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.