bill gates and warren buffet building nuclear reactor in Wyoming

[Assimilator]

I'd rather those 8 RBMK reactors keep running than start burning 8 GW worth of coal. The former is far safer and more environmentally friendly than the latter.

I'd hoped better from you than the logical fallacy of false dichotomy. Just because RBMKs are less carbon-emitting than e.g. coal, does not mean that we should tolerate fundamentally unsafe reactor designs - especially when safer designs are available and have been for literally decades.

Arguably, the accident at Chernobyl is one of the primary reasons why nuclear power plant construction mostly stalled in the West after said accident. In other words, you shouldn't be lauding the RBMK for preventing carbon emissions; you should be blaming it for increasing them.

 

[FordGT90Concept]

https://www.nrc.gov/docs/ML2111/ML21119A030.pdf

Dose to the general public from the plant’s liquid and gaseous effluent pathways were well below regulatory limits. The calculated maximum individual whole-body dose potentially received by an individual resulting from PNPP liquid effluents was 3.06E-03 mrem (0.1% of the regulatory limit). The calculated maximum individual whole-body dose potentially received by an individual resulting from PNPP gaseous effluents, excluding carbon-14 (C-14) was 9.24E-07mrem (1.8E-05 percent of the regulatory limit).

https://www.nrc.gov/docs/ML2113/ML21134A070.pdf

The results of the REMP indicate that Davis-Besse continues to be operated safely in accordance with applicable federal regulations. No significant increase above background radiation or radioactivity is attributed to the operation of Davis-Besse

I hope they've reduced the amount of nuclear fuel in new designs. 1.9 tons of uranium in a single core seems like a recipe for disaster to me.

Breeders drastically reduce the volume of waste but what they spit out, albeit less volume, is far more radioactive (weaponized even). No one has really worked on what you could do with that hyper radioactive waste from breeder reactors because there's so little material available for research.

Looks like there's no commercial interest in reprocessing now. They'd rather just store what they have:

Reprocessing

www.nrc.gov

Also, what about fusion power? The byproducts of that are not radioactive, so it should be a much cleaner alternative than any kind of fission.

Still struggling with the problem of containment.

I'd hoped better from you than the logical fallacy of false dichotomy. Just because RBMKs are less carbon-emitting than e.g. coal, does not mean that we should tolerate fundamentally unsafe reactor designs - especially when safer designs are available and have been for literally decades.

Literal harm all the time due to normal operating exhaust versus chance of harm in the event of a disaster. RBMK has proven safe since 1986.

Arguably, the accident at Chernobyl is one of the primary reasons why nuclear power plant construction mostly stalled in the West after said accident. In other words, you shouldn't be lauding the RBMK for preventing carbon emissions; you should be blaming it for increasing them.

It stalled after Three Mile Island (accident) which coincided with The China Syndrome (public hysteria), both in 1979.

The Politics of Independence: The China Syndrome (1979), Hollywood Liberals and Antinuclear Campaigning

This article draws, among other things, on press clippings files and scripts found in various archives to reconstruct the complex production history, the marketing and the critical reception of the nuclear thriller The China Syndrome (1979). It shows that with this project, several politically...

www.alphavillejournal.com

 

[looniam]

Literal harm all the time due to normal operating exhaust versus chance of harm in the event of a disaster. RBMK has proven safe since 1986.

i figured why all that testing is necessary wouldn't enter your mind nor that either of them never operated anything near full capacity. the point is both of them points out nuclear waste is a hazard that you keep denying.

i bet you're a hoot at safety meetings.

btw, no reactor in the u.s. is based off of russian tech. who btw, still hasn't fessed up to the 6 nuclear subs they "lost" between 1980-1990. but the u.s. navy found their radiation signatures on the seafloor.
but not like the u.s. isn't guilty:

USS Calhoun County sailors dumped thousands of tons of radioactive waste into ocean

They asked the dying Pasco County man about his Navy service a half-century before. He kept talking about the steel barrels. They haunted him, sea monsters plaguing an old sailor.

www.tampabay.com

what some people such as yourself can't wrap their head around is nuclear fission was developed as a weapon, not as an alternative energy source. fusion on the other hand, is being developed as an alternative energy source and poses 1,000 times less risk. since you like iea:

Nuclear fission power plants have the disadvantage of generating unstable nuclei; some of these are radioactive for millions of years. Fusion on the other hand does not create any long-lived radioactive nuclear waste. A fusion reactor produces helium, which is an inert gas. It also produces and consumes tritium within the plant in a closed circuit. Tritium is radioactive (a beta emitter) but its half life is short. It is only used in low amounts so, unlike long-lived radioactive nuclei, it cannot produce any serious danger.
. . . .
A prototype of a fusion reactor (DEMO) is expected to be built by 2040.

but go figure, 6 years to make a weapon but over a hundred years later and still dragging their feet.

in the meantime, electric companies are more than happy to accept government handouts and tax breaks building hazardous material producing power plants to line their and whatever politicians pockets with money (kickbacks happening in my own backyard) and not care about the future because by that time, they'll be long dead.

 

[the54thvoid]

It stalled after Three Mile Island (accident) which coincided with The China Syndrome (public hysteria), both in 1979.

The Politics of Independence: The China Syndrome (1979), Hollywood Liberals and Antinuclear Campaigning

This article draws, among other things, on press clippings files and scripts found in various archives to reconstruct the complex production history, the marketing and the critical reception of the nuclear thriller The China Syndrome (1979). It shows that with this project, several politically...

www.alphavillejournal.com

So far I have respected your input, and supported it - I believe Nuclear is a necessary stop gap (albeit hugely expensive). But using a media and film studies source in a nuclear science debate is a stretch. The article is quite clearly more about Jane Fonda and her activism than Nuclear issues. Please stick to the science, not opinion from an Irish Film studies media course.

 

[R-T-B]

Are you serious? Are you actually so uninformed?

I think he means be fine in the immediate term. You probably won't be fine in the long term.

RBMK has proven safe since 1986.

Or in other words, it's been 40 years since the last accident regional catastrophe...

The irony to this is people in my social group think I'm pro-nuclear to a nutty degree. I don't even know if they could comprehend you.

 

[lexluthermiester]

I think he means be fine in the immediate term. You probably won't be fine in the long term.

Well of course. Degraded DNA is the cause of cancer and all it takes is one strand to be degraded, but not destroyed, to set off a chain reaction that results in premature death. Ford seems to be short-sighted on that matter. His notions indicate to me that his understanding needs drastic improvement.

 

[FordGT90Concept]

So far I have respected your input, and supported it - I believe Nuclear is a necessary stop gap (albeit hugely expensive). But using a media and film studies source in a nuclear science debate is a stretch. The article is quite clearly more about Jane Fonda and her activism than Nuclear issues. Please stick to the science, not opinion from an Irish Film studies media course.

What? Jane Fonda was literally at the forefront of the anti-nuclear movement (so was Sierra Club). That was literally the point of that reply. You had an anti-nuclear film and then Three Mile Island happens and everyone, much to the pleasure of Big Oil and Big Coal, jumped on the anti-nuclear bandwagon which effectively began the nuclear power moratorium in the United States years before Chernobyl. Chernobyl was just another "SEE!?!" moment which was the final straw that broke the camel's back: people didn't have to protest anymore; the executives simply pulled the plug on all nuclear ambitions. Illustrating the point (keep in mind that there's a roughly 5 year lag between starting construction and commissioning the reactor):

Explosive growth 1963-1976, slump in 1977 and 1978 due to 1973-1975 recession, big growth in 1979 (the year of TMI/China Syndrome), then falling until it hit a roughly flat line in 1986. Interest grew again in the 2000s because of "global warming" but interest plummeted again when access to natural gas became cheap and reliable. None of the reactors "under construction" in this picture were actually started as far as I know. Vogtle's two units are the only ones that will most likely be finished.

The science then and now was in support of nuclear power. The difference is that public opinion has swayed with the focus on greenhouse gas emissions. And on that note, all of the budgets for research for both fission, fusion, and waste reprocessing vanished at roughly the same time for the same reasons. Countries like Japan and France, joined by China later, didn't abandon nuclear and, look where we are today: A coal state (Wyoming) is bringing in Japanese engineers and money to build a 4th gen nuclear reactor because USA literally has a 40 year gap in nuclear knowledge because of TMI/China Syndrome.

It's a sad state of affairs, but at least the corner appears to have been turned...for now. If the plant going up in Wyoming turns out to be the only one, then the corner really hasn't been turned. Time will tell.

what some people such as yourself can't wrap their head around is nuclear fission was developed as a weapon, not as an alternative energy source. fusion on the other hand, is being developed as an alternative energy source and poses 1,000 times less risk. since you like iea:

Factually inaccurate. Fission was developed as a weapon (Trinity, 1945), then military energy (USS Nautilus, 1954, and Project 627, 1957), then civilian energy (Shippingport Atomic Power Station, 1958, and Obninsk Nuclear Power Plant, 1954).

Fusion was developed as a weapon (Ivy Mike, 1952) and because of the technical problems, it's never become a viable energy source to date because of engineering challenges related to containment.

Note the years: we detonated a fusion bomb (1952) two years before the first nuclear powered submarine launched/nuclear power plant was commissioned (1954). Making things explode is much easier than containing said explosion. Case in point: we were blasting rock long before we managed to create an internal combustion engine to harness the rapid increase in pressure of burning fuels to power drills to accomplish the same goal...less explosively. Trapping a very heavy metal (uranium) is much easier than a gas (deuterium) heated into a plasma state.

Also on that note: BWR are practically giant versions of what was found in Nautilus. It is not the best design for producing grid electricity we could come up. It was just the easiest to get done quick and cheap because the US government already knew what it was. Unlike submarines, grid power plants don't have the luxury of being surrounded by cold sea water; hence, accidents like Three Mile Island happened. Vogtle is the only 3rd gen nuclear power plant being built right now in the USA...and it literally has a passive heatsink to cool the reactor should a worst-case scenario unfold. This is something a submarine design would never comprehend, yet it's kind of a "duh" for grid installations.

 

[R-T-B]

I see that the "The Politics of Independence: The China Syndrome (1979), Hollywood Liberals and Antinuclear Campaigning" reference was deleted.

Why you see fit to tie us in with it at all frankly is kinda weird. We aren't hysterical, hollywood liberals.

 

[FordGT90Concept]

Why you see fit to tie us in with it at all frankly is kinda weird. We aren't hysterical, hollywood liberals.

It wasn't deleted, my mistake.

I did no such thing. The China Syndrome came out, 12 days later, Three Mile Island has an accident. That's the point. The former fed hysteria surrounding the latter. Nuclear skepticism turned into anti-nuclear overnight. Anti-nuclear sentiment for the energy industry was not Chernobyl, as Assimilator alleged, it was the combination of China Syndrome and Three Mile Island.

Don't read into it any more than that...unless you want to, you know, understand Fonda's activism and how it undeniably worked in killing the nuclear industry. ...to be fair, China Syndrome wouldn't have had the impact it did if Three Mile Island didn't decide to have an accident 12 days later... <insert sabotage conspiracy here >

 

[R-T-B]

It wasn't deleted, my mistake.

I did no such thing. The China Syndrome came out, 12 days later, Three Mile Island has an accident. That's the point. The former fed hysteria surrounding the latter. Nuclear skepticism turned into anti-nuclear overnight.

Maybe. But I don't think you're finding that audience here at all.

I'm pro-nuclear... modern nuclear, anyways.

 

[FordGT90Concept]

Here's an example from the article:

American television and press reports about Three Mile Island drew extensively on The China Syndrome, using the film’s title, story and imagery to illustrate and explain developments at the nuclear power plant and to explore their implications (“Pa. Crisis a Powerful Trailer” 126; Rafferty, “Crisis and Consumption” ch. 3). This led the New York Post to declare on 30 March: “many citizens will go to the movies for their information about nuclear safety. Jane Fonda … is at last shaping national policy. The public believes her more than [Energy Secretary] James Schlesinger” (McGrory 28).

The film and the event were intrinsically tied in shaping public perception of nuclear energy at the time.

 

[lexluthermiester]

I'm pro-nuclear... modern nuclear, anyways.

Same here. As long as it's done right and done safely, I'm all for it.

 

[Deleted member 24505]

As far as I am concerned nuclear all the way, imo nothing else can supply as much with such low immediate pollution

 

[looniam]

It wasn't deleted, my mistake.

I did no such thing. The China Syndrome came out, 12 days later, Three Mile Island has an accident. That's the point. The former fed hysteria surrounding the latter. Nuclear skepticism turned into anti-nuclear overnight. Anti-nuclear sentiment for the energy industry was not Chernobyl, as Assimilator alleged, it was the combination of China Syndrome and Three Mile Island.

Don't read into it any more than that...unless you want to, you know, understand Fonda's activism and how it undeniably worked in killing the nuclear industry. ...to be fair, China Syndrome wouldn't have had the impact it did if Three Mile Island didn't decide to have an accident 12 days later... <insert sabotage conspiracy here >

cute story based on another person's perspective and i doubt that either were there, at the time. how about instead of reading one person's interpretation you read the history itself:

Nuclear Experts Debate ‘The China Syndrome’ (Published 1979)

6 nuclear experts comment on The China Syndrome, film about possible nuclear accident; they are Dr Norman Rasmussen (MIT), Daniel Ford (Union of Concerned Scientists), John Taylor (Westinghouse Elec Corp), Anthony Roisman (Natural Resources Defense Council), David Rossin (Commonwealth Edison Co)...

www.nytimes.com

as anyone can see all the nuclear proponents said it couldn't happen

Frankly, I don't believe a serious accident could ever happen,” Mr. Rossin said. “I am a scientist, and I don't believe in zeroes. But I do believe in redundant systems and the capability of people and systems to take preventive action.

but yet just days later it did! that is what fed the hysteria, experts assuring people it would never happen and being proved wrong.

the movie had disappointing attendance, considering the "star power" until the accident happened.no movie attendance, no public sway of opinion. valid mistrust will sway public opinion. and speaking of which. i'm old enough to remember that jane fonda was still "hanoi jane" and most people thought she should have been locked up in leavenworth for treason.

don't worry, it won't be too long before i'm gone and you can write what history you like.

Factually inaccurate. Fission was developed as a weapon (Trinity, 1945), then military energy (USS Nautilus, 1954, and Project 627, 1957), then civilian energy (Shippingport Atomic Power Station, 1958, and Obninsk Nuclear Power Plant, 1954).

Fusion was developed as a weapon (Ivy Mike, 1952) and because of the technical problems, it's never become a viable energy source to date because of engineering challenges related to containment.

Note the years: we detonated a fusion bomb (1952) two years before the first nuclear powered submarine launched/nuclear power plant was commissioned (1954). Making this explode is much easier than containing said explosion. Case in point: we were blasting mines long before we managed to create an international combustion to harness the rapid increase in pressure of burning fuels to power drills to accomplish the same goal...less explosively. Trapping a very heavy metal (uranium) is much easier than a gas (deuterium) heated into a plasma state.

Also on that note: BWR are practically giant versions of what was found in Nautilus. It is not the best design for producing grid electricity we could come up. It was just the easiest to get done quick and cheap because the US government already knew what it was. Unlike submarines, grid power plants don't have the luxury of being surrounded by cold sea water; hence, accidents like Three Mile Island happened. Vogtle is the only 3rd gen nuclear power plant being built right now in the USA...and it literally has a passive heatsink to cool the reactor should a worst-case scenario unfold. This is something a submarine design would never comprehend, yet it's kind of a "duh" for grid installations.

the manhattan project start in 1939 buddy, get you facts straight and the fusion bomb was a proof on concept.

and as a former boiler tech in the u.s. navy*, as much as i want to appreciate the little history lesson; quite a bit of that was covered and bootcamp and more extensively in marine engineering school. and believe me, the navy loved to tout how much better their nuc subs were compared to anyone else, esp the u.s.s.r.'s.

*that has worked in a nuclear propulsion plant! so yeah - tell me how it is

 

[FordGT90Concept]

the manhattan project start in 1939 buddy, get you facts straight and the fusion bomb was a proof on concept.

Trinity was the result of the Manhattan project which ended in 1946.

I intentionally omitted the "proof of concept:" Operation Greenhouse in 1951. The second test, Ivy Mike in 1952, was a weapon-scale test: the detonation was over 10 Mt. Like "Little Boy" it could have been used in anger (luckily it wasn't); they were certain it would work very well because of the Operation Greenhouse result.



Anyway...I'm disappointed that there isn't a whole lot of public information on the natrium reactor. I want to know how many people are expected to operate and maintain the reactor but I haven't seen any information on that.

 

[the54thvoid]

Anyway...I'm disappointed that there isn't a whole lot of public information on the natrium reactor. I want to know how many people are expected to operate and maintain the reactor but I haven't seen any information on that.

This quote is pertinent to the thread. The discussion from the OP is about the NEW reactor being built and as Ford points out, we have little info on it (likely due to private interest and IP). Let's get away from the irrelevant discussion of older reactors. This is a developing tech and there's no point going back and forth, especially as far back as the 40's, in a thread related to a POC plant yet to be built. Of course, with scant info about the natrium sience, there's not a lot more to say on the matter, unless someone can dig it up. And if you do, you might get taken away by the feds...

This isn't a nuclear power technology thread. If someone wants to start one, feel free.

 

[looniam]

Trinity was the result of the Manhattan project which ended in 1946.

yep. and no one woke up in 1945 with triny in their bed. the manhatten project started developing two types nuclear fission weapons (bombs) years before.

I intentionally omitted the "proof of concept:" Operation Greenhouse in 1951. The second test, Ivy Mike in 1952, was a weapon-scale test: the detonation was over 10 Mt. Like "Little Boy" it could have been used in anger (luckily it wasn't); they were certain it would work very well because of the Operation Greenhouse result.

not only did you intentionally withhold that info but also intentionally spread misinformation claiming technical problems and containment issues which certainly wasn't the case:

Ivy Mike: How to Wipe Out an Island

Ivy Mike was the test created to prove Teller-Ulam's brainchild. It used a TX-5 fission bomb as the primary stage, and a secondary stage consisting of liquid deuterium fusion fuel stored in a cylindrical Dewar flask. Surrounded by a natural uranium tamper weighing more than 5 metric tons, the Dewar had a plutonium "spark-plug" rod running down its center that ignited the fusion reaction.

OPERATION IVY - 1952

The device detonated in the Mike ("m" for "megaton") test, called the Sausage, was the first "true" H-Bomb ever tested, that is - the first thermonuclear device built upon the Teller-Ulam principles of staged radiation implosion. The device was designed by the Panda Committee directed by J. Carson Mark at Los Alamos (Teller declined to play a role in its development).
. . .
Powered mostly by fission, Mike showered high levels of radiation over the atoll. Below is a fallout map showing radiation intensities (in rads/hour) an hour after the test.

"Mike" Device is Tested

The first fusion bomb was tested by the United States in Operation Ivy on November 1, 1952, on Elugelab Island in the Enewatak Atoll of the Marshall Islands. Scientists had to work faster and harder in order the meet the short deadline to complete the weapon, but their work paid off when "Mike"...

www.atomicarchive.com

The first fusion bomb was tested by the United States in Operation Ivy on November 1, 1952, on Elugelab Island in the Enewatak Atoll of the Marshall Islands. Scientists had to work faster and harder in order the meet the short deadline to complete the weapon, but their work paid off when "Mike" was successfully completed on the target date. "Mike" used the Teller-Ulam configuration, liquid deuterium as its fusion fuel and a large fission weapon as its trigger. The device was strictly an experimental, prototype design and not a deliverable weapon: standing over 20 ft. high and weighing at least 140,000 lbs., with an additional 24,000 lbs. from its refrigeration equipment, it could not have been dropped from even the largest planes.

so, an entirely new picture than the one that was painted previously with technical and containment issues, eh?

Anyway...I'm disappointed that there isn't a whole lot of public information the natrium reactor. I want to know how many people are expected to operate and maintain the reactor but I haven't seen any information on that.

there is the start of problems, thinking things are "public." how about instead of expecting the IAEA, NRC or any other capitalist government agency to spoon feed you their propaganda that you go look for answers in academia.

thats where all the cool kids are.

 

[Space Lynx]

This quote is pertinent to the thread. The discussion from the OP is about the NEW reactor being built and as Ford points out, we have little info on it (likely due to private interest and IP). Let's get away from the irrelevant discussion of older reactors. This is a developing tech and there's no point going back and forth, especially as far back as the 40's, in a thread related to a POC plant yet to be built. Of course, with scant info about the natrium sience, there's not a lot more to say on the matter, unless someone can dig it up. And if you do, you might get taken away by the feds...

This isn't a nuclear power technology thread. If someone wants to start one, feel free.

Just fyi, for anyone interested in original topic, the Netflix series with Bill Gates talks about this new nuclear reactor. It's actually been a concept since the 1960's they mention in the documentary. Lot of innovations since then is allowing it to be a reality.

Also, now that Japan has announced they are going to help with the building of it, I am very intrigued where this takes us as a species... Fusion is still a dream of dreams, but this is here and now and already being built and much higher probability of working on day one when they are finished.

Inside Bill's Brain: Decoding Bill Gates (TV Mini Series 2019) ⭐ 7.8 | Documentary, Biography

50m | TV-14

www.imdb.com

 

[FordGT90Concept]

not only did you intentionally withhold that info but also intentionally spread misinformation claiming technical problems and containment issues which certainly wasn't the case:

Containment is required for fusion power, as in electricity. I never talked about containing a weapon--which intentionally destroys its containment vessel.

so, an entirely new picture than the one that was painted previously with technical and containment issues, eh?

Fair, Ivy Mike wasn't practically transportable.

Just fyi, for anyone interested in original topic, the Netflix series with Bill Gates talks about this new nuclear reactor. It's actually been a concept since the 1960's they mention in the documentary. Lot of innovations since then is allowing it to be a reality.

Fast breeder reactors often use a liquid sodium loop but the uranium is arranged differently in order to enrich it. Natrium Power is effectively taking a fast breeder reactor design, simplifying it, and designing it solely for energy generation. It's kind of a marriage between FBR and BWR. It has the safety features/materials of FBR (can't practically meltdown) but the basic design concept of BWR.

 

[Voodoo Rufus]

Left this thread alone for a while but I'm a bit of a nuclear twitter junkie.

An older article on years of supply of uranium, which covers fuel recycling life extensions at the end: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-long-will-global-uranium-deposits-last/

I recently read an article on how seawater extraction efficiency just doubled with some new tech that's viable, essentially giving us an indefinite supply.

 

[Space Lynx]

Left this thread alone for a while but I'm a bit of a nuclear twitter junkie.

An older article on years of supply of uranium, which covers fuel recycling life extensions at the end: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-long-will-global-uranium-deposits-last/

I recently read an article on how seawater extraction efficiency just doubled with some new tech that's viable, essentially giving us an indefinite supply.

can you enlighten me on what the amount of years left is said to be in that article. I am to lazy to read today. lol

 

[cst1992]

"Indefinite supply"?
You can always put a number on things. If you were to take it literally, how much would it be?
(Yeah I know that currently humanity is at that stage where a small corner of the US covered with solar panels would be enough to power the world, but still - who knows what'll happen in the future?)

 

[Space Lynx]

(Yeah I know that currently humanity is at that stage where a small corner of the US covered with solar panels would be enough to power the world, but still - who knows what'll happen in the future?)

is this really true? the math has been done? i had no idea... what are we waiting for? how much would it cost? could the 5 trillion spent on covid paid for all of it? what an odd species we are....

 

[skates]

Remember the 3 mile island accident in the US? That pretty much killed nuke plants in the US. Would we have as many coal fired plants as we do today because of 3 mile? I don't know, but it seems clear to me Nuclear is the way forward.

Shame what Germany did, now they are largely beholden to Russia for their power needs and if Russia wanted to turn off their power in mid-winter, they could, which could bring the world to the brink of WW3. Russia would move into Poland should Germany compel the world to saber rattle Russia via the UN Security council in the hopes of getting their power turned back on and believe me, the Russian oligarchs will have container ships full of US dollars shipped to them to pull back. If you think this is an exaggeration, it's not, even if it seems highly unlikely. Think tanks have been all over this.

The ability of a country to provide for all it's power needs is not just national security, but also strategic national security. Germany has neither.

 

[Voodoo Rufus]

"Indefinite supply"?
You can always put a number on things. If you were to take it literally, how much would it be?
(Yeah I know that currently humanity is at that stage where a small corner of the US covered with solar panels would be enough to power the world, but still - who knows what'll happen in the future?)

By indefinite I'm going with the dictionary definition - "lasting for an unknown or unstated length of time."

Basically more fissile material available than we know what to do with. And similarly to oil and gas (my industry), people tend to get better at finding more resources as the technology gets better. The more expensive a resource gets, the more we find as well.

Unfortunately wind and solar are not likely to scale by taking a "small corner of the US". The ecological impact would be tremendous. There's no free lunch.