Floating Nuclear Power Station 437
angrysponge writes "
Russia to Build World's First Floating Nuclear Power Station for $200,000. I don't know what impresses me more, the engineering chutzpah or low-ball pricetag." From the article: "The mini-station will be located in the White Sea, off the coast of the town of Severodvinsk (in the Arkhangelsk region in northern Russia). It will be moored near the Sevmash plant, which is the main facility of the State Nuclear Shipbuilding Center. The FNPP will be equipped with two power units using KLT-40S reactors. The plant will meet all of Sevmash's energy requirements for just 5 or 6 cents per kilowatt. If necessary, the plant will also be able to supply heat and desalinate seawater."
European Water (Score:5, Insightful)
Funny that I can't find the word "safety" in the whole article.
Re:European Water (Score:2, Funny)
Re:European Water (Score:5, Funny)
Oh, wait.
Re:European Water (Score:3, Funny)
"safety"? Bah. (Score:2, Funny)
Re:European Water (Score:5, Funny)
Re:European Water (Score:5, Insightful)
Its people like you who have no understanding of the state of the technology these days that are holding the world back. There are far more factories producing loads of toxic chemicals in the world then there are nuclear plants, and they typically don't have to have nearly as high standards of safety. I'm not flaming its just that Nuclear power generation technology has progressed a long way since chernobyl.
Re:European Water (Score:3, Interesting)
Radioactive half-life does NOT mean that in 20,000 years the radiation will automagically disappear -- it only means that just half of the radioactivity will be gone in that time. It might take 10 iterations
Re:European Water (Score:5, Insightful)
Repeat after me: Nuclear power technology c.2005 is not nuclear power technology c. 1950
Re:European Water (Score:3, Insightful)
Just goes to show it pays to be skeptical...
B.
Re:European Water (Score:5, Informative)
The University of Pittsburgh put out an excellent free book on the "Nuclear Energy Option". It not only gives an excellent breakdown of the risk and benefits of nuclear power from a scientific standpoint, but it does an excellent comparison against other (heavily-used) technologies. It can be found here here [pitt.edu]
The most interesting chapter does a direct comparison of risk from high-level nuclear waste against other toxins introduced to the environment by manufacturing. Quote:
If nuclear power was used to the fullest practical extent in the United States, we would need about 300 power plants of the type now in use. The waste produced each year would then be enough to kill (300 x 50 million =) over 10 billion people. I have authored over 250 scientific papers over the past 35 years presenting tens of thousands of pieces of data, but that "over lO billion" number is the one most frequently quoted. Rarely quoted, however, are the other numbers given along with it11: we produce enough chlorine gas each year to kill 400 trillion people, enough phosgene to kill 20 trillion, enough ammonia and hydrogen cyanide to kill 6 trillion with each, enough barium to kill 100 billion, and enough arsenic trioxide to kill 10 billion. All of these numbers are calculated, as for the radioactive waste, on the assumption that all of it gets into people. I hope these comparisons dissolve the fear that, in generating nuclear electricity, we are producing unprecedented quantities of toxic materials.
Although I would be one of the first in line to adopt solar, hydro or hydrogen energy approaches, none are feasible on a global scale. My belief is that nuclear is the best choice if we can just get beyond everyone's fear of it.
The Real Threat (Score:3, Insightful)
The quote fails to mention something. It says how many people the waste could kill. It doesn't mention how many would die if a bomb or meltdown went off, how many generations it would affect, how long the land would remain sterile, etc. It also doesn't mention how many people can be
Re:European Water (Score:3, Informative)
1) Almost every (note: not every. There are some anti-proliferation designs out there) uranium-fired reactor can double as a weapons materials production facility. High energy neutrons impacting U-238 produce plutonium.
2) The "largest accident" involving a "properly designed commercial power reactor" depends on what you call a "properly designed reactor". Here's just the briefest introduction [wikipedia.org] into nuclear power accidents in history (note: only about a third of the e
A few minor corrections (Score:3)
Mostly good information, but I wanted to clear up a few things, at least from the perspective of my nuke plant (Operates as a baseload unit in a de-regulated state).
1. We make tons of money, and we recieve no subsidies. Everytime we buy fuel, we pay into a fund that goes towards long-term
Re:Russian engineering (Score:3, Insightful)
Come to think of it, the US has had its fair share of nukular fuckups as well - Three Mile Island, or google for lost nuclear weapons ...
Re:European Water (Score:5, Interesting)
First off, assuming the reactor is actually capable of melting down (most modern designs aren't), the pile will melt through the bottom of the hull, fall down to the ocean floor, and then melt through that until it is spent. Uranium is quite a bit denser than water.
Secondly, it's already happened. Decades ago, the Soviets had a nuclear-powered icebreaker that had a meltdown, in the Bearing Sea, if I remember.
"You can't stop water from spreading to the rest of the world."
Yes, you can. I can't speak for the particular spot where this reactor will be placed, but there are large swaths of ocean where little or no mixing occurs, due to the influence of ocean and atmospheric currents. The Southern Ocean, for example, is pretty well cut-off from water in the Indian, Pacific and Atlantic oceans by circumpolar winds and currents.
As for vertical mixing (i. e. after the core has sunk to the bottom), this is even easier to accomplish. Except for near convection-causing volcanic vents, deeper water is cold and likes to stay down, and shallower water is warm and likes to stay up. Any sufficiently experienced submariner and many scuba divers can tell you about thermoclines.
Re:European Water (Score:5, Interesting)
There are at least fifty unclassified floating nuclear power stations around the world today. They're called Navy aircraft carriers.
Not to mention the hundered or so location-classified nuclear submarines floating about. Not Boomers, though those are generally nuclear powered as well. Nuclear spy subs, armed with simple chemical warheads.
(Note: I'm an ex Navy Nuclear Machinist Mate, and my statements are about as authoritative on this as you're going to get on Slashdot)
There have been no nuclear power accidents on navy vessels. None. And I would not be surprised if the powerstations are of a modified naval design. There are a number of ex navy engineers floating around and while they're not allowed to give away operational secrets (amount of fuel, specific design, etc) to civies, there's no regulation about designing a derivative plant, as long as the important things are changed.
Which, of course, you'd have to do to change from a nuke drive plant to a nuke amp-only plant. Different torque, heat, pressure requirements.
"When" there's a meltdown is a misnomer. Anymore, you don't get to put a nuclear design into production with any cutting of the corners (the number one cause of design failure is not building exactly to design). Modern fission plant designs are "Walk-away safe", meaning that the can run, unmanned, until their fuel runs out.
Additionally, if anything goes out of tolerance - the steam getting too hot, the coolant clogging, a sensor going out, anything - the mediator rods drop and the heavy water is flushed for normal water, then drained (effectively shutting the plant down until it can be "manually" restarted).
And don't count on some inscrupulous company deciding to surreptitiously cut corners and build under spec; the threat of meltdown on land is too great for any company to take. Threatening it on water is *far* worse, even with the salt in the water.
Which brings the question of your concern. A large volume of stagnant seawater (about 100 galons per gram of radioactive material for a full-on meltdown) is sufficient to break alpha and beta radiation down to non-dangerous levels in the space of a few years. For alpha, the salts capture the neutrons pretty readily becoming heavy but low-radiation isotopes, while the neutrons' kinetic energy is distributed by the movement of said salt ions (ie: the atoms don't shatter because of the weak lattices formed between salt ions and water ions). Something similar happens with beta radiation, but causing some greater problems; trace amounts of posionous chemicals are produced in the process. Since the actual mass involved is so big to so small, the ppm count is low, but it's still potentially problematic.
Meanwhile, in the ocean, you don't have stagnant water, you have moving water. Kinda like moving in a pool cools you off more quickly, the motion of the water helps to finish the fallout before it reaches your shores.
In short: I wouldn't worry about a well-off-shore plant melting down, and even if it did, the fallout would hardly be global. I would, however, want it a few miles away from *my* coast, just in case.
First? (Score:5, Insightful)
MOD PARENT UP (Score:2)
Power Station? (Score:2)
Not very clear, but with a bit of qualification then their point probably stands.
Makes me wonder about htat little reactor that powered the US antartic ops.. It was probably on a boat yet did provide power to buildings and research facilities.
Re:Power Station? (Score:2)
Re:Power Station? (Score:3, Interesting)
A simple turn 1/4 turn of a single rheostat on t
Re:First? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:First? (Score:5, Interesting)
We put nuclear power plants to sea all the time. Our aircraft carriers, our submarines, for the most part have gone completely nuclear. Why not, the military uses them. Let's take a look at this. 5 or 6 cents per kilowatt...daaaannnnng.
Heck, even if we don't use these as permanant plants, how about having a few of them as floaters, for rent to cities/owners of the power grid as needed? Oh, having an excessive heat wave $CITY ? Here, for $x.xx/kilowatt, with a minimum purchase of $XX,XXX, we'll add power to your grid.
Seriously...let's take a look at this.
Re:First? (Score:2)
You mean 1/150?
Add to that, the 200 grand isn't the entire cost. For instance, a quick google of the project reveals that they are paying the Chinese [bellona.no]
Depends on your definition... (Score:5, Informative)
As a very crude but hopefully useful analogy, imagine you had a lot of very heavily waterlogged and thus incombustible wood, a coal-fired heater, and a relatively small amount of coal. You use the heat from the coal to dry out the wood. You haven't violated the laws of thermodynamics, but you've got yourself a whole lot more useful fuel. And you can use the burning dried wood to dry some more wood, and so on.
Now, this isn't some kind of perpetual motion machine. Once you've burned the plutonium (the dried wood), you can't burn it again. But there is so much waterlogged wood (U-238) that we're not going to run out for a very, very, very long time.
Hydrogen wells... (Score:2, Interesting)
Eeentaresting...
long range power grid feeding (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:long range power grid feeding (Score:2, Funny)
Re:long range power grid feeding (Score:2)
Re:long range power grid feeding (Score:2)
There would likely be none, being that "fallout" is radioactive particulate matter precipitating out of the air. You only get that from a) low-altitude atmospheric nuclear warhead detonations, or b) old-school Soviet-type plant design and operation stupidity, i.e. building a graphite moderated core and then tu
Re:long range power grid feeding (Score:5, Interesting)
"Run on Win ME" springs to mind, or maybe "Expensive Claptrap" perhaps.
Oh.. and by the way moving energy around is the single most energy extensive thing done in the US, accounting for over 1/2 of the energy generated. You'd be better off finding a way to generate the energy where you use it.
Heh... (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Heh... (Score:2)
Re:Heh... (Score:2)
These guys haven't built one. It sounds like they haven't even got anyone convinced to finance it yet. The sales pitch is great, but perhaps we should treat it with a little skepticism initially.
It might cost more and do less than advertised.
Re:Heh... (Score:2)
No one said it was WORTH that. Just a small joke at the expense of DoD -- hey if they pay over $600 for a toilet seat, the toilet should be pretty expensive too.
Actual point of my post is that there is a difference in nature (and cost!) of a nuclear sub vs a power plant powering a city (200,000 is a small city, but
Re:Heh... (Score:3, Insightful)
In other words, the cost of 200k is just the downpayment--your installment plan will kick in when the Chechens blow your terrorist honeypot skyhigh.
Yes, because, you know, terrorists could never attack a US military vessel [wikipedia.org]
Besides, if you bothered
Oh damn... (Score:5, Funny)
Safety (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Safety (Score:2)
Re:Safety (Score:3, Insightful)
Interesting power delivery concept. (Score:2)
too good to be true (Score:2)
Re:too good to be true (Score:2)
It's easy to save money -- (Score:5, Funny)
First? (Score:5, Informative)
How about the Sturgis [army.mil], a "440-foot-long World War II Liberty ship that the Army converted into a floating 45-megawatt nuclear power plant."
More about Unique Reactors [doe.gov]
Re:First? (Score:2)
Re:First? (Score:5, Informative)
2008: The Floating Reactor (the Severodvinsk Reactor)
In 2008, if all goes according to plan, the world's first commercial floating nuclear power plant will be ready to begin operation... Pravda, the Russian news publication, reported the project was approved by the head of the Ministry for Nuclear Power, Alexander Rumyantsev. Sevmash Enterprise, which specializes in submarine construction, will build the vessel. Rosenergoatom, the Russian nuclear firm, will supply the reactors. Two such floating power stations are planned, each anticipated to cost $100 to $120 million. The first one will supply power to the city of Severodvinsk, approximately 50 miles west of Archangel.
Looks like TFA was wrong by several orders of magnitude on this one....
$200K??? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:$200K??? (Score:2)
Not that I disagree with you, I'm just saying...
Re:$200K??? (Score:5, Funny)
You're suggesting that the Russian Federal Nuclear Energy Agency (government) is being subsidized by the government?
-b
Misprint (Score:5, Informative)
So I guess it is a misprint.
Today's Nuclear Power (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Today's Nuclear Power (Score:5, Insightful)
Sorry for the sarcasm; I'd really like to see something replace our fossil fuel dependencies, and I'm even willing to consider the long-term problems that nuke plants saddle us with in exchange for it.
But many people are deathly afraid of the idea with good reason: when nuke plants fail they fail really, really badly. And the people who are telling us they're safe now told us the same things when they built the first generation of nuke plants.
So what I'm saying is: I'm willing to be convinced, but it'll take a lot of work.
Re:Today's Nuclear Power (Score:2, Interesting)
Well, I doubt it, although perhaps I am being overly cynical with respect to you personally.
My experience is that all that is required for people to rapidly abandon principle is a steep rise in the expense of maintaining that principle. It's amazing how clever people are about talking themselves into a new universal principle when the old one runs up against sheer basic personal need.
So, let the price of electricity from fossil fuels rise a factor
Re:Today's Nuclear Power (Score:3, Interesting)
That's from the book: that line didn't make it to the movie.
Re:Today's Nuclear Power (Score:2)
Re:Today's Nuclear Power (Score:3, Insightful)
Really? Compared to what? Large hydroelectric dams?
How many people were killed at Three Mile Island? ZERO.
The U.S. nuclear power industry has been operating for over 50 years without ONE fatality to a member of the general public.
Hydro, coal, and oil cannot say the same.
Re:Today's Nuclear Power (Score:3, Insightful)
But many people are deathly afraid of the idea with good reason: when nuke plants fail they fail really, really badly. And the people who are telling us they're safe now told us the same things when they built the first generation of nuke plants.
Search and replace:
But many people are deathly afraid of the idea with good reason: when airplanes fail they fail really, really badly. And the people who are telling us they're safe now told us the same things when they built the first generation of airplane
Re:Today's Nuclear Power (Score:3, Insightful)
France's Nuclear Plants are on the German border (Score:2, Funny)
Plus if the Germans ever invade again, they can just pop out the drain plugs and hop on the TGV to San Tropez.
Re:Today's Nuclear Power (Score:2)
Re:Today's Nuclear Power (Score:2)
That would have been Superphoenix [wikipedia.org], the sodium cooled fast breeder reactor. It was an experimental reactor, not a production unit. Besides, no one died in any of the leaks. Compare that to the number of people dying thanks to coal dust every day. Bet you do not see those in the news.
It is like Stalin said: The death of one man is a tragedy, the death of millions is a statist
Nuclear Power (Score:2)
The earlier technologies were like playing with matches, the newer stuff like pebble bed reactors are like a small campfire.
We're getting there, gradually.
Re:Today's Nuclear Power (Score:2)
Sure, people are aware of the big ones like 3-mile and Chernobyl, but there are thousands of accidents that have already happened. It's quite common, for example, for a reactor to leak a couple of thousands of tons of irratiated water from the plant'
Re:Today's Nuclear Power (Score:3, Insightful)
The reason we are storing the so called "waste" is that most of it is actually precious unburned fuel, in the form of plutonium and uranium.
Re:Today's Nuclear Power (Score:3, Insightful)
You do? What radioactive byproducts do we produce that's both dangerously radioactive and remains that way for such a long time? Or did you just pick a random large number that sounded good?
Re:Today's Nuclear Power (Score:5, Insightful)
You ask if I would be willing to have a nuclear waste repository in my backyard? Actually, it wouldn't bother me a bit. Unlike some people, I geneally try not to be unreasonably afraid of things that aren't going to harm me. The new reactors are safe, and the way that they are planning on storing the material is safe.
Have you ever looked at the plans for Yucca Mountain? It isn't just a shoddy, half-assed government project like many people have come to expect. The material is buried almost literally in the heart of the mountain, in living stone? Do you know what that means? The rock is still growing and chaning. The tunnels in the Yucca Mountain complex are slowly sinking down, to eventually seal off the material even more than we will have already done so. The containers are made to be highly corrosion resistant, and did I mention that it is in the middle of nowhere?
It is one thing to fear something. It is quite another to have a baseless, irrational fear of the same thing.
Radiation shielding (Score:3, Interesting)
Floating? (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Floating? (Score:2)
Hehe, one big benefit I can see is portability - the plant is built in one spot and tugged to its location and, if need be, can be moved to another location. US been talking about reactors like this mounted on trucks for same reason (was on
Other benefit is easy acccess to salt water for desalinization, which is another service this plant provides.
Re:Floating? (Score:2)
Fitting location (Score:5, Interesting)
My wife's uncle used to serve as chief engineer on Soviet and later Russian nuclear submarines. He still lives near Severodvinsk and says that the overall radiation level at those sites is higher than in Chernobyl. He managed to have two healthy children and asked both of them to study and work somewhere else.
Thats because (Score:2)
More info on the KLT-40S (Score:5, Informative)
* A floating nuclear power plant design, under development by OKBM in Russia, uses the KLT-40s reactor system, and involves a "special-purpose non-self-propelled ship" (a barge) intended for operation in a protected water area. There are plans to build a nuclear heat and power generating plant with a floating power-generating unit in the area of Pevek, Chukot Peninsula, in northeastern Siberia, and in Severodvinsk (Archangelsk region). The technical and economic characteristics of this power plant are:
* Electric power - 60 MW
* Heat output - 50 Gcal/h
* Number of reactor systems and main turbogenerators - 2
* Overall plant lifetime - 40 years
These power plants are multipurpose in terms of possible applications, since they provide electric power generation while also providing heat supply for various purposes, including seawater desalination.
[Source: Georgy M. Antonovsky (Chief Specialist, OKBM-the Experimental and Design Bureau of Mechanical Engineering, in Nizhny Novgorod, Russia) et al., Table IV - "Technical and economic characteristics of a floating nuclear power station with the KLT-40s", in "PWR-type reactors developed by OKBM", Nuclear News, March 2002, p. 33]
* The KLT-40s is based on the KLT-40, which the US DOE has called a proven, commercially available, small PWR system because its design is based entirely on the nuclear steam supply system used in Russian icebreakers. The KLT-40 is a portable, floating, nuclear power plant intended mainly for electric power generation, but it also possesses the capability for desalination or heat production. The reactor core is cooled by forced circulation of pressurized water during normal operation, but in all emergency modes, the design relies mainly on natural convection in the primary and secondary coolant loops.
The KLT-40 is mounted on a barge, complete with the nuclear reactor, steam turbines, and other support facilities. It is designed to be transported to a remote location and connected to the energy distribution system in a manner similar to the Mobile High Power nuclear power plant operated by the U.S. Army in the 1970s. The designer and supplier of the KLT-40 is the Russian Special Design Bureau for Mechanical Engineering (OKBM).
Fuel for the KLT-40 is a uranium-aluminum metal alloy clad with a zirconium alloy. 200 kg of U-235 gives a core power density of 155 kW per liter on average (that's relatively high for a reactor, according to the DOE report), and the fuel may be high-enriched uranium (U-235 content at or above 20 percent). The fuel assembly structure and manufacturing technology are proven, and its reliability has been verified by the long-term operation of similar cores.
The KLT-40's primary system involves four coolant pumps feeding four steam generators. The secondary system uses two turbogenerators with condensate pumps, main and standby feed pumps, and two steam condensers. As much as 35 MWt energy can be transferred from the condensers to a desalination plant via an intermediate circuit.
The KLT-40 includes a steel containment vessel designed to withstand overpressure conditions. A passive-pressure suppression system condenses steam that might escape into the containment building.
The KLT-40 has a variety of "inherent safety characteristics". One involves the prodigious use of "burnable poison" in the fuel such that cold shutdowns are assured (because any increase in core temperature results in a lowering of core power -- it's what's called having a large negative temperature coefficient for the reactor core).
The KLT-40 is designed using a plug-and-play philosophy. It gets built at the factory and is able to be transported over water to remote locations. Although the KLT-40 requires refueling every two to three years, the transportability of the entire plant to maintenance centers provides enhanced pro
Back when I was a lad ... (Score:5, Funny)
Atlantic Generating Station (Score:2)
I would think that the USA... (Score:2)
Re:I would think that the USA... (Score:2)
Iris identification? (Score:2)
Haven't those guys seen this movie? [imdb.com]
Leakage (Score:2)
Hot Water (Score:5, Insightful)
And any reporter who doesn't realize that a "kilowatt" is a rate of energy over time has zero credibility - they're a PR agent. They're selling nuclear power that's "too cheap to measure", which we all know is the kind of like that sells nukes to people who spend the rest of our lives paying for the construction, security and cleanups.
Two comments (Score:2, Interesting)
2) I feel that there are serious safety and environmental issues with this approach. Unfortunately the typical way of doing things seems to be to blithely ignore risks until they actually materialise (read: until things go wrong).
2.a) First issue: containment
the things you get for free... (Score:5, Funny)
"If necessary, the plant will also be able to supply heat and desalinate seawater."
Presumably supplying heat by, er, going critical and blowing up, desalinating seawater by, er, vaporising it and turning it into an enormous cloud of steam?
No funding yet (Score:2)
An evil scheme! (Score:2, Funny)
Why? So he can hold the world to ransom with his stolen evil floating nuclear power plant!!
In Russia, everything is "world's first" (Score:2)
Re:I Guess... (Score:5, Insightful)
Just because you say nuclear energy is a bad idea doesn't make it so -- and of the alternatives, they either do far worse environmental damage or cannot practically be scaled to meet demand.
Re:I Guess... (Score:3, Insightful)
Totally, Hiroshima was bombed intentionally... There was nothing accidental about it.
Re:I Guess... (Score:5, Insightful)
Many people are against Nuclear plants because of Chernobyl. Did you know that a coal plant releases more radiation outside its walls than a nuclear plant?
I guess it's people like you that are the reason no new plants (in the U.S.) have been built in decades.
Re:I Guess... (Score:5, Insightful)
Driving cars will never be completely safe either. The question is whether nuclear power can be made safe enough that the benefits outweigh the risks. Unfortunately, it is very difficult for the layman to evaluate those risks, so we either (i) say (rather illogically) that there are no circumstances where nuclear power can ever be justified; or (ii) have to rely on the word of experts who are usually not impartial.
Right now, in most countries, nuclear power seems not to be justified economically, and (while alternative energy sources usually also have a very negative environmental impact) nuclear power produces some seriously polluting byproducts. If those issues can be addressed, I would definitely be willing to consider the arguments as to the risks.
Don't be stupid. (Score:5, Insightful)
By your logic, you must have burned to death this morning when the highly-flamable gasoline in your car spontaneously (1) leaked onto you and your children, and (2) caught fire, killing you almost instantly - because, as we all know - "gasoline power is not and never will be safe."
Also, you can burn to death if you climb into the oven - so we'd better ban them all. Same for power drills, so you won't accidentally give yourself another lobotomy.
My point is that there are a great number of very well designed machines and equipment in our lives that have nasty reactions or principals in their operation. Those devices are, however, designed to contain or negate the hazards.
Coal power plants burn coal and release carbon dioxide, sulphur, soot and - yes, radiation - directly into the air that you breathe. (FYI, coal plants release more radiation from the coal they burn than nuclear plants, which are designed to internalise all radioactive materials). They pollute and contribute to cancer rates by design.
Strangely nobody (ie: you) seems to really care about coal pollution since burning coal on the fire is an understandable technology that someone can do in their own back yard and never killed nobody (except thousands of coal miners over the centuries, but who cares since we can't see them). Unlike nuclear technology which contains the world "nuclear" in the title and will therefore definitely turn large swathes of the country into a post-Little Boy Hiroshima within 15 seconds of being turned on.
But in reality, nuclear power plants are designed to contain radiation (duh). The old designs were still safe by most measures, but modern pebble-bed nuclear reactor designs take it to extremes. (1) they're far simpler than old pile designs and (2) they're *physically unable* to melt down and go critical - even if the cooling fluid is pumped out completely. The electrical output will drop off and will just.. sit there. Happily doing nothing. Aww, lookkit it. It's happy. Wave back.
If you jump naked into the nuclear reactor core, yes, you'd have some fatal health problems - but the same would happen if you jumped into a conventional furnace.
Please get over your irrational fears.
Re:Adantage? (Score:2, Informative)
After 12 years, it would be towed back home, leaving no nuclear materials behind. It's like selling fish instead of fishing nets.
it's a bomb in disguise. (Score:2)
I suspect chernobyl probably got close to that power output, just not for very long.
Re:it's a bomb in disguise. (Score:2)
>I suspect chernobyl probably got close to that power output, just not for very long.
I suspect chernobyl was capable of outputting an awful lot more. Oxfordshire has a plain old coal fired power station that is rated at 2GW.
Re:expensive (Score:2)
I hope they mean kilowatt-hour otherwise that is pretty damn expensive
Just pay your electricity in euro/dollar hours and you'll be fine
sink it (Score:2)
Re:Meltdown ain't the safety issue.. (Score:5, Informative)
Final point, NEVER, EVER use absolute statements to make a point as exceptions will always bite you in the ass.
Re:Meltdown ain't the safety issue.. (Score:3, Interesting)
> the faster it decays.
Well, yes, and into what?
The Chernobyl exclusion zone has now been extended because -- after these few years -- some of the the highly radioactive fallout that was relatively safe isotopes of highly radioactive elements -- for example alpha emitters -- have now decayed.
And changed thereby, some of them, into longer lived and yet more dangerous beta and gamma emitting isotopes.
Alphas are stopped by tissue paper, you know, even a lot of them don't
Not as bad as other stuff (Score:4, Informative)
Now compare that to, say, chemical waste such as mercury or lead from disposed batteries, or polycyclic aromatics from the smokestacks of coal plants. Mercury and lead are dangerous in exceedingly small quantities (which is why leaded gasoline was banned -- even the tiny amount in the vapor of gasoline is dangerous). Polycyclic aromatics can cause cancer forever -- they never get less dangerous. And so on.
Put it simply: of all the waste control and disposal issues presented to us by technology, radioactive waste probably does not actually rank near the top. It may be prominent in public discussion primarily because of its unfamiliarity, and because we are fully committed already to the technology (e.g. electronics) that generates chemical waste, whereas we thought in the era of cheap oil that we could do without nuclear power.