Russia's new FLOATING Nuclear Reactor

[ghendoaus]

Originally Posted by WillyTheRat

How many of those "floating" nuclear reactors, submarine and aircraft carriers, are owned by a country with the Kursk and Chernobyl in their history?

Did some one say Long Island??

[ArmyDaveNY]

There is really no need to worry about this for a number of reasons. First, Russia CLAIMS that it has a nuclear powered cruise missile. There is some debate about whether it is actually operational, is being tested, or just in development. It is possible that it was a conventional missile also.

Second, you are far more likely to die in a car accident than from some possible but rate nuclear accident. Here in the U.S. we lose some 40,000 people to car accidents per year and another (just under) 100 pedestrians killed by cars each day.

Third, think of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Today they are thriving cities, despite the events of August, 1945.

Fourth, we've had nuclear power subs and carriers for decades. Things are pretty much okay with them. We've had aircraft flying with nuclear bombs and even lost a few. Things turned out just fine.

Life is full of risks. We can obsess on anything if we want to, or we can be aware of the risks, take a few reasonable precautions, and get on with enjoying life!

[Luckyknot]

Originally Posted by Taipe

I know they are used to power military submarines and have been for many years. Subs of course can escape from hurricanes quite easily. Also, I may have heard of a nuclear powered carrier, although not sure if that is a plan or a reality. But, I don't see how the military use of nuclear energy as a means of transport affects the potential danger for massive radiation release from a floating nuclear power reactor in a hurricane belt.

Ships often go out to sea if the weather is predicted to be that bad. You'd be surprised at what the subs and carriers can handle once they are out there. They are warships afterall. Don't be afraid of the USN nuclear propulsion program. It's top notch. Top 10% of the Navy they say. If you can imagine the level of proficiency and dedication expected of the SEAL teams in their profession, its the same level of performance expected of the nuclear power plant operators in their field. Fun Fact: Did you know that Mr. Burns from the Simpsons was supposedly modelled after Admiral Rickover who started the Naval Nuclear Program back in the 1950s with the submarine Nautilus?

[Polar Opposite]

As one of those many thousands of folks who lived/worked/slept/ate within a few yards of an operating reactor aboard a warship for 30+ years, I offer an interesting fact: the exposure I got was FAR LESS than you got from natural sources (solar activity, cosmic radiation, radium in soil/building foundations, etc). An individual typically receives more radiation on a single transcontinental air flight (from being closer to the sun with less shielding from the atmosphere for 4 hours) than I typically received in a year.

[Mike Banks]

Floating nuclear reactors? Many of them have existed for YEARS. They have them on Submarines as the primary power sources. AND--some are on the bottom of the sea--

[deblen]

Originally Posted by WillyTheRat

How many of those "floating" nuclear reactors, submarine and aircraft carriers, are owned by a country with the Kursk and Chernobyl in their history?

How many are owned by the country in which Three Mile Island is located?
Len

[MikeDofFreo]

Originally Posted by Taipe

I know they are used to power military submarines and have been for many years. Subs of course can escape from hurricanes quite easily. Also, I may have heard of a nuclear powered carrier, although not sure if that is a plan or a reality. But, I don't see how the military use of nuclear energy as a means of transport affects the potential danger for massive radiation release from a floating nuclear power reactor in a hurricane belt.

How much of Russia is in a hurricane belt?!!

[SailRedemption]

Originally Posted by MikeDofFreo

How much of Russia is in a hurricane belt?!!

You're not looking long term.. Dude, climate change. Russian coast will be the next tropical vacation spot. And everyone knows hurricanes and tropical paradise go hand in hand.

[emoji41]

[requiem]

Originally Posted by Taipe

I know they are used to power military submarines and have been for many years. Subs of course can escape from hurricanes quite easily. Also, I may have heard of a nuclear powered carrier, although not sure if that is a plan or a reality. But, I don't see how the military use of nuclear energy as a means of transport affects the potential danger for massive radiation release from a floating nuclear power reactor in a hurricane belt.

All 11 of the US carriers are nuclear powered, as is the entirety of the submarine fleet.

As an aside, and given the issue of climate change, avoiding nuclear power is like a patient with treatable cancer skipping chemo "because it's poison" and instead opting for some faddish fruit-based diet.

[RaymondR]

And one should not overlook the Russian talent for screw ups.

[StuM]

Originally Posted by Taipe

I did not know this! In consideration of the safety problems involved with containment and transport of radioactive materials, now we have the additional exposure to hurricane propagated wave activity, accelerated corrosion due to proximity of salt water, and the potential for ingestion of radioactively contaminated fish. It is reprehensible in consideration of the alternative for the benign generation of electricity from tide generators.

Can you provide examples of operational large scale tidal generators capable of an output equivalent to a small nuclear reactor?

[StuM]

Originally Posted by Cadence

You have that right. I wonder how many are our there from developed nations?
On or under the water.

Here ya go:


The Complete Catalog of the World's Nuclear Powered Ships - Commercial and Military

[Gin-N-Sonic]

Originally Posted by StuM

Can you provide examples of operational large scale tidal generators capable of an output equivalent to a small nuclear reactor?

I believe the response you would get on most forums is something like the following:

"Well you see, they, like, created this machine, that, like, everyone gathers around, like, and sings Kumbaya and like, the machine harvests your energies. We like, totally know what we're doing and like, have a Kickstarter and GoGundMe and yeah Brad is the best CEO ever, he gets us pizzas and a Sodastream."

[barnakiel]

Originally Posted by atlroofman

So after a Nuclear accident in Russia at a missile base they will not own up to. And there launch of a nuclear reactor built on a sea barge how long before everyone will need a Geiger counter on there boat ?

Oh, really? Why don't you post something about US kilowat reactors and other peace building toys? ;-)



Real bummer Russia screwed up again with that missile and plays the same old stupid game pretending nothing happened. They do not really care about their people, do they. Remember Chernobyl.



The missile was of the of the same type their nuclear torpedos are - nuclear reactor driven unit. The torpedos are ready and armed but they have plenty of failures with their missile project.


I got shocked to read that the small ones deliver just 1 kW of power. Imagine every 10 US homes share a local nuclear power plant. Same applies to every 100 Ruski homes. Truly a zero risk vision of the future. Argh.



b.

[anotherT34C]

It's helpful to understand that not all nuclear reactors are the same.

In general, russian built reactors are built more cheaply and use graphite as their moderator. Graphite is a more effective neutron reflector as it heats up, and requires active cooling to keep from running away. This can fail (Chernobyl). Also, graphite burns (Chenobyl). Most western built reactors use a kind of water to reflect neutrons. This system becomes less effective as it heats up, and will shut itself down naturally if the people or hardware fail.

Most military reactors (on ships anyway) need to be very compact, and use highly enriched weapons-grade fuel. As well, the details of these reactors are classified in all cases. Because of this, it's probably wise to be wary of them, and insist that they avoid cities.

Western commercial reactors are quite safe. Spent fuel storage is an issue that needs to be worked out, but is certainly solvable.