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

Fluor Invests in NuScale

By
You know, it’s kind of sad that no one is willing to invest in nuclear energy anymore. Wait, what? NuScale Power celebrated the news of its company-saving $30 million investment from Fluor Corp. Thursday morning with a press conference in Washington, D.C. Fluor is a design, engineering and construction company involved with some 20 plants in the 70s and 80s, but it has not held interest in a nuclear energy company until now. Fluor, which has deep roots in the nuclear industry, is betting big on small-scale nuclear energy with its NuScale investment. "It's become a serious contender in the last decade or so," John Hopkins, [Fluor’s group president in charge of new ventures], said. And that brings us to NuScale, which had run into some dark days – maybe not as dark as, say, Solyndra, but dire enough : Earlier this year, the Securities Exchange Commission filed an action against NuScale's lead investor, The Michael Kenwood Group. The firm "misap
1 comment
Read more

An Ohio School Board Is Working to Save Nuclear Plants

By
Ohio faces a decision soon about its two nuclear reactors, Davis-Besse and Perry, and on Wednesday, neighbors of one of those plants issued a cry for help. The reactors’ problem is that the price of electricity they sell on the high-voltage grid is depressed, mostly because of a surplus of natural gas. And the reactors do not get any revenue for the other benefits they provide. Some of those benefits are regional – emissions-free electricity, reliability with months of fuel on-site, and diversity in case of problems or price spikes with gas or coal, state and federal payroll taxes, and national economic stimulus as the plants buy fuel, supplies and services. Some of the benefits are highly localized, including employment and property taxes. One locality is already feeling the pinch: Oak Harbor on Lake Erie, home to Davis-Besse. The town has a middle school in a building that is 106 years old, and an elementary school from the 1950s, and on May 2 was scheduled to have a referendu
Post a Comment
Read more

Wednesday Update

By
From NEI’s Japan micro-site: NRC, Industry Concur on Many Post-Fukushima Actions Industry/Regulatory/Political Issues • There is a “great deal of alignment” between the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the industry on initial steps to take at America’s nuclear energy facilities in response to the nuclear accident in Japan, Charles Pardee, the chief operating officer of Exelon Generation Co., said at an agency briefing today. The briefing gave stakeholders an opportunity to discuss staff recommendations for near-term actions the agency may take at U.S. facilities. PowerPoint slides from the meeting are on the NRC website. • The International Atomic Energy Agency board has approved a plan that calls for inspectors to evaluate reactor safety at nuclear energy facilities every three years. Governments may opt out of having their country’s facilities inspected. Also approved were plans to maintain a rapid response team of experts ready to assist facility operators recoverin
Post a Comment
Read more