A Floating Nuclear Reactor?

[NSXType-R]

Russia is now planning a floating version of a nuclear reactor. I think this is one of their dumbest moves ever and images of another Chernobyl pop up in my mind. The amount of potential damage from the vaporized and now radioactive water is insane.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18124392/?GT1=9246

[clutch-monkey]

well, the US and russia has nuclear powered submarines, so it could be done i suppose... but if it goes wrong, the contamination could spread very far

[The_Canuck]

well, the US and russia has nuclear powered submarines, so it could be done i suppose... but if it goes wrong, the contamination could spread very far

Lets see whats more dangerous, floating nukes, or swimming nukes built in the 80's? As long as they build them well nothing should go wrong...

[NSXType-R]

well, the US and russia has nuclear powered submarines, so it could be done i suppose... but if it goes wrong, the contamination could spread very far

Yeah, I can see the radiation poisoning fish and products in the sea. But Canuck does have a point. There's no difference from a nuclear submarine, but I don't trust the Russians.

[IWantAnAudiRS6]

Lets see whats more dangerous, floating nukes, or swimming nukes built in the 80's? As long as they build them well nothing should go wrong...

This is Russia. Nothing is built well. Have you seen their cars?

I think this is just asking for trouble, personally. I'm also waiting for the first nitwit to sail his ferry into a nuclear reactor, or a nice terroist attack...

At lease nuclear submarines are bloody difficult to detect, so one getting destroyed is highly unlikely, but a sodding great power plant might be a tad easier to spot.

[092326001]

If the Russia submarines are fine these should be too.

[twinspark]

This is Russia. Nothing is built well. Have you seen their cars?

Yes. So let's prohibit the Russians from building anything at all?

I think this is just asking for trouble, personally. I'm also waiting for the first nitwit to sail his ferry into a nuclear reactor, or a nice terroist attack...

I don't think there's a big difference to the ground based plants, both could be attacked with a plane as easily.

In a way I like the main idea. Think about a large power source that is movable around the globe, which also means that it's easily removable from a location it's used in. Theoretically it could reduce the amount of new power plants being built, as countries could trade them with each other. That might suit exactly the developing countries in Asia and Africa, as stated in the article.

[bmwpower]

This is Russia. Nothing is built well. Have you seen their cars?

I think this is just asking for trouble, personally. I'm also waiting for the first nitwit to sail his ferry into a nuclear reactor

LOL yes their cars are jokes..

You know the greatest thing about accidents..some times it's some bloddy bad luck, other times you may be asking for them

[coolieman1220]

for a nuclear reactor floating, you'd have to run power cables back to land. that makes no sense. what are the advantages to having it in water? cooling becomes easier? remember the kursk, that was interesting. its like what if this reactor floats into a major city. nuclear subs or carriers arn't allowed in major cities incase they melt down, wouldn't this be the same case?

[Birdman]

This isn't such a bad idea. It will allow them to get large amounts of power to the areas that need it.
So that means that it doesn't need to go into major cities, unless there is some disaster.
If it is water cooled, then you can easily use the water around it (like submarines do) and have fresh water as well.

you'd have to run power cables back to land. that makes no sense.

How else do you get the electricity to land?

[coolieman1220]

the power cables need to be ran to earth like oil rigs have pipelines under water, if they break or some natural disaster.

[kingofthering]

Why the hell does Russia build these things?

Don't they have aid programs to fund? You don't see the US building some outlandish this often.

[CdocZ]

Well.....I'm not sure how much can be transferred, but it turns out there are ethernet routers that can transmit electricity, wireless-ly. I thought it was crazy too, but the tech guys at my school bought a few - instead of waiting for, lets say, the school laptop to recharge (which requires it be annoyingly close to a large moving cabinet called a mobile lab) you can actually just have the school network charge the laptop for you, through the wireless connection. Yeah that is a very small amount of electricity compared to what a nuclear reactor makes, but I have no idea just how much electricity can feasibly be transferred wireless-ly like this as this is the only example I have seen of it yet, and I bet there are multiple other applications too. Who knows, maybe there are projects to make wireless power lines for all I know. I haven't looked overly deeply into the matter.....I just know that the technology exists, for sure.

[Birdman]

I'm fairly sure that all you need is an radio aerial. The larger it is, the more energy you can collect.
As for the floating reactors, Russia is a big country and would need these as temporary power solutions.
When deployed, they would either be run next to the warf or moored out in the harbour while the lines were run either aross ships, under water or strung from ship to shore. When a storm came along it would simply have been factored into the the calculations of the amout of cable over the side along with the give in the anchor lines. If it all goes wrong, they could sink the vessel straight down and not worry about it. With no holes in the reactor it would be fine to sit there until recovered.

When it comes to portable reactors I seem to recall from an article in Scientific American from a few years back that the US was looking into a 5Mega Watt self-contained portable reactor for use with its armed forces and in aid operations.

[IWantAnAudiRS6]

Yes. So let's prohibit the Russians from building anything at all?

Sounds good to me.

Seriously, Chernobyl occurred due to serious negligence on their part. It ruined the perception of nuclear power, otherwise we could all be using a cleaner and better energy by now.

I don't think there's a big difference to the ground based plants, both could be attacked with a plane as easily.

In a way I like the main idea. Think about a large power source that is movable around the globe, which also means that it's easily removable from a location it's used in. Theoretically it could reduce the amount of new power plants being built, as countries could trade them with each other. That might suit exactly the developing countries in Asia and Africa, as stated in the article.

It's one of many possibilities. And as clutch said, if the water supply gets irradiated, we're goners.

I like the idea of 'swapping' powerplants. That's kind of cool. But to be honest, I'd rather not take the overall risk. It's just pure madness.