Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Saturday, August 24, 2019

Russia will launch the world's first floating nuclear reactor and send it on an epic journey across the Arctic on Friday, despite environmentalists warning of serious risks to the region.

Advertisement

More

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

Something else to blame the melting polar icecap on.

#1 | Posted by goatman at 2019-08-24 03:37 PM | Reply

Even if Russia didn't have such a dismal record of nuclear safetey from submarine reactor failures to Chernobyl, this is a horrible idea.

#2 | Posted by goatman at 2019-08-24 03:41 PM | Reply

Have they already built the giant sarcophagus to entomb it in when it melts down?

#3 | Posted by SheepleSchism at 2019-08-24 05:03 PM | Reply

This sounds like the first scene of a disaster movie.

#4 | Posted by Tor at 2019-08-24 05:07 PM | Reply

"Have they already built the giant sarcophagus to entomb it in when it melts down?

#3 | POSTED BY SHEEPLESCHISM "

In all fairness, they have an unlimited supply of freezing water to flood a molten reactor with, but yeah, where is that water going to go?

Storms at the arctic and antarctic are things of legend. One of those could tump this thing over in a heartbeat. Even if it doesn't, can they assure coolant levels are maintained in the most extreme conditions?

Bad idea all around, especially from a country that doesn't know how to play with splitting atoms.

#5 | Posted by goatman at 2019-08-24 05:07 PM | Reply

On a more general note, this is why we need to figure out fusion technology. An accident in a fusion reactor means some hydrogen and helium get spilled, and possibly some very localized casualties. No nasty fisionable and radioactive elements are involved.

#6 | Posted by goatman at 2019-08-24 05:18 PM | Reply

Currently, the U.S. has 83 nuclear-powered ships: 72 submarines, 10 aircraft carriers and one research vessel.

See, we have some of our own, but then again, we have a much better track record concerning nuclear reactor operation.

#7 | Posted by MSgt at 2019-08-24 05:38 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

As I said, I get the desire to be able to float a lot of electrical power around. But why not use diesel power? When I worked offshore, most rigs had seven 7 megawatt generators that took up less volume than the superstructure of the ship in the picture above. This nuke is capable of 80 megawatts.

So why not use 11 or 12 diesels which would easily fit in the superstructure? The rest could be used to store massive amounts of diesel fuel, probably enough to last a year. Seems a lot more responsible and economic than pulling around a nuke power plant with a tugboat.

#8 | Posted by goatman at 2019-08-25 12:04 AM | Reply

I'm sure that nothing can go wrong this time!

-Anatoly Stepanovich Dyatlov

#9 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2019-08-25 12:19 AM | Reply

So why not use 11 or 12 diesels which would easily fit in the superstructure? The rest could be used to store massive amounts of diesel fuel, probably enough to last a year. Seems a lot more responsible and economic than pulling around a nuke power plant with a tugboat.

#8 | POSTED BY GOATMAN AT 2019-08-25 12:04 AM | REPLY

You know how the coal would get there? Nuclear powered ice breakers. Russia is the world leader with a dozen in operation.

#10 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2019-08-25 02:44 PM | Reply

"You know how the coal would get there? Nuclear powered ice breakers. Russia is the world leader with a dozen in operation.

#10 | POSTED BY SITZKRIEG "

You are right about Russia's impressive fleet of nuclear ice breakers, but Russia can now navigate their entire arctic coast without icebreakers.

nsidc.org

#11 | Posted by goatman at 2019-08-25 03:08 PM | Reply

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2019 World Readable

Drudge Retort