13 ms·
U.S. Air Force selects fast microreactor for nuclear power pilot
- RcouF1uZ4gsC 3y ago> Initiated in response to a Fiscal Year 2019 National Defense Authorization Act requirement, DAF’s Micro-Reactor Pilot Program seeks to build and operate at least one licensed microreactor by Dec. 31, 2027, that will deliver power and steam to a defense base under a long-term power purchase agreement (PPA). For those of you like me who got excited about the prospect of nuclear powered aircraft, the reactor is to power a base.
- dylan604 3y agoFor 24/7/365/30 constant airborne capabilities? Seems overkill to say the least. Also, not sure too many people would be happy with a nuclear reactor flying overhead.
- hangonhn 3y agoFunnily enough, molten salt reactor were developed for this specific purpose: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aircraft_Reactor_Experiment https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aircraft_Reactor_Experiment
- ceejayoz 3y agoWith some very scary designs. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Pluto https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Pluto
- dmoy 3y ago> deliver them with greater accuracy than was possible with intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBMs) at the time and, unlike them, could be recalled. hold up, what Launch the nukes, abort the launch, and then have the nukes... fly back to base, and land safely without exploding. Right I get that there's fail-safes for the warheads, but that seems definitely scary, I agree
- krisoft 3y agoNo, I'm afraid you are mistaken what is scary about these. People have "launch the nuke, abort the nuke, fly back to base and land safely without exploding" already. That is called a nuclear armed bomber. The scary thing about these is that their propulsion is a nuclear reactor. You know how in a jet engine the air is heated up by burning fuel? Here the air is heated up by comming into contact with the reactor. They exhaust fission products while they fly. To quote from the page: "The other major problem with the SLAM concept was the environmental damage caused by radioactive emissions during flight, and the disposal of the reactor at the end of the mission. Merkle estimated that about 100 grams of fission products would be produced, which would be dispersed over a wide area." This thing is by design, when nothing goes wrong leaves a contrail of radioactive contamination behind it. And when things go wrong it leaves even more contamination. And the funny thing is, the Russians are still experimenting with this tech: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9M730_Burevestnik https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9M730_Burevestnik And predictably as they were trying to scope their test wreckage from the sea floor they managed to have a radiation incident with it in 2019: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nyonoksa_radiation_accident https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nyonoksa_radiation_accident (As you can read the exact circumstances are disputed, but I believe this is the most likely explanation of what we have seen.)
- dotnet00 3y agoThe SLAM missile it was designed for was scarier than just that. It was to be able to fly supersonic close to the ground for months at end and could be modified to bleed radioactivity into the exhaust. So not only would it nuke several cities, it would then deafen, kill and/or radiation poison with its flyovers.
- cwp 3y agoAlso, potentially bad outcomes if a nuclear aircraft is shot down.
- morugam 3y ago[dead]
- S201 3y ago> For 24/7/365/30 constant airborne capabilities? I'm not saying it's necessary (or even a good idea, see the "accidents" section in the linked to article), but it also wouldn't be the first time: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Chrome_Dome https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Chrome_Dome
- AnthonyMouse 3y ago> For 24/7/365/30 constant airborne capabilities? Probably for the ability to replace fossil fuels in an application where batteries don't have enough energy density. > Also, not sure too many people would be happy with a nuclear reactor flying overhead. Better not tell them the kinds of things in the cargo holds of existing planes.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- mr337 3y agoYou may find this interesting: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kR5gefU87TY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kR5gefU87TY (t 6:12). Sadly it didn't pan out.
- abeppu 3y agoThey used the word 'pilot' in an ambiguous way, in the context of the Airforce, and then the first photo on the page is of an aircraft in flight. I think the editors _wanted_ you to momentarily think this was going to be an airborne reactor.
- brucethemoose2 3y agoYou might be interested in: https://projectrho.com/public_html/rocket/enginelist.php#cord https://projectrho.com/public_html/rocket/enginelist.php#cor... Or, just using reactors in a more straightforward way: https://projectrho.com/public_html/rocket/enginelist2.php#fissionfragment https://projectrho.com/public_html/rocket/enginelist2.php#fi...
- skywal_l 3y agoAlthough I am an advocate for nuclear power, I am a little worried about small reactors, which will inevitably warrant less attention and care. The smaller they are, there more there are, the more there is a risk of mistakes and dissemination to bad actors I think.
- remarkEon 3y ago>which will inevitably warrant less attention and care. Can you explain why this would be the case? I suppose you might need less manpower to run the reactor, which might mean fewer total man hours. But does that necessarily mean it gets less attention and care?
- discodave 3y agoPresumably part of the appeal of a small reactor is it's cost. If you're trying to do things on a budget, then there's smaller budget for safety.
- nohankyou 3y agoA large amount of small reactors would most likely need to be remotely managed. Think of it as a very large IoT toaster just begging to be played with.
- ElFitz 3y agoConsidering the state of IoT (eg IoT botnets), I am not sure this will be reassuring to most. Unless it was sarcasm?
- waldothedog 3y agoI believe the comment was intended to emphasize the issues created by mass scale remote mgmt
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- jauntywundrkind 3y agoVery excited to see some modern fast reactors happening! Nuclear waste leaves me with such reservations, these fuel cycles where we use a % or two of the energy, create a bunch of tranuranic waste, and then deal with stuff for thousands of years. Fasr reactors seem uneconomic, like something industry & capitalism would never ever do. The negative impact of everything else is so easy to externalize. The risk of doing anything new or well is so low. It's enormously sad to find that military and military alone has the capacity to try new things, to invest better in the future. But here, I'll take it.
- AnthonyMouse 3y agoNuclear is uneconomical because politics wants it to be. Leading up to the 1980s, nuclear was poised to replace basically the whole power grid. "Too cheap to meter" they said. Fossil fuel energy companies and the petroleum exporting countries who had only recently gotten their cartel going were, shall we say, not happy with this. (Also Russians. Literally they got caught funding anti-nuclear "environmental groups"; someone published the documents after they went into Ukraine. Russia is another major petroleum exporter.) So they ran a propaganda campaign centered around Chernobyl to paint the safest known method of power generation as one too dangerous to use, so it would be buried in safety rules the incumbents weren't subject to themselves. (If a nuclear power plant released as much radiation as every coal-fired one does, it would be shut down.) And now they say "well, it would be nice, but we can't use it because it costs too much."
- kibwen 3y agoI'm frustrated by this argument. Yes, nuclear power gets unfairly maligned across several axes. Yes, fossil fuel is even more of a disaster. But what we have now is a situation where nuclear power has all of its negative externalities properly priced in, whereas fossil fuel doesn't, and yet we have people arguing to remove the forces that properly price in the externalities of nuclear rather than doing the right thing, which is properly pricing in the externalities of fossil fuels. This is counterproductive. Look around at our modern world and see everything enshittifying around us in the relentless pursuit of profit; now imagine that applied to nuclear power. What a nightmare.
- beefman 3y agoThe vendor, Oklo, was in the YC S14 batch and plans to go public in the next quarter or two https://www.reuters.com/article/oklo-m-a-altc-acquisition/nuclear-startup-oklo-to-go-public-in-us-via-sam-altmans-spac-idUSKBN2YR0ZO https://www.reuters.com/article/oklo-m-a-altc-acquisition/nu...
- adolph 3y agoOklo, what a clever name. Oklo is a region near the town of Franceville, in the Haut-Ogooué province of the Central African country of Gabon. Several natural nuclear fission reactors were discovered in the uranium mines in the region in 1972. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oklo https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oklo
- Gwypaas 3y agoThrough a SPAC after their application to license their design was denied by the NRC, and the responses seem very immature. Does not inspire confidence. https://www.utilitydive.com/news/nrc-denies-oklo-powers-plan-to-construct-15-mw-advanced-nuclear-reactor-i/616807/ https://www.utilitydive.com/news/nrc-denies-oklo-powers-plan...
- dmix 3y agoLooks like the base in right next to Fairbanks, Alaska https://goo.gl/maps/3HBnJAtu5HnqXyyy9 https://goo.gl/maps/3HBnJAtu5HnqXyyy9 That must be a busy place for intercepting Russian aircraft. They've got 54 F-35's flying out of there and a bunch of surveillance crafts (+ apparently plenty of US army doing winter training, with some frequent Canadian visitors): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eielson_Air_Force_Base https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eielson_Air_Force_Base Apparently the base almost closed down following the cold war but then the northern pacific became a hot zone again with Russia and China.
- mike_d 3y agoThe base supports JPARC which is the primary cold weather training area for the entire DoD. They also house a massive refueling operation since tons of military APAC to CONUS flights pass right by Alaska.
- hindsightbias 3y agoAll these little reactors need HALEU fuel… which of course is only made in quantity in Russia. DOE is going to have to spend billions to build infrastructure to support these efforts. Regulating Centrus and figure out how to transport UF6 around.