backtop


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

How to do it
By NT78stonewobble on 6/20/2006 5:59:07 AM , Rating: 2
Well In my oppinion nuclear power is very safe.

Not as in 100 % safe, but 99.999 or what ever the number is.

As some have pointed out even the Tjernobyl disaster was also only really dangerous very close.

Thats not to say that people got cancer from tjernobyl or other diseases.

Thats to say that not alot more people got cancer from tjernobyl than would normally get ill.

Still there are issues that needs to be considered before starting a nuclear power project.

First of all, I wouldn't personally want a privately owned company to run the plants.

There should be no cutting costs incentive. Secondarily there should be some kind of tax on the electricity bought from the plants.

The tax would go into a big ass moneybin to draw from should an accident happen and at the very least in the waste disposal.

Actually the nuclear sector and its funding would have to be written into the constitutions.

Thats just my social democrat view on it tho...

PS. IMO theres a slight double standard in not wanting to use nuclear power because its dangerous and driving a car. Car pollution causes gods know how many deaths. Add to that the death toll from carcrashes... Its millions...

PPS. Don't know if it's been mentioned but nuclear "reactors" have existed in nature. There was found a couple 500000 year old ones in africa a few years back. Embedded in granite.





RE: How to do it
By masher2 (blog) on 6/20/2006 8:12:48 AM , Rating: 2
> "but nuclear "reactors" have existed in nature. There was found a couple 500000 year old ones in africa a few years back. Embedded in granite. "

You're probably referring to the one in Gabon....a naturally occurring nuclear reactor that ran for 150 million years...putting out 100,000 watts the whole period.

As an aside, I'd like to point out that the nuclear waste formed by this reactor sat for TWO BILLION YEARS without ever moving more than 3 meters from where it was formed. All fully contained, with no leakage. In a "storage location" that wasn't even designed for isolation and containment...but one that just naturally occurred.

And yet enviro-wackos try to convince us that storing waste safely for a measly 10K years isn't possible.


RE: How to do it
By Kim Leo on 6/20/2006 9:26:29 AM , Rating: 2
you can't really compare a car to a nuclear reactor, the only thing they have in common is that they both pollute..

reading some of these posts sure have thought(teached?) me a couple of things, but are still hoping for other and better solutions. i live en danmark and everything with nuclear written on it, is banned, we still have diesel submarines :D and we produce more energy that we can handle, we sell some of it to our neighbours, i'm not so much into what we have here in Denmark, just know that some of it is windmills, we love them :D.


RE: How to do it
By masher2 (blog) on 6/20/2006 9:42:02 AM , Rating: 2
> " i'm not so much into what we have here in Denmark, just know that some of it is windmills"

About 10% is wind. Over 80% of your power is generated from fossil fuels...mostly from burning oil and imported coal.

Coal-fired electricity generation is, of course, far more polluting than either driving a car or running a nuclear reactor.


RE: How to do it
By NT78stonewobble on 6/21/2006 5:34:58 AM , Rating: 2
Rart med en anden dansker her.

My compason with the car was that, on a large scale, cars do kill thousands if not millions of people every year.

Alone in the USA I think there around 40000 deaths related to car accidents. Then add to that the diseases cause by the cars emissions of heavy metals. Lead and stuff...

Not everything nuclear has been banned from Denmark. I am sad though that they have closed down our Risoe experimental reactor. Afaik we have a nuclear waste problem there. Additionally theres used radioactive materials in the hospitals and the universities.

PS: Thx for the correction on the natural nuclear reactors.


"Young lady, in this house we obey the laws of thermodynamics!" -- Homer Simpson














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki