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.

[Xiahou]

Do they still use graphite in their reactors? Let's hope not.

On paper it sounds like a good idea. However, I have to wonder how much quality control has improved in Russia since the USSR days.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

All of the serious reactor accidents were made worse by the lack of a secondary containment system. I wonder if any such provision exists here.

[Keba]

Yes, if there is a problem, the whole construction sinks under the sea. Problem solved ... or, rather, it becomes someone else's problem.

[yesdachi]

Yes, if there is a problem, the whole construction sinks under the sea. Problem solved ... or, rather, it becomes someone else's problem.

Poseidon?

[GiantMonkeyMan]

you are saying chernobyl as if it happens in all nuclear power plants, they've obviously developed a load more safety precautions since then, it wouldn't be allowed to be built if they didn't consider the design safe and now they triple check every aspect...

i'm pretty sure that there are a few nuclear power plants in britain that pollute less and are more efficient than coal/oil fired plants... i say that we should be using more nuclear power so that we are cutting back on pollution emissions

GMM

[Lemur]

you are saying chernobyl as if it happens in all nuclear power plants, they've obviously developed a load more safety precautions since then, it wouldn't be allowed to be built if they didn't consider the design safe and now they triple check every aspect...

i'm pretty sure that there are a few nuclear power plants in britain that pollute less and are more efficient than coal/oil fired plants... i say that we should be using more nuclear power so that we are cutting back on pollution emissions

GMM

A couple of thoughts: (1) Lemur is extremely pro-nuclear. Coal plants are absolute BS -- they pump outrageous ammounts of pollutants into the air, and they produce more free radioactive material than any nuclear plant in the U.S. has ever done.

Now with that said, it's a bit naive to say that Russia wouldn't allow a plant to be built if the design wasn't safe. Also, unless something's gone horribly wrong with the British nuclear program, every single nuclear plant should produce less pollution than the coal/oil plants.

[JAG]

Lemur, great they produce no co2 pollutent, but what about the large amount of radioactive material that is produced, of which we have no way of dealing with it?

Ah yes, that is what poor third world countries are for, I forget.

[Lemur]

Well, I suppose now I'm going to sound helplessly naive, but I think we'll find a technological way out of the waste problem with nuclear power. We will invent a method for breaking down the waste into much more manageable substances, and I think it will happen within my lifetime. I don't think we'll be stuck with dumping it all in Sri Lanka, if that's what you mean.

[MSB]

What nobody knows about Chernobyl is that it only blew up because it was a test plant. Some (stupid) scientist decided to find out what would happen if he turned off the coolant system for one of the reactors. Of course it blew up.

Nuclear power is perfectly safe and there should be no worries about this issue. Actually some studies have shown that a certain amount of radiation can reduce your chances of getting cell defects and cancers. I would not mind living next door to a modern reactor.

In my opinion nuclear fission (regular reactors) is a fix to global warming till nuclear fission is a viable possibility. This plant should be built and I can almost guarantee that it will not leak, collapse or cause any heath risks.

[yesdachi]

What nobody knows about Chernobyl is that it only blew up because it was a test plant. Some (stupid) scientist decided to find out what would happen if he turned off the coolant system for one of the reactors. Of course it blew up.

Nuclear power is perfectly safe and there should be no worries about this issue. Actually some studies have shown that a certain amount of radiation can reduce your chances of getting cell defects and cancers. I would not mind living next door to a modern reactor.

In my opinion nuclear fission (regular reactors) is a fix to global warming till nuclear fission is a viable possibility. This plant should be built and I can almost guarantee that it will not leak, collapse or cause any heath risks.

Stelth marketing alert – you work for Rosenergoatom don’t you!

[Kääpäkorven Konsuli]

...till nuclear fission is a viable possibility.

You mean fusion?

+1

[Mithrandir]

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

[Tribesman]

Also, unless something's gone horribly wrong with the British nuclear program, every single nuclear plant should produce less pollution than the coal/oil plants.

Isn't it ironic that you choose to sing the praises of Britains nuclear program on the day they got a large fine for safety breaches , two more plants announced they had developed leaks and half of those that should be operating are shut down for one reason or another .

[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

[ajaxfetish]

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.

If I'm not mistaken, isn't the most reliable, non-polluting, and efficient energy source hydroelectric? Of course it makes for some serious changes in the local environment, both downstream and in and around the submerged area, but unlike nuclear power it leaves no radioactive material that will take longer to become safe than all of recorded history so far.

It's that timeframe that worries me most about nuclear power. Earth is good at nullifying or adapting to whatever changes get thrown at it, but I don't have thousands of years to wait for my living space to clean itself up. Burying it isn't guaranteed, and pretty much screws over whoever ends up getting it put in their backyard. Sending it to space isn't feasible, between the cost and dangers involved. One interesting idea I've heard is somehow placing it into subduction zones, so that it will eventually get sucked under the crust (where presumably the heat in the mantle will neutralize the problem one way or another).

A more immediate and practical suggestion I've heard from an activist here in Utah is placing all the waste right next to MIT, giving the brilliant minds there some encouragement to come up with a safe way to deal with it. In broader terms, I think the waste should be kept near those who benefit from the power it generates. The people in the rural areas targeted for storage don't have enough political clout to get the research done to deal with the waste, and once it's out of sight, it's out of mind. If it can't be taken away from highly populated areas, the pressure to deal with the long term problem will remain.

Ajax

[Keba]

I actually meant as in most efficient. Say what you will, but a nuclear power plant will produce a hell of a lot more power than a hydroelectric dam. So, when compatin efficiency/pollution ratio, Nuclear wins, by a lot. Nuclear waste is easy to store, put it in barrels, then store the barrels into a nice, safe, buried bunker under a mountain. You never know when it might be useful.

However, I say we gather all of our garbage into one huge ball, mount it on a rocket and fire it into space. Let someone else deal with it. Bonus points for anyone who gets this reference.

[Xiahou]

The Chernobyl disaster was primarily about flawed design- it was really a ticking time bomb waiting to explode. When you add in shoddy maintenance and poor training, something bad was bound to happen.

There's no way that modern reactors (in the US at least) could go up like Chernobyl.

[Caius]

More eolian power plants...

Thats a good idea, but...It isnt used.

[Reverend Joe]

However, I say we gather all of our garbage into one huge ball, mount it on a rocket and fire it into space. Let someone else deal with it. Bonus points for anyone who gets this reference.

Futurama. I used to watch it religiously until it just stopped being funny.

[Papewaio]

If I'm not mistaken, isn't the most reliable, non-polluting, and efficient energy source hydroelectric? Of course it makes for some serious changes in the local environment, both downstream and in and around the submerged area, but unlike nuclear power it leaves no radioactive material that will take longer to become safe than all of recorded history so far.

The submerged organic matter decays into carbon and methane gas... so they contribute to green house warming.

The change in the flow of water can have a negative effect on downstream wetlands and farming... a double blow to the environment and to the economy.

As for radioactive waste... a thorium reactor would be a good start. And it has to be noted that the amount of radioactive waster that is pumped out of coal power stations is higher then a fission reactor under normal operating circumstances.

[MSB]

Stelth marketing alert – you work for Rosenergoatom don’t you!

No, I do not work for Rosenergoatom. I work for some random school in England!

In my opinion tidal is one of the most efficient form of renewable energy. However it kills sea life. It is closely followed by hydro power, which, if well placed and properly furnished, causes no large environmental problems.

[rory_20_uk]

Compared to the ships carrying masses of radioactive waste around North Russia this seems tame by comparison.

[Ludens]

What nobody knows about Chernobyl is that it only blew up because it was a test plant. Some (stupid) scientist decided to find out what would happen if he turned off the coolant system for one of the reactors. Of course it blew up.

Not entirely true. The disaster at Chernobyl was indeed the result of an experiment with reactor safety, but the problem was not the coolant system. In every reactor lead bars are used to control and, if necessary, stop the energy-producing chain reaction. However, when the reaction went out of control at Chernobyl, the crew found that, due to improper construction, they couldn't lower the lead bars into the reactor anymore.

Nuclear power is perfectly safe and there should be no worries about this issue. Actually some studies have shown that a certain amount of radiation can reduce your chances of getting cell defects and cancers. I would not mind living next door to a modern reactor.

Nonsense. Radiotion therapy is indeed used to treat tumors, but only on the basis that tumor cells are even more vulnerable to radiation than we are.