Close Topic Options

Floating Nuclear Plant

RUSSIA BUILDING NUKE BARGE TO POWER ARCTIC

While the U.S. hems and haws over reviving nuclear energy as a less expensive alternative to oil, Russia has dug back 30 years in our nuclear history to find a solution for some of its own energy woes: the floating nuclear power plant.
Ref. https://www.cnn.com/2006/TECH/10/13/floatin...lant/index.html

Plant Nuclear Floating

If the plant is in the middle of the ocean it's not going to be a problem, even if there is a meltdown. The ocean's a big place and in the event of a meltdown the dissolved material will be so dispersed that the net effect will be minimal. Granted with such a large supply of water immediately at hand a meltdown would be very unlikely to happen.

If the plant were to be located on a lake...then problems begin to arise. The lake is probably a source of fresh water and there is far less water in a lake than an ocean. In the event of a meltdown the area might be screwed as there may not be enough water to fully disperse the radioactive material.

As to plant safety, if it's a Russian plant with a lead reactor there may be a problem. Although the lead cooled reactors have improved much over the years and be proven safe, there used to be problems with their stability. US nuclear power plants are typically cooled by water, pressurized water, helium gas, or liquid sodium. Water is the most common in the US.

I found this article on the russian offshore plant.

https://www.nikiet.ru/eng/structure/mr-innovative.html

Floating Nuclear Plant UFO & Writing Art Education Sciences

If a meltdown occurred in the ocean I ponder how big of wave would be created. Being on top of the surface is better then below at least. Air pollutants same as if on line but at least no one would be in the area of the fallout. Though the resulting water contamination could have a long term effect.

I also agree water cooled reactors are far safer. IE the CANDO reactor are actually built to shut down if coolant or cores go defective.