We talked about the military’s idea of mobile nuclear reactors and ridiculed it as one of the dumbest ideas ever (see, “Mobile Nuclear Reactors – The Dumbest Idea Ever”) but now, it seems, the military is going ahead with it.
The Pentagon today announced that Idaho National Labs will build and initially operate a type of mobile “nuclear microreactor” … [1]
… designed to deliver one to five megawatts of electrical power for a minimum of three years … [1]
The reactor fuel will be high-assay low-enriched uranium (HALEU) fabricated into tristructural isotropic (TRISO) reactor fuel[2] … whatever that means. I’m not a nuclear fuel expert. See ref.[4] for a discussion of the vulnerabilities of the fuel.
The Department of Defense (DOD) has picked BWX Technologies’ (BWXT’s) microreactor design for its “Project Pele” full-scale transportable prototype.
Lynchburg, Virginia-based BWXT will now manufacture and deliver the prototype microreactor to Idaho National Laboratory (INL) for testing by 2024. “The prototype will be built under a cost-type contract valued at approximately $300 million … [2]
Three hundred million dollars? For one? You can buy a lot of conventional energy for that amount!
Why are we doing this?
“A safe, small, transportable nuclear reactor would address this growing [energy] demand with a resilient, carbon-free energy source that would not add to the DoD’s fuel needs … [1]
Let’s be thorough and note that this will add to DoD’s fuel needs. The graphics shown in the photos below note that the transportation fuel requirements are substantial and then the operating site will require heavy earth moving and construction equipment to set up. That heavy equipment will require its own transportation and operating fuel.
The descriptions depict this as a zero-impact energy source. What about the disposal impact? What will happen when we have to dispose of dozens of these units? Ominously, disposal does not appear to have been examined as part of the project. Disposal planning is offered only as a possible future add-on study. As we know, possible future add-ons almost never happen.
INL could also potentially conduct mobile microreactor and spent nuclear fuel post-irradiation examination and disposition.[2][emphasis added]
Radioactive material disposal is already an unsolvable and growing problem and we’re looking to add to the magnitude of the problem for a minor (1-5 megawatts) gain in convenience? Is that really a positive in the overall picture?
Where will we use this reactor?
.. supporting mission-critical operations in remote and austere environments.[1]
Note the size of the transport vehicle in the photos above. How are we going to get that vehicle to ‘remote and austere environments’ and, once there, how will that vehicle traverse areas that, because they are ‘remote and austere’, likely have no roads suitable for such a vehicle?
Its transportable design “consists of multiple modules that contain the microreactor’s components in 20-foot long, ISO-compliant CONEX shipping containers.[2]
The reactor assembly is spec’ed to weigh up to 40 tons.[4] That’s not light and not easily transported across ‘remote and austere’ terrain.
What about safety, both operational and combat damage related? According to Jeff Waksman, program manager,
… an inherently safe by design mobile microreactor can be constructed … [1]
Inherently safe nuclear equipment? Whew, that’s a load off my mind! Unfortunately, Mr. Waksman then immediately contradicts himself,
It’s not that they’re no risk, but it is just a different era.[1]
Uh … so there is risk but the risk is in a different era????? Huh? Is risk in a different era somehow better?
We have the ability to build reactors that, even in worst case scenarios, have very minor radiological imprints.[1]
So, there is a radiation risk but it’s minor? I’m guessing the exposed soldiers and surrounding civilian people and villages won’t consider it minor.
The Drive website notes,
There are concerns, of course, associated with deploying mobile nuclear reactors to bases or the battlefield. Meltdowns, waste products, and other malfunctions are always a concern with nuclear energy technologies, and if a reactor in a contested area is destroyed by adversary forces, for example, the risk of environmental contamination is high. That, in turn, could create a political disaster for the DOD and United States. Deploying any nuclear systems abroad also incurs the risk of proliferation if those technologies should fall into the wrong hands due to a forward-operating base or convoy being overrun by hostile forces.[3]
That seems like a lot of risk for a minor (1-5 megawatts) gain in energy.
We’ve seen that the nuclear power plant in Ukraine has come under fire from Russia. What happens when these mobile reactors are shelled and blown up?
Just out of curiosity, what happens when enemies and terrorists capture these things? We’ve had drones, ships, and aircraft captured by various enemy countries. Why would we think a mobile nuclear reactor would not be seized? Again, I’m not a nuclear expert but I suspect that a clever and resourceful enemy could come up with many ways to use these reactors to our detriment. Do we really want to give an enemy or a terrorist the ability to cause major panic by threatening radioactive catastrophe? Look at our over-the-top reaction to Monkeypox. It doesn’t require a real threat to generate a real panic.
I previously called this one of the dumbest ideas ever and I’m not seeing anything to change my mind.
___________________________________
[1]Breaking Defense website, “Idaho National Labs to build Pentagon’s mobile ‘nuclear microreactor’”, Jaspreet Gill, 13-Apr-2022,
[2]https://www.powermag.com/dod-picks-bwxt-to-manufacture-project-pele-prototype-nuclear-microreactor/
This is a great example of an idea which is useful for absolutely nothing but giving all sort of crazies access to nuclear material.
ReplyDelete"Radioactive material disposal is already an unsolvable and growing problem ".
ReplyDeleteYucca Flats is still there. Harry Reed is no longer in the Senate. This should be a DOE project to develop smallish reactors for civilian use, which might make sense.
If only there was some other way to generate electricity.
ReplyDeleteLutefisk
Good news, the Mini-Module Nuke is to power the all Electric LCS. Bye Bye evil combining gears.
DeleteNB, back in the nifty 50s SAC wanted a nuclear powered B-36.
RE: "safe by design". Well, it IS possible to design reactors so that the laws of physics forbid certain types of accidents (like meltdowns, or the type of accident that destroyed Chernobyl). And if it operates at atmospheric pressure (some reactors do) that will prevent steam explosions. However, I'm pretty sure there's not any way to make it safe against a rocket or cannon shell that penetrates the reactor vessel and spreads the contents around the neighborhood.
ReplyDeleteThis might make sense in a civilian environment in the US, where there's not much real risk of attack with military weapons, and we can bury it and surround it with major hardening to stop the odd terrorist attack. Of course in that case it would need to be significantly larger.
A pebble bed reactor is somewhat resistant to fuel scatter as it is made up of a number of tennis ball sized contained fuel elements instead of raw fuel rods and it uses gas for its thermal medium, which does not become radioactive as water does.
DeleteWhen hit by artillery shells there will be significant scatter and demolition of the encapsulating fuel shells.
DeleteAdditional problems such as oxygen exposure to heated graphite (fire), fuel shell disruption, graphite 'dust' due to friction, etc. are known and would be intensified a thousand times over by explosions from weapons.
DeleteThe situation is made worse by the intended usage which is in remote, austere locations. Thus, the reactors will be missing the number and magnitude of the safety measures in place for a similar civilian reactor plant. Things such as containment buildings will not be present. Secondary redundant systems will not be available. Emergency equipment and personnel will not be present. Security systems will be insufficient. And so on.
I have a mostly off-topic question:
ReplyDeleteI read that “Fast Combat Support Ships” will be crewed by civilians, because reasons. Do these ships accompany warships on a strike mission into an active combat zone or, do they rendezvous after the strike in a less contested area?
I do understand that “area of combat”and “behind the lines” are relative terms and combat can take place anywhere when hostilities commence.
I am curious as to the ramifications of sending civilian crew into combat.
Especially with the weight given to putting crew concerns ahead of mission. I’m thinking of the skipper of the carrier putting his crew ashore due to Covid-19 concerns.
I’ve never served, but isn’t the leaders priority:
mission, ship, crew, in that order?
ACES & EIGHTS
The "leaders" aren't leading, but swaying with whichever political agenda seems prevalent- see the nonsense regarding transgender service members. Because they aren't leading, the "mission" is vaguely and even contradictorily defined, preventing the services from executing them with any success. Because the mission isn't defined, the ships can't be designed or redesigned (i.e., refitted, as many World War II ships were for the Cold War) to optimize them for these missions.
DeleteThe poor crewmembers are doing their best, but they aren't given the necessary tools OR training- not that anyone knows what those are, thanks to poor leadership.
What is to worry? These mini reactors are transformational! We have all seen how that effort turned out right?
ReplyDeleteThis will be really expensive electricity.
ReplyDelete5000kw x 24hr x 365 days x 3 years = 131,400,000 kWh at maximum power for three years straight. At $300 million that works out to $2.28 per kWh. The powerplant will likely not operate at full capacity all the time so the cost would likely be even higher. If you could reduce the cost to $30 million it would still be too high.
The logistics will still be needed to provide fuel for the vehicles so no real reduction in risk to the FOB from an attack on the supply lines.
What do you compare it to though? I think the comparison is hauling in gas for generators. So cost of gas plus the gas burnt to get it to somewhere remote.
DeleteThe comparison is with the alternatives.
Delete- Current state- trucked in fuel with generators supplying the electricity.
- Reduced demand for electricity.
-super-insulated mobile buildings (reduced HVAC load)
-Solar lighting. Solar air conditioning. Solar power.
- Logistic substitution -- Pipeline for trucks Darpa underminer program.
https://www.darpa.mil/news-events/2020-04-01
- space based power --
https://spacenews.com/nasa-to-reexamine-space-based-solar-power/
- maybe even geothermal power if you could drill the hole in the ground at low enough cost.
- reduction in time in theater
There are many comparisons to be made.
This appears to be corporate welfare with little real benefit to the war fighter.
I think there should be more nuclear power plants just not in a war zone.
ReplyDelete"We’ve seen that the nuclear power plant in Ukraine has come under fire from Russia.." Actually, if you look at a map, the ex-Ukrainian nuclear power plants (like Enerhodar) are all actually BEHIND RUSSIAN LINES (and Enerhodar is across the unbridged Dnepr River), so it is not likely that the Russians are shelling them...
Russia shelled the Zaporizhzhia facility in Mar of this year as part of their seizure of the plant. Ukraine reported damage to various ancillary facilities and buildings but no significant damage to core processes.
DeleteIn the last few days, numerous reports claim Russian shelling of the Zaporizhzhia facility. Russia claims Ukraine conducted the shelling. It doesn't matter in the least who was responsible. The point in the post was that nuclear plants are susceptible to combat damage.
The military has been under attack from the greenies on a lot of fronts- and frankly I think the military should have a federal blanket waiver concerning most things in its day to day operations. Everything from not being able to paint ships in port to not being able to enlarge an F-18 squadron in Seattle without affecting local birds, there a millions, even billions being wasted in order to be environmentally friendly....
ReplyDeleteI'm gonna start by saying that I personally think this is a terrible way of going about whatever idiotic objectives the military has, purely on cost grounds if nothing else. Having said that, this sort of thing isn't a new idea. The US military has previously supported the development of compact nuclear reactors for deployment at various facilities in locations where transport infrastructure was extremely limited. In fact, the ANPP (Army Nuclear Power Program) previously operated a "portable" reactor in Greenland for a period of 3 years, though that made relatively little power, and was most useful for the waste heat it generated for the base.
ReplyDeleteAs far as TRISO fuel, the supposed advantage is that each individual fuel element is encapsulated into a tiny sealed unit of uranium oxide fuel surrounded by layers of ceramics. The idea is that the elements are incapable of "melting down" because the total heat generation if the cooling system fails is below the melting point of each sealed element. In addition, supposedly the effort necessary to break down & refine the fuel is greater than the effort necessary to refine existing raw uranium oxide and enrich it, so there's no point in stealing TRISO elements to make fuel or various enriched material. How true is any of this? It's not easy to tell, since I don't believe that any TRISO-fueled reactors have been approved for commercial construction & operation at this point in time.
Setting aside the hypotheticals of stealing the fuel or various irradiated components for a dirty bomb, the whole thing doesn't make sense. If the infrastructure is there to deploy full-size containers on the back of trucks, that implies that fuel can easily be shipped to whatever the deployment location will be for these reactors. If they're going to deploy them via aircraft, that implies that there's a suitable runway and operating base for heavy lift cargo planes. There's also the question of operating the reactors in general. Who's going to run these systems? Are these reactors designed with compatibility with existing commercial power systems, or US Navy systems? Is the Army going to send people to commercial reactors for training, or are these going to be run by extremely valuable trained contractors? Is the Navy going to run them by sending trained nuclear sub or carrier techs to wander around in some empty desert to operate a 5 megawatt reactor?
Let's also think of fuel handling and replacement. As far as I know, the US currently doesn't have a single fuel reprocessing plant in operation overseas. All fuel handling for the only "overseas" reactors currently being used by the military (subs & carriers) is done in the US. Is the plan to refuel these reactors in a foreign country, package the spent fuel elements, and ship them back to the US? Seems like a massive legal problem, given that some countries won't even let US Navy nuclear-powered vessels get too close to their coastlines. I'd be surprised if various NATO allies would let their soldiers deploy to a US-built base with a nuclear power plant operating in that location. Not that NATO allies are necessarily something worth considering, but the military currently acts as if they are. Seems like it might be a problem, but then again, I'm clearly not as clever as the geniuses running the DOD.
Gray
"If the infrastructure is there to deploy full-size containers on the back of trucks, that implies that fuel can easily be shipped to whatever the deployment location will be for these reactors. "
DeleteExcellent !
On the other hand, nuclear fuel storage won't require you to make massive, vulnerable fuel farms that the enemy can target, as was pointed out in blogposts earlier about airbase suppression.
DeleteBut, assuming for the sake of argument that containerised nuclear reactors are possible, it makes more sense for these to be used for constructed bases rather than FOBs or combat outpots. At least at these large bases, you have the resources to maintain security of these mobile reactors, and because the bases are high value targets, you ought to have SAM, CRAM and BMD defenses protecting the base (and by extension, the reactors).
This is more relevant for the large Desert Shield buildup bases or a division-level forward base in enemy territory than it is for a company-sized FOB in austere territory.
On the other, other hand, a single hit on a conventional generator won't put an entire base out of operation permanently due to radiation.
Delete"This is more relevant for the large Desert Shield buildup bases or a division-level forward base in enemy territory"
On the other hand, such a location makes the reactor an extremely attractive target with a single hit potentially putting the entire base out of operation due to radiation.
"If the infrastructure is there to deploy full-size containers on the back of trucks, that implies that fuel can easily be shipped to whatever the deployment location will be for these reactors."
DeleteYou're assuming those fuel trucks can get there unhindered by weather, rock slides, flooding, bad guys, etc. Plus, you'll likely need to store several days, maybe a week's worth of fuel, as a contingency, which would make for a good target. Then again, so would a small nuclear power plant.
I don't think I'm assuming anything. There's going to need to be a reasonably constant supply of fuel going to any modern military base, purely for vehicle operations, if nothing else. However, there's going to be lots of fuel going to any deployed reactor, for the same reason that all current nuclear reactors consume fuel: multiple redundant backup generators. These are generally necessary for safe & reliable operations of the reactor (emergency cooling, emergency plant operations power, etc), but they'll potentially be far more important in a military context. In the civilian world, if you have to temporarily shut down a reactor for any reason, including refueling operations, you have a reasonable likelihood that at least part of the now-missing baseload power can be offset from other sources. Without huge generator capacity & a massive supply of on-site fuel, what's the backup power source for a standalone military base? Or is the plan to deploy multiple reactors at each base, with an offset operations & refueling schedule? Pretty quickly you're going to get into a very complex facility being built up in whatever hypothetical near-zero infrastructure location these reactors are intended for.
DeleteWith the ANPP reactor that was deployed to Greenland, the primary purpose of the reactor was heat, more than power. Nukes make tons of heat, don't require tons of fuel flown in for the reactor itself, and are reasonably compact, so it wasn't a terrible concept. The risks of radiation release were somewhat minimized, since the reactor was going to be underground, and the most likely enemy attack would be a Soviet nuclear weapon, which would be just a bit more energetic than anything that would come out of the reactor itself. Having said that, it was a horrible failure, designed with serious defects in neutron shielding throughout the entire reactor vessel & cooling system, and is generally believed to have directly caused the death, via multiple cancers, of at least one soldier, namely the base commander. No modern reactor design could be even close to as unsafe as PM-2A was, but it still raises the issues of safe installation & operation without trained technicians.
Gray
Instead of building small nuclear reactors for military which is going to require a significant amount of resources, time and money
ReplyDeleteWhy not to build hundreds of new nuclear power plant all across Continental US
advantages:
1) Big boost to US Economy.
2) Some reduction in unemployment in US.
3) Strategic Autonomy in Energy.
4) Nuclear power plant can provide Base-load electricity, thus reducing the need of fossil fuels in power generation (for all those who think renewable sources of energy can replace fossil fuels, considering current technology there is no type of renewable energy source that can provide Base-load Power generation with same capacity as Fossil Fuels and Nuclear Energy)
5) Provide means to generate fissile material required for modernization of US nuclear arsenal.
6) Help in reducing the per unit cost of electricity thus big boost to manufacturing sector which is in decline and make cost of operating Electric vehicles cheaper.
Disadvantages:
1) Excess generation of Nuclear waste. (however they don't care about it, as they are planning to make small nuclear reactors for military)
If we go further, where we form an interconnect self load balancing power grid across the entire country then we can use the combination of Nuclear Energy, renewable Energy and Hydro Electricity which might solve majority of our Electricity generation problems.
here
1) Nuclear Energy will provide the Base-load Electricity
2) Renewable will be free (relative) source of electricity
3) Hydro Electric Power plants will act as a Capacitors/Energy storage.
Excess Electricity generated can be use to pump water up into the reservoir which can be send back down to provide additional electricity required during peak hours.
All of these will provide more access to fossil fuels (at cheaper rate ?) to US military, which helps US military to focus on more important things.
However, we live in the world where people are after higher profit margins and throw common sense and logic out of the window.
Because we do cannot agree on what to do with the waste. Creating more super long-lasting poison is not a good idea.
DeleteI feel this is one of those good ideas logistics officers have that sounds good on paper but doesn't really translate to the real world.
ReplyDeleteConsider: if the entire powerplant and fuel complex is 40 tons, this means that you can dedicate the rest of your logistics effort towards fuel for your vehicles. It lets you stretch the fuel supply for the mobile vehicles, instead of static generators for your HQ. (There's a reason all the Army's vehicles and generators run on jet fuel, so that they only have to move one sort of fuel that feeds everything from generators to trucks to helos.)
That said, this makes much more sense for supplying power to large constructed bases, such as the Desert Shield buildup, where it's possible to emplace security and defenses, versus an austere company-sized FOB like COP Keating.
This plan only works if electrical generation is your primary logistical need. You still need POL for your vehicles, food for your troops, spare parts, and lots and lots of ammo. Even as power hungry as modern high tech warfare is, I doubt electrical generation is the biggest chunk.
ReplyDeleteyour electrical generation is still using a non-neglible amount of fuel. If your base electricity can be made independant of fuel, that means you now have more fuel you can devote to your vehicles and operations.
DeleteChina is also making mobile nuclear reactors (you can google we), do you think that they are also stupid? If they make them with good reason, why doesn't Uncle Sam?
ReplyDeleteIt depends on what China's needs and challenges are. For example, we consider the potential environmental contamination to be a major drawback. I doubt China has any such qualms so that makes the concept much more feasible and desirable in their view.
Delete"You know you some times you do come up with really good points"
ReplyDeleteThe remainder of the comment deleted for being disrespectful.