• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Russia plans to build first floating nuclear plant

Most likely not a ton different than the naval reactors the Russians have operated for years.



 
I like this part: "No one else in the world has such experience as we have accumulated over the years in our atomic fleet of safely operating small-capacity reactors."

Muahaha Afaik the safety record (regarding the powerplant) of their subs isn't quite stellar...

And I know at least one country that actually has sefely operated naval reactors and that's an ocean away.... 😉
 
Originally posted by: ElFenix
i like how the environmentalist quoted there prefers oil to floating nuclear.
Click to expand...

Nothing scares the hardcore environmentalists more than nuclear energy, except maybe for technology and progress in general.
 
Originally posted by: sierrita
Originally posted by: ElFenix
i like how the environmentalist quoted there prefers oil to floating nuclear.
Click to expand...



I think most people (barring the nuke fan bois) would.
Click to expand...

The US navy has been tying up their many ships with nuclear plants next to major cities for decades without incident.



 
Originally posted by: feralkid
I think the real question is will it malfunction and sink, or will it sink first, then malfunction.
Click to expand...


lol, yeah I keep thinking Chernobyl..no matter how hard i try.
 
Originally posted by: daniel49
Originally posted by: feralkid
I think the real question is will it malfunction and sink, or will it sink first, then malfunction.
Click to expand...


lol, yeah I keep thinking Chernobyl..no matter how hard i try.
Click to expand...

The most common association people make whenever nuclear power is mentioned.

I always recommend that people look into the specifics of the accident to see why and how it happened to put it in perspective.
 
Originally posted by: K1052
Originally posted by: sierrita
Originally posted by: ElFenix
i like how the environmentalist quoted there prefers oil to floating nuclear.
Click to expand...



I think most people (barring the nuke fan bois) would.
Click to expand...

The US navy has been tying up their many ships with nuclear plants next to major cities for decades without incident.
Click to expand...




Sorry, my bad.

I thought the article was about a RUSSIAN reactor.

I'll read more carefully next time.
 
Originally posted by: K1052
Originally posted by: daniel49
Originally posted by: feralkid
I think the real question is will it malfunction and sink, or will it sink first, then malfunction.
Click to expand...


lol, yeah I keep thinking Chernobyl..no matter how hard i try.
Click to expand...

The most common association people make whenever nuclear power is mentioned.

I always recommend that people look into the specifics of the accident to see why and how it happened to put it in perspective.
Click to expand...




Fair enough.

Now how about all of those russian nuclear sub accidents.

I guess someone's perspective would tell us that could never happen again, either.

😕
 
Originally posted by: K1052
Originally posted by: daniel49
Originally posted by: feralkid
I think the real question is will it malfunction and sink, or will it sink first, then malfunction.
Click to expand...


lol, yeah I keep thinking Chernobyl..no matter how hard i try.
Click to expand...

The most common association people make whenever nuclear power is mentioned.

I always recommend that people look into the specifics of the accident to see why and how it happened to put it in perspective.
Click to expand...




Yeah, let's talk about that...Number one cause, final answer..."HUMAN ERROR".


So, good, that can totally be eliminated as a risk factor.

:roll:
 
Originally posted by: K1052
Originally posted by: daniel49
Originally posted by: feralkid
I think the real question is will it malfunction and sink, or will it sink first, then malfunction.
Click to expand...


lol, yeah I keep thinking Chernobyl..no matter how hard i try.
Click to expand...

The most common association people make whenever nuclear power is mentioned.

I always recommend that people look into the specifics of the accident to see why and how it happened to put it in perspective.
Click to expand...

Not a bad suggestion, I have looked a lot at the aftermath, but not the whys.
Can you give the why's in a brief explanation? if not I will google.
 
Originally posted by: daniel49
Originally posted by: feralkid
I think the real question is will it malfunction and sink, or will it sink first, then malfunction.
Click to expand...


lol, yeah I keep thinking Chernobyl..no matter how hard i try.
Click to expand...

They have lost more than a few nukes subs as well. Probably more than they admit.

 
Originally posted by: daniel49

Not a bad suggestion, I have looked a lot at the aftermath, but not the whys.
Can you give the why's in a brief explanation? if not I will google.
Click to expand...
In a nutshell, they were supposed to be testing the safety of the reactor but despite obvious warning signs that the test was going badly awry, the man in charge pushed on per his directive.

Thats from an old history channel program. google might be better 😛
 
So why build a ship if the place needs the power? I still don't understand the logic. It's not like they will stop needing the power (seeing it's their only nuke sub building facility).
 
Originally posted by: sdifox
So why build a ship if the place needs the power? I still don't understand the logic. It's not like they will stop needing the power (seeing it's their only nuke sub building facility).
Click to expand...

The best idea I have is: Because when it does the Chernobyl thing it'll sink really fast and the ocean will constantly cool the melt." As he said there will be no floating Chernobyl 😉
 
Originally posted by: sdifox
So why build a ship if the place needs the power? I still don't understand the logic. It's not like they will stop needing the power (seeing it's their only nuke sub building facility).
Click to expand...
I think its because the locations they want to power are remote so that is less expensive this way. Just guessing.
 
Originally posted by: K1052
Originally posted by: ElFenix
i like how the environmentalist quoted there prefers oil to floating nuclear.
Click to expand...

Nothing scares the hardcore environmentalists more than nuclear energy, except maybe for technology and progress in general.
Click to expand...

the founder of green peace is now pro-nuke, because only nuke power can provide enough electricity to truly replace fossil fuel powered plants, and is far cleaner in every measurable way (there is actually less nuclear waste in nuclear generation than in coal generation).
 
Originally posted by: B00ne
I like this part: "No one else in the world has such experience as we have accumulated over the years in our atomic fleet of safely operating small-capacity reactors."

Muahaha Afaik the safety record (regarding the powerplant) of their subs isn't quite stellar...

And I know at least one country that actually has sefely operated naval reactors and that's an ocean away.... 😉
Click to expand...

Sigh. So much ignorance. Russia indeed have the most experience with naval reactors. For the brain damaged in this thread, naval doesn't mean ONLY on submarines. They have had nuclear-powered icebreakers (in addition to military ships and submarines) for longer than many of the posters here have lived. As far as I know, there have not been any serious power-plant related accidents on those ships in the 60 years or so they have been exploited.

Regarding nuclear submarines lost in accidents: I know of 2 US submarines lost and 4 Soviet ones lost. The US submarine and other nuclear-powered fleet also has had numerous accidents.

What I think is encouraging is that virtually all of these accidents are fairly old, meaning that modern nuclear technology is quite safe.
 
Originally posted by: sierrita
Originally posted by: K1052
Originally posted by: daniel49
Originally posted by: feralkid
I think the real question is will it malfunction and sink, or will it sink first, then malfunction.
Click to expand...


lol, yeah I keep thinking Chernobyl..no matter how hard i try.
Click to expand...

The most common association people make whenever nuclear power is mentioned.

I always recommend that people look into the specifics of the accident to see why and how it happened to put it in perspective.
Click to expand...




Yeah, let's talk about that...Number one cause, final answer..."HUMAN ERROR".


So, good, that can totally be eliminated as a risk factor.

:roll:
Click to expand...

So only Russians make human error? Since you seemed so sincere a few posts up that American ships could never have this happen..

 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top