5 ms·

Am I the only one to think of the Boxing Day tsunami -- ~200,000 dead -- or Fukushima, for that matter? There might only be minutes of warning to get one of th

Am I the only one to think of the Boxing Day tsunami -- ~200,000 dead -- or Fukushima, for that matter? There might only be minutes of warning to get one of these away from a shore connection...

kjkjadksj 3y ago
These would probably be put behind a breakwater
theptip 3y ago
Tsunamis are a shallow water phenomenon. If you are in deep water it’s not going to affect you. So a floating reactor would have been much preferable in Fukushima. Also, a floating reactor (at least, traditional water-cooled design) can’t get into a runaway meltdown; worst case the core drops into the ocean with infinite cooling potential. Again this probably reduces the potential for radioactive discharge.
- AtlasBarfed 3y ago
  If some maritime modern pro-nuclear regulatory framework can get adopted for decarbonization of transport, then it would be good for nuclear. Yeah, not going to back any design that isn't fundamentally meltdown-proof. Probably one of the reasons why molten salt is referenced. Also because it seems more scalable, the liquid nature of the fuel means you could de-fuel it at a port more easily. But I could see pebble bed type stuff being worthwhile too. It honestly makes logistics and waste transport a lot more interesting. A power plant comes with a ship to transport it as a minor portion of the overall cost. It forces the plant design to be fundamentally portable and modular even if it gets placed terrestrially. Portability should make nuclear viable for lots of industry-specific use cases that nuclear But LCOE on current nuclear is 6x more than wind and solar. As stated, it would need some regulatory freedom / clean slate, a sweet spot engineering design, and we could probably get to 2-3x (current price) of wind/solar and get to a palatable cost for decarbonization.
mcpackieh 3y ago
Tsunamis shouldn't be an issue for ships, but if the floating power plant is in a busy port you do have a risk of a Halifax, Texas City or Beirut scenario. Lots of fertilizer and sometimes explosives move through ports and a powerful blast could severely damage or even sink the power plant. It doesn't happen terribly often, but it does happen sometimes.

Am I the only one to think of the Boxing Day tsunami -- ~200,000 dead -- or Fukushima, for that matter? There might only be minutes of warning to get one of these away from a shore connection...

kjkjadksj 3y ago

These would probably be put behind a breakwater

theptip 3y ago

Tsunamis are a shallow water phenomenon. If you are in deep water it’s not going to affect you. So a floating reactor would have been much preferable in Fukushima. Also, a floating reactor (at least, traditional water-cooled design) can’t get into a runaway meltdown; worst case the core drops into the ocean with infinite cooling potential. Again this probably reduces the potential for radioactive discharge.

AtlasBarfed 3y ago
If some maritime modern pro-nuclear regulatory framework can get adopted for decarbonization of transport, then it would be good for nuclear. Yeah, not going to back any design that isn't fundamentally meltdown-proof. Probably one of the reasons why molten salt is referenced. Also because it seems more scalable, the liquid nature of the fuel means you could de-fuel it at a port more easily. But I could see pebble bed type stuff being worthwhile too. It honestly makes logistics and waste transport a lot more interesting. A power plant comes with a ship to transport it as a minor portion of the overall cost. It forces the plant design to be fundamentally portable and modular even if it gets placed terrestrially. Portability should make nuclear viable for lots of industry-specific use cases that nuclear But LCOE on current nuclear is 6x more than wind and solar. As stated, it would need some regulatory freedom / clean slate, a sweet spot engineering design, and we could probably get to 2-3x (current price) of wind/solar and get to a palatable cost for decarbonization.

mcpackieh 3y ago

Tsunamis shouldn't be an issue for ships, but if the floating power plant is in a busy port you do have a risk of a Halifax, Texas City or Beirut scenario. Lots of fertilizer and sometimes explosives move through ports and a powerful blast could severely damage or even sink the power plant. It doesn't happen terribly often, but it does happen sometimes.