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

71–80 of 124 posts

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

#71

Post by icc97 »

ams6110 wrote: post #3

Russia is conducting an experiment with nuclear power, one that backers say is a leading-edge feat of engineering but that critics call reckless. The country is unveiling a floating nuclear power plant. Um, "unveiling" ?? We've have floating nuclear power in submarines, aircraft carriers, maybe other vessels for half a century.

This is designed to just generate power rather than to use it to power itself.

Companies 'unveil' new cars every year, just because the basis has been done before does mean that you can't unveil it in a different format.

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

#72

Post by notyourwork »

throwaway5752 wrote: post #7
ams6110 wrote: post #3

Russia is conducting an experiment with nuclear power, one that backers say is a leading-edge feat of engineering but that critics call reckless. The country is unveiling a floating nuclear power plant. Um, "unveiling" ?? We've have floating nuclear power in submarines, aircraft carriers, maybe other vessels for half a century.

Yes, the article notes that, "The United States used a barge-based reactor to generate electricity for the Panama Canal Zone from 1968 until 1976, and Westinghouse, the American reactor builder, planned — but never built — two floating plants off the New Jersey coast at around that time" 1968! The interesting story is why the NYT's is running this and running with it now [not trying to be tin-hat, maybe it was just a…

I dream of a time when there is a slow news day so they publish less content. Also dream of a day when you turn on a new station and breaking news is in fact breaking news.

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

#73

Post by TeMPOraL »

favorited wrote: post #41
rtkwe wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Aren't dirty bombs considered a Hollywood trope, and not a weapon of any actual utility (except scaring people with the thought of it)? See e.g. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dirty_bomb.

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

#74

Post by ivanhoe »

icc97 wrote: post #66
ivanhoe wrote: post #42

Why not go one step further and make it fully submerged off the coast, to protect it from a bad weather?

From the article: > A French company has designed a reactor called Flexblue that would not float but rather be submerged on the ocean floor.

Thanks, missed that part somehow.

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

#75

Post by m1573rp34130dy »

TeMPOraL wrote: post #73
favorited wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Aren't dirty bombs considered a Hollywood trope, and not a weapon of any actual utility (except scaring people with the thought of it)? See e.g. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dirty_bomb .

dirty bombs can function as a denial of access ordinance... when isotopes or persistent toxin are scattered spattered over an area the cleanup is prohibitively expensive , we than have a kiev/chornobl scenario...were this to happen on wall street or silicon valley, it would be a major setback, or we would have to requantify the acceptable titre of radionucliides in a "occupiable" region

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

#76

Post by v_lisivka »

phobosdeimos wrote: post #49
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.

Ukraine doesn't buy Russian gas for years. :-/

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

#77

Post by icc97 »

GW150914 wrote: post #70
icc97 wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

John McCarthy has an interesting website over nuclear energy [0]. I can't vouch for how actually true it is, but it seems reasonably well argued. This was his comment over nuclear waste: > Q. What about nuclear waste? > A. The waste consists of the fission products. They are highly radioactive at first, but the most radioactive isotopes decay the fastest. (That's what being most radioactive amounts to). About one cub…

I’m very pro-nuclear, we almost certainly need it while we improve renewables. However, 25,000 years or 500 years... it’s pretty much the same problem for us as a species. 500 years is significantly longer than the US has been a country, and represents a period of time measured in many many generations. 500 years of storage is a hard problem, and from the perspective of us, our kids, their kids, and their kids and a…

I agree, it's a bit ridiculous talking in these terms. Primarily I just want to have my facts reasonably straight if I'm going to have a debate.

Shakespeare was born approximately 500 years ago, Cambridge University was founded 800 years ago where as 25,000 years ago was in the depths of the last ice age (11,000) and Wooly mammoths still existed (4,000). I can visualise the first couple in my head, not the last two.

Given the fairly drastic things that are happening to the great barrier reef (50% loss in 2 years and it's about 6-8,000 years old [0]) I question more and more, how much of a risk nuclear is worth taking until solar and wind can take over.

> 500 years of storage is a hard problem, and from the perspective of us, our kids, their kids, and their kids and a dozen generations after

I agree, we're passing on another problem, but it is a solvable problem. Humans are capable of building structures that stay intact for more than 500 years. With climate change, there's so many factors involved we've no real idea if it is even solvable.

[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Barrier_Reef#Geology_and...

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

#78

Post by dredmorbius »

adventured wrote: post #62
manicdee wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Australian market is routinely manipulated by pretending to turn off equipment until the price rises sufficiently to pretend to turn the equipment on just in time for the high price market. So yes, there is "a button somewhere" that a private owner can use to just turn off Australian power plants on Australian soil.

That's interesting, the US has an almost entirely privatized energy generation market and doesn't routinely have that problem. I've read a bit about Australia's energy problems over the years, I'm unaware of how they regulate pricing though. The US has very strict rules in place for its private utilities. Private + tight controls has resulted in the US having close to the cheapest power in the developed world. Roughl…

Incorrect.

"Tapes Show Enron Arranged Plant Shutdown"

In the midst of the California energy troubles in early 2001, when power plants were under a federal order to deliver a full output of electricity, the Enron Corporation arranged to take a plant off-line on the same day that California was hit by rolling blackouts, according to audiotapes of company traders released here on Thursday.

The tapes and memorandums were made public by a small public utility north of Seattle that is fighting Enron over a power contract. They also showed that Enron, as early as 1998, was creating artificial energy shortages and running up prices in Canada in advance of California's larger experiment with deregulation....

https://outline.com/f2N42r (nytimes)

Also:

Enron defrauded California out of billions during energy ...

https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2002/05/enro-m10.html

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_electricity_crisis

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

#79

Post by dredmorbius »

halhod wrote: post #18

I took a broader look at Russia's nuclear power program here - https://www.economist.com/europe/2018/08/02/the-world-relies...

You're the Economist author?

A point you might well have included is the topic (and perhaps, questions over authorship) of Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin's PhD thesis: "Mineral and Raw Materials Resources And the Development Strategy for the Russian Economy".

https://www.theatlantic.com/daily-dish/archive/2008/08/putin...

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

#80

Post by slededit »

adventured wrote: post #62
manicdee wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Australian market is routinely manipulated by pretending to turn off equipment until the price rises sufficiently to pretend to turn the equipment on just in time for the high price market. So yes, there is "a button somewhere" that a private owner can use to just turn off Australian power plants on Australian soil.

That's interesting, the US has an almost entirely privatized energy generation market and doesn't routinely have that problem. I've read a bit about Australia's energy problems over the years, I'm unaware of how they regulate pricing though. The US has very strict rules in place for its private utilities. Private + tight controls has resulted in the US having close to the cheapest power in the developed world. Roughl…

California's problems in the early 2000s were caused by exactly that. Here's one tape where a trader asks an operator to "get a little creative and find a reason to go down".

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TBnnUIEZiNI

I'm not sure if its really been fixed or if its just not as aggressive.

Post reply on HN