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.

(MIT)   MIT scholars say that the safety risks of nuclear reactors, and the safety risks of offshore oil platforms, should cancel out if you just combine the two somewhere far, far away from MIT   (newsoffice.mit.edu) divider line 23
    More: Scary, MIT, oil platforms, safety risks, nuclear power, fuel rods, reactor cores, direct effect, nuclear reactors  
•       •       •

1061 clicks; posted to Geek » on 18 Apr 2014 at 9:49 AM (18 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



23 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
ZAZ [TotalFark]
2014-04-18 08:37:41 AM
Farther away than Albany Street?
 
2014-04-18 08:52:00 AM
Sounds like a fantastic idea, which means RFK Jr. will be along shortly to biatch that such plants would mess with his family's sacred ancestral yachting grounds.
 
2014-04-18 08:57:42 AM
Now if we could just combine them in a way that allows the platform to drill for nuclear oil and then burn it right there, we'd have access to unlimited free energy.
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2014-04-18 08:58:05 AM
That's a really interesting idea.  It would allow for much better passive cooling than any land based reactor, it would be immune to earthquakes and easier to control access too.
 
2014-04-18 09:52:37 AM
Ah yes, another thread that will show us the disproportionately high number of nukes on fark.

/SSN 662, 708
 
2014-04-18 09:54:10 AM

Gulper Eel: Sounds like a fantastic idea, which means RFK Jr. will be along shortly to biatch that such plants would mess with his family's sacred ancestral yachting grounds.


...and sacred burial ground.
 
2014-04-18 09:55:27 AM
They indicated that it won't irradiate seawater like Fukashima did if something goes bad. Sounds fine to me.
 
2014-04-18 09:56:17 AM
Or, we could just use 4th generation Thorium reactors.
 
2014-04-18 10:05:08 AM
Nuclear powered oil drills?
 
2014-04-18 10:25:36 AM

Gunboat: Ah yes, another thread that will show us the disproportionately high number of nukes on fark.

/SSN 662, 708


Nuke waste (medical drop from the program 2 weeks before board) reporting.

/MARF still lives in my nightmares.
 
2014-04-18 10:35:35 AM
What about typhoons(hurricanes)?
 
2014-04-18 10:43:46 AM
Floating nuclear reactors?

Didn't the Navy build airports on top of a bunch of them?
 
2014-04-18 12:24:11 PM
Far away?

MIT has a small nuclear reactor subby.
 
2014-04-18 12:41:51 PM

give me doughnuts: Floating nuclear reactors?

Didn't the Navy build airports on top of a bunch of them?


I was going to say something similar, but less witty.
 
2014-04-18 12:50:56 PM

Mr. Eugenides: Or, we could just use 4th generation Thorium reactors.


whynotboth.jpg
 
2014-04-18 02:28:43 PM

Kit Fister: Mr. Eugenides: Or, we could just use 4th generation Thorium reactors.

whynotboth.jpg


This week's Economist has an article as to why not both.  It's inherently much safer than light water reactors and it's a biatch to weaponize.
 
2014-04-18 04:21:10 PM

lousyskater: /MARF still lives in my nightmares.


Small world.  I went to MARF for Prototype, although when I went it had normal control rods.
 
2014-04-18 05:19:35 PM
IIRC, the ice condenser containment was designed for PSE&G's cancelled Atlantic station, which was going to be a floating 2 unit nuke off the coast of NJ.  The design allowed for Westinghouse to shrink the size of the plant enough to fit on the (huge) barge.
 
2014-04-18 05:32:28 PM

Mr. Eugenides: Kit Fister: Mr. Eugenides: Or, we could just use 4th generation Thorium reactors.

whynotboth.jpg

This week's Economist has an article as to why not both.  It's inherently much safer than light water reactors and it's a biatch to weaponize.


I think I was more "why not bothing" the idea of a thorium reactor and a floating reactor platform.
 
2014-04-18 10:09:50 PM

Kit Fister: Mr. Eugenides: Kit Fister: Mr. Eugenides: Or, we could just use 4th generation Thorium reactors.

whynotboth.jpg

This week's Economist has an article as to why not both.  It's inherently much safer than light water reactors and it's a biatch to weaponize.

I think I was more "why not bothing" the idea of a thorium reactor and a floating reactor platform.


Because you can shut off the cooling on a molten salt thorium reactor, walk away and it will just shut its own self down.  Since it runs at atmospheric pressure there's no need for a heavy containment pressure vessel. It would actually be less dangerous on land.
 
2014-04-18 10:11:47 PM
Speaking of, the Economist articleI mentioned is on the web.
 
ZAZ [TotalFark]
2014-04-19 08:39:18 AM
92myrtle

At least it's no longer next to a rental truck parking lot. That amused me during the 1990s when rental trucks packed with explosives were the tool of choice to blow up buildings.

Cambridge posted no parking signs next to the reactor after 9/11, but those may be gone.
 
2014-04-19 03:46:22 PM

Mr. Eugenides: Or, we could just use 4th generation Thorium reactors.


Don't like sodium?
 
Displayed 23 of 23 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report