Slashdot Mirror
A $200-Million Floating Nuclear Plant?
Roland Piquepaille writes "In 'A Floating Chernobyl?,' Popular Science reports that two Russian companies plan to build the world's first floating nuclear power plant to deliver cheap electricity to northern territories. The construction should start next year for a deployment in 2010. The huge barge will be home for two 60-megawatt nuclear reactors which will work until 2050... if everything works fine. It looks like a frightening idea, don't you think? But read more for additional details and pictures of this floating nuclear power plant."
Where else could you get an unlimited supply of coolant?
Hell, if this goes pear shaped, you could drop the core miles beneath the sea never to be seen again.
liqbase
Nuclear power isn't necessarily scarier than coal or oil fired furnaces doing the same thing. The critical issues of radioactivity have largely been fixed. Pebble Bed Reactors and other self monitoring technologies also don't produce waste product like other types of reactor.
--- Location Unknown
Maybe pirating can be a reborn and profitable proffesion again? yarr?
Nuclear disasters on ships waiting to happen are nothing new in that area of the world. Russia still maintains a policy of keeping nuclear waste onboard container ships in the Arctic Sea:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/5391586.stm
The US and Russian Navies have been doing this for 50 years! This is the first commercial venture to do it, but the military has done it safely and effectively. The US Navy has over 5500 reactor years of operations without a nulcear accident. Also, this is not the first time that power from these reactors has been put into the power grid. Any US Navy vessel that is in port and connected to shore power (which they almost always do in port) can and have provided electricity to the grid if needed. This was done in charleston after a huricane.
GENERATION 27: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum and add 1 to the generation.
Actually you are incorrect.
The Enterprise actually has 8 reactors! The Enterprise was so expensive that the next class of carriers where not The Kitty Hawk class had four ships in it. Two of them are still in service.
What everyone is forgetting is the US did build a floating reactor into an old Liberty ship. In the late sixties it was used in Panama.
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
Fuel rods are typically stationary. What moves are control rods, typically made of materials with high neutron cross sections like Hf. Reactors can also put nuclear poison into the reactor coolant to help reduce the reactivity of the core. You are correct about reactors (at least all of the ones I am familiar with) do have fail safe systems that shut down the reactor during an accident. They plant can produce all of the power it needs (just like navy vessels). Therefore, it needs no other power source.
GENERATION 27: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum and add 1 to the generation.
"The worlds finest nuclear powered aircraft carrier"
Those who said that were smoking crack. As a former Navy Nuke I am fully aware that the Enterprise (aka the 'Exposureprise') was certainly a groundbreaking (seabreaking?) nuclear craft. And it is a fairly safe nuclear ship. But lets just say that there were a lot of lessons learned from this ship that the US Navy decided to fix with newer designs. Probably the finest nuclear aircraft carrier would by any of the more modern Nimitz class carriers. They were able to be built with decades of experience from Naval prototype reactors, submarine reactors, and of course shiploads of experience from the Enterprise.
In multi-core facilities, it's not uncommon to have power for the offline plants' coolant pumps supplied by the operating plant. I'm not aware of any nuclear power plant design that is not capable of being self-sustaining insofar as suppling it's own power loads while operating. If this is a single core design (haven't RTFA), you'd need shore power to keep the plant systems running when the reactor is shutdown for maintenance. Also, the fuel doesn't move. Control rods of neutron absorbing material are moved to control core reactivity.
Simple Machines in Higher Dimensions
That's technically incorrect... you don't withdraw the fuel rods. You lower the control rods. With modern reactors it's very hard to have them melt down as many will scram automatically if outside of set parameters. That and there is always ways to inject material into the primary coolant loop that will greatly impede fission esentially killing the reactor until it is flushed out. I can't go into very much detail on any of it but I served on one of those US underwater nuclear power plants for a number of years.
A floating Chernobyl is unlikely.
Although these articles don't specify, it's likely the floating NPP (Nuclear Power Plant) will be based on the VVER design (which is inheriantly a lot more stable) as opposed to the RBMK that Chernobyl used. The RBMK design had a nasty design flaw, which the world became aware of in 1986.
That being said, the RBMK design has been made much safer since the Soviet era, with many remaining reactors being decommissioned soon anyway. So yeah, apparently TFA's author didn't do their homework.
Windows has detected an undetectable error.
The output of a nuclear reactor is controlled by inserting and withdrawing the control rods into the core, which controls the rate of the fission chain reaction by absorbing neutrons. (Absorbing the right number of neutrons is the key to keeping the reactor critial, where the fission events are allowed to run at a constant output, or subcritical where the chain reaction is suppressed.) The control rods are moved in and out of the reactor core using motors or other mechanisms, which usually require power.
A nuclear power plant itself needs power for the monitoring and operations of the systems that run the plant. Pumping the coolant in the cooling loops, moving the control rods in and out of the core, monitoring of the system status, and other tasks needed to run the plant, requires power.
A nuclear power plant is only producing electrical power when its stream turbines are running -- and there are times when the turbines aren't running such as during maintainance or testing, a time when the plant is referred to as being "offline." Even if the turbines aren't making power, the reactor core needs to be constantly cooled, as the radioactivity from the core (from the fissile fuel and fission products) gives off heat. Basically, at all times when the plant is still in operation (even if no power is being generated) the nuclear power plant needs power.
The Big-E (my boat) has 8 reactors. That's not because they thought it was a good idea, but because it was a test-bed. Their are several different reactor and steam plants (GE and Westinghouse, different versions of each) on that ship. Those 8 reactors are comparable in output to the 2 used on all the Nimitz class CVNs.
To my knowledge, all US CVNs other than the Enterprise have just 2 reactors. IIRC, subs have just the one (but I wasn't a bubblehead, so don't quote me).
Anything nuclear will create waste, you are mistake. Pebble Bed reactors are designed to prevent catastrophic reactions, but these are still possible. A containment leak would allow the atmosphere within the reactor to reach temperatures high enough to melt the graphite moderating cuticle. Pebble bed reactors are not realistic in an age of terrorism, they produce more waste and the mechanised fuel handling is more likely to result in disaster (see Hamm-Uentrop, West Germany). Never mind the logistics of TRACKING each and every pebble from its birth to final resting place in yucca mountain (which is near a fault line). The problem of nuclear energy and its waste has not been solved. As long as waste remains on the planet, it is a threat. I have absolutely NO IDEA how anyone could claim that the problem of nuclear waste is no longer a problem. I think the only explanation is the radiation from too much time spent within the leaky storage facilities at hanford or eating potatoes growing near Chernobyl has gotten to you. Look no further than the Hanford Nuclear Reservation in Eastern Washington (US). Our Federal government has done a good job of keeping this disaster under wraps for the most part. This is because the administration would like you to believe nuclear energy is safe, so that they can gain public support for the reintroduction of the technology to our energy production matrix.
The USS Enterprise has 8 A2W reactors (210 MW) and Nimitz class aircraft carriers have 2 A4W reactors (194MW). So yeah, 2x60W reactors can power much less than a nuclear aircraft carrier.
From Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SCRAM
"In modern nuclear power plants, the control rods are lifted by electric motors against both their own weight and a powerful spring. A SCRAM rapidly (less than four seconds, by test) releases the control rods from those motors and allows their weight and the spring to drive them into the reactor core, thus halting the nuclear reaction as rapidly as possible."
Also, most people are ill-informed as to why Chernobyl occured:
From Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Void_coefficient
"A positive void coefficient means that the thermal power output increases as the void content inside the reactor increases due to increased boiling or loss of liquid moderator or coolant. If the void coefficient is large enough and control systems do not respond quickly enough, this can form a positive feedback loop which can quickly boil all the coolant in the reactor. This happened in the Chernobyl accident."
It's illegal to build positive void coefficient reactors in the US for this reason. Negative coefficient reactors won't have runaway reactions.
We're talking about TWO full scale reactors on a barge.
No, we're talking two relatively small reactors on a barge. Typical nuclear power reactors for feeding the electrical grid are in the 600 to 1000 megawatt range, not 60 MW, and most facilities have more than one (the Pickering and Darlington facilities near Toronto have 8 650 MW and 4 850 MW reactors respectively).
The reactors aboard an aircraft carrier do more than just run the lights, they can push the whole thing at speeds in excess of 40 knots (how much in excess isn't exactly talked about -- but even that is more than fast enough to water ski behind!). Ditto for nuclear subs -- plus they provide air and water for the crew (hydrolysis and reverse osmosis).
Modern nuclear submarines typically use reactors up to 200 MW, the French Rubis-class subs use a 48 MW reactor, Russia's Oskar-II class uses 2 190 MW reactors. Surface ships like aircraft carriers or the Kirov-class battle cruiser use two reactors each up to 300 MW each.
-- Alastair
Umm, the CARRIERS have 2 reactors, each of which can supply enough megawatts to cities of around 20,000 people, even back in the 70's. Maybe they can provide juice to more nowadays. (CVAN-65/CVN-65 Enterprise has **8**, but probaly only 4 to 6 at any time are up and running with maybe 2 on hot-standby and the other to in some other unpublished state of readiness due to the sheere expense of recoring the -65.)
1,000 people in the crew? Try some 3,800 crew and 2,200-2,800 in the air wing, plus the Marines detachment and any "riders" (CIA types, spooks, foreign observers, etc...) and you're talking about 6,000 people.
Even the SSN (fast attack and boomers/nuke missile) boats could provide power to tens of thousands if the right shore hookups are provided for on the pier.
However, this probably isn't an ideal situation as shipboard power reactors are meant to deliver power QUIETLY in a small space, and this imposes limitations on power output and other things land-based reactor operators might not be burdened with. There are very real limitations, other than their being military-grade reactors with any number of issues such as security, secrecy, and more. Otherwise, the dozens from the Thresher/Scorpion class, Tullibe, Skipjack, LA and some of the Ohio boats could have been floated and used for power. However, the oil industry would have balked and probably would have funded the eco-guardians.
Then, the eco-guardians would whip out all the studies indicating that disrupted and elevated thermal gradients have been and would continue to ruin fish spawning sites, kill off plankton, algae, seaweed and other aquatic life along the coastlines (if the plants are submerged and tethered). And on and on and on....
Previously: "Linux... Toward the Sunrise..." Now: "Linux... Toward the-- No, now, part of Every Sunrise"
I agree with the *real* officer (NUPOC = NUclear Power Officer *Candidate*) and I also call BS on the story about transferring 500 gallons of reactor coolant to a sub tender in Groton. I was an ELT (Engineering Laboratory Technician) aboard a nuclear submarine, that, part of the time I was on her, was stationed in Groton (New London Submarine Base). ELTs are the enlisted guys who do the steam plant and reactor plant water chemistry analyses. I am certain that there is no reason take reactor coolant out of the primary loop and move it to the tender (and lots of reasons not to!). The only time that sort of thing would be done is during a refueling overhaul, in a shipyard. A boat in Groton would go to Portsmouth (NH) Naval Shipyard for that. The boat I was on had a 78 MW S5W reactor plant. 120MW is not that impressive especially when you don't have the space constraints of a submarine reactor compartment.
...the future crusty old bastards are already drinking the Kool-Aid.
...and limited [nuclear] fuel supply...
Is that the sound of a knee jerking or have you actually bothered to check? Here is a reference that indicates that the uranium supply (economically recoverable) would last billions of years though it does not assume exponential growth or anything similar. It does assume breeder reactor technology. In other words we would have to worry more about the Sun burning out first.
Didn't see a post commenting about this (maybe i'm just mistaken perhaps).
... except many anti-nuclear groups fight tooth-and-nail against anything to do with nuclear *anything*. Even recycling ... since it potentially creates more nuclear fuel. If everyone would carefully examine their nuke-fear ... they'd realise how silly they are. More people die in a year (hell, probably a month) due to cancer or aids or several other reasons than have died in the history of mankind to nuclear power/weapons/waste/radioactivity.
Civilian/commercial reactors are designed not only to avoid meltdowns but to make it impossible to achieve critical mass. They use low % enriched fuel and, usually, aren't breeders. They swap out fuel regularly and are actually fairly inefficient with regards to their power density.
MILATARY reactors however use a much higher % of enriched fuel. They have a MUCH higher power density. (look at the size of a nuclear plant vs an entire sub). Not sure if mil reactors are breeders, but they're clearly not meant to have partial fuel swaps on a regular basis. As a result of this, milatary reactors DO have the ability to reach critical mass in worst-case situations. While you're not likely to actually get a nuclear explosion you DO have a much greater ability for a horrible melt-down, worst-case, etc. etc. etc.
Civilian/commercial reactors are incredibly safe overall. IMHO we should be building them as fast as we can. Even greenpeace has switched it's opinion! Nuclear waste is recyclable
The USS Sturgis, stationed at the Panama Canal. The Department of Energy describes the Sturgis as follows: STURGIS Floating Nuclear Power Plant; Designation MH-1A, Location: Gatun Lake, Canal Zone; Principal nuclear contractor: Martin; Pressurized water reactor, Capacity: 10,000 net kW(e), Authorized 45,000 kW(t), Initial criticality, 1967; Shutdown (permanently), 1976. The vessel provided power to the Canal Zone. It was the first floating nuclear power plant and, for nearly three decades, appeared to be the last. In 2008, the Russians plan to bring on line the next floating nuclear power plant.
To correct original reply. It is 20.25 square miles.
Tower: 3000 feet high, 400 feet Diameter
Concrete: 750,000 cubic yards
Collector: 3.5 miles diameter (30 million square yards) glass/polycarbonate/plastic film
Turbines: 32 units x 6.25 MegaWatt
Land: 20.25 square miles (4.5 x 4.5)
Output: 200 MegaWatts (200,000 households)
\
I won't even bother signing in.
Ohio class boomers carry 24 Nuclear missiles and an unknown number of nuclear torps. Each missile carries 5 x 475Kt mk5/w88's (reduced from maximum for treaty reasons additional mass dedicated to penetration aids) or up to 14 100Kt mk4/w87's. Hiroshima was around 20Kt so this is some serious counter value throw weight on each boat. That's why they were built, anyone who wants to take out the Us ad better take out every boat or the counterstrike annihilates the attacker, hence the MAD defence policy.
So each Ohio carries upto (24 x 14) 336 warheads not counting non SLBM warheads in the torp rooms. Thats enough sunshine for anyone.