Floating reactors.

[pipme]

Here we go then ... Precursor to the end game?
100% Safe .. Titanic?

 

[kendor]

I can understand worries about their past record with safety but perhaps that has helped them collect enough data to make sure that the next generation of power plants are more inherently safer?
It's a shame that a few accidents in the past both there and here have put such a big shadow over the nuclear power project as i feel it is still the best route to take for the future and the cleanest option. the chenobyl incident taught a lot about the flawed design of previous reactors we have had no incidents (at least not reported anyway) since Windscale over here and statistically they have been far less intrusive to the environment than the damage caused by fossil fuel stations.

 

[pipme]

Sure, but building on the water suggests little or no land or major air access, how long does it take a ship to cover any journey? and tis restricted by navigation requirements depths etc. Perhaps they'll have a large plug to pull in the event of uncontrollable problems .. although there may not be enough depth on top of all the sunken subs nowadays.

 

[kendor]

Sure, but building on the water suggests little or no land or major air access, how long does it take a ship to cover any journey? and tis restricted by navigation requirements depths etc. Perhaps they'll have a large plug to pull in the event of uncontrollable problems .. although there may not be enough depth on top of all the sunken subs nowadays.

Is it highjacking fears of cargo ships that you are worried about? hopefully no-one will have the nerve to mess with the russian navy.

 

[Richardp]

praps they'll get the yanks to build it for them Gulp!!

 

[kendor]

Too expensive comrade

 

[pipme]

Sure, but building on the water suggests little or no land or major air access, how long does it take a ship to cover any journey? and tis restricted by navigation requirements depths etc. Perhaps they'll have a large plug to pull in the event of uncontrollable problems .. although there may not be enough depth on top of all the sunken subs nowadays.

Is it highjacking fears of cargo ships that you are worried about? hopefully no-one will have the nerve to mess with the russian navy.

Can they afford to leave port now?
Not hi-jacking just general accessablility in emergency situations.

"..Environmental groups say that the power plants will be an unprecedented environmental and security hazard because they will be moored in remote ports and would be hard to reach in the event of an accident or terrorist attack.
Russia has an unenviable record of nuclear and naval accidents, including the sinking of the nuclear submarine Kursk in 2000, and has suffered terrorist attacks by Chechen rebels. We're very concerned you'll have an environmental, a security and a proliferation risk," said Nils Boehmer, head of the Russia group at Bellona, an environmental group based in Norway. It will be difficult to do anything if they have an accident, plus the fuel will be highly enriched and could be used in nuclear weapons....

 

[kendor]

Not hi-jacking just general accessablility in emergency situations.

"..Environmental groups say that the power plants will be an unprecedented environmental and security hazard because they will be moored in remote ports and would be hard to reach in the event of an accident or terrorist attack.

Is that intentional then so any accident will be kept away from habitated places? I'm sure they will have emergency facilities nearby or on hand.

 

[Big_Spark]

Whilst I can understand the fears of the unknowing, it should be pointed out that the Soviet Union only had one actual Nuclear Accident, and that was Chernobyl..OK pretty damned bad, but one does not make for a bad safety record.

Their ships and Subs have been Nuclear Powered for at least 45 years, and whilst many have sunk with reactors aboard, none have caused a radiation leak or other environmental hazard.

The US has had at least 4 major Nuclear accidents, the worst being 3 mile Island in 1979, and they have lost one Nuclear powered ship and 4 Nuclear Powered Subs, comparable to the Soviets, in the last 50 years. Neither the ship nor the subs have caused radiation or environmental issues.

I would say that perhaps the Russians look at the design of the reactors to ensure that they use the latest knowledge and technology to construct and operate them, but I do not think these reactors pose any more significant risk that other forms of power generation.

I would be seriously concerned about them being sold to Middle eastern or other Policitically unstable nations though, This should be stopped.

 

[Spark123]

it should be pointed out that the Soviet Union only had one actual Nuclear Accident,

Sept 29, 1957: waste storage tank explodes near Chelyabinsk — hundreds killed

 

[AdamW]

Chernobyl was caused because they decided to run an experiment with the safety features disabled... They pulled all the control rods out for a start, which even at the time was considered very, very silly.

Of course, there are plenty of floating nuclear reactors and I'm not aware of any of them being taken over by terrorists or blowing up:

 

[Big_Spark]

it should be pointed out that the Soviet Union only had one actual Nuclear Accident,

Sept 29, 1957: waste storage tank explodes near Chelyabinsk — hundreds killed

THAT WAS NOT A NUCLEAR ACCIDENT.

The Tank that exploded was use to feed Steam from a reactor when the water pressure rose too high. The Tank was designed to act as a cooling tank so that the steam would condence into water again. However the accident was caused by a safety valve sticking and that sent incorrect signals to a very basic control circuit (bear in mind that controls were very rudimentary in those days). This caused a valve and steam pump to remain in operation, thus filling the tank with pressurised steam way beyond safety limits.

Eventually the steam pressure built to the point of mechanical failure of the structure resulting in a steam explosion. Later it was revealed that workers on a construction site beside the storage tank had been caught in the full force of the steam explosion, and some 224 were killed, including 47 staff member of the reactor staff who happened to be in the car park which also was on the other side of the storage tank.

This may be called a Nuclear explosion by some, but as the steam was not radioactive and there was no release of radiactive material, it is not a Nuclear accident, simply an accident at a Nuclear faciltity which is not the same thing.

 

[AdamW]

Anyway, aren't most modern nuclear reactors sodium cooled? Due to the higher vapour point then you wouldn't have massive amounts of sodium vapour in order to pressurise a tank.

OK, if molten sodium started spraying out of a leak into the sea then it would score a 10 on the "not cool" scale.

Some systems in reactors in those days were designed in such a way that instead of failing safe, they could fail into an unsafe state. It was only with big accidents such as Three-Mile Island and Chernobyl that made people realise the very real risk of meltdown and other problems, so I would be surprised if they are designed with such systems now.

 

[securespark]

I get floating reactors in the pan the morning after a belting curry....

 

[Spark123]

THAT WAS NOT A NUCLEAR ACCIDENT.

1957 Explosion of an underground, high-level nuclear waste storage tank at Mayak Chemical Complex near Chelyabinsk in the Urals (USSR) vents 2 million Curies over 15,000 sq. miles. Population of over 250,000 resettled due to Strontium-90 contamination. The world's worst nuclear accident until Chernobyl. See Irresponsibility and accidents