Floating Nuclear Reactor: What Could Go Wrong?

Posted by Alex in Everything Else on October 13, 2006 at 6:14 pm


From Popular Science:

While the U.S. hems and haws over reviving nuclear energy as a less expensive alternative to oil, Russia has dug back 30 years in our nuclear history to find a solution for some of its own energy woes: the floating nuclear power plant.

The Russian nuclear-energy company Rosenergoatom is planning a mobile plant to deliver electricity to hard-to-reach northern territories near the White Sea, where harsh weather makes regular coal and oil fuel deliveries unreliable and expensive.

Link

Previous post
this post? Please Email this               
Next post


FUN PRODUCTS FROM THE NEATORAMA SHOP:
BuckyBalls (w/ Mystery Bonus!)


COMMENT

7 comments to "Floating Nuclear Reactor: What Could Go Wrong?"

  1. Sandy
    October 13th, 2006 at 6:59 pm

    Is that picture for real? It looks like a miniature sitting on painted concrete.

  2. dead_red_eyes
    October 13th, 2006 at 7:28 pm

    of course it's not. it says they're planning on making it, so it's a model of course!

  3. dead_red_eyes
    October 13th, 2006 at 7:30 pm

    also, just what this world needs ... a floating nuclear disaster waiting to happen and kill our precious ocean. one huge wave and i bet that sh-t would crack!

  4. Bryan
    October 14th, 2006 at 6:05 am

    Aren't there already many floating nuclear reactors out there already? The US and Russia all have several nuclear-powered carriers, subs and cruisers. Russia also has serveral nuclear icebreakers. Japan and Germany have a couple of nuclear cargo ships. I also thought that the USS Thresher had a severe problem with its reactor back in 1963 without destroying the ocean.

  5. dead_red_eyes
    October 14th, 2006 at 11:34 am

    apparently the nuclear fuel is still intact, and I guess it's only a matter of time (20,000 years?] before the ship decomposes ...

  6. pld
    October 14th, 2006 at 9:08 pm

    Oh come on. Nuclear (fission) power is certainly a better source of energy than burning oil or coal until we have cheap, clean and practically infinite fusion power. The only problem is making it safe enough, and of course, Russia doesn't have a good record at that.

  7. Brian
    January 6th, 2009 at 7:18 pm

    Actually Russia's record is pretty clean. You're probably referring to the Chernobyl incident in 1986 in the Czech Republic.


PLEASE LEAVE A COMMENT

Neatorama Comment Policy
You don't have to register or login to comment, but it's easier if you do so. Comments aren't censored, but those that are abusive or off-topic may be edited or deleted.


Stay updated on the comments with Comment RSS