Posted on 07/30/2009 3:14:54 AM PDT by Halfmanhalfamazing
According to a report in The Macon Telegraph, Rep. Jim Marshall is trying to get nuclear plants built on military installations. Contained within the 650-page House Defense Authorization bill for 2010 is a line item by Rep Jim Marshall that could bring a host of national security and energy issues to the forefront. The proposal would commission a study, due from the Pentagon by June of 2010, to look at “the feasibility of developing nuclear power plants on military installations.”
The bill recently gor approval from the U.S. House of Representatives, while the Senate debates its own authorization bill this week.
While Marshall cautioned that “we’re simply studying the possibility of using military bases,” his proposal is a response to the military’s desire to make its installations energy independent from public power grids.
“It’s important to the military that they have clean, efficient, secure energy,” Marshall said. “And then the nice thing about military installations is that they can help address one of the concerns about nuclear energy, and that is security.”
Marshall, whose Georgia district encompasses Robins Air Force Base, is certainly aware of the political controversey that comes with any proposal that could build a nuclear power plant in his district.
“I know there’s controversy associated with nuclear power,” Marshall said. “I’m prepared to tackle the controversy if need be.”
As Marshall is quick to point out, the U.S. Navy operates many of its vessels, including submarines and aircraft carriers, using nuclear power.
It’s easy for the Navy, they don’t have to cut down trees to survey a plot plan.
(I hate to be negative but...)
Remember the thoughts of using abandoned (or underused) mil bases for same?
Great Falls MT (Mealstrom AFB) had a proposal to erect a coal to fuel plant (mil use only).
Denied. (and MT has one of the largest coal reserves in US)
And then there is the problem of putting in new transmission lines...!
Anyway, I hope it goes through.
Marshall is a blue dog Dem.
It’s too good of a common sense idea to pass the Congress.
Wasn’t the bush proposal different?
In other words, Bush proposed using old unused bases as a grounds where to build a plant in it’s place?(what was a military base is now a power plant; demolitions)
This proposal seems to make military bases energy independent. In other words, if your power goes out, the military base’s power does not because they have their own nuclear reactor to rely on.
Perhaps I’m reading something wrong here.
You’re probably right. It makes sense.
There’s no reason to get excited. It’s a call for a study. However, there is something else going on in the Nuke business that is worth getting excited over. Small nukes.
I agree with this, as I think all Countries should be seriously considering energy security, and having secure plants is a good idea, as energy will be the future gold with decreasing oil supplies from Eastern Countries.
I wonder if any Indian reservations would like to host a nuke plant??
Shouldn’t nuke plants be a little away from military bases? I mean, all that an enemy would have to do otherwise, is target the plants alone.
what an absolutely stoopid idea
If you’re going to build a reactor, build one large enough for the area, not just a base!
You ever taken a look into how nuclear reactors are built?
They don’t exactly use aluminum foil and plastic straws.
-————If you’re going to build a reactor, build one large enough for the area, not just a base!-————
I think the idea may be to try to get something done that doesn’t attract as much attention from the enviro whacko crowd.
I mean, building huge nuclear reactors is just a non starter. It’s a sad commentary, but it’s true at the moment.
But building small mini nukes that would be big enough for only a military base is actually a very good idea.
Military bases have to use a good deal of power. Taking your average military base off of the civilian grid opens up a lot of excess power to us. Not to mention the military’s probable need for backup power should civilian power sources become unusuable.
It’s also the kind of thing that would serve as a great example for us in the future.
“France uses nuclear, see, nuclear is safe!”
“And so too does the US military, see nuclear is safe!”
Nuclear power would generate hydrogen at essentially NO COST. There is enough fuel already on-hand to last current requirements for 10,000 years. (Weapons included)
Hydrogen Engine
Hydrogen-fueled internal combustion engines (H 2 ICEs) are a potential near-term option and bridge to hydrogen fuel cell vehicles. H 2 ICEs with near-zero emissions and efficiencies ...
www.ca.sandia.gov/crf/research/combustionEngines/PFI.php
It might help the NUKE arguement if a few pictures of Carriers and Subs, that have safely used nuke power for 30 years, where shown on TV and a question put to the American people - “if these are safe and they KEEP THE WORLD SAFE- why can’t we use them and build them for our homes and businesses?” One picture is worth 1000 words Not enough visuals in the conservative arguements.
-—————One picture is worth 1000 words Not enough visuals in the conservative arguements.—————
Yeah, we definately need to work harder at defeating the liberal media.
Seems like on every single topic, they are there putting thorns in your side.
hold up a picture of the calif windmill farms that are ugly beyond belief and a gas well with a small fence and ask the question which produces the most energy? Tell people that liberals write bad laws and they make a mess of the environment. If MTBE was so valuable why did so many people get sick? If ethanol is so good why are prices rising?
Poor history on that. The Army is still cleaning up at the nuke plant they built at Ft Greely AK.
some sites here
http://www.akaction.net/pages/critical/ftgreely.html
Excerpt -
Designed to produce 1.5 megawatts of electricity and 45 million BTUs of heating steam per hour, the Army’s SM-(stationary, “medium” power) 1A nuclear reactor operated from 1962-1971. When the reactor was decommissioned, approximately 48,304 curies of radiation were left encased within the reactor.
Although the Army said that the entombment structure was designed to last for 150 years, major structural damage had already developed by 1990 in the form of a 3.14 inch crack along the south side of an inner wall and numerous cracks along the east wall.
And here
http://arcticcircle.uconn.edu/SEEJ/NMD/alaska/greely/introduction.htm
and again, here is the take from the CDC
http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/hac/PHA/greely/gre_p3.html
Many of the (negative) sites covering the reactor are based on a single PhD paper, so do be careful and check sources.
A good idea must also have good technology and solid construction to truly be a ‘good idea’.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.