Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Power Earth Government United States

America Will Convert Land from Its Nuclear Weapons Program into Clean Energy Projects (energy.gov) 77

Friday America's Department of Energy announced plans to re-purpose some of the land it owns — "portions of which were previously used in the nation's nuclear weapons program" — for generating clean energy. They'll be leasing them out for "utility-scale clean energy projects" in an initiative called "Cleanup to Clean Energy."

The agency has identified 70,000 acres for potential development, in New Mexico, Nevada, South Carolina, Idaho, and Washington: "We are going to transform the lands we have used over decades for nuclear security and environmental remediation by working closely with tribes and local communities together with partners in the private sector to build some of the largest clean energy projects in the world," said U.S. Secretary of Energy Jennifer M. Granholm. "Through the Cleanup to Clean Energy initiative, the Department of Energy will leverage areas that were previously used to protect our national security and will repurpose them to the same end — this time, generating clean energy that will help save the planet and protect our energy independence."
The announcement notes that in December 2021, President Biden directed U.S. federal agencies to "authorize use of their real property assets, including land for the development of new clean electricity generation and storage through leases, grants, permits, or other mechanisms."

"As the leading Federal agency on clean energy research and development, DOE has both a unique opportunity and a clear responsibility to lead by example and identify creative solutions to achieve the President's mandate."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

America Will Convert Land from Its Nuclear Weapons Program into Clean Energy Projects

Comments Filter:
  • by Anonymous Coward

    Sure Joe, sure...

    With Samuel Otis Brinton (aka Sam Brinton) in charge on your project, what could possibly go wrong? What a bunch of bozos!

  • silos for batteries (Score:4, Interesting)

    by awwshit ( 6214476 ) on Saturday July 29, 2023 @05:54PM (#63724504)

    Unused silos seem like a good choice for battery storage.

    • Unused silos seem like a good choice for battery storage.

      Agreed. Like batteries, they're long tubes - perfect place for a large AA cell.

      • by dfghjk ( 711126 )

        You known that many batteries are NOT "long tubes", right? In fact, the "long tube" shape has little to do with what is most suitable for a battery.

        But then, there is nothing about a "long tube" that makes it a "perfect place" for storing long tubes, or irrelevant AA batteries, either. It's almost as if you're profoundly stupid.

    • by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

      How is the cooling in there? For big batteries it's best to have them outside so they can a constant supply of fresh air, with appropriate design to shade them from direct heating by sunlight.

      How about a gravity energy storage system? Put something heavy in the silo, and a crane to lift it. Lift it when cheap energy is abundant, and then let gravity lower it when you want to recover the power. Saves building a sturdy tower, and you can surround it by solar and windmills.

  • First they love saying "America" instead of U.S., and now they can even spell America. Working hard to make longer headlines? Must be some kind of rebellion against newspaper sensibilities.

    • They clearly just missed the c 'key' on their smartphone. It is so much trouble fixing touchscreen typos that we are now at the point where they all just say 'fuck it - you know what I meant'.
  • If the screenwriters were not on strike, they could be having a field day with this. They seem to have a better track record than advocates and agencies at prediction.
  • Seems like a good idea, but what good is it? It’s probably super remote, so solar or wind farms are gonna need major infrastructure to move the power. The US isn’t exactly starved for land anyway. The only thing we’ve been able to do with most of it is cattle ranch and that’s cause cows are practically fire-and-forget if the grazing land is free.

    Maybe we can use the land to build large carbon capture facilities once humanity starts facing hundreds of trillions of dollars worth of
    • Cows?

      Did you say . . . cows?

      You are all cows! Cows say moo. MOOOOOOOOO! MOOOOOOOOOO! Mooo cows MOOOOOOOOO! You renewable-energy using cows!

      Seriously though, it's probably best to focus on synthetic fuel/material production from co2/h2o feedstock if we're going to use remote DoE land tracts for renewables.

    • by PPH ( 736903 )

      We could use the land to bury worn out wind turbine blades and used PV panels.

  • by jacks smirking reven ( 909048 ) on Saturday July 29, 2023 @06:51PM (#63724572)

    Less nimby nonsense since it's already Federal land, it ikely has a long track record of environmental and geological surveys so already very stable sites, almost pre-selected, and the "stigma" of nuclear materials is gone, they've already been there. Plus that would only require a small portion of land, plenty of room for wind and solar as well.

    • That's not a bad idea, but one potential hiccup is that nuclear reactors generally require lots of water, which would be an issue in many of these places.
      • by sfcat ( 872532 )
        Power generation requires lots of water. Nuclear reactors that generate power need lots of water for the same reason gas plants that generate power need lots of water. The reactor itself uses little water as the water used is extremely pure and recycled during normal operation (it is only during an emergency where external water is used). Also, there is no need to build a reactor that needs water at all. Its actually a pretty poor coolant for nuclear power in general. We only use it because the reactor
        • Well, if you have a need to treat contaminated ground water I am sure you could fit evaporation of waste water into the equation.

        • There are two types, BWR (Boiling Water Reactor) and PWR (Pressurised Water Reactor). Submarines use PWR.

          But both types use about the same amount of water per MW, mostly for cooling of steam going thru the turbine. This is more water than a coal plant uses with steam at a more efficient and higher temperature.
    • Not to mention we could use newer designs that could consume some of our existing stored nuclear waste and weapons grade material as fuel. Production of electricity and long term waste cleanup, double win.
      • by Kobun ( 668169 )
        Depending on the design, "some" means "nearly all". And what's left tend to be medically useful isotopes.
      • Those were banned in the 1970s by Carter, for a good reason.

        • by q_e_t ( 5104099 )

          Those were banned in the 1970s by Carter, for a good reason.

          Carter didn't have the power to ban them globally. But they've not proven so far to be economic, so they aren't in use, not even in France.

        • by drnb ( 2434720 )

          Those were banned in the 1970s by Carter, for a good reason.

          No, we have designs more recent than the 1970s, very much post-Carter.

    • But then they would have to build additional electric power transmission lines to bring that newly generated power to where it is needed.

      As we have all seen...lots of obstacles can be created even when new power transmission lines and new pipelines have permits but Courts will not respect the Law.

      • True, but I would expect far, far less resistance to power lines than the plant itself, you can route those around issues and also bury. That's just grid stuff which would apply for a gas plant and will apply to the renewables as well.

        Plus in that case for all the against power lines lobbying i bet there is a lot of business that would lobby in favor with the allure of cheap abundant power.

        • by PPH ( 736903 )

          business that would lobby in favor with the allure of cheap abundant power.

          Bitcoin mining.

    • Less nimby nonsense since it's already Federal land, it ikely has a long track record of environmental and geological surveys so already very stable sites, almost pre-selected, and the "stigma" of nuclear materials is gone, they've already been there. Plus that would only require a small portion of land, plenty of room for wind and solar as well.

      Yep, that was my immediate thought. If you are going to do this, do something real and helpful, not just stupid posturing.

    • This land would be a good place to put the new high-temperature reactors that because they use molten salt as a coolant, can use ambient air as a heat sink. We no longer have to put unclear reactors anywhere near Democrats.

    • by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

      What about water for cooling though? They probably made sure to build their nuclear launch sites well away from anywhere that might flood.

      • Sure, doesn't work everywhere but Hanford and Idaho are both near rivers and this would be a great oppurtunity to test build some 3.5/4th gen designs that don't need a constant fresh water supply. The Nevada site is probably good for that as it's pretty isolated.

        • by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

          Maybe. But can we really wait 20+ years for them to come on-stream? I think we need to prioritize.

  • by PPH ( 736903 ) on Saturday July 29, 2023 @06:57PM (#63724578)

    Lots of unused land around there. Mainly as a buffer zone around the old WWII facilities currently being cleaned up. And there's a pretty good power grid infrastructure in the area. I'd suggest solar instead of wind. Because the LIGO instrument is located there and a few bad bearings in windmills rumbling could screw it up.

    • The good wind sites in the general area are already taken. It's a great spot for summertime solar though, clear skies and 16 hour days.

      In the winter, sadly, it's 8 hour days and heavy overcast. By heavy I mean noon power output 1/14 of nameplate.

      Same thing applies at the INEL (or whatever they call it now), lots of flat open area for PV. The jackrabbits and coyotes will appreciate the shade, as will the stupid chickens (more politely known as sage grouse.)

      • by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

        Still well worth doing though. As the world warms up the demand for cooling, which follows the high sun summer months, will keep increasing.

  • buy stock in some solar farm companies?
  • "Cleanup to Clean Energy"

    Unless you are building modern nuclear reactors that can consume weapons grade material and high level nuclear waste as fuel, then no we are not really cleaning things up from our weapons program, nor the mess from the energy side.
  • We'll be powered by Unicorn Fart. It's far more likely than what's being proposed here.

  • I have a feeling that they are going to be a bit skeptical about this new plan. I can't imagine why.
  • Sorry this is slightly OT, but it does irk me. Please use don't use "America" when referring to the "United States of America" with "America" as it makes us sound egotistical in the global forum.

Every nonzero finite dimensional inner product space has an orthonormal basis. It makes sense, when you don't think about it.

Working...