h a l f b a k e r y
Warm and Fussy
idea:
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, best, random
meta:
news, help, about, links, report a problem
account:
Browse anonymously,
or get an account
and write.
Login
Create account.
|
|
|
There is growing sentiment that nuclear power must become a significant component of the energy equation.
Despite significant design improvements, however, there is an ongoing not-in-my-backyard opposition to these.
Perhaps one way to address this is to use mothballed nuclear navy ships as electricity
generators. Being mobile, they can be moved from backyard to backyard as needed, while being more than adequately defended against any attack.
Floating Nuclear Plant
http://www.nuclear....ating_N-plants.html
I Got Your "I Got Your Nuclear Reactor Right Here" Right Here [Worldgineer, Jun 27 2005]
Not-near-my-expensive-waterfront-property
http://www.sfgate.c.../08/05/MN100141.DTL
[Worldgineer, Jun 27 2005]
It's a brave, new world...
http://news.bbc.co..../nature/4629239.stm
In other news, it seems we're a step or two closer to fusion. [RayfordSteele, Jun 29 2005]
Wired.com on pebble-bed reactors.
http://www.wired.co...ve/12.09/china.html
[angel, Jun 30 2005]
The FIRE Place
http://fire.pppl.gov/#NewsSection
Background Information and Reviews of the U. S. and World Fusion Programs [reensure, Jul 02 2005]
Floating Nuke Plant
http://www.cnn.com/...ke.plant/index.html
[theircompetitor, Oct 13 2006]
[link]
|
| |
<ompr>..and this is the generator that goes ping.)(+) <ompr> |
|
| |
Well, they'd only power costal communities, which there are alot of, so... [+] |
|
| |
Include nothing to encourage development of spoil acreage in the middle of oceans and I agree on nearly all aspects of the plan. |
|
| |
Good idea. Bun to you. Ships have relatively meager power capacity compared to the needs of a city, but every little bit helps. |
|
| |
Ah, I enjoyed that title. |
|
| |
You could convert the Trident/Polaris missiles for civilian use on the 4th July/5th November. |
|
| |
what if a big storm hit it? wouldn't a cloud of nuclear waste go around killing poeple? and it would be easy for terrerist to steal it. all they have to do is strap some wires to a towing boat. |
|
| |
The first one was a random hit on Google while searching for the second one (which I remembered from when I lived there). |
|
| |
"That's not a Carrier Battle Group, you fool! That's a Carrier Power Generation Group! Recall the Kamikaze warriors!" |
|
| |
Back during their (fraud-driven) electricity crisis, the state of California investigated using disused diesel railraod freight engines as mobile power generation stations. (Modern railroad engines run a diesel motor just to generate electricity, which then powers electric motors to move the train). Seems logical to have an ocean-going version for coastal communities. |
|
| |
And, if it ever started to overheat, you'd have some time to send it out to sea and sink it before it had a meltdown. Assuming we're going to irradiate and poison stuff, better that it be 30 miles out to sea than on land, eh? |
|
| |
If it was a submarine I think it could dive out of the way of a storm and hopefully have weapons to defend itself from potential threats. Since it would have a lot of near shore use then it need enough advance warning of bad weather to get moving to deep water. That might cut off power to the community, and during a storm, that could be the time it is needed most. |
|
| |
Good idea. Regulatory requirements for naval nuclear reactors are less strict than land-based reactors, at least in the UK. Something to do with the water being some protection against meltdown. You might be able to offset some of the extra cost of the boat and security this way. |
|
| |
//Just say 'no' to nuclear power.//
Because...? |
|
| |
EDJ, someone has given you stupid pills today. |
|
| |
//Just say no to nuclear power// |
|
| |
I hope you don't mean *all* nuclear power. That's the thing that's keeping the Earth's core liquid and our planet warm enough to live on. |
|
| |
I know I'd rather have lead in my teeth and bones and brain than use something with the word 'nuclear' in it. |
|
| |
Because it's hard to pronounce? |
|
| |
Pebble-bed reactors. Inherently meltdown-proof, hydrogen as a by-product. Read up, your elf.
I don't think there *are* "general grounds" for [m-f-d]. |
|
| |
EDJ, you're desire to abandon nuclear power is radical... no, it's ignorant. If you want to abandon something just because of a few problems at the outset then you'd still be living in the dark ages. |
|
| |
[El Dorado], though you are generally wrong on nuclear power, If you'd carefully read the idea, you might notice that it refers to EXISTING NUCLEAR NAVY SHIPS. |
|
| |
To all y'all pro-nuke commentators, I assume you will be offering to dock these ships right by your house, or if too inland, you'd like a new nuclear plant right next door to you. |
|
| |
Actually, there's a nuclear power station about 15 miles from me, and I never had a problem with it being there. The "Ghost fleet" is there as well. |
|
| |
Ghost Fleet? If I know what that is, it's not like the shipbreaking beach in India I hope. |
|
| |
There are so many things wrong with Dr. Caldicott's propaganda it made me laugh. Nuclear plants releasing millions of curies per year? A curie is counts per minute divided by the error margin. Quite insignificant considering coal plants release billions if not trillions per MONTH. Krypton, Xenon, and Argon are significant dangers of radiation? And just how many people fly hot air baloons over the reactors so they can breathe theese gasses? |
|
| |
[EDJ] - what's the half life of the pollutants released into the air, water and ground by fossil fuel plants? Effectively infinite. |
|
| |
I think we'll all have to take a deep breath and accept nuclear power as the only viable alternative to fossil fuels pretty soon. |
|
| |
We've managed to fuck up the environment pretty quickly, using fossil fuels to underpin our other technological advances. They in turn led to our rapid proliferation, compounding the problem. |
|
| |
The alternative is one that is often used when animal populations reach unsustainable levels... cull the excess population. A return to an agrarian economy would likely have the same effect, so I don't see either of those options becoming reality. |
|
| |
Nuclear power may have its problems but it's come a long way recently. It's cleaner, more containable and produces far fewer byproducts than almost any other chemical fuel source that I can think of, at the moment. |
|
| |
Scaremongering is old hat. It was once believed that travelling at more than 30 miles per hour, in a train, would cause the human body to rupture and explode. |
|
| |
//the nukular will only last another 100 years. Uranium, too, is a non-renewable resource...// |
|
| |
Not so fast, [Sophocles]. Uranium is not exactly non-renewable. Here's a synopsis of the "uranium shortage" and the reasons why it may be renewable:
|
|
| |
The current method of use of uranium in power generation reactors uses the "once-through" method. That means the spent fuel is not re-enriched. Re-enrichment means that spent fuel can be reused, several times, as the useful component diminishes with each cycle.
|
|
| |
"Current reserves" refers only to the proven high-grade deposits known to exist. That does not take into account other deposits not yet discovered. Little has been spent on uranium exploration by comparison with, say, oil exploration. (Note: Oil exploration turned up massive reserves in the last 30 years, that have proven greater than expected, prolonging fossil fuel usage for many decades. In the 70s it was feared that we would run out of oil completely, by about 2010.)
|
|
| |
Massive low grade deposits of uranium ore exist, in many places. They are currently not viable to exploit, with prices so depressed. As prices move beyond $40/kg they become increasingly viable.
|
|
| |
Relatively low cost (by comparison with output values) of extraction of uranium means that fuel-grade uranium ore costs about $20/kg. That has climbed recently to about $40/kg, as fears of a shortage of fuel from decommissioned weapons has led to higher prices. (Decommissioned weapons created the glut that drove prices down, as they contain very high grade material, that needs to be diluted to use for fuel) Current extraction and processing costs contribute less than 0.1cents/kWH to the cost of nuclear power generation. Ore production costs could increase to several cents per kWH with little ensuing pressure on power prices, though a reduced margin for generators.
|
|
| |
Uranium is present in seawater and crustal granite in sufficient concentration that it would still be viable for power production at extraction costs in excess of $500/kg. The reason for this is the extraordinarily high energy production to be derived from uranium (in excess of a million times that of fossil fuels, weight for weight)
|
|
| |
At extraction costs of $500/kg, or more, it becomes economical to utilise breeder reactors. They can make uranium from other materials, producing an effectively limitless supply of fuel. |
|
| |
The "limited supply" argument is one that is often trotted out by parties averse to *any* nuclear activity, to discourage public pressure to adopt nuclear power as a viable alternative to current power generation sources. |
|
| |
Of course, unless power generators are compelled to employ much higher rates of CO2 and greenhouse emission sequestration there is no incentive for them to outlay much on nuclear power plants. |
|
| |
//It's cleaner, more containable and produces far fewer byproducts than almost any other chemical fuel source that I can think of, at the moment// |
|
| |
Anyway, [UB], I understood (this was 15 years ago) that, at least in the US, if the cost of de-comissioning and accident clean up is included, then nuclear is one of the most expensive ways to make power. And why should I believe the nulear industry when they try to convince me that the new plants will be different? |
|
| |
We still can't decide where to put our waste, and our government is engaged in covering up problems with proposed storage sites; how am I supposed to trust them? |
|
| |
Shoot it into space, no shortage of space you know... |
|
| |
You need to take a peek at the recent work done on the development of Synroc, since its introduction in 1978-9. |
|
| |
Further research into stable matrices such as pyrochlore and perovskite ceramics indicates that the original snyroc concept, developed by Australia's Ted Ringwood, was on track. Perovskite is the usual host material for long-lived radionuclides such as plutonium from decommissioned military equipment. It is also used for strontium and barium wastes ensuing from medical applications. |
|
| |
Different titanate ceramics are used for storing caesium, rubidium and other nasties like HLW (which is a byproduct of light water reactor fuels). |
|
| |
Borosilicate glass compounds are also showing great promise, as storage matrices for reactor wastes, as are hollandite and other pyrochlore-rich compounds such as Synroc-D. |
|
| |
The original waste loadings of 30% have been increased to percentages ranging from 50-70%, depending upon the waste product, with the ongoing development of pyrochlore-(Ca, Gd, U, Pu, Hf)2 Ti2O7 rich materials. There is also the option of adding neutron-absorbing components from the waste reprocessing outputs to the mix, including gadolinium, samarium and hafnium, to the feedstock, to minimise the risk of spontaneous criticality of the waste, as natural radioactive decay occurs (in case you're wondering about that risk). |
|
| |
Stability of sintered borosilicates appears to be adequate to contain even plutonium and curium isotopes (which decay into plutonium) for sufficient time to neutralise their active phase. |
|
| |
Not all news about the nuclear industry is shock and horror. |
|
| |
[EDj], there are other forms of energy development available, but the marvellous decision makers in OECD governments seem determined to ignore the possibility of wind and tidal power generation as viable alternatives. The technology has therefore been required to concentrate upon mitigation of the effects of nuclear and fossil fuel problems. |
|
| |
You may wish to live in the dark ages, but few share your antediluvian predilections, I suspect. It is therefore necessary to create reality, rather than ignore it. |
|
| |
//how do you propose safeguarding radioactive waste in storage for over 24,000 years? How can you assure that it will remain safely stored that long?// |
|
| |
//We still can't decide where to put our waste, and our government is engaged in covering up problems with proposed storage sites// |
|
| |
Firstly, the pollutants emitted by fossil fuel plants hang around for a hell of a lot longer than 24,000 years. |
|
| |
Secondly, you seem to have no issue with the fact that fossil fuel power emissions are not stored at all, but pumped into our immediate environment where they are taken up by us and everything else that breathes, drinks and eats. How is storing waste somehow *worse* than this? |
|
| |
Thirdly, joule for joule, there is a hell of a lot less nuclear waste produced than fossil fuel waste. This arises from the fact that you need far less in the first place to produce the same amount of power, and the process is far more efficient. |
|
| |
If all industries involved in fossil fuel power - mining, transport, construction and power production - were as careful and regulated as those for nuclear power, then I think we'd have far fewer problems in the first place. |
|
| |
Go back to my anno. We have the technology. What is the problem? |
|
| |
The fervent adherents of the latest major religion of our species... Environmentalism, have managed to bluff most politicians with their rhetoric and dogma. |
|
| |
That's the problem, [Laimak]. |
|
| |
I have yet to meet an informed evironmentalist who is opposed to fusion power. |
|
| |
I have no objection whatsoever to any of the existing fusion power plants. Ha ha. I'm sure people will hate them too if they become a reality. |
|
| |
[Laimak] Read some news reports about France's planned multibillion Euro fusion plant. The last paragraph of the report I read, as best I recall, mentioned that environmentalist groups (translate as 'native sons and daughters') are opposed to the plan because the same billions of Euros put forward by the international community could plant enough wind turbines to power 10 million homes. |
|
| |
//France's planned multibillion Euro fusion plant// It will be built in France, but it won't be "France's". |
|
| |
How woefully American of me ... of course I meant the ITER's planned fusion reactor. As well, it is probably bad form to speak of powering "homes" (implying a village), when what is meant is lower cost electricity available generally across a grid currently supplied by combustion of fossil fuel. |
|
| |
daseva- The only problem with launching nukular (Homer Simpson does it too) waste into space would be the possiblity of an explosion on the launch pad. The resulting fallout would have somewhat negative results. (D'OH!) |
|
| |
Nuclear energy is one of the best alternatives to fossil fuels at the moment. The terrors of nuclear power tend to be exagerated a lot in today's society. Still, despite believing in nuclear power, I would like to see more tidal, solar, or wind power plants. Tidal power gerneration seems to be a very effective power source. Water ebbing and flowing with the tide is used to run turbines. Unfortunately these, with solar and wind, tend to be resisted just as much as nuclear or fossil fuel plants by the public since they can be expensive and are generally not attractive to look at. There was a plan to build a large series of wind mills off the cost of Cape Cod (Massachusetts) to catch the wind but the residents refused as it would lower property values |
|
| |
Tidal power also has interesting effects on local sea ecosystems. |
|
| |
The floating power station has come to
town. + |
|
| |
Can "Interesting" mean "good" or "positive"? |
|
| |
The tidal race between the Coral Sea and the Arafura Sea reaches 13 knots in some places. Shame no-one leves near there, to take advantage of the power it could generate. |
|
| |
After WWII the local electric company met the growing need for electric power by using the diesel engines from Navy PT boats. |
|
| |
I'm for using this idea to power the Kiritimaticentrifugomobile. |
|
| |
I think a nation with nuclear abilities could rig up these ships, then float around selling power to the highest bidder. Actually a shipboard nuclear desalinator could probably be made using a large military ship, and really would be useful - it could provide emergency supplies in drought-stricken areas or disaster zones, and regularly round on desert islands to tank up their drinking water supplies. |
|
| |
Hey bungston, bake that and I guarantee at least one vote for it. |
|
| |