Comments on: Floating Nuclear Reactor: What Could Go Wrong?

By: Brian

Brian — Wed, 07 Jan 2009 00:18:00 +0000

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

By: pld

pld — Sun, 15 Oct 2006 02:08:29 +0000

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.

By: dead_red_eyes

dead_red_eyes — Sat, 14 Oct 2006 16:34:53 +0000

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

By: Bryan

Bryan — Sat, 14 Oct 2006 11:05:14 +0000

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.

By: dead_red_eyes

dead_red_eyes — Sat, 14 Oct 2006 00:30:06 +0000

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!

By: dead_red_eyes

dead_red_eyes — Sat, 14 Oct 2006 00:28:06 +0000

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

By: Sandy

Sandy — Fri, 13 Oct 2006 23:59:46 +0000

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