Except, iffn you're going to build a big floating hydrogen plant offshore, the nuke reactor is redundent. 
Posted on 06/01/2005 10:06:02 AM PDT by Willie Green
For education and discussion only. Not for commercial use.
Russia will build the world's first floating nuclear power plant, Russia's Atomic Energy Agency (RosAtom) has announced
A low-power plant with an electrical capacity of 70 MWt and heat capacity of 140 Gigacalories may be constructed in the Russian northwestern town of Severodvinsk within five years, a spokesman for RosAtom told Itar-Tass on Thursday. The project's estimated cost is $180 million, and $30 million has already been spent on the planning stage.
Calculations made by RosAtom experts suggest the floating power plant will pay for itself in eight years. The agency lacks funds, however, and is going to ask the government for help in obtaining loans in commercial banks or offer from other countries to join the project. China, Indonesia and a number of Middle Eastern and Mediterranean countries have reportedly voiced interest in the project, but they want the plant to be built first to show potential investors that it does not pose a threat to the environment.
RosAtom head Alexander Rumyantsev said earlier that floating power plants are absolutely safe. The reactors "will be the same as those that are used by our submarines and nuclear ice-breakers," he said, stressing that after the Kursk submarine that sank in August 2000 was lifted from the bottom of the Barents Sea, its reactors were still in an operational condition.
However, many critics say the main objective of nuclear plants all over the world is enrichment for building nuclear weapons, and after RosAtom first announced the building of the floating plant in the early 2000s, foreign media immediately called it a "floating Chernobyl".
The Russian side says that the plant will be able to provide a town of 50,000 people with heating and electrical energy or be used to desalinate sea-water.
I believe the US already has a number of these.
We call them "aircraft carriers".
Lets order 100 of them and anchor them to the windmills offshore of Nantucket. These things are cheap!
the USS Nautilus was the world's first floating nuclear power plant silly.
What would ADM Rickover say?
Actually, Westinghouse proposed this (and was actually working to bring them into reality) years ago, when the eco-fanatics killed off any possibility of new nuke plants. The idea was to make the plants completely identical and "stamp them out" with assembly-line style---then float them to their final use site.
Hymie would waste no time claiming the prize for his subs. rightly so.
GE now has a Power Plant that they termed "F.O.A.K.E." (First of A Kind Engineering). They have standardized on a 1300 MW power plant design for all power plants. They use the same design, except for general facilities, which are usually site specific. They have now build at least three of these. In one project, for Taiwan, the price for a 1300 MW plant was actually lower then Framitome's (France) bid for the requested 800 MW plant.
Offshore Power Systems, was to be based in Jacksonville, FL, I believe in the early 70's. The Greenie weenies killed it and the rest is hystery.......
Hydrogen cars have a simpler and lighter power train than either hybrids or gasoline vehicles. They should ultimately be cheaper own and operate and should last longer to boot. They are much more environmentally friendly than are today's hybrids so long as the hydrogen can be obtained in some low impact manner. Floating Nuks should be ideal for this purpose.
And to think that a mere $250 million or so could get an initial hydrogen supply system up and running.
Yup--a guy I went to high school with got his first job out of college with Westinghouse to work on this. LOOOONNNNGGG time ago!!!
Except, iffn you're going to build a big floating hydrogen plant offshore, the nuke reactor is redundent.
I believe the US already has a number of these.
We call them "aircraft carriers".==
Russia has nuclier powered icebreakers. Fleet of them. And few of sattelites are powered by nuclier reactors. SO idea isn't new.
BUT mobile electrical station are more powerer. Probably didn't to be built before.
The crew of the widow maker cooled the reactor with a "fire hose from the boats potable water tank.
Whats that got to do with with nuke power not working?
The mistake was corrected in future boats.
HMMMMMMMMMMMM?!? or DuHhhhhhh!
At least if this one starts to melt down, they can sink it.
The hydrogen plant won't run itself. It would need a massive amount of energy to extract hydrogen from seawater and then even more to cool it down to a liquid. A Nuclear power source is the only cost effective option.
It's OTEC Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion - normal heat cycle using low BP fluid instead of water. Hot side is surface water - cold side is ocean depth water. Temp difference isn't all that great so Carnot efficiency is lower than conventional or nuke plant, but it's fuel free so who cares?
Normal problem with OTEC is need for 1000m cold intake pipe conflicts running the electricity cable to the consumers.
Use the power to make liquid Hydrogen instead - no problem
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.