It looks like the Department of Defense is considering such reactors again [1], and the author of this article is very much against it. So much so that he published this exact same article at least 3 times before [2], [3], [4].<p>[1] <a href="https://www.defensenews.com/smr/energy-and-environment/2021/03/23/portable-nuclear-reactor-project-moves-forward-at-pentagon/" rel="nofollow">https://www.defensenews.com/smr/energy-and-environment/2021/...</a><p>[2] <a href="https://theconversation.com/the-us-army-tried-portable-nuclear-power-at-remote-bases-60-years-ago-it-didnt-go-well-164138" rel="nofollow">https://theconversation.com/the-us-army-tried-portable-nucle...</a><p>[3] <a href="https://www.civilbeat.org/2021/07/project-pele-the-military-is-exploring-portable-nuclear-reactors/" rel="nofollow">https://www.civilbeat.org/2021/07/project-pele-the-military-...</a><p>[4] <a href="https://www.businessinsider.com/us-military-is-trying-to-build-portable-nuclear-reactors-again-2021-7" rel="nofollow">https://www.businessinsider.com/us-military-is-trying-to-bui...</a>
We should have more nuclear powerplants. I think 75 years ago it was assumed that by now everybody and their cat would have enormously powerful and cheap nuclear generators for their house, flying car etc. It's a pity the technology has stagnated and only Iron Man can afford it.
This reminds me of SL-1, an experimental reactor that was meant to be used in the arctic circle. Part of the operation of the reactor required manually lifting a control rod a few inches out of the reactor. However, possibly just to see what would happen or as a suicide attempt, they removed the rod too far and the reactor immediately exploded and killed 3 operators. At least, those are some intriguing theories about why the control rod was removed too far, but in fairness we really don't know what they were thinking and it may have simply been a mistake. Although a properly trained operator mistakenly lifting a heavy control rod too far begs more explanation. Whatever the case, it is an intriguing story.<p><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SL-1" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SL-1</a>
<a href="https://www.amazon.com/Atomic-Accidents-Meltdowns-Disasters-Mountains/dp/1605986801" rel="nofollow">https://www.amazon.com/Atomic-Accidents-Meltdowns-Disasters-...</a>
> Those in favor of mobile nuclear power for the battlefield claim it will provide nearly unlimited, low-carbon energy without the need for vulnerable supply convoys.<p>Imagine the situation we would be in if the US military had been using nuclear power supplies at (formerly) our bases in Afghanistan.<p>I’m a fan of nuclear power but battlefields are the last place I want to see it.
The public data on the stationary SM-1A rated it as 20MW and was built around the same timeframe. It's in a remote, low population location. The base was decommissioned and the reactor is still there, soon to be decommissioned according to the link.<p><a href="https://www.nab.usace.army.mil/SM-1A/" rel="nofollow">https://www.nab.usace.army.mil/SM-1A/</a>
This 31 minute documentary detailing the Camp Century project and reactor is truly fascinating if you're into this kind of thing. [1]<p>[1] <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=28NYczAuXl4" rel="nofollow">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=28NYczAuXl4</a><p>There are lots of others like this.
I have always thought it disappointing that safe RTGs are not a more common technology. Surely it is not beyond the wit of man to design one that could be buried in the ground outside, or under, your house, which could provide probably a lifetime of power.
There's also this: Review of Manned Aircraft Nuclear Propulsion Program <a href="https://nuke.fas.org/space/anp-gao1963.pdf" rel="nofollow">https://nuke.fas.org/space/anp-gao1963.pdf</a> [pdf]
The safest places for nuclear reactors are those which are isolated from environmental hazards like weather, people, earthquakes, eruptions. Someplace like the moon or mars. That's why subs and boats have a relatively safe record-no casual interference and containment vessels (large navy boats) that we have a lot of experience building, maintaining and operating by skilled dedicated humans.
I assume they'll never repeat the mistake of having only one control rod, at least.<p>It would be nice if it were a thorium salt based design, so you don't have to worry about disasters anywhere near as much. (Though I understand that you still have to worry about things like many, many Becquerel of Iodine being built up over time)
Nuclear is not ideal, because its civilizational brittle. Meaning it relies on complex society remaining stable and producing all those artifacts to maintain and recreate it. Add to that a complex supply chain and its less then ideal for a uncertain future.
The army straight up scares me with nukes... Air force is barely better. The USA navy knows what they are doing with reactors.. at they safe so no clue. But I am not trusting anybody in USA military except for the navy to deal with nuclear reactors.
Great book on the subject: <a href="https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/6286687-atomic-america" rel="nofollow">https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/6286687-atomic-america</a>
I'm not an nuclear engineer, but I bet it would be easier to deploy more nuclear energy with a many smaller reactor.<p>Pro: smaller reactors would be faster to build, as conventional nuclear reactors are large and often use specific techs. They would be built in higher quantities than larger reactors and thus allow more nuclear power generation.<p>Con: economies of scale might mean it generates less electricity overall.
the most successful "portable" nuclear reactors are those on nuclear submarines, they have been in continuous operation for more than 60 years with very few incidents<p>"American naval reactors starting with the S1W and iterations of designs have operated without incidents since USS Nautilus (SSN-571) launch in 1954" <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_submarine" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_submarine</a>