4 ms·

> Those in favor of mobile nuclear power for the battlefield claim it will provide nearly unlimited, low-carbon energy without the need for vulnerable supply co

by crmd 5y ago

> Those in favor of mobile nuclear power for the battlefield claim it will provide nearly unlimited, low-carbon energy without the need for vulnerable supply convoys. Imagine the situation we would be in if the US military had been using nuclear power supplies at (formerly) our bases in Afghanistan. I’m a fan of nuclear power but battlefields are the last place I want to see it.

tda 5y ago
This is what I think the most often overlooked problem inherent to nuclear power in any form: whenever you create a nuclear reactor, you are betting on future people to handle it correctly. And not only during it's operational life of say 20-30 years, but also during the ages or millennia afterwards. This is quite a risky bet, as no one can predict the future. And centuries without war and/or other catastrophic events have been quite rare.
- Aachen 5y ago
  > whenever you create a nuclear reactor, you are betting on future people to handle it correctly The youth these days really isn't so different from the youth thirty years ago
- jbarrs 5y ago
  Reminds me of this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long-time_nuclear_waste_warning_messages https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long-time_nuclear_waste_warnin... Far less than 10,000 years ago, humans likely would've written similar messages on things of importance to deter thieves, and we just ignore them now as curses. How does one warn people of the future about genuinely hazardous, long-lasting materials without relying on language (which will certainly change on that time scale) and without the future generation dismissing it as bullshit curses?
542354234235 5y ago
To be fair, the things the Taliban seized were from the “Afghan government” that we had given them. I don’t think there would have been any mobile reactors left for the same reason there weren’t any stealth aircraft.

by crmd 5y ago

tda 5y ago

This is what I think the most often overlooked problem inherent to nuclear power in any form: whenever you create a nuclear reactor, you are betting on future people to handle it correctly. And not only during it's operational life of say 20-30 years, but also during the ages or millennia afterwards. This is quite a risky bet, as no one can predict the future. And centuries without war and/or other catastrophic events have been quite rare.

Aachen 5y ago
> whenever you create a nuclear reactor, you are betting on future people to handle it correctly The youth these days really isn't so different from the youth thirty years ago
jbarrs 5y ago
Reminds me of this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long-time_nuclear_waste_warning_messages https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long-time_nuclear_waste_warnin... Far less than 10,000 years ago, humans likely would've written similar messages on things of importance to deter thieves, and we just ignore them now as curses. How does one warn people of the future about genuinely hazardous, long-lasting materials without relying on language (which will certainly change on that time scale) and without the future generation dismissing it as bullshit curses?

542354234235 5y ago

To be fair, the things the Taliban seized were from the “Afghan government” that we had given them. I don’t think there would have been any mobile reactors left for the same reason there weren’t any stealth aircraft.