Floating Nuclear Power Plants: Is this the future of power generation?
The idea of nuclear power plants is, we all have to admit, one that elicits a wide range of reactions in people. Many are rather ambivalent; the power that they get at the end of the day is good enough, whether it is produced by coal, hydro or nuclear stations.
Fukushima
For other people, nuclear power stations represent the stuff of nightmares. Just look at what happened at Fukushima in Japan. Although we may take contingencies against most eventualities, we seldom, get all the angles covered, which can lead to terrible disasters.
Nuclear power, in any case, represents one of the most viable ways through which the world’s burgeoning population can continue to have electricity. For all its chequered history, nuclear energy will likely remain in use around the globe well into the foreseeable future.
What are floating nuclear power plants?
Floating nuclear power plants are located on platforms that are placed out in the open ocean. If you have been following developments in the sector, you will have heard that Russia has been building the world’s first floating nuclear power station. The plant is being built at the Baltiysky Zavod shipyard in Saint Petersburg, Russia. There have also been reports that China plans to deploy a fleet of floating nuclear power plants to provide power to remote islands by 2020.
Russian company Zapsibgidrostroy is in the process of constructing the world’s first floating nuclear power plant to its location off the Chukotka coast.
Strictly speaking, however, the world has had floating nuclear power plants for decades. Just think of the nuclear submarines and aircraft carriers that prowl the oceans. The only difference with the current concept is that floating nuclear power stations, such as the one that Russia is building, do not self propel and have to be towed out to see using tugs.
Why the need for floating nuclear power plants
The idea of floating nuclear power plants portents a great leap forward in efforts to explore and colonize the world’s remote regions. Just think of the Antarctic, whose extreme temperatures are enough to give pause even to the most adventurous among us. Having such a plant offers the possibility that, in the near future, human beings will be able to live unhindered in remote parts of the globe.
Advantages
Humanity has, for long, looked for flexible ways of taming even the most hostile of environments. One of the major advantages of having floating nuclear power stations is that they would be assembled in factories, which makes them easier to put together.
Today, building a nuclear power plant on land is a rather difficult process that is hampered by countless environmental and other regulations. In addition, having such sites near residential areas is one of the major reasons why a large chunk of the world’s population is now set against nuclear power.
Are Floating Nuclear Power Stations Viable?
Floating nuclear power plants are a viable alternative, since they are projected to have a limited impact on the environment. They are also made safer by the fact that the water in which they float absorbs earthquakes and Tsunamis, which cannot be said of land based nuclear power stations.
Thank you for reading.
I find the idea of bringing nuclear plants off-shore interesting. But nevertheless has anyone thought about the nuclear waste? As far as I know, there is only one ultimate disposal place worldwide for the highly radioactive waste to be built. In Germany we are exploring our terrain to find the safest possibility. How about other countries?
Damned Ruskies have done it again.
Nasa spends hundreds of thousand of dollars developing pens that write in space; the Russians use...pencils.
To be fair, apparently the graphite shavings from a pencil can cause people harm because they float around in 0 gravity. It's more a case that soviet Russia didn't take health and safety as much.
I seem to remember peanut butter causing some serious problems in The Reluctant Astronaut too but I don't think they stopped using it. Sarcasm
:)
I am a die hard free market guy. That being said if we didn't learn from Fukushima we never will. We're 100 years away form knowing how to deal with meltdowns etc. Radiation never goes away it just spreads around the planet. Cancer rates are up all over the world and this is part of it. All forms of power generation have downsides but nukes are not the answer we need. Lets hope we survive Fukushima. Its far from over and is destroying the entire Pacific. The people in Japan are going to have exploding cancer rates in about 20 years.
Go free market :) We have radiacs, as you probably know, that measure radiation levels and after the accident at Fukushima there have been virtually negligible changes in many "hot spots" and no changes elsewhere (though there are many anti-nuc power organizations would have us believe otherwise). So, in my opinion, except for in some small parts of localized contamination, which probably didn't affect life either, I think it just seemed worse to a lot of people than it actually was. Plus, I'd say that the many cases of cancer that are here, which are tragic, are at this point just correlated to but not caused by nuclear energy production. Arguably, many people have cancer because of the amount of sugar being digested in their diets for extended (sometimes entire lives) periods. Not trying to diminish your intelligence (lots of people don't like opposing views), I just disagree and though I am not sure of the acute doses that Japanese people received I think (and at least hope) they won't have any more cancer rates in 20 than they had had before. I guess we'll see. :)
Very interesting read. Thank you for the thoughtful information, I had no idea that floating plants would be safer than land based plants. I would assumed the opposite right away, but after seeing that they are able to absorb the Tsunami and earthquakes. Great read!
thats amazing
Never thought of these type of floating nuclear power plants. Surely the 'far away from residential areas' have a big advantage. But, in that case, won't the water surrounding it become polluted?
I would think only if there was a loss of containment. I imagine they aren't going to just dunno the radioactive waste into the ocean.
Hmm. Hopefully :)
I do not like nuclear power of any kind. Seems a bit like opening Pandora's Box. Im sure many in Chernobyl and Fukushima agree.
This post has been ranked within the top 80 most undervalued posts in the second half of Jun 03. We estimate that this post is undervalued by $12.72 as compared to a scenario in which every voter had an equal say.
See the full rankings and details in The Daily Tribune: Jun 03 - Part II. You can also read about some of our methodology, data analysis and technical details in our initial post.
If you are the author and would prefer not to receive these comments, simply reply "Stop" to this comment.
I wish that we didn't have any nuclear power plants; land or sea. "they are projected to have limited impact on the environment." Look at the deadly impact from Fukushima. But if I had to choose, it would be in the water instead of on land as it is safer for the human population.
Haven't they F#@$&D up the oceans and our water enough?