How can you leverage nuclear energy to propel vehicles? In 1963, the US Army knew direct nuclear plants would be too heavy for normal vehicles, and very large vehicles would have "serious tactical disadvantages"...
And so the Army focused on 'the energy depot' concept, where a nuclear reactor and associated equipment would be used to manufacture chemical fuels from elements universally available in air and water. (kinda like what @isaiah_p_taylorv just announced with Valar Atomics).
Or, the reactor could charge batteries
One mobile reactor could produce the same mileage in the vehicles as 2 million lbs of gasoline
All this was supposed to come from the Military Compact Reactor, which was supposed to be the successor of the famous truck-mounted ML-1 reactor. But the MCR never came to fruition. Though it worked fine, the ML-1 was considered simply too expensive to continue 😢.
(This whole sequence starts around 18:50 in the 1963 Army Nuclear Power Program film: )
Meant to tag @isaiah_p_taylor above sorry.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
I got it! The PM-1 Final Summary Report was delivered to me yesterday after I filed a FOIA request to the military library that had it cataloged (at their recommendation). This is the pure-gold lessons-learned report from operating a 1 MWe military microreactor in WY for 4 years.
It contains cost and performance information, summarizing which systems worked well and which ones did not. This is a follow-up to some searching I did after getting this summary film digitized.
It's highly readable. The summary says that it was a big pain to maintain b/c it was too compact. They wanted it designed for maintainability first and compactness next. "Consequently, the Air Force now has a plant that is neither portable nor easily maintainable or operable." 👀
The Advanced Boiling Water Reactor (ABWR) is the Dark Horse of today's nuclear reactors. It's modern, efficient, resilient, broadly licensed, and proven buildable in record time. (a 🧵...)
Having been built before, it's (obviously) a fully-complete design, already licensed and ready to rock in the USA, Japan, and the UK. Here's its design certification from the NRC: nrc.gov/reactors/new-r…
The first-ever ABWRs were built in record-setting time, 37 months & 15 days from groundbreaking to initial criticality. How's that for too slow? 😮
Almost unbelievably, there are 3500 exajoules of nuclear energy in these 48.3K tonnes of uranium, accessible using breeder reactor tech we demo'd in 1952. The world uses about 600 EJ of primary energy per year (including everything!!), so that's about 6 years of world energy.
Rather than breeder reactors, we use non-breeder reactors today, which get about 1% of the energy from the mined uranium. Our earlier attempts at deploying more breeder reactors were thrwarted by anti-nuclear activism and minor technology complexities whatisnuclear.com/recycling.html
Like, the Germans build a top-notch breeder reactor called SNR-300. It was world-class. It was completed and fueled. Right before they turned it on, protests broke out and they never operated it. Now it's a goofy theme park. 🤡
Another cool thing about nuclear energy is just how ridiculously flexible it is. It can be used basically everywhere, in any environmental condition imaginable. A 🧵... (1/9)
2/ The first obvious example is deep under the sea. After the Navy made nuclear-powered submarines, they immediately went on grand adventures previously unheard of. The Nautilus went to the North Pole under the ice, and the Triton circumnavigated the world without surfacing.
3/ We used a number of microreactors to power remote locations, like in Antarctica (PM-3A) and under the ice in an Ice Base in northern Greenland called Camp Century (see unbelievable doco here )
Paul Dorfman, one of @greenpeace's main nuclear commentators, just blocked me (a Ph.D. scientist) after pointing out a glaring and egregious error in his analysis. He said nuclear wasn't low carbon. I pointed out, calmly and patiently, that it was.
Basically he was taking the lowest number and the highest number out of a Yale meta-analysis and saying that the 'mean' was the midpoint (around 57). But the real mean is 17.8 and the median is 12.
Knowing these kinds of threads can get ugly, I made a specific point to remain calm and not insulting. But rather than face the error, he blocked. That's his prerogative. You should watch out for anyone else making this ridiculous error to conclude that nuclear is high carbon
This is so shockingly anti-scientific given the numbers at hand. Sunlight creates 2,000,000,000,000 Becquerel of C-14 in our atmosphere every single day and @Greenpeace says that this water, with 2-200 Bq/L, is going to alter human DNA. @ShaunBurnie wut!? doi.org/10.1002/2015GL…
Natural sunlight produces the entire net quantity of C-14 in all the tanks (63 GBq) every 43 minutes in our atmosphere.
Make that 39 minutes. Here's the math so anyone and everyone can see that I'm right. Using the famous GNU Units program here. C-14 production rate from LLNL in the DOI publication in my 1st tweet above.