Russians Plan Floating Nuclear Plants

[Albatross]

Text
if anyhing goes wrong,at least the russians will have fish soup for the whole nation

 

[JS80]

NIMOV (not in my ocean view)

 

[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.

 

[JohnCU]

that is fucking awesome! certainly solves the problem of the large amounts of water needed.

 

[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.

 

[Baked]

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]

What happens if there is a meltdown? Chernobyl animal deformities everywhere?

 

[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...

 

[techs]

this will not end well

 

[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.

 

[lupi]

I think our land based plants still have a slight numerical lead over water borne.

 

[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.

 

[Eli]

Cool.

 

[Eli]

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.

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

 

[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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.