20 ms·

Portable nuclear reactor program sparks controversy

68 points by howaboutnope 5y ago

ElViajero 5y ago
> “Proposed U.S. Army Mobile Nuclear Reactors: Costs and Risks Outweigh Benefits,” authored by Alan Kuperman, coordinator of the Nuclear Proliferation Prevention Project at the Lyndon B. Johnson School of Public Affairs at the University of Texas at Austin. It seems that more than "controversy" there are reports against it.
- canadianfella 5y ago
  How is that more than a controversy? There are reports that nuclear power is beneficial as well.
- dempsey 5y ago
  >“The Army’s mobile reactor program, which was never requested by the Pentagon but rather by nuclear industry cheerleaders in Congress, is precisely how disasters happen,” he said in the report, which was released in April. It’s interesting how nuclear gets an alliance between green groups and fossil fuel interests. It always makes me wonder how much criticism is in good faith. Nuclear can wipe out natural gas and coal and perhaps even oil with the rise of cheap storage. Fossil fuel interests have an economic interest in defeating nuclear with fear and regulatory red tape.
  - caddywompus 5y ago
    Debating it is difficult, its a really nuanced topic. It's way too easy for it to devolve into a "you're with us or you're against us" type of argument. And of course, like you said, deeply entrenched industry leaders have their own interests to protect. The article isn't meant to be for or against nuclear energy, but rather the pros and cons of deploying a miniature plant
ajross 5y ago
(Edit: seems like everyone is reading this as an argument against nuclear power in the abstract, and skipping the second paragraph. Come on people. You can be OK with large defensible reactors and still think that dropping a 5MW reactor into a random ass residential neighborhood is dumb as shit. Dangerous stuff is dangerous. Be careful with it and use it judiciously.) As it should. A reactor core is just trivially the most poisonous single object humanity has invented. And by definition it's a operated by controlling a chain reaction that can by its very nature lead to excursions. And the benefit here is a 1-5MW generator, the same market served by existing largely portable diesel generators. Seems like a cost/benefit analysis might have a lot to say here. Maybe spacecraft might be a better fit, but... a portable generator? I don't see the need, personally.
- nickpp 5y ago
  > diesel generators Poisoning us on the long term, and worse - starting a runaway greenhouse heating process which will make the planet uninhabitable in just a few hundred years.
  - ajross 5y ago
    Portable/temporary generators are vanishing fraction of global energy generation, and you know that. If we actually care about that last 0.001% or whatever, we can run them on biodiesel.
- gregmac 5y ago
  > Nuclear power is “orders of magnitude more energy dense than any other known technology,” Waksman told National Defense. “That allows the possibility to provide resilient power for years and years, without needing to refuel. … Refueling can be a real burden in remote areas.”
- piokoch 5y ago
  There is a lot of much deadlier chemicals in the factory near your city, only there is no Greenpeace et. al. crowd chanting how all those chemicals with long, complicated names are dangerous, since they spent all their efforts fighting nuclear energy (for good 50 years). Thanks to that we are where we are.
fnord77 5y ago
navy ship-board reactors are portable, too
- SiempreViernes 5y ago
  In the exact same sense that ships are portable, not in the sense that your coffee maker is portable.
simplyinfinity 5y ago
If the portable reactors are thorium based - yey! If they are uranium based - nay! Thorium based reactors can't cause a meltdown and if something happens they simply shut off, the reaction is self moderated, and if power goes off or it gets too hot the reaction slows down, unlike unranium based where they need control rods to NOT explode.
- ansible 5y ago
  Molten salt reactors in general can't cause a meltdown because they are designed to passively moderate in the event of a problem. That isn't something specific to thorium. And conversely, pressurized water reactors, especially older designs are not passively safe, and must go through a cool-down process which requires some of the control systems to be operating properly. In general I'd like to see more development work in the area of molten-salt reactors, especially those that can reprocess existing nuclear waste.
  - ansible 5y ago
    Replying to myself, now narcissistic... > Molten salt reactors in general can't cause a meltdown because they are designed to passively moderate in the event of a problem. At least one design I've seen has a plug in the main salt loop that is made of lead or something with a relatively low melting point. It is actively cooled to keep it solid. If there is a total power failure, and nothing is running, the cooling system shuts off, the plug melts, and the main loop drains out into a containment pool. The MSR is just running at atmospheric pressure, not super-high pressure like a pressurized water reactor (hence the name). You can crack a pipe, and that's bad, but then the loop will drain out to the containment pool below the reactor. [1] Unlike a PWR, where cracking a pipe may well lead to a steam explosion. Even if initially contained, this is super bad. It is unfortunate that many of the reactor designs out there in operation now are not 100% passively safe. Having one or two backup systems (like a Fukushima Daiichi) sometimes just isn't enough. [1] Now note that recovering from such an emergency reactor shutdown on a MSR is no fun process, and will take a while to do cleanup and get things back up and running. A normal shutdown will not drain into the pool, as I understand it. (Edit: this is wrong, see reply.)
caddywompus 5y ago
I expect there will be a lot of comments defending nuclear power, and I agree, it has its place in moving humanity forward to a greener future. However! I believe that the main benefit of central nuclear plants, is there ability to keep poisonous materials in a single location, so that it doesn't get lost. For example, the radioactive sources used in radiotherapy units, have been known to go missing due to negligent owners, with truly awful effects to those that discover them without realizing that they are. This short video sums it up pretty well: - The Samut Prakan Radiation Accident https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hxktLtVEH7U https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hxktLtVEH7U - The Goiania Incident https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nhL0xQzPSy8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nhL0xQzPSy8 Once the radioactive material is released from a safe container, the cleanup effort to discover and contain it is immense. And herein lies the problem, it only takes one or two events like this to cause an extreme amount of damage. And its not a problem with the technology, its a problem with human beings. We're forgetful, lazy, and make mistakes. So widespread deployment of many radioactive sources really increases the complexity and cost of keeping track of them.
- calyth2018 5y ago
  While it's a neat point that you bring up about human nature and misplaced radioactive sources, is a portable nuke reactor something that's comparaable to radiotherapy units? If what they mean is a Small Modular Reactor, they should still be about 40 m^3, and a bit less likely to be left behind.
  - BitwiseFool 5y ago
    And because of those incidents, there are new regulations and safeguards in-place to help avoid such events in the future.
    - dividedbyzero 5y ago
      But it'll be hard to limit these things to just a few that can be secured really well. There will be lots of potential for an energy source like this in remote or underdeveloped regions, and once you pepper the globe with reactors, good luck having everyone adhere to regulations, and not try too hard to circumvent those safeguards.
otikik 5y ago
> Another is what is referred to as the “strategic support area,’” which provides power for equipment that is mission essential, such as radar systems. Or drones.
ableal 5y ago
The Pentagon’s Strategic Capabilities Office selected two teams in March to continue their work developing transportable nuclear microreactor prototypes as part of “Project Pele.” Probably the name is about https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pele_(deity) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pele_(deity) - "the goddess of volcanoes and fire and the creator of the Hawaiian Islands"
tomjen3 5y ago
Now put those in a car and I will be interested in an electronic vehicle. 23 million miles on a charge and at night you can use it to power your house.
- caddywompus 5y ago
  I both love and hate this idea
mothsonasloth 5y ago
On a tangent but here is a nice introductory piece for Soviet Union RTG (Radioisotope Thermolectric Generator) https://www.bbc.com/reel/video/p0931jtk/the-nuclear-lighthouses-built-by-the-soviets-in-the-arctic https://www.bbc.com/reel/video/p0931jtk/the-nuclear-lighthou... The Soviet union built these transportable units for unmanned lighthouses
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
worik 5y ago
Nuclear power is kicking down the road, for literally thousands of generations, the consequences of our current consumption. How can anybody justify that?
- ttul 5y ago
  That’s a pretty simplistic cost analysis. All forms of energy production have externalities that affect future generations. For example, carbon based energy generation causes mass extinction of species. The reduction in species diversity will affect humans for thousands of generations.
LB232323 5y ago
The problem here in this discussion is looking at yourselves and your corporations as solutions to the world's problems. Same goes with the recent ESG investment trend. A corporation exists to make a profit, period. Suggesting otherwise is just emotional manipulation, albeit very profitable manipulation. The corporation causes all these problems, and it does it for profit. The phrase "business ethics" makes zero sense, but it serves a PR purpose. Even the term "national defense" in this magazine is doublespeak for imperialism, looting and pillaging other nations for profit. I have no interest in the neoliberal fantasy world of corporations solving our problems, because I am a pragmatist. Yet people continue to send billions into ESG companies to ease their guilt, while these companies actually profit from and exacerbate the very issues they promise to solve.
- merpnderp 5y ago
  You realize when you say the word "corporation", you mean "people". Like a group of people coordinating together for a common cause. As much as people might confuse a specific Supreme Court ruling, corporations are not actually sentient entities, but just a group of human beings like any others. And I have no interest in this neoreactionary fantasy that governments are less corrupt than corporations. The data is overwhelming that free markets are less corrupt, less polluting, and less harmful.
  - jhgb 5y ago
    > As much as people might confuse a specific Supreme Court ruling, corporations are not actually sentient entities, but just a group of human beings like any others. What? Corporations as non-human legal entities was actually a monumental legal invention in medieval Europe.
- fnordprefect 5y ago
  > A corporation exists to make a profit, period. Suggesting otherwise is just emotional manipulation, albeit very profitable manipulation. This is wrong. A corporation is just an artificial person. Like a person, it can seek a profit or not - eg charitable not-for-profits. There is no legal obligation either way.
grillvogel 5y ago
a weapon to surpass metal gear
wolverine876 5y ago
Necessary context is the military's unique needs and the vastly changed nature of warfare, which by themselves account for the value of portable reactors to the military. ------------ In military history, a cliche is that 'amateurs talk tactics, experts talk logistics'. Logistics - boring old logistics - is arguably the most critical factor for winning wars. Napoleon was a master of logistics. Think of 100,000 people in the field (which isn't a lot): Multiply that by around 2 lbs of food per day: 200,000 pounds of food must be distributed daily. Think of parts for repairs, ammunition, medicine. Think of how much battery power they need, for example, just for night vision, handheld computers, etc etc - how much fuel is required, daily? Think then of their equipment, which consume enormous resources - how much fuel does one 70 ton tank need? A combat helicopter? With modern technology, electricity demand has exploded. But delivering it isn't so easy. Unlike civilian uses, the location isn't chosen based on cost-effectiveness of supplies and access to infrastructure. And much more challenging, often there aren't centuries of infrastructure built, as with a city, and the infrastructure you use sometimes is destroyed. ------------ Also, the nature of warfare has changed dramatically recently. We're accustomed to war against low-tech guerilla fighters, not peers, and to WWII-style warfare (tanks, fighters, bombers, etc.), which will be as useful in the next peer war as mid-19th century warfare was in WWII - it was 75 years ago. The next war will be against a peer who uses sensors and precision munitions (e.g. guided missiles/drones), as the US began doing in the Gulf War. The combination enables you to hit targets accurately at great distances: If you can see the target (e.g. by flying a drone or satellite over it) within range of the missile (up to thousands of miles), you can fly a missile there. It greatly reduces the protection of distance - being far away from the 'front' isn't much protection - and it makes large objects, such as tank formations and bases, into a convenient collection of targets. Among other tactics, the U.S. military is planning to have personnel operate in small, stealthy, highly mobile groups within range of the precision missiles; look up the new plans for the U.S. Marine Corps for example, which has already scrapped all its tanks. The huge generator and supply depots at the major base will be gone. Supplying a large base under precision munitions would be tough - how does the convoy or ship slip through? Supplying lots of dispersed, hidden, small, highly mobile units seems very difficult. ------------ Reducing those supply needs is critical, and if energy - one of the biggest requirements for modern logistics - could be removed from them because the personnel brought a nuclear reactor, then it could greatly reduce costs, reduce death, and increase effectiveness (because they have enough energy to operate). I'm not saying it's worth the risks of having small nuclear reactors spread around a combat zone, but the benefits should be calculated in.
not2b 5y ago
I'd say that the following issue mentioned in the article is the biggest concern, if these things are deployed in combat zones: "Kuperman warns that if soldiers were forced to abandon a reactor under attack, an adversary could potentially come into possession of several hundred pounds of highly radioactive waste."
- caddywompus 5y ago
  That's a really good point. Something like that could be used to make a "dirty bomb" which aims to disperse material, rather than try to make it react as in a typical nuclear warhead
anfilt 5y ago
How are the concerns any different than for a nuclear powered sub, carrier or other ship. The also could be attacked causing an issue with potential for various radioactive isotopes to leak. However, no controversy there.... I don't really see the need for controversy we already have mobile reactors they just are in ships and subs.
- caddywompus 5y ago
  In the case of a ship or sub, in the event of both catastrophic failure, or even a material leak, its likely going to end up in the ocean. Water is an excellent radiation shield (though I guess it doesn't matter much, since no one would be around), and even a materials leak gets diluted until its not an immediate risk. RIP ocean microbes though
teslaberry 5y ago
if nuclear magically became 'safe' it would have no limit in it's utility to mankind. wind power is junk. is doesn't scale. google implicitly acknowledged this with it's google X project for taking windpower 100-200 meters up , using wind kits, to capture 'more' wind. it's not doable because 'more' is 'more destructive'. you cannot bottle hurricanes, let alone the jet stream. wind power is a disgrace. the german's have numerous engineering reports about why the history of windpower and the future of it, are conclusively garbage and won't and cannot scale. you may as well spend every last dollar of wind power funding on solar power. the wind can stop blowing far earlier than the sun will explode. windpower CANNOT scale. nuclear, solar , geothermal CAN . the technology behind wind power is fundamentally limited by wind sweep. that is all. there simply ISNT enough capturable energy in the wind. and thus, the only option is to go higher in the atmosphere well above the surface of the earth. going 'offshore' changes nothing really. you must go well above the surface of the earth. that is simply not feasible. sometimes the biggest gains from discarding your biggest losers.
lamontcg 5y ago
If these proliferate all over the place someone is going to abandon one inside of a rusted out shipping container and its going to start leaching into the environment.

68 points by howaboutnope 5y ago

> “Proposed U.S. Army Mobile Nuclear Reactors: Costs and Risks Outweigh Benefits,” authored by Alan Kuperman, coordinator of the Nuclear Proliferation Prevention Project at the Lyndon B. Johnson School of Public Affairs at the University of Texas at Austin. It seems that more than "controversy" there are reports against it.

canadianfella 5y ago
How is that more than a controversy? There are reports that nuclear power is beneficial as well.
dempsey 5y ago
>“The Army’s mobile reactor program, which was never requested by the Pentagon but rather by nuclear industry cheerleaders in Congress, is precisely how disasters happen,” he said in the report, which was released in April. It’s interesting how nuclear gets an alliance between green groups and fossil fuel interests. It always makes me wonder how much criticism is in good faith. Nuclear can wipe out natural gas and coal and perhaps even oil with the rise of cheap storage. Fossil fuel interests have an economic interest in defeating nuclear with fear and regulatory red tape.
- caddywompus 5y ago
  Debating it is difficult, its a really nuanced topic. It's way too easy for it to devolve into a "you're with us or you're against us" type of argument. And of course, like you said, deeply entrenched industry leaders have their own interests to protect. The article isn't meant to be for or against nuclear energy, but rather the pros and cons of deploying a miniature plant

ajross 5y ago

(Edit: seems like everyone is reading this as an argument against nuclear power in the abstract, and skipping the second paragraph. Come on people. You can be OK with large defensible reactors and still think that dropping a 5MW reactor into a random ass residential neighborhood is dumb as shit. Dangerous stuff is dangerous. Be careful with it and use it judiciously.) As it should. A reactor core is just trivially the most poisonous single object humanity has invented. And by definition it's a operated by controlling a chain reaction that can by its very nature lead to excursions. And the benefit here is a 1-5MW generator, the same market served by existing largely portable diesel generators. Seems like a cost/benefit analysis might have a lot to say here. Maybe spacecraft might be a better fit, but... a portable generator? I don't see the need, personally.

nickpp 5y ago
> diesel generators Poisoning us on the long term, and worse - starting a runaway greenhouse heating process which will make the planet uninhabitable in just a few hundred years.
- ajross 5y ago
  Portable/temporary generators are vanishing fraction of global energy generation, and you know that. If we actually care about that last 0.001% or whatever, we can run them on biodiesel.
gregmac 5y ago
> Nuclear power is “orders of magnitude more energy dense than any other known technology,” Waksman told National Defense. “That allows the possibility to provide resilient power for years and years, without needing to refuel. … Refueling can be a real burden in remote areas.”
piokoch 5y ago
There is a lot of much deadlier chemicals in the factory near your city, only there is no Greenpeace et. al. crowd chanting how all those chemicals with long, complicated names are dangerous, since they spent all their efforts fighting nuclear energy (for good 50 years). Thanks to that we are where we are.

fnord77 5y ago

navy ship-board reactors are portable, too

SiempreViernes 5y ago
In the exact same sense that ships are portable, not in the sense that your coffee maker is portable.

simplyinfinity 5y ago

If the portable reactors are thorium based - yey! If they are uranium based - nay! Thorium based reactors can't cause a meltdown and if something happens they simply shut off, the reaction is self moderated, and if power goes off or it gets too hot the reaction slows down, unlike unranium based where they need control rods to NOT explode.

ansible 5y ago
Molten salt reactors in general can't cause a meltdown because they are designed to passively moderate in the event of a problem. That isn't something specific to thorium. And conversely, pressurized water reactors, especially older designs are not passively safe, and must go through a cool-down process which requires some of the control systems to be operating properly. In general I'd like to see more development work in the area of molten-salt reactors, especially those that can reprocess existing nuclear waste.
- ansible 5y ago
  Replying to myself, now narcissistic... > Molten salt reactors in general can't cause a meltdown because they are designed to passively moderate in the event of a problem. At least one design I've seen has a plug in the main salt loop that is made of lead or something with a relatively low melting point. It is actively cooled to keep it solid. If there is a total power failure, and nothing is running, the cooling system shuts off, the plug melts, and the main loop drains out into a containment pool. The MSR is just running at atmospheric pressure, not super-high pressure like a pressurized water reactor (hence the name). You can crack a pipe, and that's bad, but then the loop will drain out to the containment pool below the reactor. [1] Unlike a PWR, where cracking a pipe may well lead to a steam explosion. Even if initially contained, this is super bad. It is unfortunate that many of the reactor designs out there in operation now are not 100% passively safe. Having one or two backup systems (like a Fukushima Daiichi) sometimes just isn't enough. [1] Now note that recovering from such an emergency reactor shutdown on a MSR is no fun process, and will take a while to do cleanup and get things back up and running. A normal shutdown will not drain into the pool, as I understand it. (Edit: this is wrong, see reply.)

caddywompus 5y ago

I expect there will be a lot of comments defending nuclear power, and I agree, it has its place in moving humanity forward to a greener future. However! I believe that the main benefit of central nuclear plants, is there ability to keep poisonous materials in a single location, so that it doesn't get lost. For example, the radioactive sources used in radiotherapy units, have been known to go missing due to negligent owners, with truly awful effects to those that discover them without realizing that they are. This short video sums it up pretty well: - The Samut Prakan Radiation Accident https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hxktLtVEH7U https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hxktLtVEH7U - The Goiania Incident https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nhL0xQzPSy8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nhL0xQzPSy8 Once the radioactive material is released from a safe container, the cleanup effort to discover and contain it is immense. And herein lies the problem, it only takes one or two events like this to cause an extreme amount of damage. And its not a problem with the technology, its a problem with human beings. We're forgetful, lazy, and make mistakes. So widespread deployment of many radioactive sources really increases the complexity and cost of keeping track of them.

calyth2018 5y ago
While it's a neat point that you bring up about human nature and misplaced radioactive sources, is a portable nuke reactor something that's comparaable to radiotherapy units? If what they mean is a Small Modular Reactor, they should still be about 40 m^3, and a bit less likely to be left behind.
- BitwiseFool 5y ago
  And because of those incidents, there are new regulations and safeguards in-place to help avoid such events in the future.
  - dividedbyzero 5y ago
    But it'll be hard to limit these things to just a few that can be secured really well. There will be lots of potential for an energy source like this in remote or underdeveloped regions, and once you pepper the globe with reactors, good luck having everyone adhere to regulations, and not try too hard to circumvent those safeguards.

otikik 5y ago

> Another is what is referred to as the “strategic support area,’” which provides power for equipment that is mission essential, such as radar systems. Or drones.

ableal 5y ago

The Pentagon’s Strategic Capabilities Office selected two teams in March to continue their work developing transportable nuclear microreactor prototypes as part of “Project Pele.” Probably the name is about https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pele_(deity) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pele_(deity) - "the goddess of volcanoes and fire and the creator of the Hawaiian Islands"

tomjen3 5y ago

Now put those in a car and I will be interested in an electronic vehicle. 23 million miles on a charge and at night you can use it to power your house.

caddywompus 5y ago
I both love and hate this idea

mothsonasloth 5y ago

On a tangent but here is a nice introductory piece for Soviet Union RTG (Radioisotope Thermolectric Generator) https://www.bbc.com/reel/video/p0931jtk/the-nuclear-lighthouses-built-by-the-soviets-in-the-arctic https://www.bbc.com/reel/video/p0931jtk/the-nuclear-lighthou... The Soviet union built these transportable units for unmanned lighthouses

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

worik 5y ago

Nuclear power is kicking down the road, for literally thousands of generations, the consequences of our current consumption. How can anybody justify that?

ttul 5y ago
That’s a pretty simplistic cost analysis. All forms of energy production have externalities that affect future generations. For example, carbon based energy generation causes mass extinction of species. The reduction in species diversity will affect humans for thousands of generations.

LB232323 5y ago

The problem here in this discussion is looking at yourselves and your corporations as solutions to the world's problems. Same goes with the recent ESG investment trend. A corporation exists to make a profit, period. Suggesting otherwise is just emotional manipulation, albeit very profitable manipulation. The corporation causes all these problems, and it does it for profit. The phrase "business ethics" makes zero sense, but it serves a PR purpose. Even the term "national defense" in this magazine is doublespeak for imperialism, looting and pillaging other nations for profit. I have no interest in the neoliberal fantasy world of corporations solving our problems, because I am a pragmatist. Yet people continue to send billions into ESG companies to ease their guilt, while these companies actually profit from and exacerbate the very issues they promise to solve.

merpnderp 5y ago
You realize when you say the word "corporation", you mean "people". Like a group of people coordinating together for a common cause. As much as people might confuse a specific Supreme Court ruling, corporations are not actually sentient entities, but just a group of human beings like any others. And I have no interest in this neoreactionary fantasy that governments are less corrupt than corporations. The data is overwhelming that free markets are less corrupt, less polluting, and less harmful.
- jhgb 5y ago
  > As much as people might confuse a specific Supreme Court ruling, corporations are not actually sentient entities, but just a group of human beings like any others. What? Corporations as non-human legal entities was actually a monumental legal invention in medieval Europe.
fnordprefect 5y ago
> A corporation exists to make a profit, period. Suggesting otherwise is just emotional manipulation, albeit very profitable manipulation. This is wrong. A corporation is just an artificial person. Like a person, it can seek a profit or not - eg charitable not-for-profits. There is no legal obligation either way.

grillvogel 5y ago

a weapon to surpass metal gear

wolverine876 5y ago

Necessary context is the military's unique needs and the vastly changed nature of warfare, which by themselves account for the value of portable reactors to the military. ------------ In military history, a cliche is that 'amateurs talk tactics, experts talk logistics'. Logistics - boring old logistics - is arguably the most critical factor for winning wars. Napoleon was a master of logistics. Think of 100,000 people in the field (which isn't a lot): Multiply that by around 2 lbs of food per day: 200,000 pounds of food must be distributed daily. Think of parts for repairs, ammunition, medicine. Think of how much battery power they need, for example, just for night vision, handheld computers, etc etc - how much fuel is required, daily? Think then of their equipment, which consume enormous resources - how much fuel does one 70 ton tank need? A combat helicopter? With modern technology, electricity demand has exploded. But delivering it isn't so easy. Unlike civilian uses, the location isn't chosen based on cost-effectiveness of supplies and access to infrastructure. And much more challenging, often there aren't centuries of infrastructure built, as with a city, and the infrastructure you use sometimes is destroyed. ------------ Also, the nature of warfare has changed dramatically recently. We're accustomed to war against low-tech guerilla fighters, not peers, and to WWII-style warfare (tanks, fighters, bombers, etc.), which will be as useful in the next peer war as mid-19th century warfare was in WWII - it was 75 years ago. The next war will be against a peer who uses sensors and precision munitions (e.g. guided missiles/drones), as the US began doing in the Gulf War. The combination enables you to hit targets accurately at great distances: If you can see the target (e.g. by flying a drone or satellite over it) within range of the missile (up to thousands of miles), you can fly a missile there. It greatly reduces the protection of distance - being far away from the 'front' isn't much protection - and it makes large objects, such as tank formations and bases, into a convenient collection of targets. Among other tactics, the U.S. military is planning to have personnel operate in small, stealthy, highly mobile groups within range of the precision missiles; look up the new plans for the U.S. Marine Corps for example, which has already scrapped all its tanks. The huge generator and supply depots at the major base will be gone. Supplying a large base under precision munitions would be tough - how does the convoy or ship slip through? Supplying lots of dispersed, hidden, small, highly mobile units seems very difficult. ------------ Reducing those supply needs is critical, and if energy - one of the biggest requirements for modern logistics - could be removed from them because the personnel brought a nuclear reactor, then it could greatly reduce costs, reduce death, and increase effectiveness (because they have enough energy to operate). I'm not saying it's worth the risks of having small nuclear reactors spread around a combat zone, but the benefits should be calculated in.

not2b 5y ago

I'd say that the following issue mentioned in the article is the biggest concern, if these things are deployed in combat zones: "Kuperman warns that if soldiers were forced to abandon a reactor under attack, an adversary could potentially come into possession of several hundred pounds of highly radioactive waste."

caddywompus 5y ago
That's a really good point. Something like that could be used to make a "dirty bomb" which aims to disperse material, rather than try to make it react as in a typical nuclear warhead

anfilt 5y ago

How are the concerns any different than for a nuclear powered sub, carrier or other ship. The also could be attacked causing an issue with potential for various radioactive isotopes to leak. However, no controversy there.... I don't really see the need for controversy we already have mobile reactors they just are in ships and subs.

caddywompus 5y ago
In the case of a ship or sub, in the event of both catastrophic failure, or even a material leak, its likely going to end up in the ocean. Water is an excellent radiation shield (though I guess it doesn't matter much, since no one would be around), and even a materials leak gets diluted until its not an immediate risk. RIP ocean microbes though

teslaberry 5y ago

if nuclear magically became 'safe' it would have no limit in it's utility to mankind. wind power is junk. is doesn't scale. google implicitly acknowledged this with it's google X project for taking windpower 100-200 meters up , using wind kits, to capture 'more' wind. it's not doable because 'more' is 'more destructive'. you cannot bottle hurricanes, let alone the jet stream. wind power is a disgrace. the german's have numerous engineering reports about why the history of windpower and the future of it, are conclusively garbage and won't and cannot scale. you may as well spend every last dollar of wind power funding on solar power. the wind can stop blowing far earlier than the sun will explode. windpower CANNOT scale. nuclear, solar , geothermal CAN . the technology behind wind power is fundamentally limited by wind sweep. that is all. there simply ISNT enough capturable energy in the wind. and thus, the only option is to go higher in the atmosphere well above the surface of the earth. going 'offshore' changes nothing really. you must go well above the surface of the earth. that is simply not feasible. sometimes the biggest gains from discarding your biggest losers.

lamontcg 5y ago

If these proliferate all over the place someone is going to abandon one inside of a rusted out shipping container and its going to start leaching into the environment.