Comments on: Climate Change Shaping Navy Plans

By: elgatoso

elgatoso — Tue, 20 Oct 2009 01:34:35 +0000

Advocates of the thorium fuel cycle point to its numerous advantages over the uranium-plutonium fuel cycle.Advantages: Increased nuclear fuel resources thanks to the production of 233U from 232Th; Significant reduction in demand for the enriched isotope 235U;Very low (compared with the uranium-plutonium fuel cycle) production of long-lived radio-toxic wastes, including transuraniums, plutonium and transplutoniums;Possibility of accelerating the burnup of plutonium without the need for recycling, i.e. rapid reduction of existing plutonium stocks;
– Higher fuel burnup than in the uranium-plutonium cycle;
– Low excess reactivity of the core with thorium-based fuel, and more favorable temperature and void reactivity coefficients; Thorium could replace U-238 in conventional LWRs, and could be used to bred new nuclear fuel in specially modified LWRs.

By: elgatoso

elgatoso — Tue, 20 Oct 2009 01:30:39 +0000

We need to go all nuclear.The future is all electric drive ‚all nuclear propelled.We actually use 1 generation reactors in the navy.We need to go to 4 gen reactors.The generation four is a revolutionary design.The very first experimental reactors used a system called a fast spectrum, to have really fast neutrons that could break up not just what we think of as enriched uranium, uranium-235, but also uranium-238, depleted uranium. So instead of getting less than 1% of the energy out of uranium, these fast reactors get about 99.8% of the energy out of it which means they’re incredibly more efficient in terms of using the uranium resource. And actually we’ve mined enough uranium already to run the whole world in these reactors for about 500 years.We may run out in 50,000 or so years if we powered the whole world by uranium, but then we’ve got about four times as much thorium to use as well. So the argument that we’ll run out of uranium is a dead one.

By: Jason

Jason — Mon, 19 Oct 2009 16:30:11 +0000

This isn’t exactly on topic, but deals with the Navy. Ok, the Navy only asked for one DDG-51 destroyer (along with an DDG-1000), but the Senate (or House) ADDED another DDG-51 to the Defense Bill. So, how can they do that???? Sure, it means an extra Destroyer, which is great, but the Navy didn’t ask for it, meaning they will have to hire a full crew and extra resources. What is going to happen because of this addition?

By: Bobby Ballgame

Bobby Ballgame — Mon, 19 Oct 2009 13:43:16 +0000

Mr. Russ selectively quotes the people who support his view, as do other folks in this game, including a lot of educated people. Global warming being equated to manmade causes is totally not proven. I agree that some temperatures are rising, and I agree that they are falling in some places. Can anyone give me ANY specific, proven, factual data that compares to the data currently collected with sophisticated collection and analysis from 1200 B.C.? How about the 4th century? OK, how about 1400? Get the idea? The earth warms and cools and, even many of the “90%” agree that the earth was warmer before combustion engines and such.

By: elgatoso

elgatoso — Sun, 18 Oct 2009 02:33:24 +0000

all nuclear navy is the answer

By: Tipover

Tipover — Sun, 18 Oct 2009 00:23:53 +0000

Saving on fuel and using localy available fuels (nuc, gas, oil) is smart. Using Global Warming as an excuse is not. Dr Hanson (of hockey stick fame) beleived ing Global Cooling before he belived in Global “Warming”.

By: Colonial-Marine

Colonial-Marine — Sat, 17 Oct 2009 04:12:20 +0000

“Faux News vs facts”? Fox News is more accurate than most of the “news” these days, but I guess you are a MSNBC fan. And what the hell does evolution have to do with the United States Navy?

There should be no cuts to our ability to project power for the sake of the theory that CO2 production is causing global warming. Destroyers and cruisers are going to be big to do their job, and if they have to use plenty of fuel, so be it. If we were really serious about getting off foreign oil we should be building nuclear power plants and remove Carter-era restrictions preventing the reprocessing of spent nuclear fuel.

By: pfcem

pfcem — Sat, 17 Oct 2009 03:54:45 +0000

No, global warming is NOT scientific fact. What IS scientific fact is that the global temperature has risen & fallen many, many, many times & man has had NOTHING to do with it.

Global warming isn’t science, it is a great big scam.

By: Daniel

Daniel — Sat, 17 Oct 2009 03:21:12 +0000

global climate fluctuations are a fact. man made global warming is a THEORY. it has not been proven and there is not enough data to tell either way. the earth getting warmer isnt necessarily a bad thing either ever wonder why GREENland isnt so green and Scotland at one time had vineyards, the earth has been much warmer than it currently is. there are special interest groups on both sides. if you think “big environment” doesn’t have its own lobbyists and its own agenda you are blissfully ignorant. that said, imported oil is a great weakness and a major operating cost, anything done to mitigate this logistical weakness and make us more cost effective is good.

By: Daniel Russ

Daniel Russ — Sat, 17 Oct 2009 01:51:11 +0000

Global warming is a scientific fact. Science doesn’t deal in left vs right or Faux News vs Facts.

So is evolution.

Hate to tell you this facts are facts no matter how many “think tanks” and oil and gas lobbyists disagree with it.

That said, deal with it.

Daniel Russ
Civilianmilitaryintelligencegroup.com

By: Vacaville

Vacaville — Fri, 16 Oct 2009 19:57:29 +0000

How much fuel does the Blue Angels waste away every day having fun?

By: Task Force Energy

Task Force Energy — Fri, 16 Oct 2009 19:34:01 +0000

Naval Task Force Energy appreciates the comments and attention to our recent energy forum. To learn more about our efforts toward energy efficiency and alternative fuels, please follow us on Facebook at http://tinyurl.com/yh8kffs and on Twitter @NavalEnergy

By: Herb91949

Herb91949 — Fri, 16 Oct 2009 19:33:28 +0000

GW since the late 1800’s??? Doesn’t anyone understand that the late 1800’s were the last years of the little ice age???
The little ice age lasted until 1850 and the current temps are still not as high as during the middle ages warm period.
Those that listen to people predicting what the temp will be in 2100 aren’t paying attention to the fact that these same people cannot accuratly predict what the temp will be 10 days from now.

By: soonergrunt

soonergrunt — Fri, 16 Oct 2009 17:37:01 +0000

Wow. Just wow. The vitriol is exceeded only by the sheer nutty crazyness.

By: Dow

Dow — Fri, 16 Oct 2009 16:25:47 +0000

Yes I am sure the PLAN is oh so concerned that their ASBM is earth friendly and their carrier will be green.
What rubbish. Obama is guting our forces. Now in addition to global warming social redistribution we hav global warming power projection redistribution.

By: Mike Jones

Mike Jones — Fri, 16 Oct 2009 15:51:17 +0000

Keep drinking the koolaid Byron Skimmer. Your comment really reveals how out of touch with operational realities you are.

By: poolswami

poolswami — Fri, 16 Oct 2009 15:06:27 +0000

Green? GREEN NAVY!!!!!! LOL Can’t help but imagine fabric and wood. Oh man this is rich.

By: jefCostello

jefCostello — Fri, 16 Oct 2009 14:53:56 +0000

You mean a massive bureaucracy with thousands of government hacks clamoring for tax hikes for a pay raise? They can be trusted? They will say or do anything because the pressure comes from the liars at the top, specifically Professor Obama and his gestapo team.

I too am all for getting off oil, and I know our Navy uses nuclear power, but is Professor Obama going to stop that?

As to the global warming cult, the belief in this lie will destroy American business as we know it.

By: soonergrunt

soonergrunt — Fri, 16 Oct 2009 14:29:32 +0000

The Army was talking about and studying global warming and climate change and the potential effects on operations for over twenty years now.
This stuff has been freely available to any US citizen for years as it wasn’t classified.
“When the global warming cult is changing military policy it’s a clear sign how far gone America is. We are done, the leftists have won.“
So tell us all, why do you think the DoD hates America?

By: soonergrunt

soonergrunt — Fri, 16 Oct 2009 14:25:45 +0000

“I agree with reducing oil use based on the fact that it is a limited resource, and don’t like actual pollution, but the Navy shouldn’t give a damn about cutting CO2 emissions and that nonsense.“
IOW–I like to save money, and don’t like pollution, but we shouldn’t do these things even if they make sense because liberals would like that.