Russia plans to build first floating nuclear plant

[feralkid]

Originally posted by: fornax

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....

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.

Whatever you say.

 

[feralkid]

nm

 

[silverpig]

Originally posted by: skooma

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.

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

Actually it was more like:

Let's see how long the reactor will run without coolant.
Reactor shuts off due to safety system
Damn, that didn't work so well. Okay let's disable that safety system.
Reactor shuts off again due to backup safety system
Damn. Okay, let's disable that too.
Reactor shuts down again.
Let's disable that safety system too...
Reactor starts to overheat very rapidly
Oh sh!t! Push the 30 second emergency shutdown button
7 seconds later the multi-thousand ton concrete lid blows off the reactor and chernobyl becomes famous.

The reactor itself seemed pretty safe. It's like saying Volvo makes deathtraps for cars when you put a drunk, blind 10 year old behind the wheel of a car in the middle of a parade.

 

[BrownTown]

also, should be noted that if a nuclear reactor sinks underwater it should be very safe since the water will keep it cool. The big problem with reactors is keeping enough water on the core to stop the heat from building up and melting the uranium. Water also will shield people from the radiation if a ship sinks, so if the nuclear vessel were to sink it would not be as big a deal as it might seem.

 

[senseamp]

The problem with Chernobyl is that it's in a populated productive area, so it's a big loss. Noone really lives in Siberia, and it's huge so a polluted area here and there noone is gonna notice.

 

[feralkid]

Originally posted by: senseamp
The problem with Chernobyl is that it's in a populated productive area, so it's a big loss. Noone really lives in Siberia, and it's huge so a polluted area here and there noone is gonna notice.

No one.



No one.



Peace be with you and sin no more.

 

[RMich]

Whatever the dangers of nuclear power -- and yes, there is always something that can go wrong -- it really has to be balanced against the alternatives. It is not as if coal miners don't die, or people don't fight wars over oil. Not to mention the global warming controversy, or such *minor* problems as the air pollution and resultant disease that result from the emissions from coal/oil fueled plants. Most costs aren't as dramatic or obvious as a nuclear accident, but they are nonetheless real. Unless you are willing to give up electricity (and pry your cold, dead fingers off your mouse!) you have to accept some costs and risks to generate it.

 

[K1052]

Originally posted by: silverpig

Originally posted by: skooma

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.

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

Actually it was more like:

Let's see how long the reactor will run without coolant.
Reactor shuts off due to safety system
Damn, that didn't work so well. Okay let's disable that safety system.
Reactor shuts off again due to backup safety system
Damn. Okay, let's disable that too.
Reactor shuts down again.
Let's disable that safety system too...
Reactor starts to overheat very rapidly
Oh sh!t! Push the 30 second emergency shutdown button
7 seconds later the multi-thousand ton concrete lid blows off the reactor and chernobyl becomes famous.

The reactor itself seemed pretty safe. It's like saying Volvo makes deathtraps for cars when you put a drunk, blind 10 year old behind the wheel of a car in the middle of a parade.

The RBMK reactors at the V.I. Lenin station had a couple glaring problems that the Russians were aware of but decided to save money instead and took the risks.

1. RBMK reactors have a high positive void coefficient. Loss of coolant or too much steam in the reactor can cause the fission reaction to increase out of control far beyond the reactor's power ratings.

2. Lack of a containment structure. Every modern country that uses nuclear power mandates the construction of steel and concrete pressure tight structures to contain radiation/gasses/material in the event of a catastrophic failure. This would have kept the RBMK's uranium and graphite moderator from being spewed into the Chernobyl night sky.

Edit: Also the diaster was caused by them trying to find out how long the steam turbines would turn under their own momentum and provide power to the cooling system after steam being cut off in the event both the backup power systems failed during a reactor shutdown. An ill advised test done by people with little actucal understanding of what the hell they were doing.

 

[Krakn3Dfx]

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: ElFenix
i like how the environmentalist quoted there prefers oil to floating nuclear.

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

Yeah, environmentalists hate technological advances that would make our planet safer to live on...like a floating nuclear reactor...because that's safer...lol.

Ahem...sorry.

 

[sdifox]

Originally posted by: skooma

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).

I think its because the locations they want to power are remote so that is less expensive this way. Just guessing.

I would think it would be cheaper to build it modular and then transport compared to building a plant boat. Whole purpose of building it as a boat is because they need it mobile, but I can't see them needing a mobile powerplant. Oh, wait, mobile giant laser platform maybe

 

[sdifox]

Originally posted by: B00ne

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).

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

I am not sure introducing a hot core to seawater is a good idea, it just feeds the reaction! If the SCRAM failed, the core will melt through the containment in no time. The question is will the core ever stop reacting. I guess if there is enough neutron poisons in the water (yes, I read wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scram_switch) ) it can shut it down, but I don't think that is the case.

 

[BrownTown]

radiation cant go very far threw water, so if it sinks then the water will block the radiation and cool whatever parts continue to be "hot", also, if hte fuel melted down then the fragments would probably spread out across the sea floor and not be concentrated enough to react. Also, concrete would likely be poured on the wreck to permenantely intern the radioactive materials.

What it really boils down to is poeples fears of ivisible forces that can do them harm like radiation. Of coruse, people don't seem to mind staying out for hours in the sun and being exposed to harmfull radiation, but somehow the radiation from nuclear decay is a completely differnet story (yes, it is a different type of radiaiton, but the effects are quite similar).

 

[fornax]

Originally posted by: silverpig

Actually it was more like:

Let's see how long the reactor will run without coolant.
Reactor shuts off due to safety system
Damn, that didn't work so well. Okay let's disable that safety system.
Reactor shuts off again due to backup safety system
Damn. Okay, let's disable that too.
Reactor shuts down again.
Let's disable that safety system too...
Reactor starts to overheat very rapidly
Oh sh!t! Push the 30 second emergency shutdown button
7 seconds later the multi-thousand ton concrete lid blows off the reactor and chernobyl becomes famous.

The reactor itself seemed pretty safe. It's like saying Volvo makes deathtraps for cars when you put a drunk, blind 10 year old behind the wheel of a car in the middle of a parade.

I like your comparison It's pretty accurate, although that particular reactor had one design flaw that ultimately decided its fate. Even after all those stupid (some say criminal) decisions, the reactor could have been shut down if it wasn't for the design that let rods fall under their own weight (which is pretty substantial). When finally the operator tried to insert all rods to shut down the reaction, they would not fall down because the boiling coolant's vapors were pushing them upward. As you say, 6 seconds later it blows up. There is little doubt that this catastrophe was caused by 99% human error and 1% design flaws.

It's curious that one final piece of bad luck caused most of the subsequent fires and radioctive contamination: when the highly explosive mixture of hydrogen and CO reacted with the oxygen of the air and exploded, the roof of the reactor (1000 tonnes!) flew up and fell down again at a 90 degree angle. That destroyed the walls and structure of the reactor and scattered pieces of the hot graphite and active elements everywhere.

 

[Meuge]

No, only braindead morons would.

 

[Looney]

What would happen if a small motorboat filled with explosives were to attack it similar to what happened with the USS Cole?

 

[Meuge]

Originally posted by: Looney
What would happen if a small motorboat filled with explosives were to attack it similar to what happened with the USS Cole?

So now we shouldn't build anything that can be attacked by terrorists? Why don't we all commit suicide, so the terrorists won't attack us anymore.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: Meuge

Originally posted by: Looney
What would happen if a small motorboat filled with explosives were to attack it similar to what happened with the USS Cole?

So now we shouldn't build anything that can be attacked by terrorists? Why don't we all commit suicide, so the terrorists won't attack us anymore.

Now now, Meuge, just because somebody opposed one stupidly dangerous and risky idea doesn't mean that all other ideas with some risk should be opposed. Rationality requires risk assessment and what that rationally is should be the debate, no?

 

[piasabird]

In Chernobyl the Russians used graphite for Insulation and it caught fire. When graphite catches on fire it is impossible to put it out. Then there was a giant steam explosion the roof blew apart as part of the reactor sailed through the roof.

The area surrounding the reactor will be uninhabitable for 300-500 years. The area around the reactor was some of the most fertile land in all of the old soviet union.

 

[fornax]

Originally posted by: piasabird
In Chernobyl the Russians used graphite for Insulation and it caught fire. When graphite catches on fire it is impossible to put it out. Then there was a giant steam explosion the roof blew apart as part of the reactor sailed through the roof.

The area surrounding the reactor will be uninhabitable for 300-500 years. The area around the reactor was some of the most fertile land in all of the old soviet union.

Um, I don't know where you get your information, but some people refused to leave and are still living in Pripyat and a few other vilages in the containment zone. Nature is flourishing there, and if it wasn't for some dead, brown pine trees, you couldn't tell something bad happened. The number of cancers and deaths from radiation-related illnesses is many times less than was predicted. Of course, 14 children cancers are 14 too many, but the fact is the consequences are far more benign than was feared. Most of the people who died or are gravely ill were involved in the actual resque operations, most notably firemen and soldiers.