Danger Room had this post about Maj. Gen. Don Alston, the Air Force’s top dog on nuclear forces, the other day, which had a few interesting things to say about the tough inspection regime that’s caused so many nuclear-armed units to fail, including the one in Minot:
In certain corners of the military, there’s some grumbling about how impossibly hard the Air Force’s nuclear handling inspections have become. Maj. Gen. Don Alston, the Air Force’s new man at the Pentagon overseeing all things atomic, has a message for the grumblers: Suck it up.
These are weapons that can destroy cities, and turn the world’s political balance on its ear. There’s no room, he says, even for the small failures.
Longtime readers know I’m fascinated with nuclear weapons, particularly their Cold War history. The new zero tolerance for failure harkens back to the old days when nuclear-armed units were the cream of the Air Force. I had a post and story about that back in July, when I did a story on the old 321st Strategic Missile Wing that used to be at Grand Forks Air Force Base.
Have you been to: Elena’s Motorcyle Ride through Chernobyl
http://www.kiddofspeed.com/
Very interesting tour with pictures – I’m thinking the USA has better nuclear reactors than Russia’s.
Of course we do. If we can just find a place to store the nuclear waste. It’d be nice to have a little more balance in our electricity production.
Note, though, that Chernobyl was operated by the Soviets in Ukraine, not Russia.
Well, Bombs Away!
Actually, with the fuel reclamation technology at our disposal, by the time the fuel rods were ready to be stored, you could hold them in your hand.
The myth of “storing” nuclear waste is just that…a myth. Nuclear material is so heavy, it doesn’t readily move.
Google “Oklo reactor”…it is estimated that the left over material has moved approximately 4 feet in 3-4 million years and it’s not “stored” at all.
We’ve been sold a bill of goods (about nuclear power) by the far left environmental movement that’s “out to lunch”. Nuclear is clean and could actually HELP us become less dependent on oil.
By the way, the reactor that exploded in the Ukraine (Chernobyl) was a graphite modulated reactor…we don’t have any of that type here in the States.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RBMK
Dan: The bulk of our electricity comes from coal followed by natural gas and nuclear power. Oil is at the very bottom of the list. (http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/epm/table1_1.html)
This issue is not directly about energy independence. Some say nukes would provide cheaper electricity, which means electric cars would make more economic sense. But the point is we’d have to all change to electric cars and electric trucks and trains.
The other advantage of nukes is they don’t generate carbon dioxide like coal power plants. So there are environmentalists who see nukes as the lesser of two evils.