3 ms·

The US military has been safely running small mobile nuclear reactors for many human generations at this point.

rightbyte 3y ago
Until n=0 goes to 1. As the Concorde. Like, this sudden optimism concerning nuclear power is a bit worrying. Lowest bidder building small plants everywhere. What a nightmare ... I really don't get where all this trust for the competence of others comes from.
- callalex 3y ago
  But it’s not sudden optimism at all, it’s a multi-generational proven record.
  - rightbyte 3y ago
    They work until they don't and threaten to spread invisible poison that can make a x miles radius inhabitable. A "sorry but not sorry you choose to live next to it" event. And now we are supposed to put small ones kinda everywhere where incompetent morons or terrorist can blow them up?
    - nomel 3y ago
      To be fair, current power generation also spreads bad things, that will slowly make large areas of the planet uninhabitable. I don't think it's fair to think so little of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. They have standards. I don't think it's reasonable to assume they will give up their standards of safety.
    - nemo 3y ago
      >And now we are supposed to put small ones kinda everywhere where incompetent morons or terrorist can blow them up? No one's said "we" are "supposed to put small ones kinda everywhere." This one's being installed at a military base. It should have adequate security.
    - Turing_Machine 3y ago
      > They work until they don't and threaten to spread invisible poison that can make a x miles radius inhabitable. The U.S. nuclear power industry has been producing energy for 66 years without a single fatality to a member of the general public. > And now we are supposed to put small ones kinda everywhere where incompetent morons or terrorist can blow them up? I'm pretty sure that a major military base in the middle of the Alaskan Interior has reasonably good security.
    - mbostleman 3y ago
      Hundreds of millions of panels rolled off the line during my 8 year tenure at a solar panel manufacturer. Those panels were spread across globe. We took blood tests to monitor CdTe levels. So I’m assuming the risk of spreading invisible poison by that approach is not zero.
    - PhasmaFelis 3y ago
      IIRC, a typical coal plant working normally emits as much radioactives in 30 years as one Chernobyl event. I'd rather have a plant that might spew poison than one that will definitely spew poison.
ianburrell 3y ago
The Navy spends uses lots of people to run reactors on ships and spends tons of money training them. Small reactors won't be economical if they take that many people to run. Also, naval reactors aren't small. Aircraft carriers have two 250 MW (700 MW thermal) reactors. That is a respectable power plant and much larger than proposed modular reactors.
- adolph 3y ago
  > Small reactors won't be economical if they take that many people to run. What are the numbers? What’s the TCO difference to similar systems without atmospheric carbon emissions?
  - kibwen 3y ago
    The US Navy doesn't use nuclear reactors because of economics (they're quite expensive) or environmental concern. They use nukes because of the operational advantages of having a ship that only needs refueling once per decade. Any comparison to the naval use case is mostly useless when it comes to commercial power production.
    - Alupis 3y ago
      *Once per ~30 years[1], to be pedantic. The reasons are not simply refueling concerns, although that is a factor. The boats still need to refuel the humans onboard, ie. food supplies and occasionally munitions. The reactor powers the boat using less mass than a typical diesel-electric, is more quiet, and can remain underwater for an entire deployment if necessary - something that's simply not possible with other power generation methods. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virginia-class_submarine#:~:text=Specifications,-Lead%20boat%20Virginia&text=Propulsion%3A%20S9G%20nuclear%20reactor%20delivering,fuel%20manufactured%20by%20BWX%20Technologies https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virginia-class_submarine#:~:te....
      - krisoft 3y ago
        > and can remain underwater for an entire deployment if necessary To be absolutely pedantic not all US navy reactors are on submarines. They also power surface ships with them.
crmd 3y ago
This reactor is being run by a private company who will sell the power to the Air Force.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
michael1999 3y ago
The _Navy_ has been safely running reactors. Neither the Air Force, nor Marines have any real experience, and the Army experience was decidedly mixed.

Until n=0 goes to 1. As the Concorde. Like, this sudden optimism concerning nuclear power is a bit worrying. Lowest bidder building small plants everywhere. What a nightmare ... I really don't get where all this trust for the competence of others comes from.

callalex 3y ago
But it’s not sudden optimism at all, it’s a multi-generational proven record.
- rightbyte 3y ago
  They work until they don't and threaten to spread invisible poison that can make a x miles radius inhabitable. A "sorry but not sorry you choose to live next to it" event. And now we are supposed to put small ones kinda everywhere where incompetent morons or terrorist can blow them up?
  - nomel 3y ago
    To be fair, current power generation also spreads bad things, that will slowly make large areas of the planet uninhabitable. I don't think it's fair to think so little of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. They have standards. I don't think it's reasonable to assume they will give up their standards of safety.
  - nemo 3y ago
    >And now we are supposed to put small ones kinda everywhere where incompetent morons or terrorist can blow them up? No one's said "we" are "supposed to put small ones kinda everywhere." This one's being installed at a military base. It should have adequate security.
  - Turing_Machine 3y ago
    > They work until they don't and threaten to spread invisible poison that can make a x miles radius inhabitable. The U.S. nuclear power industry has been producing energy for 66 years without a single fatality to a member of the general public. > And now we are supposed to put small ones kinda everywhere where incompetent morons or terrorist can blow them up? I'm pretty sure that a major military base in the middle of the Alaskan Interior has reasonably good security.
  - mbostleman 3y ago
    Hundreds of millions of panels rolled off the line during my 8 year tenure at a solar panel manufacturer. Those panels were spread across globe. We took blood tests to monitor CdTe levels. So I’m assuming the risk of spreading invisible poison by that approach is not zero.
  - PhasmaFelis 3y ago
    IIRC, a typical coal plant working normally emits as much radioactives in 30 years as one Chernobyl event. I'd rather have a plant that might spew poison than one that will definitely spew poison.

ianburrell 3y ago

The Navy spends uses lots of people to run reactors on ships and spends tons of money training them. Small reactors won't be economical if they take that many people to run. Also, naval reactors aren't small. Aircraft carriers have two 250 MW (700 MW thermal) reactors. That is a respectable power plant and much larger than proposed modular reactors.

adolph 3y ago
> Small reactors won't be economical if they take that many people to run. What are the numbers? What’s the TCO difference to similar systems without atmospheric carbon emissions?
- kibwen 3y ago
  The US Navy doesn't use nuclear reactors because of economics (they're quite expensive) or environmental concern. They use nukes because of the operational advantages of having a ship that only needs refueling once per decade. Any comparison to the naval use case is mostly useless when it comes to commercial power production.
  - Alupis 3y ago
    *Once per ~30 years[1], to be pedantic. The reasons are not simply refueling concerns, although that is a factor. The boats still need to refuel the humans onboard, ie. food supplies and occasionally munitions. The reactor powers the boat using less mass than a typical diesel-electric, is more quiet, and can remain underwater for an entire deployment if necessary - something that's simply not possible with other power generation methods. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virginia-class_submarine#:~:text=Specifications,-Lead%20boat%20Virginia&text=Propulsion%3A%20S9G%20nuclear%20reactor%20delivering,fuel%20manufactured%20by%20BWX%20Technologies https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virginia-class_submarine#:~:te....
    - krisoft 3y ago
      > and can remain underwater for an entire deployment if necessary To be absolutely pedantic not all US navy reactors are on submarines. They also power surface ships with them.

crmd 3y ago

This reactor is being run by a private company who will sell the power to the Air Force.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

michael1999 3y ago

The _Navy_ has been safely running reactors. Neither the Air Force, nor Marines have any real experience, and the Army experience was decidedly mixed.