Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The Nuclear Power Plant of the Future May Be Floating Near Russia

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 124 posts

Re: The Nuclear Power Plant of the Future May Be Floating Near Russia

#41

Post by favorited »

rtkwe wrote: post #23
accnumnplus1 wrote: post #2

Clever way to distribute nuclear weapons capabilities?

No. Reactors don't fail or explode anything like atomic bombs. The only way this could house a nuclear weapon is by having a hidden missile silo somewhere in it and they already have nuclear missile subs for discreetly placing nuclear weapons close to their target.

An atomic bomb is not the only form a nuclear weapon. Reactor fuel (or related contaminated material) can be used to create a dirty bomb, which in some ways is more destructive. Not in the initial blast, but in rendering the contaminated area uninhabitable for decades or centuries.

Re: The Nuclear Power Plant of the Future May Be Floating Near Russia

#43

Post by rtkwe »

wrong_variable wrote: post #31
rtkwe wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "Rosatom, in a statement, insisted its plant was 'invulnerable to tsunamis.'" > - Coastlines near cities are expensive real estate (not to mention anyone with property there allowing a literal power nuclear plant blocking their view ) - it takes important real estate from ports that are much more useful for docking ships, etc. Its possible to build a separate port far away from the city; but then you have to pay th…

You are still leaving out storm surges etc. The ocean is a terrible place for infrastructure, its why we only do it if we really have no other option (offshore oil rigs etc).

Storm surge isn't a danger to a ship unless it's docked on shore or gets pushed ashore. It's really not that different from a tsunami in that regard a ship at sea just moves up with the bulk of the water.

Re: The Nuclear Power Plant of the Future May Be Floating Near Russia

#45

Post by justinator »

rtkwe wrote: post #43
wrong_variable wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are still leaving out storm surges etc. The ocean is a terrible place for infrastructure, its why we only do it if we really have no other option (offshore oil rigs etc).

Storm surge isn't a danger to a ship unless it's docked on shore or gets pushed ashore. It's really not that different from a tsunami in that regard a ship at sea just moves up with the bulk of the water.

Oh, ships sink in the middle of the ocean, I believe, with utmost certainty.

Re: The Nuclear Power Plant of the Future May Be Floating Near Russia

#46

Post by wrong_variable »

mladenkovacevic wrote: post #26
wrong_variable wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Western Europe is well aware of this fact this is why they are desperate to get the pipeline from Qatar built - which is not going anywhere because of destabilization in Syria (The pipeline needs to pass through Syria). Hmm.. I wonder which foreign power is helping prop up the Assad Regime Also Germany is building HVDC lines from solar power plants is Spain. Depending on Russia has already got us in the mess where Eu…

Because Assad was going to let a Qatar pipeline go through Syria in the first place? Hmm I wonder which foreign powers destabilized Syria and have been trying to overthrow the current government for close to 7 years now.

" On 1 June 2012, President Assad vowed to crush the anti-government uprising. On 12 June 2012, the UN for the first time officially proclaimed Syria to be in a state of civil war. " - Wikipedia

I am sorry but the conspiracy Theory that the US had anything to do with starting the Syrian conflict is simply not true.

Re: The Nuclear Power Plant of the Future May Be Floating Near Russia

#47

Post by fifnir »

_ph_ wrote: post #39
dmos62 wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> unsolved problem of disposing the nuclear waste I'm not sure what you mean by unsolved disposal. Nuclear waste from power plants is stored in secure facilities. It takes up a manageable amount of space, is low maintanance and isn't dangerous. Furthermore, future reactors will be able to reuse it; the current reactors only use up a small fraction of the fuel. So actually, you wouldn't even want to throw it away. Als…

What do you mean by "secure facilities"? Yes, currently the nuclear waste is in intermediate storage facilities. Which are buildings, with an useful life time of 50 years. Unless a nuclear technology for reusing or processing the waste appears, we are talking about safe storage for thousands of years.

I don't think nuclear waste is as big a problem as you might think it is: https://what-if.xkcd.com/29/

And on a side note, are solar and aeolic scalable enough to support (let's say) the entire US ?

How much of the country would physically need to be covered for that? Cause I've seen claims that it's just impossible

Re: The Nuclear Power Plant of the Future May Be Floating Near Russia

#49

Post by phobosdeimos »

wrong_variable wrote: post #6

> "Rosatom plans to serially produce such floating nuclear plants, and is exploring various business plans, including retaining ownership of the reactors while selling the electricity they generate." No sane govt will allow a foreign power to literally be able to shutdown one of their cities on a whim. I think what the Russian Govt realized is that instead of building nuclear power plants, its going to be more profit…

"holding Europe hostage with their gas pipelines"

Only countries that can't or won't pay. Take Ukraine, all the gas destined for Germany and the Netherlands (people who have payed their bills on time since 1950) had to go through them. Russia couldn't shut down those Ukrainian deadbeats because then they would lose billions.

The world is not black or white.

Re: The Nuclear Power Plant of the Future May Be Floating Near Russia

#50

Post by dragonwriter »

wrong_variable wrote: post #46
mladenkovacevic wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because Assad was going to let a Qatar pipeline go through Syria in the first place? Hmm I wonder which foreign powers destabilized Syria and have been trying to overthrow the current government for close to 7 years now.

" On 1 June 2012, President Assad vowed to crush the anti-government uprising. On 12 June 2012, the UN for the first time officially proclaimed Syria to be in a state of civil war. " - Wikipedia I am sorry but the conspiracy Theory that the US had anything to do with starting the Syrian conflict is simply not true.

> I am sorry but the conspiracy Theory that the US had anything to do with starting the Syrian conflict is simply not true.

The US had a lot do with it, but by (among other things) bungling the occupation of Iraq, not by any deliberate policy.

Post reply on HN