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 …

Why America Needs the MOX Facility

If Isaiah had been a nuclear engineer, he’d have loved this project. And the Trump Administration should too, despite the proposal to eliminate it in the FY 2018 budget.

The project is a massive factory near Aiken, S.C., that will take plutonium from the government’s arsenal and turn it into fuel for civilian power reactors. The plutonium, made by the United States during the Cold War in a competition with the Soviet Union, is now surplus, and the United States and the Russian Federation jointly agreed to reduce their stocks, to reduce the chance of its use in weapons. Over two thousand construction workers, technicians and engineers are at work to enable the transformation.

Carrying Isaiah’s “swords into plowshares” vision into the nuclear field did not originate with plutonium. In 1993, the United States and Russia began a 20-year program to take weapons-grade uranium out of the Russian inventory, dilute it to levels appropriate for civilian power plants, and then use it to produce…

Nuclear Is a Long-Term Investment for Ohio that Will Pay Big

With 50 different state legislative calendars, more than half of them adjourn by June, and those still in session throughout the year usually take a recess in the summer. So springtime is prime time for state legislative activity. In the next few weeks, legislatures are hosting hearings and calling for votes on bills that have been battered back and forth in the capital halls.

On Tuesday, The Ohio Public Utilities Committee hosted its third round of hearings on the Zero Emissions Nuclear Resources Program, House Bill 178, and NEI’s Maria Korsnick testified before a jam-packed room of legislators.


Washingtonians parachuting into state debates can be a tricky platform, but in this case, Maria’s remarks provided national perspective that put the Ohio conundrum into context. At the heart of this debate is the impact nuclear plants have on local jobs and the local economy, and that nuclear assets should be viewed as “long-term investments” for the state. Of course, clean air and electrons …