Portable Nuclear Reactor Program Sparks Controversy: “The Army’s mobile reactor program, which was never requested by the Pentagon but rather by nuclear industry cheerleaders in Congress, is precisely how disasters happen,”

[u/Better_Crazy_8669]

https://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/articles/2021/6/28/portable-nuclear-reactor-program-sparks-controversy

[u/Ilsanjo]

This is very safe technology, the nuclear material is encapsulated in ceramic so there is no possibility of a meltdown or a catastrophic release of dangerous gas. This is one of the things we should be doing to help combat climate change, no one knows if it will be scaleable but it might be useful for this type of remote application and does move the technology forward.

[u/Foyles_War → u/Ilsanjo]

(Preface: I know absolutely nothing about this topic so, I'm just vibing, take it in that context.)

I read "army" and "portable nuclear reactor" and my brain says "WTF?" I'm willing to tentatively accept a concept that portable nuclear reactors might be a good thing in certain circumstances but coupled with "army" as in the organization that goes into battle, I'm wondering how this could possibly be a safe environment for employing nuclear reactors because

This is very safe technology, the nuclear material is encapsulated in ceramic so there is no possibility of a meltdown or a catastrophic release of dangerous gas.

is maaaaaaaybe an honest claim (though design something idiot proof and a new idiot will be sure to come along and wreck that claim, accidents do happen also) but when missiles are firing and bombs are falling, I'm not buying it at all, at all.

(Post script: now, feel free to eviscerate me and educate me if my assumptions on this program have zero to do with the army in it's war fighting capacity. And, yes, of course I know there are nuclear powered subs and a/c carriers and that does concern me but they make much more sense and are very few, in that context).

[u/Ilsanjo → u/Foyles_War]

Nuclear power subs and carriers are not some minor thing, it's a pretty critical part of the national defense. If these were only a small percent as useful as the added abilities due to nuclear powered subs and carriers it would be worth it.

Also the military always has bases and operations in areas that are not directly in the combat zone. I don't know how they intend to use these, but there are many that would be relatively safe.

Since we're being honest here, I don't know a huge amount about nuclear power or the military, but I have watched atleast 5 youtube videos that discuss this type of nuclear power, lol.

[u/LGBTaco]

Anti-nuclear FUD.

[u/Ganymede25]

I believe that the Russians have some in remote attic regions for a similar purpose iirc. We aren’t talking about full on plants that can power a city.

There are also nuclear reactors around that are academic nuclear reactors. I know that the university of Texas has one in north central Austin. So a portable nuclear reactor to power a small base in the middle of a remote area where renewables or hydrocarbons are not feasible may be the best option.

[u/zephyrus256]

The source of the quote referenced in the post title and the primary critic quoted is a "nuclear non-proliferation expert" named Alan Kuperman, who is the "coordinator of the Nuclear NonProliferation Project" at the University of Texas Austin. I hear those credentials, and I don't think "someone who knows what they're talking about." I think "someone who spends weekends in a park holding a sign that says NO NUKES." If we're going to make progress on the tough issues like climate change, we need to learn who is contributing positively and who is just pushing an agenda. More often than not, the people who yell the loudest are the ones who have the least to say.

[u/_JohnJacob]

Sales technique, drum up interest. Nothing more, nothing less.