Russia to build floating Arctic nuclear stations

I must say this is one of the most idiotic ideas i have seen to date. They are going to create a freaking flaoting Chernobyl....idiots!!!

reply to post by princeofpeace


There is already a hundred floating nuclear "Chernobyls", so what difference will a couple more make?

And with all the "Chernobyl" referrences one would think that US never had any nuclear accidents. Do you also refer to the Nimitz class carriers as "floating Three Mile Islands"?

By the way Chernobyl is in Ukraine, not Russia. Also the reactor types used in the Chernobyl powerstation are no longer manufactured for either on-land or sea operations.

[edit on 4-5-2009 by maloy]

And the ACs are manned. Will these floating reactors be staffed 24/7?

Okay, you dont like the Chernobyl refrence? Insert 3 mile island if that makes you feel better. Im very well aware of where the Chernobyl incident ocurred.

And no there arent already "hundreds of floating Chernobyls" but there but there are dozens of floating reactors.

Originally posted by maloy
reply to post by princeofpeace

 

There is already a hundred floating nuclear "Chernobyls", so what difference will a couple more make?

And with all the "Chernobyl" referrences one would think that US never had any nuclear accidents. Do you also refer to the Nimitz class carriers as "floating Three Mile Islands"?

By the way Chernobyl is in Ukraine, not Russia. Also the reactor types used in the Chernobyl powerstation are no longer manufactured for either on-land or sea operations.

[edit on 4-5-2009 by maloy]

Originally posted by princeofpeace
And the ACs are manned. Will these floating reactors be staffed 24/7?

I am pretty sure they will be, and I saw no mention of it being otherwise. I don't know of any operational nuclear reactors that are not constantly monitored by staff.

Originally posted by princeofpeace
Okay, you dont like the Chernobyl refrence? Insert 3 mile island if that makes you feel better. Im very well aware of where the Chernobyl incident ocurred.

So are you similarly opposed to the US operating nuclear reactors and nuclear powered vessels? The fact is that nuclear power is efficient and comparatively cheap for nations that have the technology, and its use is bound to grow in the future.

Originally posted by princeofpeace
And no there arent already "hundreds of floating Chernobyls" but there but there are dozens of floating reactors.

Floating nuclear power reactors are pretty much the same thing as nuclear powered vessels - since both are used to provide energy using the same technology. There are far more than dozens of nuclear powered ships and submarines - and I am fairly certain that at least a hundred are operational around the world.

[edit on 4-5-2009 by maloy]

You will be hard pressed to come up with 100 nuclear powered ships and submarines in the world combined.

The reactors aboard said ships are tiny and are used for propulsion. The floating reactors described in the article are not for the same purpose.

Originally posted by maloy

Originally posted by princeofpeace
And the ACs are manned. Will these floating reactors be staffed 24/7?

I am pretty sure they will be, and I saw no mention of it being otherwise. I don't know of any operational nuclear reactors that are not constantly monitored by staff.

Originally posted by princeofpeace
Okay, you dont like the Chernobyl refrence? Insert 3 mile island if that makes you feel better. Im very well aware of where the Chernobyl incident ocurred.

So are you similarly opposed to the US operating nuclear reactors and nuclear powered vessels? The fact is that nuclear power is efficient and comparatively cheap for nations that have the technology, and its use is bound to grow in the future.

Originally posted by princeofpeace
And no there arent already "hundreds of floating Chernobyls" but there but there are dozens of floating reactors.

Floating nuclear power reactors are pretty much the same thing as nuclear powered vessels - since both are used to provide energy using the same technology. There are far more than dozens of nuclear powered ships and submarines - and I am fairly certain that at least a hundred are operational around the world.

[edit on 4-5-2009 by maloy]

Originally posted by princeofpeace
The reactors aboard said ships are tiny and are used for propulsion. The floating reactors described in the article are not for the same purpose.

The floating reactors mentioned in the article are to have output of 70 megawatts. In fact the reactors on Russian Arktika class ships have a higher output. And that is nothing compared to land-based nuclear reactors, like Chernobyl for example, which typically produce over 1,000 megawatts.

May 14, 2009

Russia warns of war within a decade over Arctic oil and gas riches

Russia raised the prospect of war in the Arctic yesterday as nations struggle for control of the world’s dwindling energy reserves.

The country’s new national security strategy identified the intensifying battle for ownership of vast untapped oil and gas fields around its borders as a source of potential military conflict within a decade.

“The presence and potential escalation of armed conflicts near Russia’s national borders, pending border agreements between Russia and several neighbouring nations, are the major threats to Russia’s interests and border security,” stated the document, which analysed security threats up to 2020.

“In a competition for resources it cannot be ruled out that military force could be used to resolve emerging problems that would destroy the balance of forces near the borders of Russia and her allies.”

(Rest of the article - featuring Will Russia go to war over the Arctic? video: Times Online)

They did say that there would be a war over this

All this could be avoided just by investing billions into algae as a source of fuel.