3 ms·

Did we read the same article? To quote: "Lyman believes that the department’s past efforts have “consistently underestimated”the “spectrum of mission risks pos

Did we read the same article? To quote: "Lyman believes that the department’s past efforts have “consistently underestimated”the “spectrum of mission risks posed by these microreactors," mostly around the technical challenges of keeping the radioactive fuel safe and operational in battlefield conditions. “Fielding these reactors without commanders fully understanding the radiological consequences and developing robust response plans to cope with the aftermath could prove to be a disastrous miscalculation,” warned Lyman."

luckylion 7y ago
That might be different for civilian use though. I don't know exactly what "battlefield conditions" means (airdropping it in? bullets hitting it?), but that's likely different if you're just aiming for decentral power generation but have safe ways to deploy and maintain.
- stankypickle 7y ago
  It is being funded by the pentagon. It isn't for civilian use. When considering "battlefield conditions" think along the lines of people with heat seeking missiles and infrared goggles who can easily spot a hot nuclear reactor, and who really want to bring down a base. Not to mention how complicated it is to operate and maintain a nuclear reactor even if conditions are ideal. The additional training and personnel required to support one of these things... would it really be worthwhile in the end?
  - pjc50 7y ago
    "Battlefield conditions" means they need it to run the air conditioning in forward bases in occupied countries. At the moment, this is astonishingly expensive, because it has to be done with fuel trucked in across dangerous supply lines. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/8601975/US-spends-12.5-billion-a-year-on-air-con-in-Iraq-and-Afghanistan.html https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/... : every joule of energy spent on aircon in Afghansitan came from fuel trucked a thousand miles across the Khyber pass, getting shot at along the way. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2008/dec/08/afghanistan-taliban-nato-raid-pakistan https://www.theguardian.com/world/2008/dec/08/afghanistan-ta...
  - andromeduck 7y ago
    If you're using enough power to warrant even a small nuclear reactor there's really no use trying to hide your thermals except maybe in a marine environment.
    - swalsh 7y ago
      I'd assume it's not about hiding the base, but more about hiding this glowing hot obvious target.
  - luckylion 7y ago
    Yes, this is about military use, I understood the comment from davidu to possibly not be focused on military use but about the idea in general, hence the difference between the positive lookout and yours (and the article's).
    - stankypickle 7y ago
      I'm not saying it isn't a bad idea for certain applications. I'm skeptical of the military application that is currently being pushed. It remains to be seen if one of these would even be plausible in the civilian arena, and the pentagon certainly isn't championing such (not that it should). All of that just to power AC? Is the risk really worth the reward? Have the consequences of a failure in a military setting been fully considered?
- fredgrott 7y ago
  battle conditions same spec for navy reactors on ships as ships generally face combat
  - stankypickle 7y ago
    Naval nuclear reactors are stored deep within the internal structure of the vessel (i.e. a negligible heat signature from the nuclear reactor is not visible from the outside). The proposed micro-reactor designs will vent the exhaust heat out into the open through an open Brayton cycle (i.e. it'll be really easy to spot). Ships can be abandoned at sea with little risk because the nuclear material is likely to be unrecoverable. This is not true for reactors on land.
    - arethuza 7y ago
      Surely nuclear submarines must dump their heat into the surrounding water - it has to go somewhere?
      - throwanem 7y ago
        Sure. But the concern isn't about whether or not a nuclear-powered vessel can be identified as such; that information isn't really concealed, you'll have it as part of the same documentation that lets you ID a ship or submarine by class. The concern is about what happens when somebody drops a couple of mortar bombs on your land-based microreactor, or sets off a buried IED under it, or drives a VBIED into it.
      - nradov 7y ago
        Yes but water makes a very effective heat sink.

luckylion 7y ago

That might be different for civilian use though. I don't know exactly what "battlefield conditions" means (airdropping it in? bullets hitting it?), but that's likely different if you're just aiming for decentral power generation but have safe ways to deploy and maintain.

stankypickle 7y ago
It is being funded by the pentagon. It isn't for civilian use. When considering "battlefield conditions" think along the lines of people with heat seeking missiles and infrared goggles who can easily spot a hot nuclear reactor, and who really want to bring down a base. Not to mention how complicated it is to operate and maintain a nuclear reactor even if conditions are ideal. The additional training and personnel required to support one of these things... would it really be worthwhile in the end?
- pjc50 7y ago
  "Battlefield conditions" means they need it to run the air conditioning in forward bases in occupied countries. At the moment, this is astonishingly expensive, because it has to be done with fuel trucked in across dangerous supply lines. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/8601975/US-spends-12.5-billion-a-year-on-air-con-in-Iraq-and-Afghanistan.html https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/... : every joule of energy spent on aircon in Afghansitan came from fuel trucked a thousand miles across the Khyber pass, getting shot at along the way. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2008/dec/08/afghanistan-taliban-nato-raid-pakistan https://www.theguardian.com/world/2008/dec/08/afghanistan-ta...
- andromeduck 7y ago
  If you're using enough power to warrant even a small nuclear reactor there's really no use trying to hide your thermals except maybe in a marine environment.
  - swalsh 7y ago
    I'd assume it's not about hiding the base, but more about hiding this glowing hot obvious target.
- luckylion 7y ago
  Yes, this is about military use, I understood the comment from davidu to possibly not be focused on military use but about the idea in general, hence the difference between the positive lookout and yours (and the article's).
  - stankypickle 7y ago
    I'm not saying it isn't a bad idea for certain applications. I'm skeptical of the military application that is currently being pushed. It remains to be seen if one of these would even be plausible in the civilian arena, and the pentagon certainly isn't championing such (not that it should). All of that just to power AC? Is the risk really worth the reward? Have the consequences of a failure in a military setting been fully considered?
fredgrott 7y ago
battle conditions same spec for navy reactors on ships as ships generally face combat
- stankypickle 7y ago
  Naval nuclear reactors are stored deep within the internal structure of the vessel (i.e. a negligible heat signature from the nuclear reactor is not visible from the outside). The proposed micro-reactor designs will vent the exhaust heat out into the open through an open Brayton cycle (i.e. it'll be really easy to spot). Ships can be abandoned at sea with little risk because the nuclear material is likely to be unrecoverable. This is not true for reactors on land.
  - arethuza 7y ago
    Surely nuclear submarines must dump their heat into the surrounding water - it has to go somewhere?
    - throwanem 7y ago
      Sure. But the concern isn't about whether or not a nuclear-powered vessel can be identified as such; that information isn't really concealed, you'll have it as part of the same documentation that lets you ID a ship or submarine by class. The concern is about what happens when somebody drops a couple of mortar bombs on your land-based microreactor, or sets off a buried IED under it, or drives a VBIED into it.
    - nradov 7y ago
      Yes but water makes a very effective heat sink.