{{
`${userDetail.user.displayName}${userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode ? `#${standardizeBungieGlobalCode(userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode)}` : ""}`}}
{{getUserClans()}}
7/8/2013 10:57:02 PM
28
Russia wants to build a floating nuclear power plant by 2016
[url=http://www.theverge.com/2013/7/8/4505118/russia-hopes-to-have-a-floating-nuclear-power-plant-by-2016]Source (The Verge)[/url]
What could POSSIBLY go wrong?
-
1 RispondiOn the plus side, if it overheats they can sink it. On the downside, water is made up of hydrogen, and I don't know if mixing nuclear fission with hydrogen is a great idea... (lamens terms: hydrogen bomb x 100)
-
2 RisposteStupid idea. But then again so is nuclear power to begin with.
-
Just FYI, every single American submarine and aircraft carrier has at least one nuclear power plant generating its electricity. This isn't a bad idea at all.
-
I like it.
-
2 Rispostethen they can just sail it over to 'Murica when it's nearing a meltdown. gd gd
-
1 RispondiHunt for Red October 2
-
Nothing new with russia, since they do nothing but dump oil in the ocean anyway, why not step it up?
-
3 Risposte>Nuclear meltdown >Oceans waters are contaminated >All the fish die >Economies crash, people starve >World is thrown into chaos >Newt Gingrich moon base here I come
-
10 RisposteI don't like nuclear power.
-
It's actually a pretty cool idea. They're using [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KLT-40]modified KLT-40s[/url], which are relatively small (you'll never get a Chernobyl event out of this) and purportedly self-contained. I can't find specific details about the modifications, but it seems likely that a reactor that size could be designed with entirely passive safety systems, meaning they wouldn't need an operator to shut them down. That said, the modifications may indicate that it will run off of <20% enriched Uranium, as the 30-40-90% the Wikipedia article cites aren't exactly kosher these days. It's an interesting step forward in what is likely to be the dawning age of modular reactor use. On the subject of terrorism, one must accept that no reactor design is 100% safe, but making use of smaller reactors limits the potential damage.
-
ohhh. in the sea, right. I thought you meant the other kind of floating at first.
-
Not much could really go wrong. There's already nuclear powered ships and submarines. Even if a meltdown were to occur (which can easily be contained in modern reactors in the first place), there's already cooling agent. Also, the thing is immune to earthquakes and probably more secure to human threats.
-
10 RisposteDidn't one Nuclear -blam!- up teach them not to screw with Nuclear power?
-
That actually seems like a pretty good idea.
-
-blam!- yeah!
-
Modificato da Pfhortnite: 7/9/2013 6:02:32 PMSend it to the Moon! Oh, they meant it floats on water . . .
-
-
1 RispondiWhat? No! They cannot be aloud, they cannot beat the fatherland technologically. We must stop them now!
-
1 RispondiBut...why?
-
-
6 RisposteMy first thought? USS Cole. While a floating and relocatable power station is a nice idea, securing access and a perimeter would be difficult. Almost an invitation to attack. Land based reactors can create large expanse of open ground and reinforced perimeters to both prevent and detect hostile approaches. In a harbor? Not so easy.
-
30 RisposteThe fact that it's floating makes it safer. If the core overheats too much, they can just sink it to prevent a meltdown.
-
Ha! Like they could afford to build and upkeep it.
-
1 RispondiThat would be putin them in debt. Do they have enough money? Not to mind putin them in danger if it fell.
-
Was hoping for Bioshock Infinite. Got Bioshock 1.
-
Lol, when I read the title for some reason I thought you meant "Floating in the Air". I was like "Do they want nuclear particles carried every which way on the trade winds?"
