Floating nuclear power plant could resist meltdowns
— By Janet Fang on April 28, 2014, 4:47 AM PST
stupid idea.. oceans are already poluted. We dont need nuclear energy. We have sun and watter but litlle brain...
You can eliminate the "Fear factor" by using less retarded technology! People are being negative, because even a child can identify it as a silly idea. I'm glad people are self educated enough to understand many of the alternatives.
Rather than everybody being so negative, how about some positive thought and reasons as to why and how it should succeed. Let's build on the TLP technology used by the offshore industry. And more importantly educate the people to eliminate the fear factor.
"Infinite heat sink"?!?!? Haven't we learned that in this world NOTHING is infinite? If most of the global warming heat is currently going into the oceans do we really want to put more there?
This would be unnecessary if we would push forward with implemented Thorium Subcritical Reactors (aka: Molten Salt Reactors). No water cooling of those is needed; they cannot meltdown. Successful testing has been done in the U.S. and is currently going on in Norway. Bureaucracy is killing us - literally.
It's surprising to see that MIT engineers are conceiving designs which still use this archaic solid core technology.
This is a waste of innovation. Ever heard of molten salt reactors? They consist of a liquid core and thus cannot melt down. No need to put reactors in the ocean; driving up cost of construction.. amongst several other complications. C'mon SmartPlanet, do some research before you post. Look into companies such as Flibe energy in the USA, or Terrestrial energy in Canada. Or why not talk about China's $350M investment into developing a commercial a MSR by 2025? Or India's efforts to develop their own commercial liquid fluoride thorium reactor by 2020?
This one is a 'Real-No-Brainer', with ocean temps on the rise we're going to just raise them more?
Just go ahead and melt some more ice at our poles - we have not even kept to the original plans for constructing nuclear power generation plants back in the mid 1950's; what makes you think that they are going to start now?
We need to go the alternative energy route like, since 1972...
Haven't they ever heard of.....storms? Freak waves up to 40 meters high? Unattended ships crashing into harbours at full speed? This idea is so bad that I hope it will never ever be done.
Nuclear plants , or solar out in lakes or oceans.....FORGET IT. Stop trying to make things better for greedy, selfish humans
and learn to live simply - this way the world will survive, providing we lower, lower human population. Humans have made
such a mess on earth.....and now trying to find escape to destroy the atmosphere and the oceans.....come on silly, stupid
humans...wake up and use what brains you have.
I advocate neighborhood scale Pebble bed Reactors, it is the end of the centralized gigawatt power plants, let them die.
This project is a waste of time and money as there are a lot better designs. The argument is it's better to use this design because of the technical challenges of other designs, but this design is known to have flaws. It would be much better to put the billions it costs to build these into completing designs that don't melt down.
A floating (non ship) Nuclear Power plant seems insane to me.
Even if it was 100% safe, I'd suggest a terrorist could attach some mines to it and sink it, or even tow it off with a tug.
Why not built on an uninhabited island, part-way up a mountain, if the driver is to use the sea-water for cooling, or on normal mainland high enough up, to avoid a worst case scenario Tsunami - say sea level + 250-500m - for many coastlines, it's not a great issue, and you could use solar and wind to power the water pumps raising the cooling water to the storage lake at no cost :-)
The point is that meltdown is far less likely, if not impossible, with the reactor surrounded by an infinite supply of cool water.
The largest impacts of meltdowns, by far, is deposition of radioactivity on LAND, in the local area. This idea all but eliminates that impact. It removes the possibility of any significant impact on human health.
The potential impact on aquatic life, the fishing industry, and seafood safety would be far smaller than that for a coastal reactor. Most fish populations live near the coast, and these reactors would be far out to sea.