World’s first floating nuclear power plant to begin operating in Russia in 2016
50 replies, posted
[QUOTE=scout1;41354616]We can't all be first[/QUOTE]
Your very ability to comment is a testament to the fact that we can all be first.. ;P
[QUOTE=OvB;41353277]Wouldn't nuclear subs/ships count as floating nuclear power plants?[/QUOTE]
Maybe from a general standpoint, but I wouldn't be so sure. I'd think (having no experience with nuclear ships/subs or anything similar/related) that they wouldn't be the same, since nuclear subs/ships are apparently self-propelled and providing power for themselves/their systems only. However, a floating nuclear plant like the one mentioned is made to distribute power to other things requiring power besides itself, barring whatever needs power onboard to keep the plant functioning. Said plant is also not self-propelled, requiring another ship to tow it.
[QUOTE=TurboSax;41355324]Maybe from a general standpoint, but I wouldn't be so sure. I'd think (having no experience with nuclear ships/subs or anything similar/related) that they wouldn't be the same, since nuclear subs/ships are apparently self-propelled and providing power for themselves/their systems only. However, a floating nuclear plant like the one mentioned is made to distribute power to other things requiring power besides itself, barring whatever needs power onboard to keep the plant functioning. Said plant is also not self-propelled, requiring another ship to tow it.[/QUOTE]
That's a good point...
Why does the author of this article insist on calling it "world's first" when no one called it like that, ever.
Another thing, is that RT, being RT, is overly optimistic about "mass production" - this project isn't going to face mass production the way it exists right now. Its cost has overblown its initial value more than three times (from ~$151 million to ~$482 million) according to [url=http://ria.ru/shortage/20100630/251309336-print.html]this RIA article(Russian)[/url]. Also this project was already once "put on hold" for a few years (most of the times it just means "scrapped, but no one wants to admit it and face punishment"). Recently, the project was resumed, but with a new cost slapped across.
Sensationalist as fuck, yup.
P.S. Sincerely fuck you Cloudflare for making me retype this post from scratch.
[QUOTE=azndude;41353238]I'm not feeling so good about this one. I think we remember Chernobyl.[/QUOTE]
What do you mean "this one". There are over 400 nuclear reactors around the world. What's wrong with this particular reactor? Do you object to its design? It's not even an RMBK reactor, how can you make that comparison?
[QUOTE=fox '09;41356464]What do you mean "this one". There are over 400 nuclear reactors around the world. What's wrong with this particular reactor? Do you object to its design? It's not even an RMBK reactor, how can you make that comparison?[/QUOTE]
[i]Nuclear is bad! it causes AIDS in children and you're horrible for not considering solar energy![/i]
Nobody wants to give nuclear a chance because of mistakes in early generation nuclear energy technology and thus they'll do whatever they think will work to prevent it from gaining ground again.
[QUOTE=pentium;41357061][i]Nuclear is bad! it causes AIDS in children and you're horrible for not considering solar energy![/i]
Nobody wants to give nuclear a chance because of mistakes in early generation nuclear energy technology and thus they'll do whatever they think will work to prevent it from gaining ground again.[/QUOTE]
BC is a good example.
I think people get confused on the difference between a nuclear explosion and a hydrogen/steam explosion in nuclear power station terms. The Fukushima's explosion was just steam and many people did think it was an explosion from the containment vessel itself, same with Chernobyl.
I think this is a great idea because if there's any doubt in the containment they would just steam it out to sea away from any major population, i really hope this takes off.
[QUOTE=pentium;41357061][i]Nuclear is bad! it causes AIDS in children and you're horrible for not considering solar energy![/i]
Nobody wants to give nuclear a chance because of mistakes in early generation nuclear energy technology and thus they'll do whatever they think will work to prevent it from gaining ground again.[/QUOTE]
Well don't want to sound like a tin-foil wearing loon, but energetcis is also money. People who construct, operate and maintain solar power plants want money too. So nuclear histeria is well supported, including some particular international organisations (the ones on payroll).
umm what
we had ice breaking nuclear ships (capable of providing energy to surroundings) since fucking 60s
Looking at the specs, it would be interesting to see how much it can actually power at 100%.
[QUOTE=elitestrider;41353075]when i saw the title i imagined a nuclear power plant in the sky[/QUOTE]
[IMG]http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-1SF-TZ9eV80/UNycjeRB3KI/AAAAAAAAHO4/Zy-op7b5-Ac/s1600/Captain+Scarlet+-+Butt+Base.jpg[/IMG]
???
Too bad its not self propelled. Cant they just mount giant electric motors and use the plant to power it while it is going to the destination?
[QUOTE=adam1172;41357770]Too bad its not self propelled. Cant they just mount giant electric motors and use the plant to power it while it is going to the destination?[/QUOTE]
Most large ships are diesel electric, using electric motors for locomotion anyway. I don't see why they couldn't have done it here.
[QUOTE=joost1120;41353393]I do remember it. I remember how it's perfectly safe to swim in the water where they store the uranium rods.[/QUOTE]
[img]http://what-if.xkcd.com/imgs/a/29/pool_safe.png[/img]
[QUOTE=azndude;41353238]I'm not feeling so good about this one. I think we remember Chernobyl.[/QUOTE]
I wonder how far nuclear technology could have gone by now if people who thought like this would go away
Hate to spoil your fun, but Russia is known for massive embezzlement from government-funded projects, so this has a low chance of seeing the light of day and if it does it is bound to be a safety hazard, not because NUCULAR POWER IS EEVIL, but because most of the funding intended for safety measures went towards someone's yacht.
[QUOTE=Bazsil;41358104]I wonder how far nuclear technology could have gone by now if people who thought like this would go away[/QUOTE]
I think the tech would be at the same point, but the adoption would be far wider. Everyone should just forget Chernobyl.
Don't forget Fukushima, though. It was a good lesson in [I]Why we don't put NPPs on massive-ass fault lines 101 - Earthquakes.[/I]
[QUOTE=qwerty000;41357678]umm what
we had ice breaking nuclear ships (capable of providing energy to surroundings) since fucking 60s[/QUOTE]
The title is misleading, it's the first floating NPP
[QUOTE=Laserbeams;41358180]The title is misleading, it's the first floating NPP[/QUOTE]
But that's not true. MH-1A was a floating nuclear power station. It was not powered by it's own reactor, and it was supplying power to on-shore stuff. The article is just flat out factually wrong.
I've heard of nuclear powered submarines, but a ship that's designed to provide power to coastal places sounds like a pretty neat idea. Although I could imagine that the inhabitants of coastal towns mightn't feel all that safe with a Lomonosov reactor-ship floating offshore, what with the recent nuclear scare an' all.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.