[PBVBROOK]

The US Army Corps of Engineers built a floating nuclear power plant in 1960 and decommissioned it in 1976.

Sorry to burst your bubble but you are late at being first by 46 years.

[Clausewitz]

Apparently the plant is supposed to provide power to remote areas that the national infrastructure is unable to. So this would have use for Russia's vast, sparsely populated regions and spotty infrastructure.

We've had nuclear power at sea for decades; similar reactors on these floating plants are used to power Russian icebreakers.

[Thunderhawk]

Clausewitz, Dave and I where talking about that, its been covered

[Smilin' Dave]

sparsely populated regions

Yeah, not a lot of people. So don't need the output of a nuclear reactor. And I might add getting more sparsely populated, no one likes staying in Siberia and population growth is in negative figures. So why give them a nuclear power plant.

I like the idea of nuclear infrastructure. I don't like this Nuclear Death Boat (NDB).

[PBVBROOK]

I should also add that I think this is a forward thinking and very smart decision. I wish the US would do it.

[Smilin' Dave]

I should also add that I think this is a forward thinking and very smart decision. I wish the US would do it.

The NDB or nuclear power in general?

Real forward thinking would be the US re-activating their fusion power research programs. AFAIK only the European ITER consortium and possibly its Chinese equivilent ('east') continue development.

[Thunderhawk]

Firms in the USA are developing Nuclear batteries. Sealed and self sufficient small nuclear power plants, completely enclosed and automated. They only need a hook up to cold water, and a power grid to hook into. Pretty cool idea. Wont happen for a while of course, especially not practicle ones, but cool none-the-less. These, IMO, would be better then a floating reactor. They are designed for mobility, so they wil be able to be moved to any "remote" location a ship can go, plus it can go inland. Get a couple clustered together, or spread out, and you can build defences around it as you wish.

[Smilin' Dave]

Indeed a better idea. My prime concern though comes from Russia (arn't those Russians so clever and inventive ). The Soviets were interested in small scale use of radioactive materials/power even as low as agricultural equipment. But, with a disintergration of the centre, these fell into disrepair, disappeared etc. Hilarity ensued.

Now, with nuclear batteries on a free market, there isn't much of a centre in the first place. Regulation to ensure sensible use would be difficult, and ideologically opposed by many.

[A Bear]

Why would you want a floating power plant?

[Thunderhawk]

The nuclear "batteries" are still rather large. I dont remeber if they are small enough for a tractor trailer (I suspect not), but its definately not easy to move, nor meant to directly power farm equipment

They are full nunclear powerplants, but small.

Why would you want a floating power plant?

It was discussed in the beginning of the thread.

[Siberian Fox]

Real forward thinking would be the US re-activating their fusion power research programs. AFAIK only the European ITER consortium and possibly its Chinese equivilent ('east') continue development.

ITER presently comprises of the European Union, India, Japan, China, Russia, South Korea, and the USA. Only Canada has pulled out due to lack of funds, and apparently Kazakhstan of all places wants to join, so I don't know what Canada's excuse is.

[Smilin' Dave]

*Prepares to argue*

Oh... sorry.

As for the industrial contribution, five countries (China, India, Korea, Russia, and the US) will contribute 1/11th each for 5/11th total

I stand corrected.

P.S Checked on the Chinese project, seems not to be in competition with ITER, but a precursor:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EAST