Air-Portable Nuclear Reactor

[ORAC]

The mind boggles, why would they need one? But it could prove useful in disaster zones - and even in the UK as the lights go out after we shut down our remaining coal and AGR power stations......

Alert 5 » Pentagon looking at small mobile nuclear reactor that can be transported by C-17 - Military Aviation News

Pentagon looking at small mobile nuclear reactor that can be transported by C-17

[TWT]

why would they need one?

To provide a shed load of juice for their rail guns or high power laser weapons ?

[Ascend Charlie]

Ummm...it's called a BOMB....

[Fitter2]

Remote locations need independent power supply. Diesel generators (the only practical alternative) need a constant supply of fuel, with on site bulk storage. The military have a 50 year history of operating small reactors, and US/UK ones have an exemplary safety record. Nuclear power generator fuel isn't weapons grade (although it could be used in a dirty bomb, but attacking a base with the object of extracting and transporting away such material sounds a formidable challenge to potential undesirables).

It sounds like an idea worth a feasibility study.

[ORAC]

And one bomb or missile would spread around an awful lot of contamination rendering everything else in the area unusable for perhaps decades. Think Chernobyl.

thats before you consider the political ramifications of overflight of allied territory - or being caught doing it without asking them.

[sitigeltfel]

There are nuclear powered satellites whizzing above your head at this very moment.

[Just This Once...]

Thankfully not that many and all on orbits very far from Earth. I think the last one the USSR launched was back in the '80s but they did manage to smear one over a chunk of Canada before sense finally prevailed.

There is a cloud of radioactive coolant also making its way around the planet, also a gift from the USSR.

[jimjim1]

Originally Posted by ORAC

And one bomb or missile would spread around an awful lot of contamination rendering everything else in the area unusable for perhaps decades. Think Chernobyl.

No it won't.

The requirement says -
"Health & Safety: No net increase in risk to public safety by either direct radiation from operation or contamination with breach of primary core. " [1]

Magic required.

Nuclear reactor without nuclear materials! Unless Fusion reactors are further on that we know?

Word files can contain code. Make sure that Word is configured not to run Macros if you fancy a read.

[1] https://www.fbo.gov/index?s=opportun...=core&_cview=1

[jimjim1]

I may as well post the whole thing - electrons are cheap!

Pele_RFI_V15_(final)

Request for Information (RFI)

Introduction

Energy is a critical enabling component of military operations and demand for it will continue to increase over time. In particular, energy usage during contingency operations will likely increase significantly over the next few decades. The modern operational space has amplified the need for alternative energy sources to enable mobility in forward land based and maritime military operations. The Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Research and Engineering, OUSD(R&E), acting through the Strategic Capabilities Office (SCO), is requesting information on innovative technologies and approaches to enable a future demonstration of a small mobile nuclear reactor prototype design. This market research is intended to identify design concepts for a small mobile nuclear reactor based on the requirements outlined below. This RFI will be used as well to inform whether or not to proceed with a Request for Solutions (RFS) issued under the authority of 10 U.S.C. §2371b, or other announcement, for the first phase of what is anticipated will be a multi-phase prototype project for a small mobile nuclear reactor in support of Project Dilithium. A final determination has not been made on the acquisition method.

Summary

In August, 2016, the Defense Science Board identified key gaps in its report: Energy Systems for Forward Remote Operating Bases. OUSD(R&E), SCO is interested in responding to these needs by developing a small mobile nuclear reactor design that can address electrical power needs in rapid response scenarios. At a time when military operations are more energy-intensive than ever before, it is crucial that the Department of Defense (DOD) seek out game-changing technologies such as nuclear energy, which is a safe, reliable, and nearly unlimited resource. Small mobile nuclear reactors can make the DOD’s domestic infrastructure resilient to an electrical grid attack and fundamentally change the logistics of forward operating bases, both by making more energy available and by drastically simplifying the complex fuel logistical lines which currently support existing power generators operating mostly on diesel fuel. Additionally, a small mobile nuclear reactor would enable a more rapid response during Humanitarian Assistance and Disaster Relief (HADR) operations. Small mobile nuclear reactors have the potential to be an across-the-board strategic game changer for the DOD by saving lives, saving money, and giving soldiers in the field a prime power source with increased flexibility and functionality.

Objectives

For purposes of this RFI, OUSD(R&E), SCO is interested in small mobile nuclear reactor concept designs that produce electricity and which satisfy, at minimum, the following requirements:

· Threshold Power: 1-10 MWe of electric power generation

· Size/Transportability: < 40 tons total weight, sized for transportability by truck, ship, and C-17 aircraft

· Inherently safe design, ensuring that a meltdown is physically impossible in various complete failure scenarios such as loss of power/cooling.

· Ultimate heat sink: Ambient Air, capable of passive cooling

· Time to Install and reach Point of Adding Heat (POAH): Threshold: <72 hrs

· Life: Able to generate threshold power (1-10 MWe of electric power generation) for >3 years without refueling.

· Time for planned shutdown, cool down, disconnect and removal for transport:

o Threshold: < 7 days

· Operation: Semiautonomous - Not requiring manned control by operators to ensure safe operation. Minimal manning to monitor overall reactor and power plant system health.

· Safe Shutdown: Series of both automatic shutdowns as well as failsafe shutdowns with passive cooling upon loss of power.

· Health & Safety: No net increase in risk to public safety by either direct radiation from operation or contamination with breach of primary core. Minimized consequences to nearby personnel in case of adversary attack.

· Proliferation: Technology, engineering, and operations must demonstrate minimization of added proliferation risk.

Anticipated Program Outline

Up to three (3) different reactor design efforts may be awarded under Phase I. The Phase I effort will be a full-scope reactor prototype engineering design study, complete with a programmatic plan to address specifically enumerated risks, along with engineering and manufacturability concerns to articulate feasible path from design to build. Phase I is anticipated to be a 9-12 month effort, with a defined schedule and specific milestones to be identified in a follow on announce once the acquisition method is determined. Phase I awardees will work to develop a prototype design for a small mobile nuclear reactor, and produce a programmatic design-to-build plan including a risk reduction testing path for a successive Phase II award. Routine updates will be required to be submitted to the government for technical progress and evaluation purposes. Final deliverables will require specific risk mitigation actions germane to the specific reactor type design being developed, as well as reaching the equivalent of a Preliminary Design Review (PDR) for full scale design and build.

Following a down select to one of the Phase I awardees, a Phase II may proceed with material purchases, execution of the delivered program plan, and building on the existing prototyping design work produced under Phase I. Phase II will include a complete build and testing of the system prototype.

An announcement following determination of acquisition method is expected for release in Spring 2019. It will include the specific technical requirements, which will be informed in part by the information solicited in this RFI.

This OUSD(R&E), SCO effort requires all partner personnel working on the project (Industry, University Affiliated Research Center (UARC), Federally Funded Research and Development Centers (FFRDC), government etc.) to be United States citizens. Foreign nationals are ineligible from performing work on this effort and are not permitted access to controlled unclassified or classified information. Awardees will be required to demonstrate proof of U.S. citizenship for all partner personnel.

Submission Instructions

To respond to this RFI, interested parties should submit a capability statement of no more than five (5) pages, including cover letter and any attachments, describing their concept design and programmatic approach for the two phased effort. The capability statement must be submitted no later than 5:00 p.m. (Eastern) on Friday, February 8, 2019. The capability statement shall include a cover sheet and must be submitted by email to [email protected]. The cover letter (page 1 of your submission) should identify the interested party and relevant partners and should provide points of contact from the interested party. The capability statement should also briefly summarize (in no more than four (4) pages total) the technical concept, the approach proposed to meet the listed design objectives, associated technical challenges and approaches to address the enumerated technical challenges. This capability statement should also include a basic summary of the reactor design concept and level of work/risk reduction accomplished to date. Additionally, the capability statement should identify rough order of magnitude cost and schedule associated with each phase (Phase I and Phase II as described) for the program. Respondents are encouraged to be as succinct as possible while providing sufficient detail to adequately convey the technical concepts, challenges, and approaches. If partners are envisioned to be included in your program plan (e.g. universities, UARCs, FFRDCs, additional private or public companies, and Government research laboratories), please include that in the capabilities statement. Any proprietary information should be clearly marked as such. Format specifications include 12 point font, single-spaced, single-sided, 8.5 by 11 inches paper, with 1-inch margins in either Microsoft Word or Adobe PDF format.

In addition, interested parties may submit questions regarding the proposed work (not counted in the capabilities statement limit). Answers to those questions will be posted as an amendment to this RFI after the RFI response deadline. Questions should be submitted to [email protected]. A sample DD Form 254, Contract Security Classification Specification, is included as an attachment to provide interested parties with information regarding the expected security requirements for the prototype project.

Eligibility

OUSD(R&E), SCO invites participation from all those engaged in related research activities and appreciates responses from all capable and qualified sources including, but not limited to, universities, university-affiliated research centers, federally-funded research centers, private or public companies and Government research laboratories.

Disclaimers and Important Notes

This is an RFI issued solely for information and new program planning purposes. The RFI does not constitute a formal solicitation for proposals. In accordance with FAR 15.201(e), responses to this notice are not offers and cannot be accepted by the Government to form a binding contract. Submission of a capabilities statement is voluntary and is not required to propose to subsequent Broad Agency Announcements (if any) or research solicitations (if any) on this topic. SCO will not provide reimbursement for costs incurred in responding to this RFI. Any proprietary information should be clearly marked as such. Respondents are advised that SCO is under no obligation to acknowledge receipt of the information received or provide feedback to respondents with respect to any information submitted under this RFI. Response to the RFI is strictly voluntary. This RFI does not commit SCO to be responsible for any cost associated in the generation of the responses. RFI submissions may be reviewed by Government personnel; Federally Funded R&D Centers; and support contractors to the Government.

https://www.fbo.gov/index?s=opportunity&mode=form&id=a11aa31c8f828400d5c5d94b0e9 72319&tab=core&_cview=1

[Glevum]

I would not describe the small US reactors as having an exemplary safety record.

There were significant problems with the PM-3A Reactor at McMurdo

Small-scale US nuclear reactor blamed for spiking cancer rates, casting pall over Russia?s FNPP fetish - Bellona.org

[KenV]

Originally Posted by Glevum

I would not describe the small US reactors as having an exemplary safety record.
There were significant problems with the PM-3A Reactor at McMurdo
Small-scale US nuclear reactor blamed for spiking cancer rates, casting pall over Russia?s FNPP fetish - Bellona.org

Isn't it fascinating how "spiking cancer rates" can by used in so many creative ways? Back when the depleting ozone layer was the cause du jour, the hole in the ozone layer over the south pole was the cause of the spiking cancer rates. Now its a small-scale reactor. Tomorrow it'll be Trump's wall at the southern border.

[KenV]

Originally Posted by Glevum

I would not describe the small US reactors as having an exemplary safety record.

There were significant problems with the PM-3A Reactor at McMurdo

Small-scale US nuclear reactor blamed for spiking cancer rates, casting pall over Russia?s FNPP fetish - Bellona.org

These date back to 1950s and 60s designs. It's fascinating to me that nuclear reactor technology has (allegedly) remained static for several decades, while essentially every other technology has made steady and in many cases leaping advances over the same period. Funny that.

[PDR1]

As a rule nuclear powered satelites do not have nuclear REACTORS. They have a big box of plutonium called a "Radio-isotope Themoelectric Generator" (RTG). WHere a nuclear reactor has a container within which nuclear fission takes place, an RTG is just a chunk of material which gets warm because it is undergoing radio-active decay, and the warmth is used to generate electricity using thermocouples or (in recent developments) stirling engines. RTGs cannot produce nuclear "explosions"and being essentially solid-state devices they can be made extremely resistant to loss of containment in a crash. On the downside, they develop very small amounts of power (typically in the high tens to low hundreds of watts).

PDR

[ShyTorque]

On the downside, they develop very small amounts of power (typically in the high tens to low hundreds of watts).

The solar panels on my garage roof do better than that.

[charliegolf]

Originally Posted by ShyTorque

The solar panels on my garage roof do better than that.

Your garage will fit in a C-17?

CG

[Jason Burry]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/US-A

There have, indeed, been fission reactor powered satellites. Their safety record is questionable.

[jimjim1]

Originally Posted by ShyTorque

The solar panels on my garage roof do better than that.

My understanding is that the Nuclear thermoelectric generators are used on interplanetary missions when the distance from the sun makes solar generation hopeless. The potential problems with some kind of launch failure and the dispersal of radioactive material makes their use quite rare.

[ShyTorque]

Originally Posted by charliegolf

Your garage will fit in a C-17?

CG

Will a C-17 get it into orbit?

[air pig]

They did work in the 70s on nuclear powered heart pacemakers. This is a 10yr old report.

https://uk.reuters.com/article/healt...60427320071219

[tartare]

There is so much misinformed bollocks peddled about the dangers of nuclear power.
When the boy was small - took him to Lucas Heights for one of their incredibly informative weekend open days.
Fascinating experience.
A wry and very smart old scientist held a highly entertaining session for the kids - they handed out a type of dinner plate from the 1960s - we all held them - and were told "...you're actually being irradiated..." - can't remember what the material was.
We saw the Cherenkov glow in the water pool - amazing.
The hysteria is criminal.
Personally - I think this sounds like an admirable project.
A large amount of stable, constant portable power - numerous uses for that.