Was reading through the FY11 Defense Budget Report from the Armed Services Committee. There is RDT&E money for smaller scale nuke plants, to include Thorium Salt designs. They are looking into Destroyer sized systems. They will look at Conventional as well as Salt based designs. The Commitee believes that long term the navy must push for a all nuclear fleet.
From page 158 of the report: "The committee recommends an increase of $2.5 million in PE63570N for research and design efforts to develop an integrated nuclear power system capable of use on destroyer-sized vessels either using a pressurized water reactor or a thorium liquid salt reactor."
I wonder how Rick & Co are making out...silence can be your worst enemy sometimes.
I saw nothing in the RDT&E and overall budget for Polywell. That does not mean it is not there, just means that it was not an issue for the committee. We will have to wait for the Giganto Spreadsheet.
http://armedservices.house.gov/
Speaking of Thorium and Navy Nuclear Power verses Polywell
Re: Speaking of Thorium and Navy Nuclear Power verses Polywe
Where is the budget report? The Armed Services Committee site mentions the "National Defense Authorization Act FY2011 (H.R. 5136)" but doesn't actually provide a link. I found a copy of H.R. 5136 at http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-h5136/show, but it doesn't mention thorium.ladajo wrote:Was reading through the FY11 Defense Budget Report from the Armed Services Committee.
...
http://armedservices.house.gov/
- Jim Van Zandt
Future integrated nuclear power systems
The budget request contained $366.5 million in PE 63570N for advanced nuclear power systems, but contained no funds for development of small scale pressurized water reactors suitable for destroyer-sized vessels or for alternative nuclear power systems using thorium liquid salt technology.
The committee remains committed to an all nuclear powered naval battle force. The committee notes that significant challenges in size and weight of nuclear technology make inclusion of integrated nuclear power systems on destroyer sized vessels currently impossible. Therefore, the committee believes that additional funding in engineering research and development is needed to design a smaller scale version of a naval pressurized water reactor, or to design a new reactor type potentially using a thorium liquid salt reactor developed for maritime use.
The committee recommends an increase of $2.5 million in PE 63570N for research and design efforts to develop an integrated nuclear power system capable of use on destroyer-sized vessels either using a pressurized water reactor or a thorium liquid salt reactor.
-
GIThruster
- Posts: 4686
- Joined: Tue May 25, 2010 8:17 pm
Smaller ships that don't need tenders, like the tenders themselves, have more flexibility than larger ships and can enter unsecured ports alone. That would no longer be true if they were nuclear because of the security risk involved should a well organized band assault the ship and take it. A fission reactor is worth more than the ship in these instances so one expects they would not be put aboard things like cargo craft.kurt9 wrote:The Navy is being prudent. Until the WB-8 and following work is successful, Polywell fusion has to be considered speculative. Ships should be all nuclear, whether it be fission or fusion.
On the other hand, a Poly is so safe it could form the basis for an historic exception and not need such security as Navy fission reactors. What would/could a band of crazed fascists do with a Poly to gain power?
-
kunkmiester
- Posts: 892
- Joined: Thu Mar 12, 2009 3:51 pm
- Contact:
On top of the security issues, there's the training--as Simon will tell I'm sure, you need special certification to work on a nuke plant, and probably to work on the ship at all. There was a point that the Navy decided that certain ship classes were more expensive to operate nuclear then conventional. The alternative fission systems will share this and other drawbacks for quite a bit of the Navy's business.
Because a polywell failure is less catastrophic, it doesn't require as much regulation. It also lacks massive steam systems that make lots of noise, important even for surface ships.
Because a polywell failure is less catastrophic, it doesn't require as much regulation. It also lacks massive steam systems that make lots of noise, important even for surface ships.
Evil is evil, no matter how small
All of this is true but irrelevant if polywell fusion does not work.kunkmiester wrote:On top of the security issues, there's the training--as Simon will tell I'm sure, you need special certification to work on a nuke plant, and probably to work on the ship at all. There was a point that the Navy decided that certain ship classes were more expensive to operate nuclear then conventional. The alternative fission systems will share this and other drawbacks for quite a bit of the Navy's business.
Because a polywell failure is less catastrophic, it doesn't require as much regulation. It also lacks massive steam systems that make lots of noise, important even for surface ships.
Sad but true.kurt9 wrote:All of this is true but irrelevant if polywell fusion does not work.kunkmiester wrote:On top of the security issues, there's the training--as Simon will tell I'm sure, you need special certification to work on a nuke plant, and probably to work on the ship at all. There was a point that the Navy decided that certain ship classes were more expensive to operate nuclear then conventional. The alternative fission systems will share this and other drawbacks for quite a bit of the Navy's business.
Because a polywell failure is less catastrophic, it doesn't require as much regulation. It also lacks massive steam systems that make lots of noise, important even for surface ships.
The difficulty is that there are only so many people with an IQ above X who join the Navy. And of those not all want to be Nukes. The people problem is the biggest bottleneck. It is a time and money sink.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.
I have heard this. However, assuming that none of B11-p fusions work out, I expect fission power to become prominent, both here and in Asia (especially Asia). This is LFTR, TWR, and other advanced concepts. If so, I think the commercial demand for nuclear engineers will increase, which will motivate more Navy personnel to become nuclear engineers.MSimon wrote:
The difficulty is that there are only so many people with an IQ above X who join the Navy. And of those not all want to be Nukes. The people problem is the biggest bottleneck. It is a time and money sink.
Of course it would be nice if either EMC2 or Tri-Alpha's concepts work out. However, until it happens, the Navy and industry have to assume the worse.
Being a nvay nuke is not fun nor glamorous. They pay hefty bonuses for a reason. The tree hugger lobbyist (sp?) have made it so hard to run a nuke plant that it drives the costs of operations and manning up and out the roof. The navy continues to suffer a drastic loss rate on nuclear trained personnel even with bonuses because of the pain invovled with being a nuke.
until someone reins in the tree huggers, nuclear anything is going to be silly expensive in order to contain the lawyers. Plus, it will continue to be painful to do, so folks will not want to stay with it over the long haul.
It is expensive in material and people. Thank you tree huggers and lawyers.
until someone reins in the tree huggers, nuclear anything is going to be silly expensive in order to contain the lawyers. Plus, it will continue to be painful to do, so folks will not want to stay with it over the long haul.
It is expensive in material and people. Thank you tree huggers and lawyers.
Thorium Study for Energy Efficiency
Congressman Sestak submitted language directing a study on the use of thorium-liquid fueled nuclear reactors for naval power, an important assessment of an energy source that has shown great potential to be more efficient for our military. As a result, the House Armed Services Committee included funding in the bill for research and development of a nuclear-powered destroyer reactor utilizing thorium energy.
While our nuclear Navy has thrived with a continuing record of zero reactor accidents, thorium may be more efficient than uranium as a fuel source. Massive fuel rods would not have to be utilized, and it produces only 1/2000th the waste of uranium. In domestic applications, waste can even be stored on-site, eliminating the necessity of facilities such as Yucca Mountain. Large deposits of thorium can be mined domestically in States such as Idaho, and we already have 160,000 tons in reserve.
Under a provision of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008, any new major combatant vessels for the U.S. strike force is required to be constructed with an integrated nuclear power system unless the Secretary of Defense submits a notification to Congress that the inclusion of an integrated nuclear power system in a given class of ship is not in the national interest. While the Congressman is not yet convinced that nuclear power for Naval ships is always cost-beneficial in the long term, if there are nuclear-powered vessels that continue to be built under Congressional mandate, then all options for the fuel source are worthy of consideration.
Congressman Sestak submitted language directing a study on the use of thorium-liquid fueled nuclear reactors for naval power, an important assessment of an energy source that has shown great potential to be more efficient for our military. As a result, the House Armed Services Committee included funding in the bill for research and development of a nuclear-powered destroyer reactor utilizing thorium energy.
While our nuclear Navy has thrived with a continuing record of zero reactor accidents, thorium may be more efficient than uranium as a fuel source. Massive fuel rods would not have to be utilized, and it produces only 1/2000th the waste of uranium. In domestic applications, waste can even be stored on-site, eliminating the necessity of facilities such as Yucca Mountain. Large deposits of thorium can be mined domestically in States such as Idaho, and we already have 160,000 tons in reserve.
Under a provision of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008, any new major combatant vessels for the U.S. strike force is required to be constructed with an integrated nuclear power system unless the Secretary of Defense submits a notification to Congress that the inclusion of an integrated nuclear power system in a given class of ship is not in the national interest. While the Congressman is not yet convinced that nuclear power for Naval ships is always cost-beneficial in the long term, if there are nuclear-powered vessels that continue to be built under Congressional mandate, then all options for the fuel source are worthy of consideration.
-
GIThruster
- Posts: 4686
- Joined: Tue May 25, 2010 8:17 pm
While our nuclear Navy has thrived with a continuing record of zero reactor accidents. . .
--------
Em, sorry but your definition of what constitutes a "reactor accident" is up for appraisal. I like the vast bulk of your post but it glosses over the fact we've lost not one but two nuclear vessels and the environmental hazards of this are formidable.
USS Scorpion was lost in 1968 and USS Thresher in 1963. There's all that atomic junk sitting on the bottom of the sea poisoning whatever is around it. Lets not pretend nukes are safe. They're not. We mitigate the risk through careful and hard work, but fission reactors with all their products are NOT safe. They have never been. Fusion will be much safer.
--------
Em, sorry but your definition of what constitutes a "reactor accident" is up for appraisal. I like the vast bulk of your post but it glosses over the fact we've lost not one but two nuclear vessels and the environmental hazards of this are formidable.
USS Scorpion was lost in 1968 and USS Thresher in 1963. There's all that atomic junk sitting on the bottom of the sea poisoning whatever is around it. Lets not pretend nukes are safe. They're not. We mitigate the risk through careful and hard work, but fission reactors with all their products are NOT safe. They have never been. Fusion will be much safer.