In response to:

Somebody Should Tell Politicians that the Military Budget is for National Defense, not Pork and Political Correctness

Mag14 Wrote: Aug 22, 2012 6:53 AM
So the military is taking bids (which almost always end up costing more than the bid in overruns) to have local contractors build on their base and THEN the military promises to pay for the energy for about 30 years? That doesn't benefit the military in any way, shape or form. Want 'green bases'? Let the military build and maintain nuclear reactors for power. It's not like they don't maintain reactors on ships and it's not as though they don't have space for such things. And as for security for the waste - you can't GET better security for the waste.
conservative_librarian Wrote: Aug 22, 2012 12:14 PM
completely agree regarding reactors Mag14

the military already has sufficient space to avoid NIMBY concerns, security in place, demand for the power, and some expertise for operation (likely would end up hiring retired Navy contractors I would think)

Ideally you would co generate with the waste heat (useful in biofuel production for instance, or with the right location you could take a shot a treating oilsands)

we dont want to move to a situation where the commercial grid is underbid too much, but it seems like a reasonable fixed sell back rate could be set which would let the regular providers compete

I agree with George Will that it’s okay to reduce Pentagon spending. After all, the United States accounts for almost one-half of the world’s military outlays, about twice as much as the combined total of possible enemies.

But I also agree that national defense is one of the few legitimate functions of the federal government, so I want to make sure we get the most bang for the buck (no pun intended) from every penny.

That’s why I get especially irritated when I read horror stories about Pentagon waste.

But in many cases, it’s not the fault of...