Floating nuclear power plants to be mass produced for US coastline
1–10 of 13 posts
Re: Floating nuclear power plants to be mass produced for US coastline
#2Putting almost anything on a boat makes it more maintenance intensive and expensive. Why would we want nuclear power plants on boats instead of land? Maybe to be close to coastal cities?
Re: Floating nuclear power plants to be mass produced for US coastline
#3Putting almost anything on a boat makes it more maintenance intensive and expensive. Why would we want nuclear power plants on boats instead of land? Maybe to be close to coastal cities?
Easier to scuttle in the case of a Fukushima-style nuclear accident: haul it out to sea and sink it. Then bring a new one in.
Re: Floating nuclear power plants to be mass produced for US coastline
#4Putting almost anything on a boat makes it more maintenance intensive and expensive. Why would we want nuclear power plants on boats instead of land? Maybe to be close to coastal cities?
Easier to scuttle in the case of a Fukushima-style nuclear accident: haul it out to sea and sink it. Then bring a new one in.
3 eyed Simpsons fish here we come!
Re: Floating nuclear power plants to be mass produced for US coastline
#5Putting almost anything on a boat makes it more maintenance intensive and expensive. Why would we want nuclear power plants on boats instead of land? Maybe to be close to coastal cities?
Mostly because nobody wants to have a nuclear power plant in their backyard. Putting it on a boat avoids having to deal with local opposition to the plant.
Re: Floating nuclear power plants to be mass produced for US coastline
#6Putting almost anything on a boat makes it more maintenance intensive and expensive. Why would we want nuclear power plants on boats instead of land? Maybe to be close to coastal cities?
Consider a Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs applied to an AGI.
I predict weird nuclear and space proposals in the next few years.
Re: Floating nuclear power plants to be mass produced for US coastline
#7Putting almost anything on a boat makes it more maintenance intensive and expensive. Why would we want nuclear power plants on boats instead of land? Maybe to be close to coastal cities?
Easier to scuttle in the case of a Fukushima-style nuclear accident: haul it out to sea and sink it. Then bring a new one in.
Also easier to avoid such accidents in the first place, since the plant is sitting on top of a planet-wide heatsink.
Re: Floating nuclear power plants to be mass produced for US coastline
#8Earlier quoted context omitted.
Easier to scuttle in the case of a Fukushima-style nuclear accident: haul it out to sea and sink it. Then bring a new one in.
3 eyed Simpsons fish here we come!
Blinky.
PS: We used character names from The Simpsons' for computer hostnames at a nuclear engineering consultancy I worked at in the 90's.
Re: Floating nuclear power plants to be mass produced for US coastline
#9Russia did that [1]
But it was more to deal with the remoteness of the region and the challenges/costs to build a npp on permafrost.
[1]https://www.revistanuclear.es/en/tecnologia-e-innovacion/the...
Re: Floating nuclear power plants to be mass produced for US coastline
#10I always thought a submerged nuclear plant with torpedo nets would be a good idea
Protected from storms and air attacks
One reason Land based plants are so expensive is to protect them from air attacks