4 ms·
As a former US Submarine nuclear reactor tech, I used to think when we pulled into port that our submarine could power the entire city while we sat there. I do
by mwattsun 5y ago
As a former US Submarine nuclear reactor tech, I used to think when we pulled into port that our submarine could power the entire city while we sat there.
I don't know why we don't put reactors on large barges that sat offshore where there is plenty of cooling water and transmissions line wouldn't be too much of a problem. Navy ships don't worry about dumping slightly radioactive water overboard, but fortunately there isn't much of it from the closed circulation systems. Of course the spent fuel is disposed of properly once every 15 years or so.
- twelve40 5y ago> I don't know why we don't put reactors on large barges it is a thing: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_floating_nuclear_power_station https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_floating_nuclear_power...
- mwattsun 5y agoExactly. Thanks! There other advantage is that if there's an accident that can't be fixed the solution of towing it out to sea and sinking it into a deep trench is far more preferable than having it contaminate the surrounding land area like Chernobyl.
- ch4s3 5y agoEven Chernobyl isn’t that dangerous. The background radiation in the exclusion zone is lower than in Finland. No additional cancer has been found among nearby villages, the number of cigarettes consumed there is a far greater danger. Moreover a Chernobyl like accident couldn’t happen again. Outside of the USSR no one was building graphite pile reactors after maybe 1955, and no reactors without containment buildings.