3 ms·

Interestingly, Americans have a living President with hands-on experience demolishing a destroyed nuclear reactor. Jimmy Carter helped dismantle a Canadian reac

by mpyne 13y ago

Interestingly, Americans have a living President with hands-on experience demolishing a destroyed nuclear reactor. Jimmy Carter helped dismantle a Canadian reactor at Chalk River during his time as a Navy nuclear submariner.

dredmorbius 13y ago
Interestingly, his former boss, US Navy Rear Admiral Hyman Rickover, who pretty much created nuclear power as a thing, expressed severe regrets and reservations at having relied on nuclear power for the navy and in its use for civilian power generation: "I do not believe that nuclear power is worth it if it creates radiation. Then you might ask me why do I have nuclear powered ships. That is a necessary evil. I would sink them all. I am not proud of the part I played in it. I did it because it was necessary for the safety of this country. That's why I am such a great exponent of stopping this whole nonsense of war. Unfortunately limits — attempts to limit war have always failed. The lesson of history is when a war starts every nation will ultimately use whatever weapon it has available.... Every time you produce radiation, you produce something that has a certain half-life, in some cases for billions of years. I think the human race is going to wreck itself, and it is important that we get control of this horrible force and try to eliminate it." Economics of Defense Policy: Hearing before the Joint Economic Committee, Congress of the United States, 97th Cong., 2nd sess., Pt. 1 (1982), via Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyman_G._Rickover#Willingness_to_.22sink_them_all.22 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyman_G._Rickover#Willingness_...
- mpyne 13y ago
  Yes, those most familiar with war are usually the ones most interested in stopping it. Only the sociopaths in the military go to war hoping for there to be another one they can participate in. And so Adm. Rickover's message: 'I couldn't stop war – what I could do is make it less destructive to us, so I did, grudgingly.' So it is with civilian power. Nuclear power proponents don't say that nuclear should be used at the exclusion of all other sources of power. They say it should be used to the exclusion of worse sources of power. You could paraphrase Rickover's entire excerpt here for coal, and oil, and even gas generation; all of which produce horrible things that will wreck the human race (via climate change). On that beautiful day when it's actually achievable to power the whole world by renewable energy and energy storage that doesn't involve widespread chemical waste and destruction of entire areas then you'll find nuclear power advocates telling Congress to "sink them all" too. In the meantime, we generate electrical power with the means we have available, not the means we thought we'd have, or wished we'd have.
  - dredmorbius 13y ago
    climate change In fairness to Rickover, though atmospheric greenhouse warming from human CO2 emissions was known in his time (the first published account of it I'm aware of came from the US Naval Research Lab in 1932, the tie between CO2 and greenhouse effects goes back further), I'm not aware of it being a significant general concern until the mid 1980s or so. Then again, Rickover was well aware of peak oil in the 1950s and could very well have been aware of the greenhouse gas / global warming issue, though I can't find any evidence of this. Some prefer to describe the situation concerning energy and sustainability not as a "problem" (to which there is a solution), but a "predicament", to which there is an outcome, though not one which returns the system to the status quo ante.
    - mpyne 13y ago
      > Some prefer to describe the situation concerning energy and sustainability not as a "problem" (to which there is a solution), but a "predicament", to which there is an outcome, though not one which returns the system to the status quo ante. Well you could probably count me in that camp. There's no perfect answer (though the various forms of solar are pretty close at least as far as energy generation goes). Instead there's a suite of options to get us to "least bad".
      - dredmorbius 13y ago
        There's a sizable contingent which feels that high-tech (e.g., electric generating) solar, wind, etc., aren't generally viable. I suspect that long-term, the amount of energy available via renewables will likely be a minority fraction of what's presently consumed in the US, on either a per-capita or absolute level. Which suggests a future in which we're looking at, say, 25 quads (1 billion joules / 300 TWh) or less total annual energy. What that suggests in terms of energy-based services and goods available becomes an interesting exercise.
- einhverfr 13y ago
  I think you have to understand nuclear powered ships in the context of WWII history. The critical loss for the Japanese navy was at Leyte Gulf, which was the largest naval battle in the Pacific during the war (and possibly the largest naval battle in history). The significance of the battle was that the Americans secured Phillipine Sea against Japanese shipping and this cut the Japanese off from the oil fields in Indonesia in terms of transporting oil back home. it was only after Leyte Gulf that organized kamikaze attacks began, and the Navy was largely put out of the war by that battle. What that means is that Japan lost WWII when they lost access to oil. So the issue with naval ships is diesel or nuclear. About 1/3 of the US navy is nuclear-powered. The rest runs on diesel. Thats enough our navy (but not our air force, army etc) can continue to run if oil is not available for a time. Our military is still very dependent on oil but not like the Japanese were.
  - dredmorbius 13y ago
    I'm well aware of this history, as well as the earlier transitions of the US fleet from wind to coal (under Admiral Perry) and the British fleet from coal to oil immediately prior to WWI under Churchill. Naval energy needs have driven several fuel transitions, and there's a considerable amount of interesting work that continues to come from the US and other navies. If you'll read further into Rickover's remarks, he makes clear that he pursued nukes because he felt it was essential to national security. But if there had been an alternative he'd have avoided it. Possibly not even, given the benefit of hindsight. Your 1/3 of the US naval fleet being nuclear powered doesn't jibe with stats I can find. Nuclear propulsion is presently limited to aircraft carriers (10) and submarines (82 total), or 21%. A number of cruiser and destroyer nuclear ships were commissioned but all have been decommissioned to the best of my knowledge. Wikipedia cites a total of 80 nuclear powered ships operated by the US navy, since 1954, and 430 ships presently active, on reserve, or under construction. If you limit your concern to commissioned ships, then you'd have 33% nuclear propulsion. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_current_ships_of_the_United_States_Navy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_current_ships_of_the_U... As for oil: with most effective naval power being projected via aircraft, the reliance on oil remains rather high. Yes, the US would be able to launch nukes or float a flattop off someones shores (given them opportunity for target practice), but if you want to launch aircraft ... somewhere other than into the drink ... you've got to top them off every so often.

by mpyne 13y ago

dredmorbius 13y ago

Interestingly, his former boss, US Navy Rear Admiral Hyman Rickover, who pretty much created nuclear power as a thing, expressed severe regrets and reservations at having relied on nuclear power for the navy and in its use for civilian power generation: "I do not believe that nuclear power is worth it if it creates radiation. Then you might ask me why do I have nuclear powered ships. That is a necessary evil. I would sink them all. I am not proud of the part I played in it. I did it because it was necessary for the safety of this country. That's why I am such a great exponent of stopping this whole nonsense of war. Unfortunately limits — attempts to limit war have always failed. The lesson of history is when a war starts every nation will ultimately use whatever weapon it has available.... Every time you produce radiation, you produce something that has a certain half-life, in some cases for billions of years. I think the human race is going to wreck itself, and it is important that we get control of this horrible force and try to eliminate it." Economics of Defense Policy: Hearing before the Joint Economic Committee, Congress of the United States, 97th Cong., 2nd sess., Pt. 1 (1982), via Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyman_G._Rickover#Willingness_to_.22sink_them_all.22 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyman_G._Rickover#Willingness_...

mpyne 13y ago
Yes, those most familiar with war are usually the ones most interested in stopping it. Only the sociopaths in the military go to war hoping for there to be another one they can participate in. And so Adm. Rickover's message: 'I couldn't stop war – what I could do is make it less destructive to us, so I did, grudgingly.' So it is with civilian power. Nuclear power proponents don't say that nuclear should be used at the exclusion of all other sources of power. They say it should be used to the exclusion of worse sources of power. You could paraphrase Rickover's entire excerpt here for coal, and oil, and even gas generation; all of which produce horrible things that will wreck the human race (via climate change). On that beautiful day when it's actually achievable to power the whole world by renewable energy and energy storage that doesn't involve widespread chemical waste and destruction of entire areas then you'll find nuclear power advocates telling Congress to "sink them all" too. In the meantime, we generate electrical power with the means we have available, not the means we thought we'd have, or wished we'd have.
- dredmorbius 13y ago
  climate change In fairness to Rickover, though atmospheric greenhouse warming from human CO2 emissions was known in his time (the first published account of it I'm aware of came from the US Naval Research Lab in 1932, the tie between CO2 and greenhouse effects goes back further), I'm not aware of it being a significant general concern until the mid 1980s or so. Then again, Rickover was well aware of peak oil in the 1950s and could very well have been aware of the greenhouse gas / global warming issue, though I can't find any evidence of this. Some prefer to describe the situation concerning energy and sustainability not as a "problem" (to which there is a solution), but a "predicament", to which there is an outcome, though not one which returns the system to the status quo ante.
  - mpyne 13y ago
    > Some prefer to describe the situation concerning energy and sustainability not as a "problem" (to which there is a solution), but a "predicament", to which there is an outcome, though not one which returns the system to the status quo ante. Well you could probably count me in that camp. There's no perfect answer (though the various forms of solar are pretty close at least as far as energy generation goes). Instead there's a suite of options to get us to "least bad".
    - dredmorbius 13y ago
      There's a sizable contingent which feels that high-tech (e.g., electric generating) solar, wind, etc., aren't generally viable. I suspect that long-term, the amount of energy available via renewables will likely be a minority fraction of what's presently consumed in the US, on either a per-capita or absolute level. Which suggests a future in which we're looking at, say, 25 quads (1 billion joules / 300 TWh) or less total annual energy. What that suggests in terms of energy-based services and goods available becomes an interesting exercise.
einhverfr 13y ago
I think you have to understand nuclear powered ships in the context of WWII history. The critical loss for the Japanese navy was at Leyte Gulf, which was the largest naval battle in the Pacific during the war (and possibly the largest naval battle in history). The significance of the battle was that the Americans secured Phillipine Sea against Japanese shipping and this cut the Japanese off from the oil fields in Indonesia in terms of transporting oil back home. it was only after Leyte Gulf that organized kamikaze attacks began, and the Navy was largely put out of the war by that battle. What that means is that Japan lost WWII when they lost access to oil. So the issue with naval ships is diesel or nuclear. About 1/3 of the US navy is nuclear-powered. The rest runs on diesel. Thats enough our navy (but not our air force, army etc) can continue to run if oil is not available for a time. Our military is still very dependent on oil but not like the Japanese were.
- dredmorbius 13y ago
  I'm well aware of this history, as well as the earlier transitions of the US fleet from wind to coal (under Admiral Perry) and the British fleet from coal to oil immediately prior to WWI under Churchill. Naval energy needs have driven several fuel transitions, and there's a considerable amount of interesting work that continues to come from the US and other navies. If you'll read further into Rickover's remarks, he makes clear that he pursued nukes because he felt it was essential to national security. But if there had been an alternative he'd have avoided it. Possibly not even, given the benefit of hindsight. Your 1/3 of the US naval fleet being nuclear powered doesn't jibe with stats I can find. Nuclear propulsion is presently limited to aircraft carriers (10) and submarines (82 total), or 21%. A number of cruiser and destroyer nuclear ships were commissioned but all have been decommissioned to the best of my knowledge. Wikipedia cites a total of 80 nuclear powered ships operated by the US navy, since 1954, and 430 ships presently active, on reserve, or under construction. If you limit your concern to commissioned ships, then you'd have 33% nuclear propulsion. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_current_ships_of_the_United_States_Navy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_current_ships_of_the_U... As for oil: with most effective naval power being projected via aircraft, the reliance on oil remains rather high. Yes, the US would be able to launch nukes or float a flattop off someones shores (given them opportunity for target practice), but if you want to launch aircraft ... somewhere other than into the drink ... you've got to top them off every so often.