Floating Nuclear Plants

2007-01-05 07:47:35

#1

Pug: UR father's brother's nephew's former roommate; +652|6968|Texas - Bigger than France

I came across something cool and weird at the same time - a floating nuke plant. Not only does it provide power but it also can desalinate sea water. I think that the engineering challenges would be immense - but holy cow! - the technology.

Nuclear plant, desalination, protection from sea ice, tidal rips, the cold, environmental concerns, heated "hot spot" around the plant, terrorist/security risks, and mutated fish (Blinky if you watch the Simpsons)...pretty neat.

What do you think about this? I'm for nuke power but I lean more towards environmental issues whenever possible. But I'm astounded on this engineering marvel.

I also find it interesting that there's a possibility the thinking was it was "too dangerous" to put on land...so lets put it on the high seas...

Links:
http://www.mosnews.com/money/2005/09/09 … lant.shtml
http://www.cns.miis.edu/pubs/week/020624.htm
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13316942/

2007-01-05 07:59:39

#2

ATG: Banned; +5,233|6955|Global Command

Russia is not exactly known for its stellar enviromental record.
But the idea seems okay.

2007-01-05 08:11:58

#3

Pug: UR father's brother's nephew's former roommate; +652|6968|Texas - Bigger than France

I also saw that the same development company has been talking wth China and Indonesia.

Indonesia? Hurricanes right?

2007-01-05 08:14:53

#4

kessel!: Peruvian Cocaine; +261|7191|Toronto Canada

I think thats a great idea, if they can make the plants safe and robust. These could be sold to developing nations en mass due to their low price.

and if we every run out of fresh water we can drink the desalinated shit coming from these. i've always wanted and extra arm!

2007-01-05 08:28:08

#5

Jepeto87: Member; +38|7111|Dublin

Thats cool! I think its a great idea.

2007-01-05 08:42:21

#6

[UK]Blazing.Armour: Member; +12|7069

Good idea Russia, set a giant floating nuclear power plant right next to the Arctic Ice-caps to speed up global warming.

2007-01-05 08:50:37

#7

Sup3r_Dr4gon: Boat sig is not there anymore; +214|6753|Australia

It says in the first article that it doesn't damage the enviorment.

What about the hyper-salinated water being pumped back into the ocean? Theres a reason theres no life in the dead sea.

2007-01-05 09:07:24

#8

globefish23: sophisticated slacker; +334|6750|Graz, Austria

Not really such a problem I'd guess.
Think about all the nuclear powered aircraft carriers and submarines in the world. Those are crammed full with weapons and explosive and cruise the oceans always with the possibility of getting attacked and damaged.

That already happened when terrorist blew a hole into a US war ship somewhere in a middle east port.
Also think about the many sunken Russian submarines like the Kursk.

Sup3r_Dr4gon wrote:
What about the hyper-salinated water being pumped back into the ocean? Theres a reason theres no life in the dead sea.

The ocean is HUGE compared to the Dead Sea. It would probably be diluted.
Of course, in the immediate surrounding to the plant, the salt concentration would indeed higher (but the heated water in that area wouldn't allow for the usual lifeforms there anyway).
You could also iodize the salt and package it as sea salt.

Still, I'd find it better if they would bill tidal power plants or off-shore wind farms.

BTW, this highly reminds me of the RTS game Total Annihlation, where you had underwater fusion power plants.

2007-01-05 09:10:29

#9

Skorpy-chan: Member; +127|6771|Twyford, UK

A good idea, but if someone messes up you'll get a plume of superheated radioactive steam.

2007-01-05 12:13:54

#10

chaosdragon001: Whee; +53|6935|Los Angeles, California

I don't see why not... they have smaller versions of these on supercarriers...

2007-01-05 12:50:14

#11

TheEternalPessimist: Wibble; +412|7046|Mhz

Is it just me thinking it'd be easier and safer under the water?

2007-01-05 20:46:22

#12

ts-pulsar: Member; +54|6929

chaosdragon001 wrote:
I don't see why not... they have smaller versions of these on supercarriers...

Exactly, this isn't exactly a revolutionary idea. Plus the Russians tend to make all large ships nuclear powered. Their one carrier and two battle cruisers are nuclear powered, and back when it was the soviet union almost all their large surface ships were nuclear powered and damn near all their subs. Russia has always embraced nuclear power a lot more than the west, and I'm honestly surprised they have had as few accidents as they have.

2007-01-06 14:03:22

#13

Stingray24: Proud member of the vast right-wing conspiracy; +1,060|6871|The Land of Scott Walker

Pug wrote:
I also saw that the same development company has been talking wth China and Indonesia.

Indonesia? Hurricanes right?

That would make a tidal wave from bad to worse. "Ah, crap, here comes the floating nuclear plant . . . Ruuuuuun!"

2007-01-07 13:40:27

#14

Stingray24: Proud member of the vast right-wing conspiracy; +1,060|6871|The Land of Scott Walker

Well, I didn't intend to end discussion with my little joke. The idea of a floating nuclear plant is actually quite fascinating.

globefish23 wrote:
The ocean is HUGE compared to the Dead Sea. It would probably be diluted.
Of course, in the immediate surrounding to the plant, the salt concentration would indeed higher (but the heated water in that area wouldn't allow for the usual lifeforms there anyway).
You could also iodize the salt and package it as sea salt.

Still, I'd find it better if they would bill tidal power plants or off-shore wind farms.

BTW, this highly reminds me of the RTS game Total Annihlation, where you had underwater fusion power plants.

Off shore wind farms . . . hadn't heard of that. Makes sense that they'd be most efficiently over water.

BF2S Forums Floating Nuclear Plants

Sup3r_Dr4gon wrote:

chaosdragon001 wrote:

Pug wrote:

globefish23 wrote:

Board footer