What could possibly go wrong?

[TehBorken]

Brilliant. All of the worst ideas rolled into one. A true stroke of genius. I mean, things that float never sink, right? And nothing ever leaks or goes wrong with nuclear powerplants, so I officially proclaim this to be a Really, Really Good Idea®.
[hr style="width: 100%; height: 2px;"]via /.

In '[a href="vny!://www.popsci.com/popsci/science/62416c853623e010vgnvcm1000004eecbccdrcrd.html"]A Floating Chernobyl?[/a],' [em]Popular Science[/em] reports that two Russian companies plan to build the world's first floating nuclear power plant to deliver cheap electricity to northern territories. The construction should start next year for a deployment in 2010. The huge barge will be home for two 60-megawatt nuclear reactors which will work until 2050... if everything works fine. It looks like a frightening idea, don't you think? But read more for [a href="vny!://blogs.zdnet.com/emergingtech/?p=382"]additional details and pictures[/a] of this floating nuclear power plant.
 

[Russ]

It was in the Sun yesterday or the day before. They were saying that the US came up with this idea in the 70's, and it was designed and a shipyard to make them was built. But after the oil prices crashed in the early-mid 70's this idea was scrapped.

  The biggest consternation from this according to the article in the sun was all the greenie groups and the US EPA. As they were saying that Russian nuke power isnt as reliable or has as good of a track record as the rest of the world, and they wanted an independant source to supervise the construction. The only drawback seems to be that the two companies already have the go-ahead from the Russian government, and they will have one ready and in place around 2010. with teh 2nd and possibly a third soon afterwards.

  Me? Honestly.. I think its a good idea. In theory it seems good. As to the contingencies built into the vessel will be the deciding factor.

[weird al]

Could be dicey - let's face it, the Russians have their fair share of disasters, right? Just recently, on the Soyuz, one of the Russians dropped his screwdriver...

...and it spilled all over the place.

[Mutilated Mind]

That would have been their wodka. Russians don't drink screwdrivers.

[Mutilated Mind]

TehBorken wrote:
Brilliant. All of the worst ideas rolled into one. A true stroke of genius. I mean, things that float never sink, right? And nothing ever leaks or goes wrong with nuclear powerplants, so I officially proclaim this to be a Really, Really Good Idea®.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

TehBorken, as the article says, this idea is fairly controversial because of the risk involved, but your mocking doesn't contribute much, to be honest. They must be morons who never have given a single thought to a possible disaster ?

Also the article says "Of course, this might work as forecasted. But the risks are very high. For example, such a floating plant could spill waste into the White Sea"

I don't think that's true. The things that can happen maybe COULD be worse than with a land-based reactor - maybe - but the risks themselves aren't really hgher, I believe. Why would the risk of a spilling be hgher than with a land-based reactor ? That doesn't make sense. Of course, once something DOES happen, the effects MIGHT be more destructive - maybe - but that doesn't mean the risks are higher.

One possible reason I could think of for the risks of a disaster being higher would be the more stressful environment the crew would be living and working in as they would be isolated for months at a stretch. The human factor, in other words.