Posted on 12/29/2020 5:46:46 PM PST by Rebelbase
COPENHAGEN, DENMARK — The Guardian reports that Danish company Seaborg Technologies plans to fit barges with small nuclear reactors, to provide energy to developing countries.
These reactors will be Compact Molten Salt Reactors, or CMSRs, in short.
This is how CMSRs work:
The primary loop is where the heat from standard nuclear rods are transferred to molten fluoride salt.
The secondary loop is where this superheated liquid transfers its heat to a heat exchanger filled with coolant salt.
The third loop is where the heat from the coolant salt is finally transferred to the liquids that will now transmit the nuclear heat energy into high-pressure steam, that spin the turbines, that spin fast to create lots of electricity.
So, instead of Light Water, these reactors use salt that only melts at very high temperatures.
Seaborg says this means that if the reactor core is ever exposed, the salt will turn into a solid rock, trapping the nuclear material inside it.
Unlike the explosive pressures of other reactors, CMSRs operate at near-atmospheric pressures, and feature a frozen salt plug that melts if overheating occurs, allowing the core to drain into cooled tanks.
(Excerpt) Read more at youtube.com ...
Dims will fight tooth and nail to make sure nothing like that happens in the US.
However, they will give countless amounts of money to their favorite countries to have as much as they want.
What could go wrong?
Tidal wave
Hurricane
Collision with ship.
Torpedo/mine
pirates
terrorists.
What happens to hull when out of date?
Liberals are about as dangerous as all those put together.
Floating Nuclear Power Plants Sounded Screwy in 1969. Today? Not So Much
https://www.popularmechanics.com/science/energy/a30731226/floating-nuclear-power-plants/
Replaced with a new hull.
One of the big points of these things is they are *not* dangerous.
So what if pirates, terrorists, or any unauthorized people get control?
The design prevents them from blowing up.
If they sink, they go solid.
Resurface them, refurbish if necessary, and start them up.
ROTFLMAO!
Is the salt the moderator? If it drains away, what stops latent heat from melting the core?
Dont worry
What fool is going to build nuclear, at 20 cents a kilowatt hour, when you can build operate and fuel a gas fired power plant for less than 4 cents a kilowatt hour?
This is just another scam to make money doing studies that will never go anywhere
Frankly, it’s pretty ridiculous how the powers that be have stifled innovation in nuclear power for the last 70 years. Reading the popular science stuff circa 1945-47, an outline for a future of nuclear-powered-everything was on the horizon. Yes, there were radiation issues to be addressed, but there are negative externalities on everything, and safety could have been worked out. The opposition was political, and to some extent also industrial as so much money was being made on competing power sources.
Canada is doing the same thing: http://www.digitaljournal.com/tech-and-science/technology/canada-s-new-small-modular-reactor-action-plan-released/article/582874
Given that nukes have been on ships for 65 years with a near perfect safety record I'd say "probably not much".
Old news. I seem to remember from 5-10 years ago that Toshiba has a small 10-50 MW scalable nuclear plant that is self-contained and can be buried for its 20 year life, with only cooling water inlet/outlet and power taps needed. Then it is replaced.
Then again, I may have misread or misremembered, but this is NOT anything like a new idea.
Where did you get that utter nonsense 20 cents per kwh number?
A dual nuclear power plant in the US has 2.4 cents per kwh in pricing. The average pricing for new solar in the US is about 3.6 cents per kwh. The O&M costs of solar have been flat for four years at 0.8 cents per kwh. The land for solar is about 1.6 cents per kwh.
Quite literally from the FIRST post on a Bing search.
IOW, you’re talking through your ass, and it smells like shit to me.
#4. IF something goes wrong, what’s left of the country won’t be worrying about having nuclear power as their electrical supply. They will be more worried about having a country in the first place.
Singing “Let it glow, let it glow, let it glow”.
All the fuel you will ever need for these reactors is currently available at existing nuclear power plants. The promise of these reactors to me is that can “burn” plutonium waste and break it down to elements that can decay in hundreds of years instead of 50,000+ years.
The U.S. Navy already has 210 nuclear reactors that float (on a semi-permanent basis). Some of them submerge as well. The Navy has been operating these floating nuclear reactors for almost 60 years with zero serious nuclear accidents and zero individuals killed by radiation. They even had two nuclear-powered vessels that sank (or were sunk), the USS Thresher, 1963, and USS Scorpion, 1968, with no subsequent incidents involving the reactors.
It also makes sense in that the coastlines tend to attract population. Kansas and Iowa might benefit from electric current that doesn’t have to travel so far but 14 of the 20 most populous cities are in a coastal state.
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.