Skip to main content

U.S. Air Force is Looking at Nuclear Power

By
From the Heritage Foundation's blog:
According to a recent article in Energy and Environment News, the Air Force is planning to build a 100-225 megawatt nuclear power reactor. It will not only provide affordable, reliable electricity to an Air Force base, which has yet to be chosen, but will also be used as a power source for the local community. This is a departure from the usual news regarding the comeback of nuclear power. These stories generally revolve around plans to build large, 1000-1600 megawatt commercial reactors to increase power supplies to consumers that rely on the current electricity grid (also known as base load capacity expansion).

While such planning certainly signals a new day for nuclear power, it does not necessarily represent the full scope of a true nuclear renaissance. The Air Force’s decision, however, demonstrates a growing recognition that nuclear energy has applications beyond simple base load expansion. And that is an indication that a nuclear renaissance is truly underway.
Be sure to read the rest.
Labels:

Comments

Anonymous said…
Sounds like the Air Force will use a modified Navy aircraft carrier reactor. Too bad they might be unwilling to use Rod Adams' small gas cooled reactor idea. Maybe Rod should contact the Air Force.
March 6, 2008 at 3:32 PM
Anonymous said…
It doesn't appear to be the Air Force's idea. They are looking into it because Sen. Domenici and Craig asked them to.

Frankly, I'm not seeing the logic. There is no compelling need domestically. The US grid is pretty reliable and any mission critical loads could be supplied temporarily with generators just like hospitals do. For any number of reasons building one on a foreign base would be horrendously problematic. At least subs and carriers can be asked to leave. How would a country tell the Air Force to go and take its 100 MW power plant with it?
March 6, 2008 at 5:35 PM
Anonymous said…
In response to:

The US grid is pretty reliable and any mission critical loads could be supplied temporarily with generators just like hospitals do.

That is fine as long as foreign oil isn't cut off in a global conflict.

The Air Force is trying to become independent form foreign energy as a strategic goal. DARPA is heavily funding coal to jet fuel and natural gas to jet fuel research in the attempt to provide for domestic sources.

Having fossil fuel independent electricity helps significantly towards this goal.

-Matthew B.
March 6, 2008 at 8:08 PM
Anonymous said…
How would a country tell the Air Force to go and take its 100 MW power plant with it?

Maybe something like this:

A Small, Mobile, Molten-Salt Reactor for Remote Power, DOC, 3.2MB

Presentation PPT, 2.7MB

Discussion
March 7, 2008 at 9:35 AM
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Activists' Claims Distort Facts about Advanced Reactor Design

By
Below is from our rapid response team . Yesterday, regional anti-nuclear organizations asked federal nuclear energy regulators to launch an investigation into what it claims are “newly identified flaws” in Westinghouse’s advanced reactor design, the AP1000. During a teleconference releasing a report on the subject, participants urged the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to suspend license reviews of proposed AP1000 reactors. In its news release, even the groups making these allegations provide conflicting information on its findings. In one instance, the groups cite “dozens of corrosion holes” at reactor vessels and in another says that eight holes have been documented. In all cases, there is another containment mechanism that would provide a barrier to radiation release. Below, we examine why these claims are unwarranted and why the AP1000 design certification process should continue as designated by the NRC. Myth: In the AP1000 reactor design, the gap between the shield bu...
23 comments
Read more

How many nuclear plants does it take to meet the world's energy needs?

By
Several weeks ago Joshua Pearce at Clarion University in Pennsylvania released a study titled “ Thermodynamic limitations to nuclear energy deployment as a greenhouse gas mitigation technology .” In the study he stated... nuclear energy production would have to increase by 10.5% per year from 2010 to 2050 to both replace fossil-fuel-energy use and meet the future energy demands. This line, of course, made the headlines and has been picked up by several outlets and blogs . When looking into his calculations for this statement, he made one assumption error that overstated the above sentence by nearly a factor of three. Page 121, Section 4.1 of the study states: Richard Smalley pointed out that in 2004, the global economy consumed the equivalent of 220 million barrels of oil per day, which converted into electricity terms is the equivalent of 14.5 TeraWatts (TW), or 14,500,000 MegaWatts (MW) (2005). … With a nuclear plant having about 1000 MW (1 GW) of capacity, we would need 14,500...
7 comments
Read more

What Happens During a Refueling Outage?

By
You may have noticed over the past few weeks that a number of nuclear plants are shut down for refueling outages or are resuming operations after just returning from one. This type of routine outage usually occurs in the spring or fall when electricity demand is low so that nuclear reactors can replace about one-third of the spent fuel rods with new fuel and conduct other routine maintenance and repairs at the plant. To get a better sense of how refueling works at a nuclear energy facility, I spoke with Marcus Nichol, NEI’s senior project manager for used fuel storage and transportation, and asked him to explain the basics. Why does a nuclear plant need to replace one-third of its fuel? Nichol: The main purpose of a refueling outage is to replace older fuel that is depleted—meaning it can no longer efficiently produce energy from nuclear fission reactions—with new fuel. This “used fuel” has typically been used in the reactor for four-and-a-half to six years before it is pe...
6 comments
Read more