Skip to main content

U.S. Air Force is Looking at Nuclear Power

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.

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.
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?
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.
Kirk Sorensen 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

Popular posts from this blog

How Nanomaterials Can Make Nuclear Reactors Safer and More Efficient

The following is a guest post from Matt Wald, senior communications advisor at NEI. Follow Matt on Twitter at @MattLWald.

From the batteries in our cell phones to the clothes on our backs, "nanomaterials" that are designed molecule by molecule are working their way into our economy and our lives. Now there’s some promising work on new materials for nuclear reactors.

Reactors are a tough environment. The sub atomic particles that sustain the chain reaction, neutrons, are great for splitting additional uranium atoms, but not all of them hit a uranium atom; some of them end up in various metal components of the reactor. The metal is usually a crystalline structure, meaning it is as orderly as a ladder or a sheet of graph paper, but the neutrons rearrange the atoms, leaving some infinitesimal voids in the structure and some areas of extra density. The components literally grow, getting longer and thicker. The phenomenon is well understood and designers compensate for it with a …

Missing the Point about Pennsylvania’s Nuclear Plants

A group that includes oil and gas companies in Pennsylvania released a study on Monday that argues that twenty years ago, planners underestimated the value of nuclear plants in the electricity market. According to the group, that means the state should now let the plants close.

Huh?

The question confronting the state now isn’t what the companies that owned the reactors at the time of de-regulation got or didn’t get. It’s not a question of whether they were profitable in the '80s, '90s and '00s. It’s about now. Business works by looking at the present and making projections about the future.

Is losing the nuclear plants what’s best for the state going forward?

Pennsylvania needs clean air. It needs jobs. And it needs protection against over-reliance on a single fuel source.


What the reactors need is recognition of all the value they provide. The electricity market is depressed, and if electricity is treated as a simple commodity, with no regard for its benefit to clean air o…

Why Nuclear Plant Closures Are a Crisis for Small Town USA

Nuclear plants occupy an unusual spot in the towns where they operate: integral but so much in the background that they may seem almost invisible. But when they close, it can be like the earth shifting underfoot.

Lohud.com, the Gannett newspaper that covers the Lower Hudson Valley in New York, took a look around at the experience of towns where reactors have closed, because the Indian Point reactors in Buchanan are scheduled to be shut down under an agreement with Gov. Mario Cuomo.


From sea to shining sea, it was dismal. It wasn’t just the plant employees who were hurt. The losses of hundreds of jobs, tens of millions of dollars in payrolls and millions in property taxes depressed whole towns and surrounding areas. For example:

Vernon, Vermont, home to Vermont Yankee for more than 40 years, had to cut its municipal budget in half. The town closed its police department and let the county take over; the youth sports teams lost their volunteer coaches, and Vernon Elementary School lost th…