An Easy Solution Environmentalists Don't Want To Use.

I've often said I'm an not an "environmentalist," as they are radical anti-growth and frankly anti human development people, many of whom want to spare themselves of the pain they push on others. Just recently John Kerry, hypocrite extraordinaire, was actually called out on his use of his private jet to go to one conference after another demanding we stop using internal combustion engines. Like the one in "his" plane and the limo he always rides in. 

In fairness, it was not his plane. It was his wife's. 

I prefer the term conservationist. I believe the Earth's natural resources should be efficiently exploited for the benefit of mankind. That include oil, natural gas, coal, water, and air. Keep the air and water clean, absolutely. Stop using things that work (e.g. automobiles, aircraft, etc) while the hypocrites lecture us from their 200' yachts? I don't think so. 

One point made countless times is there is a source of electricity the leaves no "greenhouse" gases, but many of the enviro nut-jobs want no part of is nuclear power. Legitimately there is an issue of where to store the radioactive waste, but that should have been settled ages ago. Yucca Mountain in Nevada has been designated as a national storage site since 1997, and it's still an open issue after resistance from local politicians. Hopefully a Republican president in 2025 will use eminent domaine to seize the land, establish the final site and name it after a man who's deserved this honor. Let's call it the Harry Reid Toxic Waste dump. 

But I found this interesting. The Army is working on portable nuclear generators to deploy to the field. If we can send these to 3rd World nations, why not  downtown USA? 

Pentagon to build nuclear microreactors to power far-flung bases

Pentagon officials recently announced that the Defense Department will build a nuclear microreactor that can be flown to an austere site by a C-17 cargo plane and set up to power a military base.

A statement released Wednesday by the Pentagon’s Strategic Capabilities Office announced the construction and testing decision that followed the office’s Environmental Impact Statement work for “Project Pele...”

...The plans call for a 40-ton reactor that can fit in three-to-four 20-foot shipping containers and, once set up, provide 1 to 5 Mega Watts of power on full power operation for up to three years before refueling.

The microreactor will ultimately join a newer type of nuclear fuel being used in the program at the Idaho National Laboratory. Testing and experimentation will occur in 2024, with demonstrations anticipated by 2025, (Program Manager, Dr. Jeff Waksman) Waksman said.

“Advanced nuclear power has the potential to be a strategic game-changer for the United States, both for the DoD and for the commercial sector,” Waksman said. “For it to be adopted, it must first be successfully demonstrated under real-world operating conditions.”

...Waksman responded to that concern with a twofold answer to Army Times this week, saying that the microreactor will be used for austere locations, some of which were identified in the original 2018 Army G-4 report, “Study on the Use of Mobile Nuclear Power Plants for Ground Operations.”

Those include places such as Fort Greely, Alaska, and Lajes Field, Azores.

Second, Waksman said that both the newer designed reactor, a “high-temperature gas reactor,” and its fuel source, known as high-assay low enriched uranium tristructural isotropic fuel, provide more safety measures than older generation reactors and fuel.

The design also has protection features built in that are currently classified, Waksman said. Additionally, commanders can enhance protection with barriers or by burying the reactor underground, he said.

“This thing is very resilient,” Waksman said.

The fuel type offers another layer of protection.

“The uranium is in millions of tiny pebbles, less than 1 mm in diameter, each individually encapsulated,” Waksman said. “Each fuel pellet is its own barrier...”

 

The article is long and there is  a lot of verbiage from opponents such as the Union of Concerned Scientists, a group of scientist with less credibility on nuclear proliferation than the Southern Poverty Law Center has with "hate groups." Legitimately they raise the issue of exposure to air attack, but this would be less of a threat than they publish. The idea is for this generator to be far behind the lines, not on the front lines. This is where you have air defense coverage, not to mention ground security. 

Progress. Seeing these "scientists" want us to mine for rare minerals for EV batteries in spite of the pollution that causes. Or air conditioning is "destroying the planet" but they don't shut their AC units off. I will remind these "experts" the US came in under the carbon restrictions of the Paris Climate accord thanks to fracking, allowing us to use more natural gas for electricity generation. And it will be business, not idiots with PhDs, who will lead us into a powered future.