3 ms·

The US Navy made a nuclear reactor to power an Antarctic base and it was so expensive and failure prone they went back to diesel. https://theconversation.com/r

The US Navy made a nuclear reactor to power an Antarctic base and it was so expensive and failure prone they went back to diesel. https://theconversation.com/remembering-antarcticas-nuclear-past-with-nukey-poo-99934 https://theconversation.com/remembering-antarcticas-nuclear-...

loeg 4y ago
(1961)
- jodrellblank 4y ago
  If you're marking the date implying the technology has improved since then, I'm going to need some convincing. List of cancelled nuclear reators in the US on Wikipedia[1] says "By the end of the 1970s it became clear that nuclear power would not grow nearly as dramatically as once believed. [...] Eventually, more than 120 reactor orders were ultimately cancelled and the construction of new reactors ground to a halt." "Of the 253 nuclear power reactors originally ordered in the United States from 1953 to 2008, 48 percent were cancelled, 11 percent were prematurely shut down, 14 percent experienced at least a one-year-or-more outage, and 27 percent are operating without having a year-plus outage. Thus, only about one fourth of those ordered, or about half of those completed, are still operating and have proved relatively reliable" "As many as 30 new reactors were planned by 2009. As of February 2021, only two new reactors are still under construction, both at Vogtle. The project has announced significant delays and budget overruns. Most of the other new builds and the equally extensive list of upgrades to existing reactors have been shelved" And the story is similar in the UK. (NB. that's not saying "one outage in a year" it's saying "an outage lasting at least a year".) Nuclear power has not had the 70 years of intense funding, competition, year on year improvement that computing has had. There's fewer nuclear plants now in the UK and USA than there were in the heyday. Yes civilian nuclear tech and military tech will have improved somewhat, but the idea that we just wait 70 years of not running nuclear reactors in remote hostile places and now suddenly we'll be much better at it doesn't sound very plausible. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cancelled_nuclear_reactors_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cancelled_nuclear_reac...
  - loeg 4y ago
    It's an early reactor, sited poorly, with relatively weird operating constraints due to international agreements about the south pole. I agree the moon shares a lot of the same problems. I don't think shipping in diesel is viable for the moon, though, which sort of changes what is cost effective.
throwaway4aday 4y ago
This is a funny attempted dunk on US Navy nuclear considering they operate a fleet of nuclear powered submarines and warships.
- GordonS 4y ago
  The benefit of nuclear powered ships/submarines is that they can operate for a very long time without refueling - despite being extremely expensive, that can be a tradeoff the planners are willing to make.
  - panick21_ 4y ago
    I think the Navy has actually shown that nuclear for those ships is cost competitive. Refueling a large ship for decades is expensive.
- lostlogin 4y ago
  Are you sure it wasn’t a navy reactor? The VA says it was operated by the navy. It sounds like the Antarctic design deserves some ridicule. https://www.publichealth.va.gov/exposures/radiation/sources/mcmurdo-antarctica.asp https://www.publichealth.va.gov/exposures/radiation/sources/... Edit: A history of the plant: http://large.stanford.edu/courses/2014/ph241/reid2/ http://large.stanford.edu/courses/2014/ph241/reid2/ It was an army plant, the reactor is listed here: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Army_Nuclear_Power_Program https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Army_Nuclear_Power_Program
  - throwaway4aday 4y ago
    In that case the original commenter was wrong calling it a Navy reactor.
    - jodrellblank 4y ago
      My comment link has a link to[1]: which is the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists saying "The Navy shuts down and dismantles a nuclear reactor in Antarctica", "Sometime soon the US Navy will have to find some place to quietly dispose of [...] by-product of 10 years of operating a small military power reactor in Antarctica", "The Navy considered nuclear power particularly suitable for the inland bases, where oil fuel was being flown in over such long distances[...]", "all the electricity for the 1,000 men stationed at the Navy's McMurdo Sound". McMurdo station[2] "built by the US Navy Seabees". Army Nuclear Power Program on Wikipedia[3] "PM-3A: 1.75 MW electric, plus heating and desalinization. McMurdo Station, Antarctica. Owned by the Navy." [1] https://books.google.se/books?id=wwoAAAAAMBAJ&lpg=PA32&ots=VkjNgAvyhE&dq=PM-3A+Nukey+Poo&pg=PA32&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false https://books.google.se/books?id=wwoAAAAAMBAJ&lpg=PA32&ots=V... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McMurdo_Station https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McMurdo_Station [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Army_Nuclear_Power_Program https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Army_Nuclear_Power_Program

loeg 4y ago

(1961)

jodrellblank 4y ago
If you're marking the date implying the technology has improved since then, I'm going to need some convincing. List of cancelled nuclear reators in the US on Wikipedia[1] says "By the end of the 1970s it became clear that nuclear power would not grow nearly as dramatically as once believed. [...] Eventually, more than 120 reactor orders were ultimately cancelled and the construction of new reactors ground to a halt." "Of the 253 nuclear power reactors originally ordered in the United States from 1953 to 2008, 48 percent were cancelled, 11 percent were prematurely shut down, 14 percent experienced at least a one-year-or-more outage, and 27 percent are operating without having a year-plus outage. Thus, only about one fourth of those ordered, or about half of those completed, are still operating and have proved relatively reliable" "As many as 30 new reactors were planned by 2009. As of February 2021, only two new reactors are still under construction, both at Vogtle. The project has announced significant delays and budget overruns. Most of the other new builds and the equally extensive list of upgrades to existing reactors have been shelved" And the story is similar in the UK. (NB. that's not saying "one outage in a year" it's saying "an outage lasting at least a year".) Nuclear power has not had the 70 years of intense funding, competition, year on year improvement that computing has had. There's fewer nuclear plants now in the UK and USA than there were in the heyday. Yes civilian nuclear tech and military tech will have improved somewhat, but the idea that we just wait 70 years of not running nuclear reactors in remote hostile places and now suddenly we'll be much better at it doesn't sound very plausible. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cancelled_nuclear_reactors_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cancelled_nuclear_reac...
- loeg 4y ago
  It's an early reactor, sited poorly, with relatively weird operating constraints due to international agreements about the south pole. I agree the moon shares a lot of the same problems. I don't think shipping in diesel is viable for the moon, though, which sort of changes what is cost effective.

throwaway4aday 4y ago

This is a funny attempted dunk on US Navy nuclear considering they operate a fleet of nuclear powered submarines and warships.

GordonS 4y ago
The benefit of nuclear powered ships/submarines is that they can operate for a very long time without refueling - despite being extremely expensive, that can be a tradeoff the planners are willing to make.
- panick21_ 4y ago
  I think the Navy has actually shown that nuclear for those ships is cost competitive. Refueling a large ship for decades is expensive.
lostlogin 4y ago
Are you sure it wasn’t a navy reactor? The VA says it was operated by the navy. It sounds like the Antarctic design deserves some ridicule. https://www.publichealth.va.gov/exposures/radiation/sources/mcmurdo-antarctica.asp https://www.publichealth.va.gov/exposures/radiation/sources/... Edit: A history of the plant: http://large.stanford.edu/courses/2014/ph241/reid2/ http://large.stanford.edu/courses/2014/ph241/reid2/ It was an army plant, the reactor is listed here: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Army_Nuclear_Power_Program https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Army_Nuclear_Power_Program
- throwaway4aday 4y ago
  In that case the original commenter was wrong calling it a Navy reactor.
  - jodrellblank 4y ago
    My comment link has a link to[1]: which is the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists saying "The Navy shuts down and dismantles a nuclear reactor in Antarctica", "Sometime soon the US Navy will have to find some place to quietly dispose of [...] by-product of 10 years of operating a small military power reactor in Antarctica", "The Navy considered nuclear power particularly suitable for the inland bases, where oil fuel was being flown in over such long distances[...]", "all the electricity for the 1,000 men stationed at the Navy's McMurdo Sound". McMurdo station[2] "built by the US Navy Seabees". Army Nuclear Power Program on Wikipedia[3] "PM-3A: 1.75 MW electric, plus heating and desalinization. McMurdo Station, Antarctica. Owned by the Navy." [1] https://books.google.se/books?id=wwoAAAAAMBAJ&lpg=PA32&ots=VkjNgAvyhE&dq=PM-3A+Nukey+Poo&pg=PA32&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false https://books.google.se/books?id=wwoAAAAAMBAJ&lpg=PA32&ots=V... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McMurdo_Station https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McMurdo_Station [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Army_Nuclear_Power_Program https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Army_Nuclear_Power_Program