Russia's First Floating Nuclear Power Station | Hacker News Reader

Russia's First Floating Nuclear Power Station

reuters.com

47 pointspushingbits21 comments

There is one argument against that plan which doesn't hold: tsunamis are only dangerous "near" the coast, where the shallow water lifts the wave. Before that it's a 1 meter scale amplitude over 100km scale wavelength. I would be more worried about nasty rogue waves, regular heavy storms, and general piracy.

That said, I don't see how it would be more insecure in that regard than your regular offshore oil rig. We also have nuclear reactors in submarines and aircraft carriers so I don't see why the thing would be so unfit to offshore use.

When you think of it it's actually quite clever in some regards, using the sea as a damper for anything tough that could happen on earth crust.

The article mentions pirates. Pirates could tow your reactor away... fun. Submarines and aircraft carriers at least have defenses against that.

I think the Russians accept a higher level of risk than many other countries in this regard.

I'm pretty sure the Russians know how to put guns on their floating nuclear fortresses.

This is so true. I cracked up for minutes laughing about this comment. I wonder what their plans are to protect them from piracy, they should really talk more about that in the article.

Nuclear fortress? They're talking about using these floating reactors for civilian use. That's very different than putting one in a military naval ship.

Not that this sounds like a particularly smart idea, but it's sad that even Reuters can't write an article about nuclear power without devoting half of it to "what happens when terrorist pirates tow it to a major US city, turn it into a bomb and blow it up???"

(Presumably the same thing that happens when they hijack an offshore wind farm, tow it to a major city, turn it into a bomb and blow it up?)

Somebody needs to come up with a name for this form of power that doesn't scare people so much.

"All possible emergency situations have been tested."* It's hard to believe this. Sometimes humans are getting a little haughty. What about a small comet? What about lack of recourses maintaining the thing?

I'm still not convinced nuclear is the way to go. But spilling oil isn't either..

Not to be picky, but a small comet? that's what you're worried about <g>? A small comet is probably the least of the worries.

First of all even a small coment is gonna make a mighty big bang. Sure it might hit a nuclear power station (on land _or_ sea) but it's also gonna make a big mess. Actually, given that the ones on water can be moved they're probably safer than the ones on land.

Regarding the maintainence - it's really no different to one on land, and some might say better than on land because there's no lack of cooling material. Worst case it sinks, which 'aint gonna be great for the sea-floor nearby, but it wouldn't be the first "sunk" nuclear reactor (there are already some 18 odd reactors underwater http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Lost_nuclear_submarine...) and the risk of an explosion becomes zero.

Of course Nuclear is in the news a lot, thanks to Japan. But there are a couple facts to put things in perspective. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_weapons_testing)

Around 2000 nuclear explosions have occurred during bomb testing. From 1945 to 1998 there wasn't a single 2-year period _without_ a nuclear explosion. Over 500 tests have been atmospheric. The _average_ is 37 tests per year from 1945 to 1998. The peak was in 1962 with an average of just under 3 per _week_. Forget the Russians, there were 100 nuclear explosions _above ground_ (and 921 underground) in Nevada between 1951 and 1992. This isn't in some south pacific atoll, this is 100 miles from Las Vegas.

But if there's talk of a radioactive leak in Japan, or a complete explosion like at Chernobyl, people in California start buying iodine tablets.

Some perspective is certainly required.

At the end of the day _all_ current practical energy sources are dangerous. All have direct, and indirect pollution aspects. But the N word trumps all rational discussion.

There is visualization of nuclear tests:

http://blip.tv/file/1662914

I had no idea how many tests were performed before I saw this. Jaw-dropping.

I can't believe how cheap that is, even being four times over budget. $550m / 35k homes is $15,714 per home. What is the cost to run it, once built?

That sounds very expensive for only 70 megawatts of baseline power....

The economic scheme for nuclear power plants has always been high up front capital costs which are traded for much lower operating costs, mostly or perhaps entirely in terms of fuel. But a small plant like this might lose there if the minimum crew requirements are too high.

"Any history of nuclear submarines is a history of accidents," Bellona campaigner Nikitin said.

Such is the case with almost every technology.

Regarding the headline "Russia's First Floating Nuclear Power Station":

For powering nearby onshore areas while docked, Russia's nuclear submarines already earned that 'first' distinction, after a couple such uses in the late 1990s. See:

http://www.xent.com/FoRK-archive/2001.02/0018.html

Smaller nuclear power plants should have better worst-case outcomes in the case of disaster (less fuel means less heat), but using 40-year-old technology to get there doesn't sound so ideal.

By same analogy, classical coal plants use millennia-old technology and that sounds even less ideal.

Crud.

I guess that means that I should abandon any sourdough bread making, since it uses millenia-old technology....

With respect to the awesomeness that is sourdough, nuclear technology is advancing at a far (far) faster rate than breadmaking, especially with regard to safety. Modern designs are much closer to fail-safe than 40-year-old designs, while sourdough is as deadly as it always has been.

I think it's similar to starting a company. Successfully building and maintaining a safe nuclear power station is more about the execution rather than the idea.

This is silly, and dangerous (and not because of the tsunami). The plant will be exposed to hurricanes/typhoons, as well as be inaccessible in case of emergency, and is there a grantee that the spent fuel won't get into the water when a catastrophe occurs?

Why didn't they just mount some carrier rockets to a lousely settled nuclear power plant, so they can skyrocket the whole bunch of crap when something goes horribly wrong? :)

Would be an appropriate "emergency" measure for this thing, too, wouldn't it?

What if the "carrier rocket" goes horribly wrong?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com