[Russkie]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_floating_nuclear_power_station


Russia has some neat technology.

[Smilin' Dave]

What benefit does this have over a land based power plant? If you were short of suitable land, odds are you can't afford, or shouldn't have, a nuclear reactor. Considering some of the inherent problems, it would have to have a significant benefit.

It isn't even new technology, both the US and USSR experimented with airborne nuclear reactors of various scale. Not to mention the use of reactors to drive warships for decades now.

Russia has some neat technology.

Which it clearly uses for dumb things.

[Maxim Litvinov]

Presumably its benefit is that it can be moved. I'm not sure of why it's not viable to just build a reactor at Severodvinsk instead, but presumably having a movable one is useful for certain extra purposes - New Orleans found this out, I thought.

[Thunderhawk]

I'm not sure of why it's not viable to just build a reactor

Location?
Ive been told (prof wont give me specs) that the concrete casings for nuclear reactors need the best aggregate (stones) aswell as crushed steel, and that it must be cast and cured at high standards. Piss poor concrete is easy to make, high performance concrete takes care. Ultra high performance concrete and concrete used in nuclear reactors takes a great deal of attention and care that might be expensive to do at remote locations.



On a related note there is development of nuclear "batteries". Self contained small nuclear power plants (I think they are modified breeders) and need minimal human operation and can be shipped by sea. If they get off the ground, Russia just might have stern competition.

[Smilin' Dave]

Location?
Ive been told (prof wont give me specs) that the concrete casings for nuclear reactors need the best aggregate (stones) aswell as crushed steel, and that it must be cast and cured at high standards. Piss poor concrete is easy to make, high performance concrete takes care. Ultra high performance concrete and concrete used in nuclear reactors takes a great deal of attention and care that might be expensive to do at remote locations.

This explains why they can't have a reactor, not why they should have a floating one. Presumably if they can send a reactor-ship in there (and maintain it), they can ship materials in

but presumably having a movable one is useful for certain extra purposes - New Orleans found this out, I thought.

What happens if/when this thing capsises? Or its hull punctures in a storm? I'm not even close to an expert on boats, but this thing doesn't look all that stable.

Generally I can't see the use of a portable power plant outside of aid operations (and non-purpose built reactor-ships would be better for this). Power usage doesn't fluctuate enough in a geographic area often enough to necessitate a moving power plant. It is fairly common to re-route capacity in the power lines/network when power is urgently needed in a specific area.

[Thunderhawk]

they can ship materials in

Cost.
The material and equipment to create a concrete mixing facility to be built on/near site have to be sent first. Precast pieces can (should) also be shipped in, but some work will have to be done on site regardless.

It is fairly common to re-route capacity in the power lines/network when power is urgently needed in a specific area.

Your a westerner. Much of the developing world doesnt have the ability to send "extra" power (let alone maintain consistent power) or re-route as they often dont have secondary lines that can handle that much.

Still probably a better idea just put up lines and a powerplant dispite the higher cost.

[Smilin' Dave]

Cost.
The material and equipment to create a concrete mixing facility to be built on/near site have to be sent first. Precast pieces can (should) also be shipped in, but some work will have to be done on site regardless.

As opposed to shipping in all the things necessary to build and maintain the floating disaster waiting to happen. Not to mention that if the place didn't have power in the first place, they will need to bring in things to run off this lovely power plant.

So again, if you can't build a normal plant in the first place, you probably shouldn't get one.

Much of the developing world doesnt have the ability to send "extra" power (let alone maintain consistent power) or re-route as they often dont have secondary lines that can handle that much.

They want a power plant without the infrastructure? This is an even worse idea than I thought .

For such small scale, the community should be using large numbers of smaller generators. They can burn local materials (in the case of Russia, plenty of wood around). These are more portable than the nuclear plant (since they can be moved by plane, ship or land, and have less surface area), and would serve as a stepping stone towards a more mature infrastructure.

Or if you want to be eco-friendly, the general approach these days seems to be making small areas energy self sufficient. So still using local resources, just not necessarily burning them.

[Notorious B.i.G.]

I hate to sound like a poster child for the Bush administartion, but wouldn't having a floating transportable reactor (esspecially in Russia) just be a big floating terrorist target. I imagine it would have 'hijack me' written all across it.

[Russkie]

I hate to sound like a poster child for the Bush administartion, but wouldn't having a floating transportable reactor (esspecially in Russia) just be a big floating terrorist target. I imagine it would have 'hijack me' written all across it.

and I suppose a reactor that is build on land is safer that cannot be moved...

[MB.]

What if the reactor China syndromes, burns through the bottom of the plant, and vaporises vast amounts of sea-water as it plunges to the bottom of the ocean? Wouldn't that be the single greatest ecological and environmental disaster in history? Wouldn't the subsequent contaminated water-vapor get into the upper atmosphere and rain down all over the planet killing every living organism?



In other words, wouldn't this "cool floating nuclear power plant" end all life on earth?

[Russkie]

What if the reactor China syndromes, burns through the bottom of the plant, and vaporises vast amounts of sea-water as it plunges to the bottom of the ocean? Wouldn't that be the single greatest ecological and environmental disaster in history? Wouldn't the subsequent contaminated water-vapor get into the upper atmosphere and rain down all over the planet killing every living organism?



In other words, wouldn't this "cool floating nuclear power plant" end all life on earth?

You clearly have no idea about nuclear engineering.
Russia has the best experienced nuclear engineers, you honestly think Russia hasn't redesigned the nuclear reactors since Chernobyl?

[MB.]

Chernobyl?

Not a case of a China Syndrome meltdown. The Chernobyl disasters was the result of an explosion relating to poor safety measures during a test/experiment.


Please, tell me, how does the floating reactor intend to keep a chain-reacting uranium cell from becoming self supporting? What if the hafnium control rods fail to deploy?

[Thunderhawk]

The wiki article states that the vessel uses "two modified naval propulsion reactors".

Early Soviet propultion reactors were not closed systems, they used seals and pistons for internal movement of componants while American propulsion reactors are closed system using magnets (insider of a tube is threaded, with a corresponding threaded magnet inside, which then turns by an outside rotating magnet). These reactors put out small amounts of radiation into the ship.

Did the Soviet adopt the American magnetic system, keep the seals idea, or adopt something else?

What system is this ship using?

[MB.]

It's likely using a super soviet system that has no problems.

[Smilin' Dave]

and I suppose a reactor that is build on land is safer that cannot be moved...

The stationary plant can be armoured with dozens of meters of steel, concrete, lead etc. Floating super death fortress would sink. Mobility would also make it harder to secure the area around the reactor, for local law enforcement to plan for the event of an attack (or accident).

you honestly think Russia hasn't redesigned the nuclear reactors since Chernobyl?

By this logic, I would have hoped there would be no Chernobyl after the K-19 nuclear incident.

In other words, wouldn't this "cool floating nuclear power plant" end all life on earth?

I think Bill just found a good way to sell this system

For the more reactor savvy, can this ship actually use river/sea water as coolent, or is contamination too much of an issue?

[MB.]

Lol Dave.

Obvisouly the plant uses super soviet water, which is impervious to radiation.

[Notorious B.i.G.]

Obvisouly the plant uses super soviet water, which is impervious to radiation

Is this water fluoridated water? And will this super soviet water sap and impurify the precious bodily fluids of the American people?

[Smilin' Dave]

Lol Dave.

Hey come on, there is probably a bigger market for doomsday weapons than for floating power plants. Shit, we'll paint it black and stick some superfluous missiles on it. Oh, and some spikes!

Obvisouly the plant uses super soviet water, which is impervious to radiation.

So you're saying it runs on the Colonel's urine?

I knew he wasn't dead!

[Xopolis]

Hmm, this would make a useful Red Alert building.

[GodSpeed]

one word: iceberg

just make it "unsinkable"