Posted on 11/19/2024 8:46:07 AM PST by Fish Speaker
President-Elect Donald Trump enacted pro-nuclear policies during his first term and has supported an “all-of-the-above” energy policy during the campaign. At a campaign rally in Michigan on Aug. 29, he stated, “Starting on day one, I will approve new drilling, new pipelines, new refineries, new power plants, new reactors and we will slash the red tape. We will get the job done.”
This is exactly the posture needed to meet energy power demands — especially on the national security front, where the threats to energy infrastructure are all too real. We worked with our colleagues at the Pentagon, the Department of Energy and the White House Office of Management and Budget together during our time in President Trump’s first administration to launch several of these efforts, and his campaign comments are a good sign that they will continue going forward.
The US Air Force, Army, and Navy, as well as other offices in the Department of Defense have been working on deployment of nuclear energy sources to enhance energy resilience for national security missions. And that progress needs to continue, despite pushback from critics of nuclear power who view any nuclear energy project with suspicion, fear or misinformation.
A prime example of this kind of commentary can be found in an Oct. 7 op-ed by Alan J. Kuperman entitled, “On Army bases, nuclear energy can’t add resilience, just costs and risks” published in Breaking Defense. While we are sure Mr. Kuperman and his Nuclear Proliferation Prevention Project (NPPP) intended to be honest brokers, they provided information that alternates between being incorrect and out of date.
(Excerpt) Read more at breakingdefense.com ...
“...and does not want to rely on unreliable renewables...”
Neither should anyone else that’s in their right mind.
Well if it’s good enough for them…..
The last traditional reactors built in the USA were reactors #3 and #4 at the Vogtle plant in Georgia. They began approval in 2006 - and began commissioning in 2022. They came in about $15 billion over budget
There’s NO way the USA can build or obtain more nuclear power through this existing processes. its standard government and regulatory bloat. It won’t work
Besides new companies completely re-thinking designs with SMRs, the biggest obstacle will be Fed.gov itself.
It doesn’t make sense to build a dangerous target like that by a base.
It isn’t “cheap,clean power!” The level of expertise and the capital cost to run a nuclear reactor is high, and the contamination risks so great from a mistake, that I do not support massive expansion of them.
Absolutely; a national security necessity and should be done using the Defense Production Act should be used to speed up the process. Doing it for the military will be a boost to the companies who will carry the ball forward into the civilian industrial sector - like whole industrial parks with their own energy/small moduar modern safe nuclear power system.
“capital cost to run a nuclear reactor”
You are equating capital costs to operating costs. They are different.
Like they have such a good track record......uhm....no. What is good for us is good enough for them.
No, I am not.
The big cost of the reactor is up front. A peak power nat gas plant or large boiler is cheaper up front than nukes. Now, the operating costs are more for the gas plant.
But the big issue is contamination. Not spent fuel, but during rebuild/refuel they have a lot of scrap steel that is supposed to be locked up till “Safe” but some how ends up in the system. Then you have the fact that the lack of good employees means you will have more incidents.
That danger is that it's inevitable for the Dims to hate nuclear as soon as we start depending on it. What happened after the Dims pushed us to shut down a lot of coal plants and replace them with "clean burning natural gas" fueled plants? During the Trump years the Dims changed their minds on natural gas, claim natural gas is killing us all, and implemented policies making it harder and more expensive to drill for natural gas.
The Dims will do the same for nuclear or any other energy source whenever the Dims are in power. They can never be satisfied. So don't think switching to nuclear solves the main problem, which is the Dims' dumb war on energy to appease their warmageddon cult by making American weaker with their energy policies.
Better get back the land that china bought around bases first
“No, I am not.
The big cost of the reactor is up front. A peak power nat gas plant or large boiler is cheaper up front than nukes. Now, the operating costs are more for the gas plant.”
You just clarified your previous error.
“But the big issue is contamination. Not spent fuel, but during rebuild/refuel they have a lot of scrap steel that is supposed to be locked up till “Safe” but some how ends up in the system. “
Where did you hear this?
The Navy has been running small nuclear reactors for decades, run by enlisted men, with no known issues of contamination. So it can be done. As for land based reactors, we are on about the third or fourth generation of design improvements and the safety issues have been addressed. The major cost issue is the jungle of regulatory red tape that must be hacked through. That is a political matter, not an energy matter, and could be solved readily enough by updating and streamlining regulations.
The new technology is mini nuke generation. Smaller and safer than that currently used on nuclear-powered naval vessels, I can see this being pursued.
The end of the Obama Admin’s 16 year scope is going allow DOD access to cheaper energy. No more dream of battery powered tanks in our lifetimes.
These mini nuclear systems will make ELECTRIC GREAT AGAIN.
“Now, the operating costs are more for the gas plant.”
Too complicated for the Military give or take ships. The Military has operating costs that make electric power cost insignificant.
You need to look up micro-reactors on the net. They are compact and easy to hide and protect.
BWAHAHAHAHAHahahahahahahahahaha!!!!
That's cute ...
The US Army put a nuke at Ft Greely AK, back in the ‘60s.
It is an SM-1A, and the thought was it would be perfect, lots of electricity and the ‘waste heat’ could provide for the heating of all the facilities.
It was “shut in” in 1972 as too costly to run and - just now - the CoE are getting ready to remove the dammed thing.
See https://alaskapublic.org/2024/06/20/demolition-of-fort-greelys-old-nuclear-plant-to-begin-this-year/ for just how compicated and expensive this will be. Also expect real trouble as they try to move, via real, the radioactive remains to TX, via Washington.
I’m certain much hilarity will ensure.
So, for me, a big NO on small nukes at military bases.
Ft Richardson has a large fuel cell running at NatGas at the National Guard center and it works just fine and has for the last 20+ years. If it springs a leak, I won’t have to flee the State....
Keep in mind the US Army has a pretty piss-poor record on keeping a clean house - https://cumulis.epa.gov/supercpad/cursites/csitinfo.cfm?id=1001455
President Trump needs to hurry these things along. The faster we get em done, the quicker the tantrum seekers will head off to Europe and Mexico.
Amazon plans to build 4 nukes on the Washington side of the Columbia River.
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.