[hercdriver]

This is a very interesting topic. I wish I would have included some of these issues in my thesis about energy security. As a C-130 pilot I can tell you that using FF as a aircraft power source would be a long way off. Aircraft are not designed and built overnight. The engineering for the engine alone would pose a significant challenge. Unlimited fuel on the other hand would propose a significant carrot for certain aircraft (but not all by any means). Considering that upgrades for current aircraft can take a decade to complete I wouldn’t expect a untested power plant to be brought into service for a while. The cost of developing this power plant would be significant and may prove cost prohibitive for decades to come. However, just as the military seeks to remove people from cockpits to reduce costs, eliminating fuel costs could promote the engineering enough to provide a break through.

Some see the military exploitation of the FF reactor and are wise to investigate such risks, but the world already has the ability to end human life on the planet yet refrains from such acts as the will to live seems to over rule such actions. Focusing on how to avoid exploitation is worth wile but I wouldn’t spend as much time on this as the potential benefits.

As for the idea of stealth satellites, there are barely enough spaces in the useful orbits for what we have now. How is something that is undetectable going to be immune from the owner of the position putting something in said space? You wouldn’t want your 500 billion dollar stealth satellite turned into space junk by another commercial satellite trying to take it’s place.

There are more questions than answers at this point but they all warrant investigation and discussion.

[hercdriver]

A more successful approach to introducing FF generators into the grid might be to start with smaller municipalities and remote sites which will demonstrate reliability and lack of expense. Getting the Dept Of Defense on board will also jump start the project as they provide a major funding source. Once they prove capable, you can start building to provide for increased energy demand (new coal/nuke/gas plants become defunct). This allows the current sources to be phased out over a period of 25-50 years and provides a safety net in the case of problems with FF in the near future. If FF plants show aptitude at producing energy on demand then they also have a place immediately as spinning reserves in the current power grid allowing less waste from the fossil fuel plants (which would quickly lower operating and thus end user costs). All in all a stepped and measured approach at introduction and eventual domination seems to make the most sense to me.

[hercdriver]

Sorry for the delay in posting. I had to move from overseas and got caught up in paperwork and red tape. NRC wouldn’t apply to overseas bases but unless there is no SOFA agreement in place (Status of Forces Agreement) you couldn’t just bring whatever you want into a foreign country. It would be subject to the host countries laws. Operators would likely be the biggest issue but could be overcome with some training for soldiers who would care for the generator. I posted a similar scenario in my thesis last year. I just suggested that we leave the generator in place to provide power to the local community when we leave (how’s that for a lasting contribution).

[hercdriver]

Tulse wrote: The blog Idaho Samizdat has an update on four next-generation small fission reactors (as does NextBigFuture). This looks like a pretty active area currently, although I think it is quite uncertain when any of these will be licensed by the NRC. I suppose that isn’t necessarily a show-stopper, however, if a company targets markets in the developing world and/or venues that are exempt from such licensing (such as military bases).

What makes you believe military bases are exempt from such licensing? Federal property still falls under the EPA and NRC regulations that govern nuclear power plant placement. Only a place specifically designed for nuclear testing or similar use would be regulated differently. You should see what it takes to build a hangar on a base (proving you will capture and properly dispose of every drop of POL is an expensive prospect). The only difference I can see is that a base or piece of federal property large enough wouldn’t need to have state permission to build the plant. Private enterprise also has a lot of hurdles to overcome if placed on federal land. If I were building a new power plant I would look for a sympathetic state and build it on state owned land, not federal land.

[Author]

Posts