Nuclear power for military bases will increase our national security

By Free Republic | Created at 2024-11-19 17:12:22 | Updated at 2024-11-24 02:04:44 4 days ago

Nuclear power for military bases will increase our national security
Breaking Defense ^ | November 14, 2024 at 1:14 PM | Lucian Niemeyer and Brian McCormack

Posted on 11/19/2024 8:46:07 AM PST by Fish Speaker

President-Elect Donald Trump enacted pro-nuclear policies during his first term and has supported an “all-of-the-above” energy policy during the campaign. At a campaign rally in Michigan on Aug. 29, he stated, “Starting on day one, I will approve new drilling, new pipelines, new refineries, new power plants, new reactors and we will slash the red tape. We will get the job done.”

This is exactly the posture needed to meet energy power demands — especially on the national security front, where the threats to energy infrastructure are all too real. We worked with our colleagues at the Pentagon, the Department of Energy and the White House Office of Management and Budget together during our time in President Trump’s first administration to launch several of these efforts, and his campaign comments are a good sign that they will continue going forward.

The US Air Force, Army, and Navy, as well as other offices in the Department of Defense have been working on deployment of nuclear energy sources to enhance energy resilience for national security missions. And that progress needs to continue, despite pushback from critics of nuclear power who view any nuclear energy project with suspicion, fear or misinformation.

A prime example of this kind of commentary can be found in an Oct. 7 op-ed by Alan J. Kuperman entitled, “On Army bases, nuclear energy can’t add resilience, just costs and risks” published in Breaking Defense. While we are sure Mr. Kuperman and his Nuclear Proliferation Prevention Project (NPPP) intended to be honest brokers, they provided information that alternates between being incorrect and out of date.

(Excerpt) Read more at breakingdefense.com ...

TOPICS: Government
KEYWORDS: nationalsecurity; nuclearpower; reliablepower

Click here: to donate by Credit Card

Or here: to donate by PayPal

Or by mail to: Free Republic, LLC - PO Box 9771 - Fresno, CA 93794

Thank you very much and God bless you.

It seems that the military is looking for reliable power sources like nuclear energy and does not want to rely on unreliable renewables.

1 posted on 11/19/2024 8:46:07 AM PST by Fish Speaker

To: Fish Speaker

“...and does not want to rely on unreliable renewables...”

Neither should anyone else that’s in their right mind.

2 posted on 11/19/2024 8:48:37 AM PST by lgjhn23 ("On the 8th day, Satan created the progressive liberal to destroy all the good that God created..." )

To: Fish Speaker

Well if it’s good enough for them…..

3 posted on 11/19/2024 8:50:10 AM PST by Magnum44 (...against all enemies, foreign and domestic... )

To: Fish Speaker

The last traditional reactors built in the USA were reactors #3 and #4 at the Vogtle plant in Georgia. They began approval in 2006 - and began commissioning in 2022. They came in about $15 billion over budget

There’s NO way the USA can build or obtain more nuclear power through this existing processes. its standard government and regulatory bloat. It won’t work

Besides new companies completely re-thinking designs with SMRs, the biggest obstacle will be Fed.gov itself.

4 posted on 11/19/2024 8:56:11 AM PST by PGR88

To: Fish Speaker

It doesn’t make sense to build a dangerous target like that by a base.

It isn’t “cheap,clean power!” The level of expertise and the capital cost to run a nuclear reactor is high, and the contamination risks so great from a mistake, that I do not support massive expansion of them.

5 posted on 11/19/2024 8:57:27 AM PST by redgolum

To: Fish Speaker

Absolutely; a national security necessity and should be done using the Defense Production Act should be used to speed up the process. Doing it for the military will be a boost to the companies who will carry the ball forward into the civilian industrial sector - like whole industrial parks with their own energy/small moduar modern safe nuclear power system.

6 posted on 11/19/2024 8:59:05 AM PST by Wuli

To: redgolum

“capital cost to run a nuclear reactor”

You are equating capital costs to operating costs. They are different.

7 posted on 11/19/2024 9:00:40 AM PST by TexasGator (-11)

To: Fish Speaker

Like they have such a good track record......uhm....no. What is good for us is good enough for them.

8 posted on 11/19/2024 9:05:04 AM PST by blackdog ((Z28.310) Be careful what you say. Your refrigerator may be listening & reporting you.)

To: TexasGator

No, I am not.

The big cost of the reactor is up front. A peak power nat gas plant or large boiler is cheaper up front than nukes. Now, the operating costs are more for the gas plant.

But the big issue is contamination. Not spent fuel, but during rebuild/refuel they have a lot of scrap steel that is supposed to be locked up till “Safe” but some how ends up in the system. Then you have the fact that the lack of good employees means you will have more incidents.

9 posted on 11/19/2024 9:08:59 AM PST by redgolum

To: Fish Speaker

There's a problem if us conservatives agree to the Dims' demand to shut down more coal and natural gas plants in exchange for seemingly environmental friendly nuclear plants.

That danger is that it's inevitable for the Dims to hate nuclear as soon as we start depending on it. What happened after the Dims pushed us to shut down a lot of coal plants and replace them with "clean burning natural gas" fueled plants? During the Trump years the Dims changed their minds on natural gas, claim natural gas is killing us all, and implemented policies making it harder and more expensive to drill for natural gas.

The Dims will do the same for nuclear or any other energy source whenever the Dims are in power. They can never be satisfied. So don't think switching to nuclear solves the main problem, which is the Dims' dumb war on energy to appease their warmageddon cult by making American weaker with their energy policies.

10 posted on 11/19/2024 9:12:14 AM PST by Tell It Right (1 Thessalonians 5:21 -- Put everything to the test, hold fast to that which is true.)

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Read Entire Article