4 ms·
> $400/gallon (~$100/liter) That wasn't because fuel (or shipping) is inherently expensive. Some contractors just made a ton of money. Fuel in Iraq close by is
by m0zg 5y ago
> $400/gallon (~$100/liter)
That wasn't because fuel (or shipping) is inherently expensive. Some contractors just made a ton of money. Fuel in Iraq close by is like 50 cents a five gallon bucket.
Wait till you see how much it costs to deliver a reactor there, and especially remove it from there (not something you can leave to the Taliban, like helicopters and Humvees).
- rewq4321 5y agoYeah, overly expensive contractors must have been part of the story for a price like that. That said, I'd much rather military money be spent on new/interesting technologies like mobile nuclear reactors than on old stuff that isn't going anywhere.
- anovikov 5y agoThese costs were due to air refueling. And then delivering fuel by helicopter. Applied to really far away mountain areas with no road access at all.
- KronisLV 5y agoWhy, though? Concerns about the quality of the locally available fuel? Concerns about the supply of the locally available fuel? Or just some monetarily aligned motivations?
- elmomle 5y agoI have to assume security issues with shipping large quantities of fuel to bases by ground had something to do with it, though presumably the adopted solution was an extravagantly wasteful one driven by a culture of budgetary excess.
- masklinn 5y agoI imagine both quantity and quality (including the risk of wilful adulteration) were issues. The first one would be compounded by fuel economy rarely being high on the list of concerns for military procurement.
- pjc50 5y agoProbably the quantity of the locally available fuel. Not to mention that many of the locals were buying their fuel from Iran. https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2021/8/24/iran-resumes-a-crucial-lifeline-to-afghanistan-fuel https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2021/8/24/iran-resumes-a-cruc... But the corruption involved was just staggering, in all directions. Here's a Kyrgyz guy misappropriating Russian jet fuel and selling it to the US in 2010: https://foreignpolicy.com/2010/12/21/did-an-american-contractor-get-kyrgyzstans-president-kicked-out-of-office/ https://foreignpolicy.com/2010/12/21/did-an-american-contrac... / https://www.justsecurity.org/2726/the-juice-worth-squeeze-kyrgyzstan-fuel-contracts/ https://www.justsecurity.org/2726/the-juice-worth-squeeze-ky... But of course even the locals couldn't buy fuel without protection money being paid to the Taliban, so that's what the US ended up doing: https://www.cnbc.com/2021/09/10/9/11-millionaires-and-corruption-how-us-money-helped-break-afghanistan.html https://www.cnbc.com/2021/09/10/9/11-millionaires-and-corrup... > According to a Pentagon analysis, 40% of the $108 billion that the Defense Department paid to contractors in Afghanistan between 2010 and 2012 ended up in the hands of either the Taliban, the violent Islamist Haqqani terror network, organized crime rings, transnational drug traffickers or corrupt Afghan officials.
- hef19898 5y agoBesides costs, having forward operating bases with nuclear power plants also makes battery-powered fighting vehicles (or plug-in hybrids) feasible. I can see a whole lot of advatages for those.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- smileysteve 5y agoWhile the article says that these are enriched uranium models; leaving a molten salt (thorium) reactor is much more practical. Add in the concept that micro power plants would really boost local infrastructure and you spread freedom through capitalism.