Nuclear Power and Electric Vehicles

[TangoElite]

I'd say that it's probably because if something goes wrong, a nuclear plant on the sea will have much greater impact.

 

When a plant on land goes kaput, its fallout is relatively limited. Like some one earlier mentioned, the thinking is that 5 km radius should be safe.

 

When you have it on sea, though, it's likely to spread much further. And then when the fishes and marine life absorbs the radioactive dust or radiation, some other animals eat them, blah blah blah, some poor sod may eventually become an X-Men.

 

I won't mind if it can grant me Xavier's mind controlling powers, though.

 

 

wouldnt the risk be the same for a warship or aircraft carrier

 

these aircraft carrier can also go kaput anytime. so how do they justify the use of nuclear energy for these ships???

 

if they have been using it on marine vessels for the last 30 years, why not on a purpose built rig??

[Chewbacca]

wouldnt the risk be the same for a warship or aircraft carrier

 

these aircraft carrier can also go kaput anytime. so how do they justify the use of nuclear energy for these ships???

 

if they have been using it on marine vessels for the last 30 years, why not on a purpose built rig??

 

Yes, same risk.

 

But different justification.

 

Different type of risks are acceptable for different type of reasons.

[TangoElite]

Yes, same risk.

 

But different justification.

 

Different type of risks are acceptable for different type of reasons.

 

 

 

actually it has already been done,

 

just googled and found russian floating nuclear plants, due to be completed next year

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_float...r_power_station

 

 

so the reasoning applies; if ships can have it, so can coastal cities

Edited May 5, 2010 by TangoElite

[Darryn]

Yes, same risk.

 

But different justification.

 

Different type of risks are acceptable for different type of reasons.

 

Just pulling from my backside ok, but a few areas where I would guess a ship to be different to a floating platform..

 

1. Size - an aricraft carrier is around 30,000 pax right? Even with the energy needs of the engineering and propulsion this is postively tiny for a civil power plant ( later if I feel the mood I will see if can put into kilowatt hours the comparison)

2. The real, and I suspect more important reason is that a ship can run and hide from risks - a platform can't

3. It's very very hard to get to a platform if there's a problem - a ship same thing, but it can isolate itself, or move closer to help, a platform can't.

[Atonchia]

Nuclear is still not a true renewable source of energy, but solar and wind energy also not truly green due to large area of land required to be cleared for wind mills, the photovoltaic cells for solar panels contain toxic material too. Hydroelectric power kills ecology by flooding of large area upstream and also pose great risk should the dam fail.

 

But all have low carbon gas emission. Unlike coal and other fossil fuel base power plant, the amount of greenhouse gases release is low.

Hopefully there won't be drastic climatic changes should we all embrace the right mentality to protect the only place we live on.

 

I will just do that to play a part to reduce and retard the climatic change for future generations. I believe most will play that part too.

Electric cars will be more comfortable as the acceleration is smoother and the motor is almost silent.

 

 

 

[Qr25vet]

nuclear powered cars? I think TS has been playing too much of fallout 3...besides u want to risk another chernobyl? and have u asked yourself where does the waste go to?

[Atonchia]

The spent fuel can be send to countries that do reprocessing. Japan and China, South Korea are doing that. The Word largest uranium producers are Australia and Canada, maybe with their large sparce land, they can do reprocessing. Some countries are willing to do that, then there will be another trade for the economy.

[Roborovskii]

"Blue Skying" Cars a little...

 

Would you accept the following situation...

 

A nuclear power station is built in / near Singapore for the (primary) purpose of charging full electric vehicles (i.e battery powered)

 

At the same time, the appropriate infrastructure is put in place to provide complete and convenient charging options on an assumed 90 minute charging cycle

 

Full electric vehicles are priced at or slightly below current car prices for an equivalent sized car

The car has a range of 100km per charge

 

The cost per kilometre of a full charge is the electricity, which would be a small fraction of the cost of petrol - let's assume 25% for the purposes of argument.

 

Would you buy / drive one? (other performance / safety / comfort factors all ceteris paribus with current cars)

 

For the primary purpose of charging cars? No. A nuke power station (or 2) could be better used to lower the cost of living in multiple aspects (as well as profitable selling of power to neighbouring countries) But if there is an eventuality that all combustion powered vehicles are thrown out and switched over to electric, that would be a great leap forward. Imagine the amount of emmisions (and noise) that would be reduced.

[TangoElite]

Just pulling from my backside ok, but a few areas where I would guess a ship to be different to a floating platform..

 

1. Size - an aricraft carrier is around 30,000 pax right? Even with the energy needs of the engineering and propulsion this is postively tiny for a civil power plant ( later if I feel the mood I will see if can put into kilowatt hours the comparison)

2. The real, and I suspect more important reason is that a ship can run and hide from risks - a platform can't

3. It's very very hard to get to a platform if there's a problem - a ship same thing, but it can isolate itself, or move closer to help, a platform can't.

 

 

 

you really pulled this from your behind didnt you? cause if ever there was a self pwned post, this is it

 

look at my post just above yours

 

 

 

the technology of a floating platform nuclear plant is already in the making in russia

 

supports up to a population of 200,000 (around 5% of spore) and its configuration can double up as a desalination plant (ideal for spore)

 

can be moved easily by tugs, therefore can isolate itself and the encasing have been tested to be leaked proof even if collided or sunk.

 

and at a cost of only $US350m, we can easily afford a fleet of these.

 

only problem is that Russia is selling it for now... ten years later, maybe US will enter this market.

 

 

[Chewbacca]

actually it has already been done,

 

just googled and found russian floating nuclear plants, due to be completed next year

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_float...r_power_station

 

 

so the reasoning applies; if ships can have it, so can coastal cities

 

Hmmmm. Interesting. If they have decided that it's worth the risk, or the risks have been addressed, that's very good, then.

 

By the way, to the few of you:

 

Nuclear energy can be thought of as sustainable but not renewable. The existing nuclear fuel, mined or un-mined, is estimated to be able to sustain us for...well, the estimations vary widely, from a few hundred to tens of thousands of years. Either case, that gives us enough time to develop a real sustainable and clean energy source.

 

While it produces nuclear wastes, it's much easier to contain than normal carbon wastes. Can be buried, sent for re-processing, used in APFSDS (heh), etc.

 

The real problems to Nuclear Plants are the high costs and political impacts.

[Adrianli]

Just pulling from my backside ok, but a few areas where I would guess a ship to be different to a floating platform..

 

1. Size - an aricraft carrier is around 30,000 pax right? Even with the energy needs of the engineering and propulsion this is postively tiny for a civil power plant ( later if I feel the mood I will see if can put into kilowatt hours the comparison)

 

Just fyi :

 

"The ships' companies can number up to 3,200, not including an air wing of 2,480"

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nimitz_class_aircraft_carrier

 

In naval terms, ships' company = entire ship crew.

 

[Darryn]

nuclear powered cars? I think TS has been playing too much of fallout 3...besides u want to risk another chernobyl? and have u asked yourself where does the waste go to?

 

Noty nuclear powered cars - full electric cars, powered by batteries charged by a nuclear power station.

 

Why a nuclear power station? Because nuclear doesn't produce carbon - which is the whole point of the switch in the first place. There is no point in location shifting the carbon generation from car engines to an oil / coal fired power station.

 

And please do remember that for Cerhnobyl it was poorly designed 60s technology that was unsafe in and of itself, but on top of that - the safety procedures were turned off. Basically - Chernobyl is never ever going to be repeated, it cannot be repeated with current technology unless you are actually trying to create a nuclear disaster. The next worst is Three Mile Island, which is not thought of to have created any casualties.

[Zyrofillica]

Just fyi :

 

"The ships' companies can number up to 3,200, not including an air wing of 2,480"

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nimitz_class_aircraft_carrier

 

In naval terms, ships' company = entire ship crew.

 

 

30000 shd be the future prc carriers. need supporting crew of 25000 to row the carrier.

[Genie47]

Firstly, for nuclear power, we should go for an Integral Fast Reactor or IFR. No govt in the world has the balls to build one yet. The US experimented on it. Succeeded and then abandoned it.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Integral_Fast_Reactor

 

If you read on. It CAN use spent nuclear fuel from the older reactors. Cheap stuff! I think France and the UK will be more than happy to hand it over to you.

 

Next. Why electric car? Hydrogen fuel cell car!

 

Use the the energy generated by the IFR to make H2 from H2O.

 

You get longer range with a hydrogen fuel cell car. There is already one available now. Honda FCX Clarity. Only found in California. The range of the FCX is about the same as your regular gas driven car. 500km.

 

As reviewed in Top Gear 2007.

 

 

No battery to limit your range.

[Darryn]

Firstly, for nuclear power, we should go for an Integral Fast Reactor or IFR. No govt in the world has the balls to build one yet. The US experimented on it. Succeeded and then abandoned it.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Integral_Fast_Reactor

 

If you read on. It CAN use spent nuclear fuel from the older reactors. Cheap stuff! I think France and the UK will be more than happy to hand it over to you.

 

Next. Why electric car? Hydrogen fuel cell car!

 

Use the the energy generated by the IFR to make H2 from H2O.

 

You get longer range with a hydrogen fuel cell car. There is already one available now. Honda FCX Clarity. Only found in California. The range of the FCX is about the same as your regular gas driven car. 500km.

 

As reviewed in Top Gear 2007.

 

 

No battery to limit your range.

 

Hydrogen fuel cell would rock! That would be the way to really go. Jsut thought plug in battery electric was closer to mass production. I think ultimately something like fuel cell, or hydrogen burning is the way to go....

[Karoon]

ok so the conclusion is this:

 

nuclear plant for sg on floating barges/offshore rigs

linked to mainland by submarine cables

owned and operated by saf

located near pedra branca

 

thank me later