countries are moving toward nuclear), using wind/solar when possible is a good idea. I am really not sure what you are getting it. Oh wait, did you mean that for gweihir or you, "All" means "All, except nuclear"? I guess that is where we diverge, and where we see who is playing with words and who is speaking plainly.
All I am saying is that, from the conversations I've seen, you seem like you could take or leave other forms of power generation, but you absolutely insist on nuclear being in there. Nuclear power seems to be a clear fixation for you.
And I don't insist about "whatever else may be in the mix". If someone says coal or gas must be in the mix, because gas is "natural" and "so much better than coal", then I explain why it is a bad idea and why NG is actually almost as bad as coal if you take into account leaks and methane emissions. The thing is that you see me answer and go to greath lengths to posts/comments that try to exclude a viable low-carbon energy source from the electricity grid mix. Even though so far, history as shown that it can't lead to a decarbonized grid.
There is a problem with "so far history has shown" arguments when you're dealing with adoption of new technology or technology that is experiencing a reduction in price and/or rise in popularity. You can point out the same thing about "so far history has shown" arguments about
Re: (Score:2)
All I am saying is that, from the conversations I've seen, you seem like you could take or leave other forms of power generation, but you absolutely insist on nuclear being in there. Nuclear power seems to be a clear fixation for you.
Again, and for the tenth time in this discussion, I always insist that the solution to a decarbonized grid is a mix of nuclear, hydro, solar, wind, storage. Look at my comment history, even from 6+ months, you will see that. Maybe you have the impression that nuclear is a fixation of mine, because I often answer to people like gweihir (or you) whose fixation is that nuclear shouldn't be included in the list of solutions, at all cost. To which I say: nuclear should be in the mix.
Who is fixating on what?
There is a problem with "so far history has shown" arguments when you're dealing with adoption of new technology or technology that is experiencing a reduction in price and/or rise in popularity.
That
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe you have the impression that nuclear is a fixation of mine, because I often answer to people like gweihir (or you) whose fixation is that nuclear shouldn't be included in the list of solutions, at all cost..
I clearly don't insist that nuclear should not be included at all costs. At the prices it actually currently costs I insist on it not being included, however.
To which I say: nuclear should be in the mix
Because you're fixated on nuclear. It's obvious to everyone else. I'm not sure why it's not obvious to you.
Most countries with serious energy planification are considering and planning both renewables and nuclear. That should give you an indication about what to think.
Sure, because I should totally go by what politicians think. Or, for that matter by what "think tanks" and lobbyists tell them to think. Don't forget, these are the same people who buy into CO2 sequestration schemes.
It depends if your goal is to spend the least possible amount (and actually that's not even true, because the 500 billion spent by Germany for so little result is not very "pragmatic"), or if your goal is to actually decarbonize an electricity grid.
You appear to be more than trip
Re: (Score:2)
I clearly don't insist that nuclear should not be included at all costs. At the prices it actually currently costs I insist on it not being included, however.
Except that it is just you being dishonest, and trying to find reasons for your opposition. This is as if people, 30-40 years ago, were opposing solar/wind deployment because it was costing so much more than anything else.
And before you tell me that nuclear is mature, and it should cost less: yes, it is a mature technology. But if you don't build any for the past 40 years, you lose the industrial capabilities and technological knowledge to do it in a reasonable cost, and to do it in the planned budget and s
Re: (Score:2)
Except that it is just you being dishonest, and trying to find reasons for your opposition. This is as if people, 30-40 years ago, were opposing solar/wind deployment because it was costing so much more than anything else.
Once again you can't distinguish between someone disagreeing with your worldview and them being dishonest. I am not being dishonest. Nuclear has not gotten cheaper over the decades like renewables have. All credible evidence seems to show it getting more expensive. Observing objective reality like that is not dishonest.
I understand the argument about giving a developing technology time and not judging it by its infancy. For example all the people who still insist that solar panels take more energy to create
Re: (Score:2)
Which says what? If we build up experience for another few decades of extremely expensive plants we will get to the point where we can build them cheaply in two or three decades?
France built "cheap" and safe nuclear plants in the 70s. Because they built many of them, and an entire industry was born out of it. Fast forward 50 years without building one because anti-nuclear groups (and alliances with the left, to get a majority in their national assembly; just do some research of it, I am not explaining you the intricacies of France government here) were vocal enough and you have exactly that: no more industrial knowledge, people who were actual professional workers (industrial welde
Re: (Score:2)
France built "cheap" and safe nuclear plants in the 70s. Because they built many of them, and an entire industry was born out of it. Fast forward 50 years without building one because anti-nuclear groups (and alliances with the left, to get a majority in their national assembly; just do some research of it, I am not explaining you the intricacies of France government here) were vocal enough and you have exactly that: no more industrial knowledge, people who were actual professional workers (industrial welders, smelters...) are not in retirement, etc...
Another dubious example where the true cost of the plants was a state secret and they were only buildable with a public/private partnership.
But don't worry, you don't have to wait a few other decades for "cheap" plants. China will provide them to you, because as the West did for all the rest, we basically shoot ourselves in the foot, and let China get the advantage on that too. And you will get them, because renewables ONLY is never going to work (well, except if you have enough hydro, but we went over that already). Still don't want them? Sure, industries will just leave your country like they are doing in Germany in the last few years. Germany is effectively the worst economy of western Europe since 2 years now, and the future is not looking bright (not my words, again, do some research if you don't think it's true).
I think you're gleefully counting your chickens before they hatch just a little too soon.
Duh, do you realize how dumb your assertion is? Our premises differ in one way: you want to include all low-carbon energy sources in an electricity mix, except nuclear. I want to include all low-carbon energy sources, period
Is it that hard for you to understand why I want to include all except nuclear? You don't see how it's the odd one out? Still needs fuel. Needs large amounts of maintenance. Needs massive physical plant that takes a very long time to build. Costs significantly more. More special req
You want the NRC to approve *what*? (Score:4, Interesting)
Historically it has been very difficult to convince the NRC to approve reactors. In 2012 it was reported that the NRC approved the first commercial reactor to be built in over 30 years [cnn.com]. What they didn't mention was that the NRC had never in its entire history reviewed and approved a reactor that was built. [reddit.com] Reactors that actually got built were reviewed by the AEC before the NRC existed; the NRC had a colder attitude to nuclear power. And while they did approve the debacle known as Vogtle 3/4, they recently made it even harder (some would say impossible [nationalreview.com]) to get a reactor approved.
This is the context in which the DoD wants to get a mobile reactor approved? A reactor that could be blown open up by a missile? A reactor that could possibly topple over on its side?
I know of one reactor category that makes sense for a mobile reactor: a thermal-spectrum, burner-type (uranium-fueled) graphite-moderated molten salt reactor (MSR). MSRs are self-stabilizing: physics ensures fission stops if it overheats, and if uranium is dissolved in salt there is no need to vary reactivity with control rods or add excess reactivity (fuel) in the reactor chamber to deal with xenon poisoning. They're also compact by avoiding the need for
Uranium atoms split into a wide variety of radioactive "daughter atoms", and molten salt is able to dissolve the vast majority of those atoms so that they cannot escape into the atmosphere. For a military design it might also make sense to use fuel balls (TRISO [energy.gov]?) in non-radioactive coolant salt, so as to reduce environmental damage to the ground if the reactor is blown up, though xenon presents a bigger challenge in that case.
Certainly it's doable, and would have huge benefits on the battlefield in a war with a major power (*cough* China *cough*). But unless the NRC has different standards for military and civilian applications, it's hard to imagine them actually approving it.
Re: (Score:2)
This is the context in which the DoD wants to get a mobile reactor approved? A reactor that could be blown open up by a missile? A reactor that could possibly topple over on its side?
Yes, those are all realistic objections. But then...
I know of one reactor category that makes sense for a mobile reactor: a thermal-spectrum, burner-type (uranium-fueled) graphite-moderated molten salt reactor (MSR).
Holy. Fucking. Shit. Your objections are that it might get blown up or knocked over, so you want to use MOLTEN SALT? Do you have any idea what blowing that up would do to the area? Jesus fuck.
Re: (Score:2)
This would never fall into enemy hands (Score:2)
Just like there has never been any other kind of milliary nuclear accident. [wikipedia.org]
And we have never lost a war either. [wikipedia.org]
MX-1589 Mark II (Score:2)
Sleep inside. (Score:2)
Perhaps homeless people could sleep in the F35s ?
Or inside the SMR reactors ?
Oh wait......
Tank! (Score:2)
And what happens when one of these things gets hit by a stray tank shell or a targeted bunker buster strike to take out enemy logistics?
Re:Do not forget - (Score:5, Interesting)
I don't think carbon emissions are the only reason for looking at this. I think a bigger incentive is on the other end of the engine from the tailpipe: the huge, expensive and vulnerable supply chain required by the US army to support vehicles and armor in forward operating bases.
Running a "light" tactical vehicle like a Humvee or an MRAP takes a staggering amount of fuel. Keeping these things fed means that you absolutely have to supply any forward operating base by ground convoys -- like we did in Afghanistan for many years. Truck convoys picked up fuel in Pakistan and then carried it to Kandahar and then through innumerable vulnerable routes to various remote forward operating bases. These convoys were occasionally shut down by political spats with Pakistan and were constantly threatened by insurgents and IEDs.
If you imagine a future decades from now in which electrified light tactical vehicles are recharged at forward operating bases by compact nuclear reactors, those FOBs could be supplied completely by air if need be. Now imagine trying to supply a forward operating Marine base on a remote Pacific island with Chinese subs torpedoing any supply ships you send. Sure, you're probably end up flying in aviation fuel, but you'd want to be self sufficient as possible for energy to run your computers, radars, drone fleets etc.
Re: (Score:2)
How "militarily resilient" is a nuclear reactor placed on a battlefield?
Re: (Score:2)
Slightly more resilient than an equivalent fuel tank placed *on the battlefield*.
Which is why they won't be placed literally on battlefields, but in forward operating bases and supply depots.
Re: (Score:2)
Don't waste your energy. The person you're replying to clearly has very little (if any) knowledge of nuclear physics, plant design, military operations and logistics, or anything else that's relevant to the conservation.
Re: (Score:2)
Slightly more resilient than an equivalent fuel tank placed *on the battlefield*.
Probably actually less resilient because an equivalent fuel tank could be split up into multiple, physically separated tanks. Not so easy to do that with a nuclear reactor.
Re: (Score:2)
That's not at all clear. When I visited Nagasaki it was densely inhabited. If the reactor "explosion" (it's not the reactor doing the exploding) is more localized, then the "uninhabitable" area will be a lot smaller.
P.S.: Multiple generations of feral dogs have lived WITHIN the Chernobyl reactor complex. They are a genetically distinct line from the dogs that live in the nearby region. And they are subject to major debilitating mutations. I suspect that they have a higher rate of cancer, but so do peo
Re: (Score:2)
Mark Twain
Re:Do not forget -truely hideous Typo correction!! (Score:2)
They are a genetically distinct line from the dogs that live in the nearby region. And they are NOT subject to major debilitating mutations.
Re: (Score:3)
A nuclear reactor explosion leaves the area uninhabitable for centuries.
I don't believe you. Now what have you got to say?
Just how much radioactive material do you believe is in one of these reactors? This isn't going to be some multi-gigawatt reactor like a civil nuclear power plant, it is something that fits on a truck. The reactor is planned to produce at most 5 MWe, so something like 15 MWt, which is 1/200 the size of most any civil nuclear power reactor. That means 1/200 the amount of fuel and fission products. That's not saying it would be a good thing to blow up the
Re: (Score:2)
While that would be neat and all, there are some serious questions about if it will ever be practical. I just don't see how you could have a reactor that produces enough power without requiring too much shielding to be considered "micro". I suppose they could skip most of the shielding and bury it. As far as replacing fuel convoys goes, to some degree we could have done that years ago. I remember decades ago watching a news report about power requirements on US bases in Iraq and how they were powering air
Re: (Score:2)
Images and videos of Russian tank trucks burning on the way into Afghanistan come to mind.
I never envied the tank truck drivers in Vietnam that I viewed rolling down the highways either.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
You are the sole reason for current worldwide climate woes, not the DoD or any other government entity.
No, but we can seize leadership in developing a technology that can be quickly built in factories everywhere in the world.
Build reactors the way we build aircraft, not the way we build airports.
Re: (Score:2)
Ever wonder how many planets we'd be exploring by now if we hadn't spent the last few thousand years warmongering amongst our own species, dick-measuring about who's world order is the bestest every century or few, as if losers in world wars have another world to go live on?
Have you considered that if the human species wasn't so intent on exploring and taking land that it would never think to explore space? A species that is motivated to explore will inevitably clash with itself for who gets to go further. It would be difficult to imagine a world where people aren't competing with each other and still have the motivation to try getting beyond Earth orbit. There's always some "other" that humans will compete with for food, land, water, etc. If it's not some lions, tigers, o
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not real fond of Biden. All I can say is he's better than Trump, and that's really weak praise. Trump was the worst president (on the average) in my lifetime. Andrew Johnson may have been worse.
OTOH, JFK is the one who got us 30 seconds from WWIII.
Re: (Score:2)
"JFK is the one who got us 30 seconds from WWIII.", that's not correct. He was concerned that Russia wanted to put nuke in Cuba when the cities vulnerable, including Wash. D.C. were minutes away in rocket flight. Personally, I think he was poser, but not with this.