3 ms·
Why not go one step further and make it fully submerged off the coast, to protect it from a bad weather?
by ivanhoe 8y ago
Why not go one step further and make it fully submerged off the coast, to protect it from a bad weather?
- Skunkleton 8y agoI mean, this is pretty much just running an extension cord to a nuclear sub. Why not?
- brmgb 8y agoBecause there is zero market for it especially after Fukushima. It was tried by the recently privatised French military shipyards as a way to diversify (that's the Flexblue project mentioned in the article) and just couldn't be sold.
- Skunkleton 8y agoIts a shame IMO. There are lots of problems with nuclear power, but at least the problems are ones that make sense to humans. It seems like nuclear waste would be easier to handle than a ruined atmosphere.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- pm90 8y agoIts cheaper to build a ship than a sub. Besides, the reactor would have to be close enough to the shore to run a power line etc. Unlikely to be affected by bad weather.
- icc97 8y agoFrom the article: > A French company has designed a reactor called Flexblue that would not float but rather be submerged on the ocean floor.
- ivanhoe 8y agoThanks, missed that part somehow.