Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Web Urbanist)   While Japan is busy switching to solar and wind power, Russia is building floating nuclear reactors   (weburbanist.com) divider line 34
    More: Interesting, Russia, Japan, nuclear reactors, wind powers, switches  
•       •       •

1730 clicks; posted to Geek » on 17 Nov 2013 at 8:55 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



34 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2013-11-17 08:09:50 AM  
We've had them for years.
upload.wikimedia.org
 
2013-11-17 08:56:50 AM  
Russia and nuclear reactors, shouldn't this have a scary tag?
 
2013-11-17 09:00:24 AM  
Did Godzilla teach us nothing?
 
2013-11-17 09:06:57 AM  

Because People in power are Stupid: We've had them for years.
[upload.wikimedia.org image 300x214]


done in one
 
2013-11-17 09:08:27 AM  

HooskerDoo: Did Godzilla teach us nothing?


What Greenpeace "science" may look like.
 
2013-11-17 09:12:14 AM  
This would be neat for disaster recovery. Like in the Philippines. If you had a few of these tied up at coastal cities it would make restoring infrastructure and life saving much easier as you'd have power and fresh water, plus whatever else you could pack on. I think that the US carriers already do something like this with their reactors and desalination plants. Having a fleet designed for disaster recovery, maybe internationally funded, would be a great way to help the pacific rim countries to get over some lingering animosities.
 
2013-11-17 09:36:35 AM  

Because People in power are Stupid: We've had them for years.
[upload.wikimedia.org image 300x214]


And some of them sink, too....
blogs.militarytimes.com
 
2013-11-17 09:49:49 AM  
Not so sure this is "new": I seem to recall the Russians built something like this for arctic research back in the 70's or early eighties.
 
2013-11-17 10:09:23 AM  
Butbutbutbut Russia! Water! You're supposed to be scared! You're supposed to think of Chernobyl and Fukushima combined!!1one!
 
2013-11-17 10:11:53 AM  
The Japanese already have a floating nuclear reactor, just not intentionally.
 
2013-11-17 10:33:54 AM  

maddogdelta: Because People in power are Stupid: We've had them for years.
[upload.wikimedia.org image 300x214]

And some of them sink, too....
[blogs.militarytimes.com image 850x386]


Big sunuva biatch...
 
2013-11-17 10:42:01 AM  
Given the Russian's track record for nuclear safety, I'm guessing the reactor is held together with chewing gum.
 
2013-11-17 11:46:25 AM  

Because People in power are Stupid: We've had them for years.
[upload.wikimedia.org image 300x214]


And so have the Russians.
 
2013-11-17 11:53:53 AM  

siphra: Russia and nuclear reactors, shouldn't this have a scary tag?


Only if you're a dipshiat who can't deal with the fact that nuclear power generation has killed less people in its history than coal does in a year.
 
2013-11-17 11:55:06 AM  
 FUKOOOOOV!!!
 
2013-11-17 12:28:02 PM  
Back in the 60's, PSE&G proposed putting a two unit, 2,000 or so MW nuke on a floating island off the coast of NJ somewhere.  Workers would actually live on the island, it had a heliport and all.  Presumably, in a worst case accident, they could just sink the thing and flood the reactor containment (which was also a design feature of the NS Savannah and likely Navy units).

The proposal didn't really get anywhere (they built Salem instead), though it did give the industry the ice condenser containment that a few plants used because it was smaller than a regular containment (Watts Bar, etc).

IIRC, Russian icebreaker nukes are all PWRs.
 
2013-11-17 01:21:58 PM  

maddogdelta: Because People in power are Stupid: We've had them for years.
[upload.wikimedia.org image 300x214]

And some of them sink, too....
[blogs.militarytimes.com image 850x386]


Is that the late lamented Kursk?
 
2013-11-17 01:30:05 PM  

crab66: siphra: Russia and nuclear reactors, shouldn't this have a scary tag?

Only if you're a dipshiat who can't deal with the fact that nuclear power generation has killed less people in its history than coal does in a year.


Citation. Never bring that in without citation or you're going to be considered a troll.
 
2013-11-17 01:38:44 PM  

itcamefromschenectady: maddogdelta: Because People in power are Stupid: We've had them for years.
[upload.wikimedia.org image 300x214]

And some of them sink, too....
[blogs.militarytimes.com image 850x386]

Is that the late lamented Kursk?


What happened to the Kursk?
 
2013-11-17 01:55:50 PM  

itcamefromschenectady: Is that the late lamented Kursk?


Pictured is a Typhoon class. Kursk was an Oscar class.

..

LewDux: What happened to the Kursk?


here
 
2013-11-17 02:17:11 PM  

ajgeek: crab66: siphra: Russia and nuclear reactors, shouldn't this have a scary tag?

Only if you're a dipshiat who can't deal with the fact that nuclear power generation has killed less people in its history than coal does in a year.

Citation. Never bring that in without citation or you're going to be considered a troll.


-Historically, coal mining has been a very dangerous activity and the list of historical   is a long one. In the US alone, more than 100,000 coal miners were killed in accidents over the past century, with more than 3,200 dying in 1907 alone.

-Chronic   diseases, such as (black lung) were once common in miners, leading to reduced. In some mining countries black lung is still common, with 4,000 new cases of black lung every year in the US (4 percent of workers annually) and 10,000 new cases every year in China (0.2 percent of workers). Rates may be higher than reported in some regions.

 - An estimated 5 million people work in China's coal-mining industry. As many as 20,000 miners die in accidents each year.

- for each person killed by nuclear power generation, 4,000 die from coal.

- A total of 240,000 years of life were said to be lost in Europe in 2010 with 480,000 work days a year and 22,600 "life years" lost in Britain, the fifth most coal-polluted country. Drax, Britain's largest coal-powered station, was said to be responsible for 4,450 life years lost, and Longannet in Scotland 4,210. ()


-http://www.scientificamerican.com/article .cfm?id=coal-ash-is-more-radi oactive-than-nuclear-waste

-  Coal plants are responsible for more than half of the U.S. human-caused emissions of mercury, a toxic heavy metal that causes brain damage and heart problems. Just 1/70th of a teaspoon of mercury deposited on a 25-acre lake can make the fish unsafe to eat. A typical uncontrolled coal plants emits approximately 170 pounds of mercury each year.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/ 02/world/asia/air-pollution-linked-to-1 -2-million-deaths-in-china.html?_r=0

-It estimated that up to 3.6 million people could end up dying prematurely from air pollution each year, mostly in China and India.


If you want citations for everything listed here then break out your googles.
 
2013-11-17 02:39:31 PM  
So when it blows up, you just sink it in six miles of water.
 
2013-11-17 02:39:36 PM  

crab66: siphra: Russia and nuclear reactors, shouldn't this have a scary tag?

Only if you're a dipshiat who can't deal with the fact that nuclear power generation has killed less people in its history than coal does in a year.


Alas these are our only two energy sources.
 
2013-11-17 02:43:01 PM  

maddogdelta: itcamefromschenectady: Is that the late lamented Kursk?

Pictured is a Typhoon class. Kursk was an Oscar class.

..LewDux: What happened to the Kursk?

here


Link
 
2013-11-17 02:50:33 PM  

nocturnal001: Alas these are our only two energy sources.


Sorry but the world is not going to run on unicorn farts.
 
2013-11-17 02:58:35 PM  
Hoarseman: would be a great way to help the pacific rim countries to get over some lingering animosities.

I think the Pacific Rim needs more help than just disaster recovery.

www.eonline.com
 
2013-11-17 03:24:03 PM  
The biggest danger from the Fukushima incident is the tendency of countries to use it as a reason to throw away nuclear power entirely. This could easily set back the human race becoming a space-faring race by hundreds of years. Hundreds more years for us to turn this rock into a glowing cinder before we escape from it.
 
2013-11-17 03:35:57 PM  
upload.wikimedia.org

It's been done
 
2013-11-17 04:56:51 PM  

czetie: The Japanese already have a floating nuclear reactor, just not intentionally.


I think their problem was that they did not float, they sank (really just covered by the water)
 
2013-11-17 05:49:29 PM  

czetie: The Japanese already have a floating nuclear reactor, just not intentionally.


i.telegraph.co.uk

???

media.salon.com
 
2013-11-18 10:51:08 AM  
The ACTUAL world's first floating nuclear reactor.
 
2013-11-18 11:05:52 AM  
All part of their Arctic plan;
In 2007 they put the Russian flag on the sea floor under the Noth pole, they have 2 Army Brigades dedicated to the arctic, they are building arctic patrol bases every 20 miles along the arctic circle, Russia has over 2 million pole living above the Arctic circle, They are trying to claim an unsdersea ridge extending out to the pole is part of Russia Why?
Billions and billions of dolllars in untapped  oil, gas and mineral wealth.
The Canadians are freaking the fark out about it and the US has this prioritized below choosing a new camoflage uniform pattern.
Putin, dumb like a fox.
 
2013-11-18 11:45:54 AM  

Because People in power are Stupid: We've had them for years.
[upload.wikimedia.org image 300x214]


RC Dept, CVN69, 1981-1985
 
2013-11-18 01:45:01 PM  
Old news. The US Army had done this with Sturgis back in 1968.

upload.wikimedia.org

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MH-1A
 
Displayed 34 of 34 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report