A Floating Chernobyl?

[Lemur]

I don't know, this really sounds like a bad idea ...

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.

[yesdachi]

If you live in a place that is that difficult to power perhaps it is time to move. Of course there must be something there of importance or they probably wouldn’t be able to afford the electricity.

From a geeky perspective I think it is pretty neat. If it were made in the US I am sure it would be promptly targeted by some sort of terrorist but given that it is Russian I doubt anyone will screw with them, they only have to worry about their own Dee Dee Dee.

It would be sweet if they could find a way to make electricity out of tundra, they got plenty of that.

[discovery1]

Old news, Lemur. And I doubt its that much of a problem, at least no more of a problem then using nuclear reactors on ships.

[Spetulhu]

Old news, Lemur. And I doubt its that much of a problem, at least no more of a problem then using nuclear reactors on ships.

At least there's plenty of water to cool the circulation systems aboard.

Ahuu! The devil's number came up!

[Caius]

It is a serious problem.In 1986, the Chernobyl problem.2010, the floating Chernobyl?I see this bad.The humanity must found other types of energy, less polluted and types of energy that doesnt represent a risk for the humanity.

Caius

[edyzmedieval]

More eolian power plants...

[Keba]

It is a serious problem.In 1986, the Chernobyl problem.2010, the floating Chernobyl?I see this bad.The humanity must found other types of energy, less polluted and types of energy that doesnt represent a risk for the humanity.

Caius

While there is a lot of experimentation into other forms of energy, nuclear is still by far the most efficient. It's byproducts can be used or disposed of fairly simply in proper bunkers. It produces almost no pollution and is nevertheless mostly safe. For all the reactors in existance, only Chernobyl went boom. It produces much more energy than other 'clean' forms, and does not rely on weather (like wind or solar power).

So, in the end, until they finally decide to switch to fusion (a very, very expensive prospect), nuclear is still the way to go.

[BigTex]

I don't know, this really sounds like a bad idea ...

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.

Not exactly the smartest thing in the world, but far from some of the worst. This isnt a walking chernobyl becuase you have tons of ice cold refreshing arctic water around you. Also chernobyl was testing how much power they could get out of a power plant by barely having it turned on, requiring them to take out almost all of the safety mechanisms. IMO as far as nuclear disasters go, Three Mile Island was far worse, they were pretty close to having full blown china syndrom.

How bout just shooting the radioactive waste into space ?
Then again, a rocket isn't really environmental friendly either..

No no and no. The failure rate of rockets is far to high to be shooting up radioactive waste. A rocket with a nose full of uranium blowing up over miami is bad. Heck this past year the solar sail satelite that was going to orbit the earth and moon blew up in the sky.

I'm not against nuclear power, infact its far more safe then coal. The waste is easily dealt with, lock it up in a mountain until we can figure out how to deal with it.
__________________
Speak softly and carry tactical nukes.

BigTex

Ridicolus
"Hilary Clinton is the devil"
~Texas proverb