Russians Plan Floating Nuclear Plants

ElFenix

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Mar 20, 2000
102,398
8,566
126
the US has a bunch of floating nuke plants. in fact, i wouldn't at all be shocked to find we've built more floating nuclear reactors than land based.
 

JohnCU

Banned
Dec 9, 2000
16,528
4
0
that is fucking awesome! certainly solves the problem of the large amounts of water needed.
 

JohnCU

Banned
Dec 9, 2000
16,528
4
0
Originally posted by: ElFenix
the US has a bunch of floating nuke plants. in fact, i wouldn't at all be shocked to find we've built more floating nuclear reactors than land based.

wat? i don't know of any floating nuke plants. maybe one on an island.
 

Baked

Lifer
Dec 28, 2004
36,052
17
81
Originally posted by: JohnCU
Originally posted by: ElFenix
the US has a bunch of floating nuke plants. in fact, i wouldn't at all be shocked to find we've built more floating nuclear reactors than land based.

wat? i don't know of any floating nuke plants. maybe one on an island.

Nuke carriers and subs.
 

Safeway

Lifer
Jun 22, 2004
12,075
11
81
What happens if there is a meltdown? Chernobyl animal deformities everywhere?
 

SunnyD

Belgian Waffler
Jan 2, 2001
32,675
146
106
www.neftastic.com
And this is any different than nuclear powered subs, carriers and other vessels how? Other than using the reactor to provide electricity to land...
 

dainthomas

Lifer
Dec 7, 2004
14,916
3,896
136
Originally posted by: SunnyD
And this is any different than nuclear powered subs, carriers and other vessels how? Other than using the reactor to provide electricity to land...

It's not. Just something else for hippies to get wound up about.
 

lupi

Lifer
Apr 8, 2001
32,539
260
126
I think our land based plants still have a slight numerical lead over water borne.
 

phoenix79

Golden Member
Jan 17, 2000
1,598
0
0
Quick look through the US arsenal puts 20 reactors in Nimitz class carriers total; 8 in the Enterprise; 3 in Seawolf class subs; 62 in the Los Angeles class subs; 5 in Virginia class subs, and 18 in Ohio class subs; for a grand total of 116. Thats a lot of floating reactors.
 

Eli

Super Moderator | Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
50,419
8
81
Originally posted by: dainthomas
Originally posted by: SunnyD
And this is any different than nuclear powered subs, carriers and other vessels how? Other than using the reactor to provide electricity to land...

It's not. Just something else for hippies to get wound up about.

:confused:

Most "hippies" should welcome nuclear reactors with open arms; the ones I know do.
 

spidey07

No Lifer
Aug 4, 2000
65,469
5
76
Originally posted by: SunnyD
And this is any different than nuclear powered subs, carriers and other vessels how? Other than using the reactor to provide electricity to land...

The output of a power plant and the fuel used I have to assume is many times larger than a sub. I'm all for nuclear power but don't really want to be screwing with our ocean as an accident would carry that crap all over the world.

Oh - and SUPER LULZ,

"But according to nuclear experts, mining companies are likely to use Russian-built floating reactors to power operations to extract oil and gas and valuable minerals from the Arctic and other remote regions."
 

MotF Bane

No Lifer
Dec 22, 2006
60,801
10
0
Originally posted by: phoenix79
Quick look through the US arsenal puts 20 reactors in Nimitz class carriers total; 8 in the Enterprise; 3 in Seawolf class subs; 62 in the Los Angeles class subs; 5 in Virginia class subs, and 18 in Ohio class subs; for a grand total of 116. Thats a lot of floating reactors.

There's also some other vessels, such as certain classes of cruisers.

Also, from Wikipedia...

As of 2007 in the United States, there are 104 (69 pressurised water reactors and 35 boiling water reactors) commercial nuclear generating units licensed to operate

So we have more naval reactors than land-based commercial reactors. Probably more than just commercial ones though, might be some for the government, I've heard WPI and UML have or had a reactor.
 

ViviTheMage

Lifer
Dec 12, 2002
36,189
87
91
madgenius.com
What happens if it blows up on the water? Wouldn't it cause more chaos then just a little city like Chernobyl?

Since water is freeflowing and all, it'd leak EVERYWHERE?
 

MrPickins

Diamond Member
May 24, 2003
9,125
792
126
Considering the fact that Russian nuclear ice breakers already have provided similar service (emergency power) to communities along Arctic Ocean, I don't see a huge problem.

These won't be RMBK reactors or anything.
 

yllus

Elite Member & Lifer
Aug 20, 2000
20,577
432
126
That's actually a very smart design idea. The last of the triple backup system for emergency shutdown can simply be to dunk the reactor into the water below.
 

MrPickins

Diamond Member
May 24, 2003
9,125
792
126
Originally posted by: spidey07
Originally posted by: SunnyD
And this is any different than nuclear powered subs, carriers and other vessels how? Other than using the reactor to provide electricity to land...

The output of a power plant and the fuel used I have to assume is many times larger than a sub. I'm all for nuclear power but don't really want to be screwing with our ocean as an accident would carry that crap all over the world.

I know you said "sub" but each Nimitz class Aircraft carrier has almost 3 times the reactor capability as the vessels proposed in the article:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A4W

2*104MWe vs 2*35MWe
 

dphantom

Diamond Member
Jan 14, 2005
4,763
327
126
Originally posted by: ViviTheMage
What happens if it blows up on the water? Wouldn't it cause more chaos then just a little city like Chernobyl?

Since water is freeflowing and all, it'd leak EVERYWHERE?

There already has been at least 1 Russian sub that had a containment vessel breach. An other Russian ship, an icebreaker, had a leak so severe several sailors died and the vessel was quarantined.

There's a fair amount of nuclear material lying around the White Sea and other areas adjacent.
 

Modelworks

Lifer
Feb 22, 2007
16,240
7
76
Originally posted by: yllus
That's actually a very smart design idea. The last of the triple backup system for emergency shutdown can simply be to dunk the reactor into the water below.

Yep it is a smart design. Worst case it would irradiate a small area around the site.
 

SunnyD

Belgian Waffler
Jan 2, 2001
32,675
146
106
www.neftastic.com
Originally posted by: dphantom
Originally posted by: ViviTheMage
What happens if it blows up on the water? Wouldn't it cause more chaos then just a little city like Chernobyl?

Since water is freeflowing and all, it'd leak EVERYWHERE?

There already has been at least 1 Russian sub that had a containment vessel breach. An other Russian ship, an icebreaker, had a leak so severe several sailors died and the vessel was quarantined.

There's a fair amount of nuclear material lying around the White Sea and other areas adjacent.

Right. And an explosive meltdown underwater has the benefit of the water being a moderator anyway.
 

JohnCU

Banned
Dec 9, 2000
16,528
4
0
Originally posted by: SunnyD
Originally posted by: dphantom
Originally posted by: ViviTheMage
What happens if it blows up on the water? Wouldn't it cause more chaos then just a little city like Chernobyl?

Since water is freeflowing and all, it'd leak EVERYWHERE?

There already has been at least 1 Russian sub that had a containment vessel breach. An other Russian ship, an icebreaker, had a leak so severe several sailors died and the vessel was quarantined.

There's a fair amount of nuclear material lying around the White Sea and other areas adjacent.

Right. And an explosive meltdown underwater has the benefit of the water being a moderator anyway.

errr you don't want a moderator when you are trying to shut the reaction down.
 

dphantom

Diamond Member
Jan 14, 2005
4,763
327
126
Originally posted by: JohnCU
Originally posted by: SunnyD
Originally posted by: dphantom
Originally posted by: ViviTheMage
What happens if it blows up on the water? Wouldn't it cause more chaos then just a little city like Chernobyl?

Since water is freeflowing and all, it'd leak EVERYWHERE?

There already has been at least 1 Russian sub that had a containment vessel breach. An other Russian ship, an icebreaker, had a leak so severe several sailors died and the vessel was quarantined.

There's a fair amount of nuclear material lying around the White Sea and other areas adjacent.

Right. And an explosive meltdown underwater has the benefit of the water being a moderator anyway.

errr you don't want a moderator when you are trying to shut the reaction down.

Well, if there is a reactor breach, I don't think anyone will be left alive to try to shut down the reactor. At least in the engineering spaces. :)