It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Are nuclear reactors safer at sea?

page: 1
2
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 17 2014 @ 10:29 AM
link   
Are nuclear reactors safer at sea? Floating design for middle of the ocean would be tsunami-proof, claim scientists

* A team of engineers has revealed their plans for ocean-based reactors
* The plants would be several miles offshore and would use water as coolant
* This could make the reactors resistant to earthquakes and tsunamis
* Water could be used to prevent the plants overheating in an emergency
* Future disasters comparable to Chernobyl could be prevented


Source



Exposing nuclear reactors to the elements might not seem like the best idea.
But a team of engineers have revealed how their design to place nuclear reactors in water could save lives.

These plants would use the surrounding water to safeguard themselves in the event of a natural disaster that could cause a meltdown.

When an earthquake or tsunami hits a nuclear plant, that event in itself is not the biggest threat. The greatest danger is actually the after-effects – failing to cool down a reactor core can be deadly.
With that in mind, a team of engineers from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) have unveiled their designs to place nuclear reactors at sea, where there is an abundance of cooling water for such situations.

The idea is due to be presented at a symposium held by the American Society of Mechanical Engineers this week.



I'm not sure what I think about this as any potential disaster would mean the ocean would be irradiated straight away. Why can't we build these reactors underground?




posted on Apr, 17 2014 @ 10:35 AM
link   
reply to post by flammadraco
 


That's a decent plan though, the best reactors are breeders which recycle most of the would be waste into the fuel cycle. Not sure how seaworthy they would be.


edit on 17-4-2014 by greencmp because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 17 2014 @ 10:40 AM
link   
reply to post by flammadraco
 


Hmm,Underground is a bad idea because if there is an event,radiation could get into the water table/aquifers.
The floating ones are a bad idea because they are still the crazy sort of reactors which we only ever started to build to produce nuclear bombs-electricity was at first really just a blag for joe public to get on board the idea.

Thorium salt pile reactors are the way we would have gone if we were after cleaner,safer energy.
That sort of reactor cannot meltdown.Ever.
But of course you can't make sheet loads of plutonium either.




posted on Apr, 17 2014 @ 10:41 AM
link   
reply to post by greencmp
 


I was thinking they would be an easier target as well out in the middle of the ocean. Suicide boats, planes or attacked by subs. They use subs as drugs carriers in South America now so its not to far from being a possibility.

I just wonder why when we have underground bases, we cannot have these reactors built underground, apart from the possibility of under ground water contamination in an event of a melt down, I cannot see many other reasons not too....



posted on Apr, 17 2014 @ 10:48 AM
link   

Silcone Synapse
reply to post by flammadraco
 


Hmm,Underground is a bad idea because if there is an event,radiation could get into the water table/aquifers.
The floating ones are a bad idea because they are still the crazy sort of reactors which we only ever started to build to produce nuclear bombs-electricity was at first really just a blag for joe public to get on board the idea.

Thorium salt pile reactors are the way we would have gone if we were after cleaner,safer energy.
That sort of reactor cannot meltdown.Ever.
But of course you can't make sheet loads of plutonium either.



I like thorium reactors and even pebble beds too but, none of the 'safe' designs produce competitive levels of power so we would need a lot of them (and that's OK by me, btw). I have been waiting for the town sized modular reactor business to mature. Greatly diversified and distributed power generation is a much better infrastructure choice anyway.



posted on Apr, 17 2014 @ 10:49 AM
link   
Nuclear reactors are not safe.
There is no such thing as safe nuclear energy.
Nuclear energy is not safe.
Nuclear reactors are not safe. They are the ultimate Death Machine.
Nuclear energy is ludicrous.

Nuclear power plant = disaster-in-waiting.



posted on Apr, 17 2014 @ 10:58 AM
link   
Oh man I can already see them dumping there waste in the ocean so no I do not think they are safer at sea. They are not safe anywhere...



posted on Apr, 17 2014 @ 11:00 AM
link   
If these things messed up in some way would they not ruin yet more of the ocean?

At least they wouldn't have to clean up the mess aye.



posted on Apr, 17 2014 @ 11:01 AM
link   

nugget1
Nuclear reactors are not safe.
There is no such thing as safe nuclear energy.
Nuclear energy is not safe.
Nuclear reactors are not safe. They are the ultimate Death Machine.
Nuclear energy is ludicrous.

Nuclear power plant = disaster-in-waiting.


Actually, nuclear reactors are the safest per kilowatt method of power generation by multiple orders of magnitude.

As I understand it, it is even safer than solar I think because of the caustic chemicals involved in the manufacture of the panels though, that process will presumably improve over time. Room temperature superconductors will also make solar (and every other source of energy) a more viable option but, it isn't the panacea that some would have you believe.
edit on 17-4-2014 by greencmp because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 17 2014 @ 11:04 AM
link   
reply to post by flammadraco
 


If something bad were to happen, we would experience another Fukushima so I'm against it. Why can't we use alternative ways of energy? Solar/wind/hydro-electric, hell even using hemp could have better outcomes with better fuel



posted on Apr, 17 2014 @ 11:16 AM
link   

nugget1
Nuclear reactors are not safe.
There is no such thing as safe nuclear energy.
Nuclear energy is not safe.
Nuclear reactors are not safe. They are the ultimate Death Machine.
Nuclear energy is ludicrous.

Nuclear power plant = disaster-in-waiting.


The ones we favor today are real bad news-but Thorium is a much safer alternative-no chance of meltdowns,much shorter half life-days instead of thousands of years..Easy to mine,and very abundant globally.
Much safer-it can even "eat up" the radiation from today's spent nuclear fuel-the really toxic stuff no one knows what to do with.

en.wikipedia.org...
edit on 17/4/2014 by Silcone Synapse because: sp



posted on Apr, 17 2014 @ 11:19 AM
link   

A team of engineers has revealed their plans for ocean-based reactors

This is an upgrade then? That way you see next time theres a meltdown its not so "obvious". Just pul the little handle that says flush.

Some science.
edit on 17-4-2014 by intrptr because: BB code



posted on Apr, 17 2014 @ 11:23 AM
link   

Silcone Synapse

nugget1
Nuclear reactors are not safe.
There is no such thing as safe nuclear energy.
Nuclear energy is not safe.
Nuclear reactors are not safe. They are the ultimate Death Machine.
Nuclear energy is ludicrous.

Nuclear power plant = disaster-in-waiting.


The ones we favor today are real bad news-but Thorium is a much safer alternative-no chance of meltdowns,much shorter half life-days instead of thousands of years..Easy to mine,and very abundant globally.
Much safer-it can even "eat up" the radiation from today's spent nuclear fuel-the really toxic stuff no one knows what to do with.

en.wikipedia.org...
edit on 17/4/2014 by Silcone Synapse because: sp


I think breeders, pebble beds and gaseous reactors can all recycle nuclear waste and weapons grade plutonium.



posted on Apr, 17 2014 @ 11:33 AM
link   
reply to post by greencmp
 


That has to be the way to go if we want to seriously turn things around for the future.
Lets hope it happens.



posted on Apr, 17 2014 @ 12:36 PM
link   

Silcone Synapse
reply to post by greencmp
 


That has to be the way to go if we want to seriously turn things around for the future.
Lets hope it happens.


I really believe it can be done although it seems to be an industry which is difficult to break into as a startup.


I could see Elon Musk producing commercial if not consumer (maybe my imagination has run away with me
modular reactors someday.




posted on Apr, 17 2014 @ 12:41 PM
link   
reply to post by greencmp
 


Industry is definitley holding things up,as usual.
They like the status quo.
They kill to keep it.



posted on Apr, 17 2014 @ 12:49 PM
link   
reply to post by flammadraco
 


There are alot of naval nuclear reactors out on sea right now.

en.wikipedia.org...

Relatively safe.



posted on Apr, 17 2014 @ 01:12 PM
link   

grey580
reply to post by flammadraco
 


There are alot of naval nuclear reactors out on sea right now.

en.wikipedia.org...

Relatively safe.


But they are all light water reactors that produce waste.



posted on Apr, 17 2014 @ 04:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: nugget1
Nuclear reactors are not safe.
There is no such thing as safe nuclear energy.
Nuclear energy is not safe.
Nuclear reactors are not safe. They are the ultimate Death Machine.
Nuclear energy is ludicrous.

Nuclear power plant = disaster-in-waiting.
:pus:


Totally agree. What do you do with a spent electrical transformer? Recycle the copper and steel.

What do you do with a spent reactor core? Store it somewhere "safe" for eternity. Or make nuclear weapons with it.



posted on Apr, 17 2014 @ 04:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: greencmp

grey580
reply to post by flammadraco
 


There are alot of naval nuclear reactors out on sea right now.

en.wikipedia.org...

Relatively safe.


But they are all light water reactors that produce waste.


My former bro in law is a nuke tech on a sub.
He will even admit most of the people he works with can barely do their job of reading a few gauges and what not.
Just like the purge of all of the people in the silos with the icbms...it scares me to think of the destruction that could be caused by the ineptitude of those who monitor these reactors and warheads that seem "safe".

Since the early 50's and above ground hbomb testing, birth defects, cancer rates, and hmm...I'm not unconvinced autism spectrum disorders are increasing exponentially...

No nukes is good nukes. Just ask those guys in Washington state and New Mexico. At sea or on land, we can create cheap power without fossil fuels. We just need to revamp the system. Was done under FDR. Why isn't it being done now?

Greed.

When I lived in Georgia. Georgia Power charged $10/month for a nuclear plant that was not even green lighted. Shouldn't there own profits pay for that? Plus they get government handouts...




top topics



 
2
<<   2 >>

log in

join