Why the U.S. Military Wants Nuclear Reactors

Jeff Waksman, program manager for Project Pele, joins Dr. Chris Keefer to discuss the impetus for the military microreactor project, the logistics and energy challenges at the heart of modern warfare, and the technical considerations of microreactor development. Few voices are more qualified to speak on the state-of-the-art in tiny nuclear reactors.

Episode name on podcast players: Reactors on Wheels

Listen to Decouple on:

[davidbutz]

What a great episode! They're all excellent, of course -- you're doing great work, doctor -- but this one, with the leapfrogging of "paper reactors" into real physical reality, was really encouraging. Hope for the future.

[happyhome]

Fantastic episode . . . real work - Dr Waksman is a superlative representative for DoD, and kudos to you both for making this happen ! 💯

[hands-on-mc]

Lots of great information, I hope more public officials and policy makers start paying attention and understanding this sort of knowledge

[mikef]

Excellent show, great articulation of the ‘devil’s in the details’ about thermal stress, shielding, size etc. Solve one problem and 2 more show up. You need to make it portable, robust and able to be operated in harsh conditions by soldiers. Best of luck! I believe in the ability of smart well motivated people to achieve great things! Cheers

[pin]

Micro reactors will be a game changer in the Arctic. We dont need much power but we do need a lot of heat. We could build large hangars to store planes. We could keep large jet fuel tanks warm. We could build nice housing to make life better for the people that work up there and we could keep large greenhouses warm enough to grow food all year using grow lights.

[davidhemsted]

How about a podcast comparing project Pele with Copenhagen Atomics?

[sippinga.wiskey]

Awesome job as always. Thank you for all you do!

[scottmedwid]

This is kind of a fantasy of mine, but wouldn't it be great if Congress in the US government passed the bill reforming the nuclear regulatory commission to the point that an emergency prototyping license could be issued to companies that are coming forward and working through the department of energy and the NRC with new designs. If a company is in the process right now, and they've passed around or two of reviews and they are working with department of energy labs to develop the technology, they be granted an emergency license to take their design to the prototyping stage. This would be something similar to the experimental reactor and developmental reactor stages under the old AEC. This might cut the timeline of development and free up private financing for the development of these 21st century designs.

[CRSolarice]

The issue that I have with the pro-nuclear crowd is that as soon as someone makes the assertion that light water reactors are by design relatively unsafe and we should pursue new designs that fact based conversation seems to evaporate from the conversation. For example the moment I mention Thorium and LFTR designs I get replies from people who refuse to accept that LFTR designs may have many benefits over light water reactors. I don't understand how these people have consciously made the decision to simply ignore reality and dispute the research and proven facts with regard to Thorium based liquid fluoride reactors. As soon as someone makes a suggestion that maybe we should look into alternate designs and consider that many of the unsafe issues with nuclear power stem from the light water reactor designs and can be remedied by implementing already researched alternatives it becomes a conversation that is based on opinion and familiarity rather than fact. Where does this biased resistance come from?

[piotrturek]

I'm as pro-nuclear as they come but we are currently on track to do exactly the thing the guest is aiming to avoid - a nuclear reneissance when almost nothing gets built. We should be building "boring" AP1000s en masse rather than throw money at small and micro reactor science projects. We don't need new designs we need to get faster, cheaper, better at constructing existing designs.

EDIT: Having said that, Jeff seems to be a very down-to-earth, pragmatic guy and the project seems the same. Good luck to them!

[itsmatt]

I love the possibility of micro reactors, but after 40 years of being a nuclear fan boy, I've finally had to admit commercial micros cannot happen. There's just way too many problems and challenges to overcome and the more research that's done, the bigger and more numerous these challenges become. We've thrown SO much money at this fantasy, we've come so far, the problems should be diminishing, but they're multiplying instead. The permanent long term solution to our energy needs is renewables with good battery storage. Even if commercial micros existed and were viable, they'd still only ever be a stop gap, temporary solution to our energy needs, renewables will always be the ultimate best solution. If all the money we're pissing away verifying what we already know, that commercial micros aren't going to work, were spent on battery research and production development, I suspect we'd either already have the ultimate battery or be very close. The current mindless frenzy over micros reminds me of the Madison Avenue (advertising industry) dictum, "sell the sizzle, not the steak." Micros are all sizzle, no steak. They are a wonderful, beautiful fantasy, it would be fantastic if we could realize the dream they promise but they are all promise, no potential reality. And it's not because we just haven't gotten around to building one yet, they don't have a "reality" in the first place, as in, when all the scores of billions of dollars we're fire hosing at micros has been spent, all the promising avenues of development followed to their end, when all the searches are exhausted, everyone involved will have to admit "micros were a nice idea, a beautiful, magnificent, seductive fantasy but they cannot be brought to reality." Lots of people in the micros fantasy industrial complex know this but they are making SO much money selling the sizzle, the promise of micros, they would be a fool to tell the truth.

[shaneciccarelli-palmer]

1:02:27 “one of the most dangerous the planet but it hasn’t harmed anyone yet” tfdym? SL-1 (since your so into nuclear history), Chernobyl, three miles island, and Fukushima. Those are publicly known examples where people were seriously injured from nuclear power or directly killed.

[jonathanedwardgibson]

Rusatom pumps out industrial-strength floating power plants like Zoom issues SW updates - so I don’t understand guest dismissing Russian production when your own conversation here began with the complete lack in America output across recent decades. What else do we need to check out for his voracity?

[husnumurat]

The main question remains how come it takes 5-7 years to build a Chinese/Russian nuclear reactor where there is not a single nuclear plant built in west in less than 15 years and in budget. It does boil to corruption and that’s not the authoritarian states but the Indian democracies that we are running in western side

[tobyw]

Please give us a bill of materials for some likely reactors if you would. What is needed: pipe, welding, pumps, controls, gauges, interconnecting wiring, power, vessel, generators, power grid, building(s) roads, real estate, roads. staff.

[davidhemsted]

Could you build a 100 megawatt HTGCR in a 40 foot container?

[troglokev]

So… the operators have to be 200m away… sounds safe.

[chaptertravels]

If SpaceX did nuclear, the Musk philosophy of the best part is no part would drive its design. Build a reactor that doesn't need a nuclear-grade forged reactor vessel, one that doesn't require a gigantic containment structure, one that doesn't need nuclear-grade power conversion equipment that only specialized labor could build, one that has online refueling, one that is high-efficiency, one that also produces industrial grade process heat, one that doesn't need giant cooling towers, and finally one that doesn't need to be a giant government boondoggle to get built.