Army to spend $2B to build nuclear microreactors at 5 bases as US seeks to ramp up nuclear power
https://apnews.com/article/nuclear-trump-army-microreactors-janus-200edd5fb98b6fe04d029a3c1dba1a4a
https://apnews.com/article/nuclear-trump-army-microreactors-janus-200edd5fb98b6fe04d029a3c1dba1a4a
31 Comments
Dogyote@slrpnk.net · 11 pts · 17h
This better not end with barrels of radioactive waste sitting around military bases. They have a bad track record when it comes to toxic chemicals escaping containment.
ours@lemmy.world · 5 pts · 9h
The US military has a bad history of nuclear cleanup. Lookup the base abandoned in Greenland.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Iceworm?wprov=sfla1
knobbysideup@sh.itjust.works · 9 pts · 2d
Good. We should have a lot more nuclear and a lot less coal and gas. The military tends to be a technology driver, so maybe we'll get there sooner.
datendefekt@feddit.org · 1 pts · 16h
No, just no. Nuclear might be better than fossil fuels in the short term, but there’s a lot we’re asking of from later generations.
We have perfectly viable non-poisonous and non-radioactive solutions, but I guess renewables aren’t manly enough for the military.
vaultdweller013@sh.itjust.works · 3 pts · 12h
Renewables still have holes in their capacity especially for more environmentally unstable regions. Got clouds solar efficiency is fucked, also pollar nights exist in some places. No water? Hydro is a non factor. Wind can in theory be maintained anywhere but has some scale issues that a military base either doesn't want to deal with or can't. Finally battery tech is so and so, perhaps in a decade or so it'll be advanced enough to overcome a lot of the limits but there's still some issues.
Nuclear is honestly the best we have for a relatively low maintenance easily stockable power generation system. Plus here's hoping it succeeds and reinvigorates interest in nuclear ships, kind of a shame that project was shelved during Eisenhower's admin.
Return_of_Chippy@lemmy.world · 9 pts · 2d
Good, build em everywhere. 2 billion seems very low for 5 though.
bedwyr@piefed.ca · -7 pts · 1d
Good? Jesus Christ, how susceptible we are to propaganda.
Return_of_Chippy@lemmy.world · 5 pts · 1d
What do you have against nuclear ? I'm an engineer working in the electricity generation space. My opinion is based on lived industry experience and education. Are you one of the people who thinks we just need solar?
bedwyr@piefed.ca · -6 pts · 22h
The fact that you have to ask what is wrong with nuclear, kind of suggests a lot about you. Either believing in falsities, or dishonest. So which is it mister or misses engineer?
The fact that you brought up being an engineer like that gives you special insight into nuclear, just further suggests you are deficient in either quality or honesty frankly.
AHemlocksLie@lemmy.zip · 7 pts · 20h
The fact that you dodge the question instead of providing literally any example suggests you don't have any great examples.
bedwyr@piefed.ca · -6 pts · 20h
I don't argue with clankers, influence agents, or their dupes. Not more than I have to. You are clearly not a [redacted] person.
AHemlocksLie@lemmy.zip · 9 pts · 19h
Then why not just shut the fuck up if you're not gonna say anything useful? Stroking your ego publicly and insulting others is less than useless.
Return_of_Chippy@lemmy.world · 4 pts · 13h
I'm presenting myself as someone who genuinely knows what they are talking about. Not a rando with poorly informed opinions. I've been working in generation for 10+ years. I'm a mechanical engineer qualified to operate in nuclear power plants. I've spent considerable time learning about them and visited several in order to be qualified (licensure). If it didn't require me to relocate, I'd be working in one right now. That's the "special insight" actual insight, education and experience. You wrote a lot of words but managed to have zero substance. What about nuclear power makes it a problem in your opinion? I'm willing to talk to you about it.
tidderuuf@lemmy.world · 4 pts · 1d
I'm trying to recall the last Nuclear emergency we had involving U.S. Military aircraft carriers or submarines or massive nuclear weapons stockpile.
Where's the propaganda?
datendefekt@feddit.org · 2 pts · 16h
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_military_nuclear_accidents lists over 30 nuclear accidents documented by the US armed forces.
SkybreakerEngineer@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 10h
And if you look inside, you see a couple of famous Russian fails, and not much else involving actual ships
jpreston2005@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 10h
Yes, I'm generally in favor of Nuclear energy but also this one 😬
bedwyr@piefed.ca · -10 pts · 1d
Oh the nuclear trade groups have been on an aggressive public relations campaign, replete with social media influence operations and bots and shit.
It's way worse than you think.
Forester@pawb.social · 2 pts · 12h
If anyone is a propaganda bot it's you.
Salvo@aussie.zone · 8 pts · 2d
Obviously they can’t trust The Grid and want energy sovereignty for national security reasons.
Renewable and energy storage would be a better, but if they already secure the Uranium for fuel, or build the reactors capable of using salvaged Plutonium, they can stay relatively self-sufficient.
Corvidae@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 2d
Slash renewable power & wind turbines, and install nuclear?
savvie@lemmy.zip · 5 pts · 1d
nuclear is extremely expensive & carbon-intensive to set up
skidicarus@sh.itjust.works · 2 pts · 1d
Not to mention far more dangerous and produces waste material that we've decided to just bury.
jpreston2005@lemmy.world · 0 pts · 10h
We've developed nuclear reactors that run on that spent nuclear waste
skidicarus@sh.itjust.works · 2 pts · 8h
Not how that works. These types of reactors have other problems associated with them, but they do still produce waste material that has to be buried. They just produce less than conventional reactors.
CharlesDarwin@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 19h
I'd prefer it was a both-and thing, not an either-or. I think we should ramp up solar and turbines much, much, much more but I also think we should have (modern) nuclear installations augmenting things, as we take coal-fire plants offline.
Corvidae@lemmy.world · -1 pts · 19h
A lot of people are in love with nuclear! It's so easy to forget Three-Mile Island, Chernobyl, and Fukushima. There are lots of lessor incidents.. I'd rather see solutions like better batteries, grid-scale batteries, and solar on every rooftop, wind power where conditions support it. I think they're a lot safer than dealing with ionizing radiation.
CharlesDarwin@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 6h
I'm not in love with nuclear. My parents were anti-nuclear activists; believe me, I've heard a lot of anti-nuclear arguments ever since childhood and for as long as my parents were alive.
Also: I distinctly remember leaving the area of TMI to stay with relatives when the news broke, since my family lived not that far from TMI at the time.
However, I do think new designs do need a new reassessment. I'd want that to be done by people acting in good faith, which of course excludes the clowns and the idiots and the suck-ups in this administration.
datendefekt@feddit.org · 1 pts · 16h
And recycling panels and batteries is a lot more appealing than dealing with radioactive waste for hundreds and thousands of years!
CharlesDarwin@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 20h
This is another case of a broken clock, I guess.
skidicarus@sh.itjust.works · 0 pts · 2d
Unfortunate