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
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
No.
Both the US and Russian Navy have plenty of reactors online - and many of them power ships of some kind which float in water.
And here's the kicker - they're online - right now!
Oh nosies! Call Greenpeace!
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.
Will it ever be possible to have a rational discussion about energy production?
These are not even that big. According to wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_marine_propu lsion) the military has "Reactor sizes rang[ing] up to 190 MWt in the larger submarines and surface ships." The article is not clear weather the power rating is MWt (thermal) or MWe (electric) but even if it is electric the military reactors mentioned at wiki would still likely have equivalent electric output since the conversion from thermal to electric runs about 25%. Just for comparison the AP1000 is supposed to have 1000MW electric output.
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.
Why is it scary?
.. not worry about whether the kids are going to burn themselves (or throw a baseball through) the solar array..
.. lets build some nuclear power plants. Use the efficient safe designs (pebble bed) and .. OHMYGOSH .. recycle the fuel. Heck, even on Slashdot they posted a story about a new tech that might make the waste that much LESS radioactive..
With all the liberal imperialist environmental communists out there screaming because
1. Coal is a non-renewable energy source.
2. Oil is a non-renewable energy source.
3. Natural gas is a non-renewable energy souce.
4. Wave power is too ugly to be built (too lazy to Google for it but Kennedy / Kerry vetoed the idea because it was too close to THEIR vacataion home).
5. Water flow (river) is too unpredictable (and causes environmental damage when you flood blah blah blah).
6. Wind power is too noisy and it kills birdies.
What the hell else do we have?
Solar? Right. Who wants a backyard full of panels? Some people like to BAR-B-QUE in their back yards
I say
= Grow a brain...
... when they see the "Made In North Korea" sticker on these reactors.
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.
OK, I am actually a Naval Officer who designs the reactors (what NUPOC was to demanding). Those are not considered Reactor Accidents. A reactor accident is defined by a failure of the fuel system that releases significant amount of radioactivity into the environment. None of the accidents that you listed are due to a failure of the core and are therfore not REACTOR ACCIDENTS!!! Get your facts straight before you post!
GENERATION 27: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum and add 1 to the generation.
60% of these are non-nuclear, and some didn't even occur on ships.
You might save yourself some trouble if you only looked up relevant info.
http://lkml.org/lkml/2005/8/20/95
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
Plus, you would imagine that a few things have been learned in the 60 years since Hanford was built.
Yeah, like it is better to have a government agency supervising private industry and keeping them in line than it is to have a government operation under 300 layers of secrecy that nobody is allowed to even look at.
The Hanford mess is a result of nobody bothering to care for decades about management of waste on the site. I heard a talk by somebody who had some involvement with the cleanup efforts. Apparently over the many years of operation all kinds of stuff was pumped into tanks, and records of what that stuff was were not kept accurately. When sludge from the tanks was sent out for analysis it was done in a careless manner - without even rudimentary precautions like sending the same samples to independant labs for duplicate testing.
Basically it was run like a government operation where nobody could get in trouble for making a mess, and unsurprisingly a huge mess resulted. Additionally during the cold war there was the genuine concern that if we had fewer bombs than the Russians it might result in an enemy first strike - so in some sense they might have been right to make safety priority #2 (but there is no excuse for not doing a lot better than they did). After all, an actual nuclear war would have made the leaking tanks at Hanford look like a VERY minor problem.
Bottom line - large-scale nuclear power generation facilities require heavy oversight - by folks who are more interested in exposing problems than covering them up. There is no reason to ban them entirely - any industry has the potential to create disaster (just look at Bhopal) - like anything you just need to make sure that it is cheaper to be safe than to be unsafe.
Interesting viewpoint. What do you have other than national pride to make you think that an inactive US nuclear industry that spends more money on advertising than R&D is less worrying? Recent work from South Africa, India and China is most likely better than both.
However it is not "clean" - it is an industrial process involving mining, extremely toxic chemicals in processing and the end product produces waste that is both toxic and radioactive so cannot just be ignored. Also it takes years to build any sort of thermal plant, paticularly a brand new design, so it is not available now. Using an old design is pointless since capital costs are going to be very high and you want to be able to get the best results you can - plus things like accelerated thorium reactors could solve the fuel shortage problem (and be cheaper to build and run as a consequece) and produce a lot less waste. Pebble beds don't scale up so are expensive but solve a lot of safety issues - perhaps they can have longer lives so may end up cheap enough to use in the long run. Someone will bring up fast breeders so I'll point them to look at the Superphoenix project first - reprocessing sounds like a good idea but was very difficult to implement with highly radioactive material so even photovoltaics (which do not scale up - twice the scale and you get no more than twice the output) ended up cheaper per MW no matter how big you build your Superphoenix style fast breeder. In the end you need a new design instead of hoping for corporate welfare - President Carter (who has a masters degree in nuclear engineering) effectively killed the US nuclear industry by making it clear there wouldn't be more corporate welfare for new plants - the focus has been on trying to get the welfare back for more dinosaur plants instead of building things that can stand on their own merits (and blaming hippies, coal ash as radioactive waste too, everything but their own inaction).
No. As you can see in these crash test videos, the containers used to transport nuclear waste can be broadsided by a 120-ton locomotive traveling at 80 miles per hour and come out of it with only cosmetic damage. Unfortumately, all the fud about accidents & terrorism on trucks or trains carrying nuclear waste tends to appeal more to peoples fearful hearts than the facts do to peoples rational minds. That makes me a sad pro-nuclear panda.
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.
is the price tag. AFAIK $200M is an order of magnitude cheaper than current nuclear power plants. How did they get the price down that far?