Print 76 comment(s) - last by RLR.. on Jul 10 at 8:01 PM

The floating nuclear reactors would provide power and heat to Arctic regions

Russia's Atomic Power Agency and an Arctic military shipbuilding plant have both agreed to build the world's first commercial floating nuclear fission reactor, which should be in use in as early as 2010.  The first floating reactor that Rosenergoatom and Sevmash build is estimated to cost around $336 million -- it will be deployed in a remote, sparsely-populated region on Siberia's northern coast, where electric and thermal supply is very limited.  Russian president Vladimir Putin hopes to bump the nation's electricity generated by nuclear reactors from 17 percent to 25 percent.   

Although Russian authorities believe floating nuclear plants are safe, not everyone is as supportive.  Environmentalists like Charles Digges, editor of a Norwegian and Russian arctic nuclear publication, believes that floating nuclear plants are "absolutely unsafe - inherently so."  However, the head of Russia's Federal Atomic Power Agency has dismissed all criticism while saying that there will not be a floating Chernobyl incident.

Nuclear fission isn't the only game in town anymore.  ITER, JT-60 and EAST are all racing to increase the world's knowledge on nuclear fusion as well.

Comments     Threshold

This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

RE: good idea
By RMSe17 on 6/19/2006 8:44:49 AM , Rating: 2
"it's not dangerous anymore and Chernobyl can't happen again as long as they use modern designs which they will. "

Chernobyl design power plants are safe anyway. You do realize that Chernobyl power plant has been and still is operational? The meltdown occurred at one of the tree reactors, so while one is "shut down" (or more like.. oozed out), the other two are still providing energy to the regions around the station.

The design is that good, even after a reactor meltdown, the other two continue to work flawlessly.

By the way, the reason why one of the reactors melted down was not flawed design either, it was because of the stupidity of the operators who manually deactivated several automated security features in order to run a test to see how far the reactor can really go. The operators thought they could provide all the safety needed, and had no need for automated security of the reactor. Unfortunately they were very wrong. Had they not turned off the full functionality of the reactor, the incident would never have happened.

RE: good idea
By peternelson on 6/19/2006 8:49:26 AM , Rating: 2

If you build a city like New Orleans BELOW sea level, that is an accident waiting to happen. Build your cities on higher ground.

The earth's water and/or ice levels has changed vastly over time. It WILL fluctuate. Current rising levels may actually have nothing to do with CO2 levels, if it does affect it this could simply accelerate what will happen anyway.

Wasting millions of dollars rebuilding New Orleans in the SAME place is one of the craziest things I've seen. The flooding was a great opportunity for a fresh start (using insurance and government aid), and they seem to miss it.

Building walls will not keep back the sea forever.

RE: good idea
By wiiz3rd on 6/19/2006 9:24:36 AM , Rating: 2
It'll probably take another Katrina for city planners to abandon ship.

"Game reviewers fought each other to write the most glowing coverage possible for the powerhouse Sony, MS systems. Reviewers flipped coins to see who would review the Nintendo Wii. The losers got stuck with the job." -- Andy Marken

Copyright 2016 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki