h a l f b a k e r yLoading tagline ....
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
browse anonymously,
or get an account
and write.
register,
|
|
|
There is growing sentiment that nuclear power must become a significant component of the energy equation.
Despite significant design improvements, however, there is an ongoing not-in-my-backyard opposition to these.
Perhaps one way to address this is to use mothballed nuclear navy ships as electricity
generators. Being mobile, they can be moved from backyard to backyard as needed, while being more than adequately defended against any attack.
Floating Nuclear Plant
http://www.nuclear....ating_N-plants.html
I Got Your "I Got Your Nuclear Reactor Right Here" Right Here [Worldgineer, Jun 27 2005]
Not-near-my-expensive-waterfront-property
http://www.sfgate.c.../08/05/MN100141.DTL
[Worldgineer, Jun 27 2005]
It's a brave, new world...
http://news.bbc.co..../nature/4629239.stm
In other news, it seems we're a step or two closer to fusion. [RayfordSteele, Jun 29 2005]
Wired.com on pebble-bed reactors.
http://www.wired.co...ve/12.09/china.html
[angel, Jun 30 2005]
The FIRE Place
http://fire.pppl.gov/#NewsSection
Background Information and Reviews of the U. S. and World Fusion Programs [reensure, Jul 02 2005]
Floating Nuke Plant
http://www.cnn.com/...ke.plant/index.html
[theircompetitor, Oct 13 2006]
Dad's Nuke
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dad's_Nuke
In a world where everyone has their own nuclear weapon, one dad... [bonkers777, Dec 31 2008]
Nuclear Merchant Shipping
http://www.popsci.c...ture-merchant-ships
Using nuclear powered ice breakers to limit pollution in merchant shipping [theircompetitor, Sep 28 2010]
My Favorite Reactor
http://en.wikipedia...iki/Breeder_reactor
I'm still flummoxed as to why they sank the Breeder program in the US. It was a bargaining chip in dealing with the Russians on the "Start II Treaty." Some of the medical isotopes that came out of the one I worked at for many years could not be economically produced any other way. If the US had 10 breeders they would not have a nuclear waste problem, since the high flux environment could "recharge" the waste. Grrr. [Grogster, Sep 28 2010]
But Wait! There's More!
http://www.argee.ne...eder%20Reactors.htm
Ahhhh! I feel all better now. Goodnight. [Grogster, Sep 28 2010]
Ship to Shore Power
http://ocw.mit.edu/...s/ship_to_shore.pdf
Is this feasible? R. Derek Scott from MIT seems to think so. [Wrongfellow, May 06 2012]
The Straight Dope on the future of energy
http://www.straight...ukes-em-and-em-coal
Basically, we're all boned [ytk, May 06 2012]
Ship-to-shore power
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MH-1A
Is it feasible? Why yes, it was! 'Floating Power Plant' built on Liberty hull, used in Panama. [Alterother, May 12 2012]
Chinese are doing it
http://www.cnn.com/...reactors/index.html
[theircompetitor, May 10 2016]
Russians really doing it
https://www.yahoo.c...tion-093521209.html
[theircompetitor, May 19 2018]
Disposal of nuclear powered submarines
https://www.bicc.de...lated-problems-179/
If you think plastic pollution in the sea is frightening then you really don't want to read this. [DrBob, May 20 2018]
The Russians are Coming
https://www.cnn.com...ion-intl/index.html
[theircompetitor, Jun 29 2019]
Barges with Molten Salt Nuclear Reactors
https://newatlas.co...lear-reactor-barge/
[theircompetitor, Jun 21 2021]
[link]
|
| |
<ompr>..and this is the generator that goes ping.)(+) <ompr> |
|
| |
Well, they'd only power costal communities, which there are alot of, so... [+] |
|
| |
Include nothing to encourage development of spoil acreage in the middle of oceans and I agree on nearly all aspects of the plan. |
|
| |
Good idea. Bun to you. Ships have relatively meager power capacity compared to the needs of a city, but every little bit helps. |
|
| |
Ah, I enjoyed that title. |
|
| |
You could convert the Trident/Polaris missiles for civilian use on the 4th July/5th November. |
|
| |
what if a big storm hit it? wouldn't a cloud of nuclear waste go around killing poeple? and it would be easy for terrerist to steal it. all they have to do is strap some wires to a towing boat. |
|
| |
The first one was a random hit on Google while searching for the second one (which I remembered from when I lived there). |
|
| |
Back during their (fraud-driven) electricity crisis, the state of California investigated using disused diesel railraod freight engines as mobile power generation stations. (Modern railroad engines run a diesel motor just to generate electricity, which then powers electric motors to move the train). Seems logical to have an ocean-going version for coastal communities. |
|
| |
And, if it ever started to overheat, you'd have some time to send it out to sea and sink it before it had a meltdown. Assuming we're going to irradiate and poison stuff, better that it be 30 miles out to sea than on land, eh? |
|
| |
If it was a submarine I think it could dive out of the way of a storm and hopefully have weapons to defend itself from potential threats. Since it would have a lot of near shore use then it need enough advance warning of bad weather to get moving to deep water. That might cut off power to the community, and during a storm, that could be the time it is needed most. |
|
| |
Good idea. Regulatory requirements for naval nuclear reactors are less strict than land-based reactors, at least in the UK. Something to do with the water being some protection against meltdown. You might be able to offset some of the extra cost of the boat and security this way. |
|
| |
//Just say 'no' to nuclear power.//
Because...? |
|
| |
EDJ, someone has given you stupid pills today. |
|
| |
I know I'd rather have lead in my teeth and bones and brain than use something with the word 'nuclear' in it. |
|
| |
Because it's hard to pronounce? |
|
| |
Pebble-bed reactors. Inherently meltdown-proof, hydrogen as a by-product. Read up, your elf.
I don't think there *are* "general grounds" for [m-f-d]. |
|
| |
EDJ, you're desire to abandon nuclear power is radical... no, it's ignorant. If you want to abandon something just because of a few problems at the outset then you'd still be living in the dark ages. |
|
| |
[El Dorado], though you are generally wrong on nuclear power, If you'd carefully read the idea, you might notice that it refers to EXISTING NUCLEAR NAVY SHIPS. |
|
| |
To all y'all pro-nuke commentators, I assume you will be offering to dock these ships right by your house, or if too inland, you'd like a new nuclear plant right next door to you. |
|
| |
Actually, there's a nuclear power station about 15 miles from me, and I never had a problem with it being there. The "Ghost fleet" is there as well. |
|
| |
Ghost Fleet? If I know what that is, it's not like the shipbreaking beach in India I hope. |
|
| |
There are so many things wrong with Dr. Caldicott's propaganda it made me laugh. Nuclear plants releasing millions of curies per year? A curie is counts per minute divided by the error margin. Quite insignificant considering coal plants release billions if not trillions per MONTH. Krypton, Xenon, and Argon are significant dangers of radiation? And just how many people fly hot air baloons over the reactors so they can breathe theese gasses? |
|
| |
[EDJ] - what's the half life of the pollutants released into the air, water and ground by fossil fuel plants? Effectively infinite. |
|
| |
//It's cleaner, more containable and produces far fewer byproducts than almost any other chemical fuel source that I can think of, at the moment// |
|
| |
Anyway, [UB], I understood (this was 15 years ago) that, at least in the US, if the cost of de-comissioning and accident clean up is included, then nuclear is one of the most expensive ways to make power. And why should I believe the nulear industry when they try to convince me that the new plants will be different? |
|
| |
We still can't decide where to put our waste, and our government is engaged in covering up problems with proposed storage sites; how am I supposed to trust them? |
|
| |
Shoot it into space, no shortage of space you know... |
|
| |
//how do you propose safeguarding radioactive waste in storage for over 24,000 years? How can you assure that it will remain safely stored that long?// |
|
| |
//We still can't decide where to put our waste, and our government is engaged in covering up problems with proposed storage sites// |
|
| |
Firstly, the pollutants emitted by fossil fuel plants hang around for a hell of a lot longer than 24,000 years. |
|
| |
Secondly, you seem to have no issue with the fact that fossil fuel power emissions are not stored at all, but pumped into our immediate environment where they are taken up by us and everything else that breathes, drinks and eats. How is storing waste somehow *worse* than this? |
|
| |
Thirdly, joule for joule, there is a hell of a lot less nuclear waste produced than fossil fuel waste. This arises from the fact that you need far less in the first place to produce the same amount of power, and the process is far more efficient. |
|
| |
If all industries involved in fossil fuel power - mining, transport, construction and power production - were as careful and regulated as those for nuclear power, then I think we'd have far fewer problems in the first place. |
|
| |
Go back to my anno. We have the technology. What is the problem? |
|
| |
I have yet to meet an informed evironmentalist who is opposed to fusion power. |
|
| |
I have no objection whatsoever to any of the existing fusion power plants. Ha ha. I'm sure people will hate them too if they become a reality. |
|
| |
[Laimak] Read some news reports about France's planned multibillion Euro fusion plant. The last paragraph of the report I read, as best I recall, mentioned that environmentalist groups (translate as 'native sons and daughters') are opposed to the plan because the same billions of Euros put forward by the international community could plant enough wind turbines to power 10 million homes. |
|
| |
//France's planned multibillion Euro fusion plant// It will be built in France, but it won't be "France's". |
|
| |
How woefully American of me ... of course I meant the ITER's planned fusion reactor. As well, it is probably bad form to speak of powering "homes" (implying a village), when what is meant is lower cost electricity available generally across a grid currently supplied by combustion of fossil fuel. |
|
| |
daseva- The only problem with launching nukular (Homer Simpson does it too) waste into space would be the possiblity of an explosion on the launch pad. The resulting fallout would have somewhat negative results. (D'OH!) |
|
| |
Nuclear energy is one of the best alternatives to fossil fuels at the moment. The terrors of nuclear power tend to be exagerated a lot in today's society. Still, despite believing in nuclear power, I would like to see more tidal, solar, or wind power plants. Tidal power gerneration seems to be a very effective power source. Water ebbing and flowing with the tide is used to run turbines. Unfortunately these, with solar and wind, tend to be resisted just as much as nuclear or fossil fuel plants by the public since they can be expensive and are generally not attractive to look at. There was a plan to build a large series of wind mills off the cost of Cape Cod (Massachusetts) to catch the wind but the residents refused as it would lower property values |
|
| |
Tidal power also has interesting effects on local sea ecosystems. |
|
| |
The floating power station has come to
town. + |
|
| |
Can "Interesting" mean "good" or "positive"? |
|
| |
After WWII the local electric company met the growing need for electric power by using the diesel engines from Navy PT boats. |
|
| |
I'm for using this idea to power the Kiritimaticentrifugomobile. |
|
| |
I think a nation with nuclear abilities could rig up these ships, then float around selling power to the highest bidder. Actually a shipboard nuclear desalinator could probably be made using a large military ship, and really would be useful - it could provide emergency supplies in drought-stricken areas or disaster zones, and regularly round on desert islands to tank up their drinking water supplies. |
|
| |
more for nuclear boxcars parked on rail sidings than ships: tracks go to most if not all cities and if heavy maintenance is required, just ship it back to the factory/maintenance depot. |
|
| |
you had me at "right here" |
|
| |
[Wrongfellow], re: your link, yes, it's possible, and it's been
done: a US sub provided emergency power to the Hawaiian
island Kuaii (sp?) from '68-'72, the Russians have done it
several times in Siberia, with Typhoon subs and at least
once with a nuclear-powered icebreaker, and it was done
once by a US carrier in Panama, I think it was the Reagan.
There was a plan to power New Orleans with a carrier
after Katrina, but sufficient power was restored before any
ships could be deployed. These are just a few examples
and all were short-term arrangements; I don't think any
long-term setups have been instituted. |
|
| |
//The terrors of nuclear power tend to be exagerated a lot in today's society. 2005. |
|
| |
That does tend to sound a little different post-Fukushima.. |
|
| |
//That does tend to sound a little different post-
Fukushima..// |
|
| |
I think that is the point that [AOB] was making:
nuclear power versus oil/coal suffers from the
same problems as commercial air travel versus
road. Nuclear accidents are very rare and quite
bad, whereas non-nuclear "accidents" are very
frequent and only fairly bad. Therefore, on
balance, we decide to accept the greater number
of deaths caused by fossil fuels. |
|
| |
I'm not saying it's wrong - one of the endearing
features of the human race is that it as the
capacity to act irrationally. |
|
| |
(A quick Google suggests that, per Watt-hour
generated, fossil fuels kill about 2-3000 times
more people than nuclear; I suspect those figures
were post-Chernobyl but pre-Fukushima, so maybe
it's only 1800:1 by now.) |
|
| |
//(A quick Google suggests that, per Watt-hour generated, fossil fuels kill about 2-3000 times more people than nuclear; I suspect those figures were post-Chernobyl but pre-Fukushima, so maybe it's only 1800:1 by now.)// |
|
| |
I think you've been knobbled by the media's anti-nuclear hysteria. |
|
| |
Noone was killed at the Fukushima nuclear power plant except a crane operator, during the quake. And in all probability noone will die due to the released radioactivity.
It's not unreasonable to include that death in the statistics. However, since the oil plants, storage etc. along the coast were smashed and subsequently burned, I would be surprised if there were no fatalities on those premises or due to the pollution; these likewise should be ascribed to that energy source. So the ratio will if anything be going the other way. |
|
| |
//In all probability noone will die due to the
released radioactivity.// I don't know enough about
the levels of exposure to be able to comment on
that. I'd expect at least *some* increased cancer
incidence, if only from workers who stuck around
and got fairly large doses. But even then, the
numbers compared to fossil fuel fatalities will be
still be very, very small indeed. |
|
| |
A while back I read an analysis of the world's energy situation (courtesy of Cecil Adams and
a professor at MIT, see link) that is simultaneously disturbing and amusing, and since then I
think of it every time the nuclear energy "debate" comes up. Basically, if we managed to
wring out every watt of energy from all available "alternative" fuel sources (biomass, wind,
hydroelectric), AND built a new nuclear power plant every other day from now until 2050...
we would just barely have enough energy to meet our worldwide projected demand—if that
much. |
|
| |
This is disturbing for the obvious reasons, but I have to admit it casts the whole nuclear
issue in a darkly amusing light. When I hear about a country like Germany self-righteously
banning nuclear power, I can't help but think that that will go down in the history books as
the beginning of the end for that country. They're just setting themselves up to be a net
importer of an already scarce and increasingly scarcer resource—one that we simply can't
live without now, let alone in 40 years. Given the already enormous impact that energy
costs have on today's society, I don't see how any economy that depends on importing
significant quantities of energy will be sustainable. |
|
| |
As opposed to nuclear, I don't see any reason not to use up existing HC resources, with the mandatory proviso that the C is removed and set aside, burning only the H. And if it can't be taken out of the ground without trashing the local area, then don't: let future generations figure it out. |
|
| |
Seaborne nuclear plants make a lot of sense.
The technology is already Baked and well
understood. Ships at sea are unaffected by
Tsunami, they just ride over a bigger-than-
usual swell. Typhoons might be a problem,
though; but a ship can move out of the way. |
|
| |
If it were not for the risk of Bad People taking
the reactor ships and doing Bad Things with
them, it would be a perfect solution. It would
even be possible to build a Fast Breeder
reactor in a ship, complete with 185 tonnes
of liquid Sodium/Potassium alloy coolant. |
|
| |
The best place to moor them all would be off the coast of Australia, where there's nothing of any use or value to get damaged. |
|
| |
What could possibly go wrong …? |
|
| |
The instance of ship-to-shore nuclear power used in
Panama that I mentioned in an earlier anno wasn't an
aircraft carrier; that was an internet rumor. It was
actually a purpose-built vessel <link>. |
|
| |
My father told me captured U-boats were used in coastal towns in the UK after the last Global Unpleasantness to provide electrical power from their diesel engines and generators, so part of this idea is baked. |
|
| |
Sigh, the 'Peace Dividend'. I remember being hopeful. |
|
| |
Nuclear power is being phased out because it
doesn't make the global elites any money. "Carbon
credits", which are taxes on fossil fuels are an
important income stream for the new un-elected
global power brokers. |
|
| |
Nuclear plants also solve the problem of Global
Warming (tm all rights reserved) which they need not only
for the carbon
credit income, but to control every aspect of
industry and society. Plus every fascist regime
needs a boogie man to scare the people into giving
up their rights and handing power over to it. |
|
| |
Sorry folks, it's not about solving problems, it's
about creating problems and cashing in on them,
so if you're looking to end pollution, racial strife
and social unrest you're fighting a very powerful
industry that's invested in creating and fomenting
these things
towards the goal of world domination. |
|
| |
Notice how nuclear power isn't even debated anymore?
That's because there's no logical argument
against it, so it's just ignored while the big money
plan is set into motion. |
|
| |
Now of course this is all just insane ranting. My real views
are "Vote Democrat! Stop Trump! He's the most deviously
brilliant low I.Q. retard on Earth and he WILL take over
the universe if you don't stop him! ONE PARTY SYSTEM
NOW! END POPULIST UPRISINGS! ABOLISH DEMOCRACY!
DESTROY THE CONSTITUTION! RESIST!" |
|
| |
See? I'm actually a good and obedient citizen. Now where
did I put my Soma, I mean my Zoloft, Prozac and Lexapro? |
|
| |
They're on the side table, behind your bowl of delicious, nourishing Soylent Green ... |
|
| |
I don't get the end of that movie when he yells "SOYLENT
GREEN IS
PURPLE!" |
|
| |
I mean like, big deal. So what? |
|
| |
Just a trick of the light, probably ... |
|
| |
It would make more sense if he'd found out that the product was actually made from insect proteins, and he was shouting "SOYLENT GREEN IS BEETLES !" |
|
| |
It's be more disturbing if you watched the movie now and
"people" was replaced by a badly overdubbed voice saying
"your government's way of providing tasty and nutritious
food for the modern citizen!". |
|
| |
"Cut out the middleman; eat your own leg ! " |
|
| |
('Tis but "A Modest Proposal" ... (q.v.)) |
|
| |
//SOYLENT GREEN IS BEETLES// fed on human remains. Small cycles a bad. //eat your own leg// even worse. |
|
| |