Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×

A $200-Million Floating Nuclear Plant? 453

Roland Piquepaille writes "In 'A Floating Chernobyl?,' Popular Science reports that two Russian companies plan to build the world's first floating nuclear power plant to deliver cheap electricity to northern territories. The construction should start next year for a deployment in 2010. The huge barge will be home for two 60-megawatt nuclear reactors which will work until 2050... if everything works fine. It looks like a frightening idea, don't you think? But read more for additional details and pictures of this floating nuclear power plant."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

A $200-Million Floating Nuclear Plant?

Comments Filter:
  • by chrisb33 ( 964639 ) on Sunday October 15, 2006 @06:48PM (#16446937) Homepage
    An even bigger fear is that a nasty storm could cut the plant off from the land-based power supply required to run plant operations. Should emergency generators fail, says David Lochbaum, director of the Nuclear Safety Project at the Union of Concerned Scientists, a Chernobyl-like disaster could ensue. In a worst-case scenario, an overheated core could melt through the bottom of the barge and drop into the water, creating a radioactive steam explosion.
    IANANP (I am not a nuclear physicist) but I was under the impression that fission chain reactions could always be stopped quickly by simply withdrawing the fuel rods. It seems like it shouldn't be impossible to build a fail-safe system that would stop the reaction if land-based power supplies were cut off.
    I'm also confused as to why a land-based power supply is needed at all - isn't the plant producing more energy than it's taking? Why does it need any other power source?
  • No accidents?!? (Score:1, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 15, 2006 @07:12PM (#16447139)
    Quite the contrary (unless by "none" you meant "scores".) Among the accidents that have been made public:

    1954
    A sodium-cooled reactor utilized aboard the USS Seawolf, the U.S.'s second nuclear submarine, was scuttled in 9,000 feet of water off the Delawre/Maryland coast. The reactor was plagued by persistent leaks in its steam system (caused by the corrosive nature of the sodium) and was later replaced with a more conventional model. The reactor is estimated to have contained 33,000 curies of radioactivity and is likely the largest single radioactive object ever dumped deliberately into the ocean. Subsequent attempts to locate the reactor proved to be futile.

    October 1959
    One man was killed and another three were seriously burned in the explosion and fire of a prototype reactor for the USS Triton at the Navy's training center in West Milton, New York. The Navy stated, "The explosion...was completely unrelated to the reactor or any of its principal auxiliary systems," but sources familiar with the operation claim that the high-pressure air flask which exploded was utilized to operate a critical back-up system in the event of a reactor emergency.

    1961
    The USS Theodore Roosvelt was contaminated when radioactive waste from its demineralization system, blew back onton the ship after an attempt to dispose of the material at sea. This happened on other occasions as well with other ships (for example, the USS Guardfish in 1975).

    10 April 1963
    The nuclear submarine Thresher imploded during a test dive east of Boston, killing all 129 men aboard.

    1968
    Radioactive coolant water may have been released by the USS Swordfish, which was moored at the time in Sasebo Harbor in Japan. According to one source, the incident was alleged by activists but a nearby Japanese government vessel failed to detect any such radiation leak. The purported incident was protested bitterly by the Japanese, with Premier Eisaku Sate warning that U.S. nuclear ships would no longer be allowed to call at Japanese ports unless their safety could be guaranteed.

    21 May 1968
    The U.S.S. Scorpion, a nuclear-powered attack submarine carrying two Mark 45 ASTOR torpedoes with nuclear warheads, sank mysteriously on this day. It was eventually photographed lying on the bottom of the ocean, where all ninety-nine of its crew were lost. Details of the accident remained classified until November 1993, when Navy reports revealed that the cause of the sinking was an accidental detonation of the conventional explosives in one of Scorpion's warheads.

    14 January 1969
    A series of explosions aboard the nuclear aircraft carrier Enterprise left 17 dead and 85 injured.

    16 May 1969
    The U.S.S. Guitarro, a $50 million nuclear submarine undergoing final fitting in San Francisco Bay, sank to the bottom as water poured into a forward compartment. A House Armed Services subcommittee later found the Navy guilty of "inexcusable carelessness" in connection with the event.

    12 December 1971
    Five hundred gallons of radioactive coolant water spilled into the Thames River near New London, Connecticut as it was being transferred from the submarine Dace to the sub tender Fulton.

    October-November 1975
    The USS Proteus, a disabled submarine tender, discharged significant amounts of radioactive coolant water into Guam's Apra Harbor. A geiger counter check of the harbor water near two public beaches measured 100 millirems/hour, fifty times the allowable dose.

    22 May 1978
    Up to 500 gallons of radioactive water was released when a valve was mistakenly opened aboard the USS Puffer near Puget Sound in Washington.

    I'm tired of looking these up. There are actually several accidents per year, a major one every few years, and we are told about few of these. At least do the tiniest amount of research before you post.

    - A former NUPOC.
  • Re:Safety (Score:5, Interesting)

    by MindStalker ( 22827 ) <mindstalker@[ ]il.com ['gma' in gap]> on Sunday October 15, 2006 @07:29PM (#16447295) Journal
    Google isn't helping me here. But from my understanding after the last San Franciso major earthquake that some nuclear vesseles were docked and hooked up to supply something like a fourth of the cities power.
  • by YesIAmAScript ( 886271 ) on Sunday October 15, 2006 @07:35PM (#16447353)
    60% of these are non-nuclear, and some didn't even occur on ships.

    You might save yourself some trouble if you only looked up relevant info.
  • Re:Safety (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Apraxhren ( 964852 ) on Sunday October 15, 2006 @08:17PM (#16447675) Homepage
    Umm... this is a slightly different scale of power generation. Those ships and submarines which are nuclear powered have really small reactors. The power (and more importantly pressure) generated in a small Navy sub reactor is "small" compared to this beast. We're talking about TWO full scale reactors on a barge.
    Are you sure about that? The Popsci article states that the plant would be run by two 60 megawatt reactors that are currently used in Russian icebreakers so 1/2 wouldn't really be considered small. Also the USS George H. W. Bush recently launched is powered by 2 reactors which are supposed to be triple the power of the 8 reactors on the USS Enterprise.
  • Why (Score:3, Interesting)

    by kahrytan ( 913147 ) on Sunday October 15, 2006 @08:24PM (#16447731)

      Why can't the russians just build a 20.25 square foot solar site? It will still generate 200 Megawatts of power. That can power alot of households in Russia.

    Google Solar Mission /.ers.
  • by locokamil ( 850008 ) on Sunday October 15, 2006 @09:57PM (#16448331) Homepage
    First my gripe: you also failed to note that I said that I'm not willing to judge the state of nuclear engineering in Russia on the basis of one accident and the fact that I'm not an expert in the field.

    Apart from that, I agree with you 100% regarding the seeminlgy miserable state of nuclear energy in the US. I wonder, however, whether on an absolute scale of how many people are affected by energy generation, nuclear energy isn't cleaner than fossil fuels. The extraction process for the raw materials is obviously damaging to the environment-- but so is strip mining for coal, or drilling for oil. Furthermore, unlike fossil fuels, the waste products from NP generation can be stored in a single isolated, localized zone. It isn't renewable, but it seems to use fewer resources on a whole than the current fossil fuel based paradigm. I should have been more precise in my phrasing: it should have been "nuclear power is cleaner". Not clean.
  • The real news (Score:4, Interesting)

    by hcdejong ( 561314 ) <hobbes@nOspam.xmsnet.nl> on Monday October 16, 2006 @05:14AM (#16450403)
    is the price tag. AFAIK $200M is an order of magnitude cheaper than current nuclear power plants. How did they get the price down that far?
  • Re:Safety (Score:1, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 16, 2006 @06:20AM (#16450633)
    They do....in a democracy. Problem is, in your commie paradise people were no better off than they are today in some of these theocratic hellholes.
    Yeah, tell that for the people with the best free health care in the world. Four letters, and there is a base where your GI Joes torture suspect terrrorists there.
  • Re:Safety (Score:3, Interesting)

    by tttonyyy ( 726776 ) on Monday October 16, 2006 @06:23AM (#16450643) Homepage Journal
    To scale this experiment up, this chap dropped a big lump if it into a lake: http://www.theodoregray.com/PeriodicTable/Stories/ 011.2/ [theodoregray.com] TBH, if the liquid sodium coolant was escaping, I think its reaction with the water would be the least of my worries.
  • Re:Safety (Score:3, Interesting)

    by God'sDuck ( 837829 ) on Monday October 16, 2006 @08:09AM (#16451193)
    Uhm... the electricity consumption rate in 1929 and 2006 are pretty different, I guess... Back then, I think they only have light bulbs. We now have TVs, PCs, Washing Machines, Microwave owens, Air conditioners...
    All true, but it's also important to note that back then battleships and aircraft carriers largely only had light bulbs, and now have TVs, PCs, Washing Machines, Microwave owens and Air conditioners. I would suspect a single nuclear-powered supership rolling off the line today could power the whole fleet from the 20's. Twice.

"Experience has proved that some people indeed know everything." -- Russell Baker

Working...