Why. that sounds like a complete and utter disaster in the making :icon14:Rosatom openly began marketing the idea of FNPPs more than a decade ago as the only viable solution to the energy crunch plaguing Russia's hard-to-reach northern and eastern territories, where harsh weather and a lack of roads make deliveries of coal and oil inefficient if not impossible.
The best model the agency could come up with was a gutted and expanded version of a Soviet-era nuclear icebreaker ship. There is no new technology involved, just an extra nuclear reactor that brings the barge's power output to 70MW, roughly enough for a settlement of up to 200,000 people.
Besides highly classified naval nuclear technology, the ship's most prized possession is also the biggest cause for concern: roughly a ton of uranium-235, enriched anywhere from 20 to 60 percent.
Floating nuclear powerplants
Floating nuclear powerplants
http://www.exile.ru/2007-May-04/radioac ... otsam.html
-
SplishSplash
- Posts: 4467
- Joined: Sun Dec 03, 2000 8:00 am
-
GONNAFISTYA
- Posts: 13369
- Joined: Sun Jan 23, 2005 8:20 pm
-
Nightshade
- Posts: 17020
- Joined: Fri Dec 01, 2000 8:00 am
I'm verrrrrrry wary of anything the Rooskies want to do involving nuclear power, but Splish is right, it's the way to go. Coal plants are the biggest sources of carbon emissions and they've got to go. Right before I graduated I attended a few presentations given by executives in the nuclear power and nuclear power services industry and the whole sector is really taking off. Now if we could just get the US government to ignore the fucking hippies and let us start recycling fuel rods we'd be off to the races.
For those that don't know, pretty much every other nuclear power on the planet recycles their fuel rods and gets loads more use out of them. The US doesn't because of completely ignorant tree huggers bitching about nuclear waste disposal. The irony is that recycling reduces the waste produced by a huge factor, both in volume and radiation hazard level.
For those that don't know, pretty much every other nuclear power on the planet recycles their fuel rods and gets loads more use out of them. The US doesn't because of completely ignorant tree huggers bitching about nuclear waste disposal. The irony is that recycling reduces the waste produced by a huge factor, both in volume and radiation hazard level.
-
+JuggerNaut+
- Posts: 22175
- Joined: Sun Oct 14, 2001 7:00 am
I'm all for nuclear power, but I don't think Splish is quite right. Excessive use of nuclear power generates a lot of water vapor, which is also a greenhouse gas. The best power source to combat global climate change would be wind or solar, of course, but if nuclear reduces the use of coal, go for it.
*hugs Monticello nuclear plant*
*hugs Monticello nuclear plant*
eh? water vapour isn't a gas, greenhouse or otherwisewerldhed wrote:I'm all for nuclear power, but I don't think Splish is quite right. Excessive use of nuclear power generates a lot of water vapor, which is also a greenhouse gas. The best power source to combat global climate change would be wind or solar, of course, but if nuclear reduces the use of coal, go for it.
*hugs Monticello nuclear plant*
-
Nightshade
- Posts: 17020
- Joined: Fri Dec 01, 2000 8:00 am
The water vapor thing aside, given the energy densities of wind and solar power sources, I don't believe it's possible to rely primarily on them for the world's energy needs.werldhed wrote:I'm all for nuclear power, but I don't think Splish is quite right. Excessive use of nuclear power generates a lot of water vapor, which is also a greenhouse gas. The best power source to combat global climate change would be wind or solar, of course, but if nuclear reduces the use of coal, go for it.
*hugs Monticello nuclear plant*
Yeah, I meant to include that point in my post. In terms of global warming, they are better options, but we're a long way off from being able to rely completely on them.Nightshade wrote:The water vapor thing aside, given the energy densities of wind and solar power sources, I don't believe it's possible to rely primarily on them for the world's energy needs.werldhed wrote:I'm all for nuclear power, but I don't think Splish is quite right. Excessive use of nuclear power generates a lot of water vapor, which is also a greenhouse gas. The best power source to combat global climate change would be wind or solar, of course, but if nuclear reduces the use of coal, go for it.
*hugs Monticello nuclear plant*
Uh... yes...seremtan wrote:eh? water vapour isn't a gas, greenhouse or otherwisewerldhed wrote:I'm all for nuclear power, but I don't think Splish is quite right. Excessive use of nuclear power generates a lot of water vapor, which is also a greenhouse gas. The best power source to combat global climate change would be wind or solar, of course, but if nuclear reduces the use of coal, go for it.
*hugs Monticello nuclear plant*
Steam is the gas phase of water. And it has more heat-trapping potential than methane or CO2.
then shouldnt we develop solartech more than it is now?Nightshade wrote:The water vapor thing aside, given the energy densities of wind and solar power sources, I don't believe it's possible to rely primarily on them for the world's energy needs.werldhed wrote:I'm all for nuclear power, but I don't think Splish is quite right. Excessive use of nuclear power generates a lot of water vapor, which is also a greenhouse gas. The best power source to combat global climate change would be wind or solar, of course, but if nuclear reduces the use of coal, go for it.
*hugs Monticello nuclear plant*
we could use the money we put aside to build more nuclears !
-
SplishSplash
- Posts: 4467
- Joined: Sun Dec 03, 2000 8:00 am
well, ok, then we condense the steam back to water again? i dunnowerldhed wrote:Uh... yes...seremtan wrote:eh? water vapour isn't a gas, greenhouse or otherwisewerldhed wrote:I'm all for nuclear power, but I don't think Splish is quite right. Excessive use of nuclear power generates a lot of water vapor, which is also a greenhouse gas. The best power source to combat global climate change would be wind or solar, of course, but if nuclear reduces the use of coal, go for it.
*hugs Monticello nuclear plant*
Steam is the gas phase of water. And it has more heat-trapping potential than methane or CO2.
-
bikkeldesnikkel
- Posts: 1145
- Joined: Tue Apr 05, 2005 7:54 pm
An article in the Scientific American mentioned the ALMR-reactor which uses liquid Na, sounds very promising.
http://www.nationalcenter.org/NPA378.ht ... nservation and the Environment
What are the environmental considerations?
We already mentioned waste management. In addition, it can be argued that the major environmental problems with nuclear power are the consequen-ces of the mining and milling operations. Because IFRs can use, not only the surplus plutonium, but also the uranium (including U-238) that has already been mined and milled, they can eliminate for centuries any further need for mining or milling.
And of course, in common with all nuclear reactors, IFRs emit no carbon dioxide.
Do they put out any atmospheric pollutants?
None worth mentioning.
Then there some that aren't worth mentioning?
Extremely small amounts of radioactive gas.
How small?
So small that there's a lot more radioactivity from coal-burning plants.
You're pulling my leg.
No I'm not. In coal there are trace amounts of radium and uranium, for instance, that come out of the smokestacks.
Then there's dangerous radiation from coal plants?
No, there isn't. It's far below natural background levels. But nuclear plants put out even less.
Then I won't worry. How do IFRs help conserve natural resources?
Thermal reactors are incredibly profligate with the earth's endowment of potential nuclear fuel. The once-through, "throw-away" cycle in favor in the U.S. uses less than a hundredth of the energy potential of the mined uranium. Even with recycle, less than 2% can be extracted. IFRs can use over 99%.
Wait a minute - less than 2% with recycle? I thought you could get almost all of the energy that way.
Sorry, but you can't. After two or three passes through a reactor, the fuel has gotten so contaminated with isotopes heavier than Pu-239 that reactor performance is seriously degraded. The only way to consume all of it is in a flux of fast neutrons.
I'll be darned! Well anyway, with uranium so cheap, why do we care about conservation?
For the same reason we care (or should) about conserving petroleum, even though oil is now cheap. The current world-wide glut of reactor fuel is strictly temporary. Particularly with the U.S. throw-away cycle, the economically available U-235 is not predicted to last much longer than the petroleum reserves - a few decades.
[/quote]
http://www.nationalcenter.org/NPA378.ht ... nservation and the Environment
What are the environmental considerations?
We already mentioned waste management. In addition, it can be argued that the major environmental problems with nuclear power are the consequen-ces of the mining and milling operations. Because IFRs can use, not only the surplus plutonium, but also the uranium (including U-238) that has already been mined and milled, they can eliminate for centuries any further need for mining or milling.
And of course, in common with all nuclear reactors, IFRs emit no carbon dioxide.
Do they put out any atmospheric pollutants?
None worth mentioning.
Then there some that aren't worth mentioning?
Extremely small amounts of radioactive gas.
How small?
So small that there's a lot more radioactivity from coal-burning plants.
You're pulling my leg.
No I'm not. In coal there are trace amounts of radium and uranium, for instance, that come out of the smokestacks.
Then there's dangerous radiation from coal plants?
No, there isn't. It's far below natural background levels. But nuclear plants put out even less.
Then I won't worry. How do IFRs help conserve natural resources?
Thermal reactors are incredibly profligate with the earth's endowment of potential nuclear fuel. The once-through, "throw-away" cycle in favor in the U.S. uses less than a hundredth of the energy potential of the mined uranium. Even with recycle, less than 2% can be extracted. IFRs can use over 99%.
Wait a minute - less than 2% with recycle? I thought you could get almost all of the energy that way.
Sorry, but you can't. After two or three passes through a reactor, the fuel has gotten so contaminated with isotopes heavier than Pu-239 that reactor performance is seriously degraded. The only way to consume all of it is in a flux of fast neutrons.
I'll be darned! Well anyway, with uranium so cheap, why do we care about conservation?
For the same reason we care (or should) about conserving petroleum, even though oil is now cheap. The current world-wide glut of reactor fuel is strictly temporary. Particularly with the U.S. throw-away cycle, the economically available U-235 is not predicted to last much longer than the petroleum reserves - a few decades.
[/quote]