Page 1 2
Go | New | Find | Notify | Tools | Reply | |
Enjoy Computer Living |
What could possibly go wrong? -Loungechair | |||
|
Member |
"Other than the Earth shattering Kaboom?" asks Marvin ... We are all born ignorant, but one must work hard to remain stupid." ~ Benjamin Franklin. "If anyone in this country doesn't minimise their tax, they want their head read, because as a government, you are not spending it that well, that we should be donating extra...: Kerry Packer SIGForum: the island of reality in an ocean of diarrhoea. | |||
|
| Member |
These are my thought exactly. But we do have many nuclear ships and subs that seem to do fine. | |||
|
Member |
Thanks so much for putting my concerns to rest.   I'm no nuclear researcher or scientist, but I think I'd agree this is likely a very bad idea, one we could all end up reaping the 'fallout' from.----------------------------- Guns are awesome because they shoot solid lead freedom. Every man should have several guns. And several dogs, because a man with a cat is a woman. Kurt Schlichter | |||
|
Seeker of Clarity |
The two most obvious differenced are We vs. They (which has been mentioned) and the great difference in the amount of nuclear fuel (which I'd not yet noticed in this thread). One could reasonably assume they'll have this thing scaled up to produce a massive amount of power. It's size indicates that is so. It's not a garage for the worlds second largest air-force. It's all nuclear power plant. And it appears rather huge.  | |||
|
Lost |
In post-Soviet Russia, atom splits you. | |||
|
| That rug really tied the room together.  |
Looks like a decent idea to me. Any accidents or fires or explosions and the damn thing sinks to the bottom. The ocean contains radiation much better than a Chernobyl. I’d actually like to see nuclear expansion. The worlds top 100 to 200 freighters/tankers should be nuclear powered in my opinion. The amount of oil these ships consume is mind boggling. ______________________________________________________ Often times a very small man can cast a very large shadow | |||
|
Don't Panic |
For one, this thing would probably have more room for backups and spares, not having to dedicate space for planes, fuel, weaponry, ammo, missiles, etc. | |||
|
| Member |
It uses a modified version of the same reactors they already run in Icebreakers and their nuke powered freighter. Not exactly new or untested technology. It's also replacing an old Soviet Era graphite-moderated nuke plant. So the total safety is probably going up quite a bit. At least the Russians are actually doing something about power production rather than messing around with Solar plants (Ivanpah) that barely work and windmills that can't be scaled. | |||
|
| Big Stack |
Not to mention nuclear submarines. They have lots of those. And they've disposed of a lot of the earlier generations of them... ... badly.
| |||
|
Prince of Cats |
They must not get episodes of Deadliest Catch in Russia. | |||
|
thin skin can't win |
I agree, though I'd rather it never be active. I'd love to see more details on the construction and operation.. You only have integrity once. - imprezaguy02 | |||
|
Drill Here, Drill Now |
The billion dollar question is what happens to the hull when they moor it over winter (BTW, in the arctic that is September thru mid-June) to power remote coastal cities in the arctic circle? If you look at the pic in the OP's post, it's sitting on two barges not an ice breaker. I found this article on Yahoo stating that the destination port is Pevek which is in the arctic circle and they're not going around "the horn" (aka the Chukotka Peninsula) into the sub-arctic region. A few years ago, a Finnish ice breaker leased to Shell for their drilling campaign in the Alaska side of the Chukchi Sea (aka the same sea in the Arctic Ocean the floating Russian nuclear power plant is heading) managed to get a 1 meter long hull breach. In '81, Canada even managed to sink an icebreaker. If that can happen to a Finnish and Canadian ice breakers, imagine what can happen to a Russian barge? Ego is the anesthesia that deadens the pain of stupidity DISCLAIMER: These are the author's own personal views and do not represent the views of the author's employer. | |||
|
Member |
We don't keep our nuclear powered ships and subs tethered to a fixed location all winter surrounded by ice. | |||
|
| Big Stack |
Just a thought, and I don't know how this will work. If it's a pressure water design, it's going to have a secondary cooling loop that's going to be used to generate steam for the turbines. This is going to need a condenser. That waste heat could be used to melt any ice that might try and build up around it.
| |||
|
| No, not like Bill Clinton  |
From the makers of the Trabant | |||
|
Member |
It'll come from beneath the sea … ____________________ | |||
|
| Drill Here, Drill Now |
Assuming (and it's a BIG assumption as the arctic ocean is a huge heat sink) that the heat can be used to melt the ice, what happens during unplanned downtime (pump failure, pipe leak, switchgear blowing on electric pump, etc)? The Russians aren't known for their redundancy and when (not if) it goes down it's crushing time on the barges and they will be faced with a nuclear reactor sinking with water temps that make personnel survival time very short. Can they shut it off in a controlled manner before abandoning? Ego is the anesthesia that deadens the pain of stupidity DISCLAIMER: These are the author's own personal views and do not represent the views of the author's employer. | |||
|
| Powered by Social Strata | Page 1 2 |
 | Please Wait. Your request is being processed... |
|
© SIGforum 2024