3 ms·
>They tried nuclear at McMurdo, way back when, and ended up with 10,000m3 of contaminated rock they had to export, as the aptly named nukey poo was a bit... poo
by throwaway0a5e 6y ago
>They tried nuclear at McMurdo, way back when, and ended up with 10,000m3 of contaminated rock they had to export, as the aptly named nukey poo was a bit... poo. Poor reliability, not much power, lots of contamination. All that’s there now is a plaque and an NSF rad monitor a little bit up Obs hill
How did they F that up? The Russians manage to successfully use nuclear power for similarly remote stuff and it works well until locals decide they want to steal parts to sell for money (which is a problem you don't have in Antartcia).
- mikewarot 6y agoThe Russians are using thermopiles driven by radioactive decay, not actual reactors that go critical. Such devices are indeed quite stable for decades unless they get targeted by scrappers. A few hundred watts from a large RTG is a drop in the bucket compared to the power required to keep a base going, so those aren't applicable. If you need a transmitter or relay station hundreds of miles from people to run for years without fueling... RTGs are an option for governments.
- bayesian_horse 6y agoI suspect Russians care a little less about cleaning up after themselves or keeping the radiation levels down in the first place...
- michael1999 6y agoNone of the marines, the army, nor the Air Force have successfully fielded nuclear power. The navy is the only branch to pull it off. It might be harder than you think.