Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

A $200-Million Floating Nuclear Plant?

Posted by ryuzaki0 on from the nothing-can-go-wrong dept.

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."

9 of 453 comments (clear)

  1. Nuclear isn't necessarily scary by selil · · Score: 5, Informative

    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
  2. It could be worse by solevita · · Score: 5, Informative

    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

  3. Hardly the first floating Nuclear Power Plant by balsy2001 · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.
  4. Re:USS Enterprise, Nimitz, etc by Libertarian001 · · Score: 5, Informative

    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).

  5. Umm.... by kf6auf · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.

    1. Re:Umm.... by some_hoser · · Score: 5, Informative

      When comparing reactor powers, you really need to make sure you know what convention they are using when they say power - thermal power, or electric power? The thermal power of a plant is usually about 3x the electric. A 1000 MW (electric) plant runs at about 3000 MW (thermal). In the field they'll say MWe or MWt. A 60MWe reactor will be about the same as a 180MWt reactor. Another point is that on the nuclear powered ships, so cut down on space they have to use small (in terms of volume) reactors, and they use fairly highly enriched uranium (up to 90%), so the pressure inside gets much higher, and so they are more dangerous that conventional reactors. On a large barge, however, they have less space constraints so could go for a less energy dense and safer reactor.

  6. Re:Safety by kextyn · · Score: 5, Informative

    I just want to point out a few facts here. Nimitz class carrier has 2 A4W reactors outputting 94 MW each. These carriers also have a crew of 3,200 ship's company and 2,480 in the air wing. This new facility will be powered by 2 KLT-40S reactors outputting 60 MW each. So yes, this may be a different scale of power generation. But it's a smaller scale then what the US Navy has floating already.

  7. Small reactors by AJWM · · Score: 5, Informative

    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
  8. The first floating reactor - USS Sturgis by SoLoman33333 · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.