Floating nuclear power stations and their prospects

[@cianakril]

Hundreds of military nuclear ships that that actively sails and can be endangered by military actions - everyone is ok with this. Put the same ship reactors at civilian vessel that will be moored for 99% of its life - oh no, the horror!

[@Magiktcup]

True but the reactor on a ship will likely be many times smaller than a reactor in a dedicated power plant. Building a floating nuclear power plant is a retarded idea.

[@cianakril]

@@Magiktcup this power plant use exactly the same naval type reactors as medium icebreaker and transport ships - 2 units of KLT-40. The navy, both Russian and US, uses even bigger reactors.

[@b3j8]

Well, a huge civilian reactor on a floating barge would make a perfect terrorist target! And the consequences of such an attack being successful could be dire!

[@arturturkevych3816]

@@b3j8 nuclear power plants can also be targets for terrorists just as much. You don't see many of them attacked.

[@BoulevardFan28]

@@b3j8 Although, as repeatedly stated in the video, these units will typically be deployed quite literally in the middle of nowhere.

[@khaimgulkovich3368]

I am strongly supporting the nuclear power, as the major solution for foreseeable future.

[@liverii6540]

Khaim Gulkovich we should use thorium instead of uranium

[@stefanotherisod3311]

We should use MSR LFTR reactors.

[@oscariglesias9004]

@@liverii6540 thorium is an atractive idea, but from a feasibility standpoint, Uranium MSR are far closer than Th LFTR

[@KGopidas]

Small reactors the size of a normal apartment block can serve to bring down transmission losses

[@josippetkovic389]

@@liverii6540 I'd not go that deep into that. Thorium or Uranium? All we know thorium is cheaper right?

[@davidmambrose4210]

In the early 1970s a joint venture between Newport News Shipbuilding and Drydock and Westinghouse Electric was formed to build and site such a barge. The Company was called Offshore Power Systems and was based in Jacksonville Florida. I worked there for about a year. During that time the public and government showed a growing fear of nuclear accidents and funding quickly died.

[@lolthistruebias5057]

That's sad

[@kvosstuff4350]

I lived there during that time and remember that hge OPS crane hovering over Blount Island!

[@AbdulRasyidPangrango-qr9dt]

the only place US will use it is in the ALASKA. but Alaska already have more safely Power plant project. so her project is abonden

[@stefanms8803]

Goddamn hippies

[@yummychips_]

@@stefanms8803 wasn't just hippies. It was paid actor hippies. Might sound like a conspiracy theory, but the growing fear was stoked by oil companies who didn't want to end up like coal companies. A lot of anti-nuclear organizations were funded by oil companies. These orgs blended in with anti-war/nuclear groups and changed the narrative.

[@whirledpeaz5758]

Very well done, Thank you. You answered all the questions I had when I decided to watch this video. As former US Navy nuclear operator, I found it very informative without needing to get into details.

[@martewargh6024]

This is a great innovation by the Russians. I hope the project becomes a success.

[@airdad5383]

Land based nuclear plants take forever to build. If these were mass produced it would provide cost savings and ease of maintenance since you could always tow it back to the factory.

[@marianmarkovic5881]

Depends on place,.. when projects were made systematic, 5-6y to build NPP is not dream,.... French did it, now Russians and Chineese trying to do it ass well.

[@gma729]

BEYOND IMPRESSIVE !!! RUSSIA IS CLEARLY LEADING THE WAY INTO THE FUTURE W INNOVATION AND INGENUITY !!! AGAIN, BEYOND IMPRESSIVE 🙂👍👍

[@MartynaYuna]

For an informative video, instead of just saying 'it's very safe' it would be great to explain which kind of passive systems are in place

[@wim0104]

a floating powerplant... what could possibly go wrong... any flooding/tsunami/hurricane/iceberg and your power is interupted. and it needs barges to move, even though it's a powerplant?!

[@imrekalman9044]

There are seven layers of hull/armour around the reactors. Like all Russian reactors built after 9/11 it has a good chance to survive a direct hit from an airliner. One needs a dedicated bunker buster or heavy anti-ship missile to make it leak. Now about the nonsense of the replier... Flooding/tsunami - you know this thing floats on top of the water, rising with it, right? If needed they just adjust the anchors and the power cables going ashore. Duh? Iceberg - the solution is called a "dam" that diverts or blocks icebergs. Common practice in harbours for centuries. Hurricane - there aren't any in the far north. Obviously such floating plants are not used in hurricane areas, like Florida. Some thinking goes a long way.

[@Shorkshire]

@@wim0104 none of the things you mentioned would do anything to this gigantic ship.

[@forestmightyblack]

Theres a backup line from another regional npp to make sure the grid is available. Needless to say lomonosov has emergency and standby diesel generators in case

[@buckbuck4074]

80% of the worlds pop lives along the coast. These can be moved easily. Long as they follow through on saftey priority they should be safe.

[@zolikoff]

"Safety" is a moot point when discussing nuclear power plants in general. Literally any nuclear power plant is safer than anything else non-nuclear. Safety is just a relative measure when comparing two different nuclear power plants.

[@timhofstetter5654]

Yeah? You feel like being moved to expedite some other peoples' ideas about how to use stuff? How do you feel about hideously contaminating the world's largest food supply?

[@timhofstetter5654]

@@zolikoff Yep, for sure. Dams poison the land for millenia and give you and all of your descendants cancer. Same with wind power and even silicon-panel photovoltaic.

[@zolikoff]

Stop taking popular media depictions of nuclear power for granted and learn about the actual thing.

[@iamnadexey]

@@timhofstetter5654 That's an exaggerated strawman of impacts from nuclear generation sites. In reality, 99% of nuclear plants are, and will be, safe for their entire life. Speaking for the U.S, even with TMI in the 70s they had minimal risk to the public, because the layered biological shield worked so effectively. In fact, the maximum possible dose from TMI by the public, as it was melting down, is about 100 mrem (millirem) or about the dose you get from being alive for a year (due to background radiation). Now, I'm sure you're going to point out Fukushima or Chernobyl and say "hey, those were terrible, we can't use nuclear energy!" However, their impacts weren't the fault of nuclear energy per se. For Fukushima, a natural disaster caused each reactor to shut down (actually they shut down when seismic sensors detected the earthquake, so they were shut down prior to the tsunami) and each safety mechanism worked like it should. The maximum public dose possible is 1 rem, for those who would have been in the immediate area directly after the disaster (which is practically impossible since a quarantine zone was placed on the area most affected). Even so, 1 rem is only slightly more than a long chest CT scan. Chernobyl is a different story. It failed for almost no other reason than the bad design of the Soviets, poor reactor staff training, and improper handling of the situation. Enough said. Those are the only two INES 7 (with TMI being INES 5) level disasters (In fact, Fukushima was rated 5 for a while). There are hundreds of nuclear power plants all over the world, not even including marine generators. The vast majority of them have never had an incident worthy of note. I live near a nuclear power plant that has been operating since the 70s, and it has had exactly zero large, or even small-scale events past shutting down for the 2011 earthquake. Even then, no detectable impact could be found on the community around it. Demonizing nuclear energy in this way is simply not feasible is we wish to reach new levels of carbon-free power generation sooner. Riverkeepers just successfully lobbied to have Indian Point NPP shut down in the near future, and as such carbon emissions are expected to rise up to 30% in NY. You cannot truly support feasible 100% carbon-free energy without nuclear energy being, at the very least, a stepping stone. Nuclear energy is 100% carbon free.

[@yaronk1069]

Good to know you have more channels "Skyships Eng"

[@7kk01]

Yaron Kalach once I heard the voice, I started looking for this comment haha

[@johndumont3114]

I subscribed as soon as I heard his voice! Great narrator and even better educational videos

[@idselseno2306]

My country is an island nation where there are typhoons and occasionally earthquakes. This is perfect to the country I live in. Power and lots of desalinated seawater! A floating nuclear power plant solves the issue of earthquakes which is the main worry of most citizens.

[@okakokakiev787]

You probably need a couple of these when they reach higher power output.

[@KGopidas]

Worthwhile innovation

[@km5405]

considering how much energy some remote operations take from stuff like generators... this might economically and enviromentally make sense in niche applications. its probably easier to make a reactor ship alot more robust then say a oil tanker as well because the energy density is so gigantic.

[@b0bl00i]

It's an interesting topic and I like the idea. To bad the rest of the world seems to step away from further nuclear development. I'd very much like to see the world start building thorium reactors en masse.

[@mackenziewoodcock1170]

I believe India is building Thorium breeder reactors. Would be tough in other countries as the location for the nuclear material is found in difficult locations to reach (From a Canadian perspective)... or countries would have to invest into the Thorium reactors which may cost them a little $$$. But I definitely want to see more of them as well!

[@zolikoff]

Any kind of nuclear reactors en masse really. Whatever floats anyone's boat. You could literally just build cheap soviet RBMK reactors and it would still be much better than what's currently powering the world.

[@Natogoon]

@@zolikoff Just make sure the control rods aren't tipped with Graphite lmao

[@stefanschleps8758]

@@zolikoff stfu. Your so stupid I don't know where to begin. Try graduating high school before chiming in.

[@AH-pq7yw]

Because the rest of the world doesn't want repetition of Chernobyl disaster

[@Horizoneng]

Hi guys. Today we have a ship again, not a regular, but a special one. We are figuring out whether floating nuclear power plants are promising, or are they too expensive, dangerous, and generally useless toys from atomic scientists. Welcome aboard of the nuclear barge - Academic Lomonosov!

[@ervandrush3116]

Make more videos!

[@gustavgnoettgen]

So beautiful footage! Someone seems to care about screen resolution. This alone makes this video very delicious. (And in case that this video outlives decades: This stuff might look stupid to you. It may be not even retro-enhanced on whatever way. But please consider to appreciate the effort to bring on the best footage possible.)

[@chengong388]

So you can use the waste heat of these reactors to supply residential heating and desalinate sea water all while providing power? It’s like a one stop solution to so many urban needs.

[@kiwikeith7633]

Send this to Greta. I think these are a great idea, especially given ( a point you skipped quickly over) that it can provide a lot of desalinated water. This is not just a power supply barge, but a water supply one too - and that makes it extra special. Just don't sell it to China.

[@biguncle554]

Kiwi Keith how dare you!

[@kiwikeith7633]

@@biguncle554 Indeed! thing is, I have always dared. I believe that we need to be economical with oil so that it is around for all future generations, lubricants etc - amazing what we get from oil. It is also amazing what can be had from coking coal, disinfectants, cleaners, tars, gas, fuels, and a clean burning substance for smelting metals to name just a few. So of course I think Nuclear is the way to go. I lik your humour - but really it is not funny what the left is doing by exploiting Greta. Her (adults?) should be locked up for child abuse.

[@MCAroon09]

why don't sell it to china? and also, I don't think that they would have much intrest in such vessel

[@kiwikeith7633]

@Mike‘s World Maybe you are right - but like with oil we don't really know that. There are Thoruim reactors around - and science advances. But lets take the position that your claim is accurate - in that case what reliable, all weather, all hours economical energy source you favour?

[@dinosaurcomplaints2359]

Until we figure out nuclear fusion, fission is the highest energy density material available.

[@dinosaurcomplaints2359]

I would like to see a chart showing the amounts of coal, oil, natural gas versus one fuel cycle for the 150 mw reactor.

[@guidologo]

It's awesome. Completely understand they build it.

[@zolikoff]

Need a few hundred of them (and higher powered units too) ASAP.

[@Jim54_]

Our Civilisation’s rejection of Nuclear power was a massive mistake, and the environment has payed dearly for it as we continue to rely on fossil fuels for our electricity

[@danmth]

Extremely clever idea to use this kind of electric power source. Mobile and ready to be moved where and when is needed.

[@panosgk7131]

hey Skyships eng, found you 😂

[@jamesedmister9922]

Its propulsion system is also used on Russian aircraft carriers!

[@zolikoff]

I understood that reference!

[@AlexApol]

Ha! Took me a second.

[@Saddutchman]

True, but then again, you only need a Diesel powered Swedish sub to sink an American carrier.

[@Then.72]

James Edmister they don’t but it’s a good idea. Using reactors during warfare is ridiculous

[@sidharthcs2110]

Not carriers. There's only 1

[@Ellesmere888]

Great video of a great project. Great idea for developing Russia's North as well as Canada's. Thank you.

[@tyrstone3539]

Россия обладает лучшей ядерной энергетикой!

[@ПетрВрангель-т8п]

"As well as Canada" Seriously? Russia is first in almost every aspekt - in high technologies, medicine, military weapons and equipment, atom (both of them - war atom and peace atom), space, agriculture and innovation in it etc. etc. etc. What more important, it's not just nowdays situation - Russia always was first in most of the terms, always was a pioneer. Compare Russia and Canada (even America) - it's like compare giant Colossus, Mammoth and little noisy dog, who can only loudly bark around. It's just unwise. Sorry for poor english.

[@Ellesmere888]

@@ПетрВрангель-т8п Sir, I was not questioning Russia's obviously well developed technology, nor was I trying to imply that Canada is anywhere near to being on an equal footing. Canada is a small country with more limited capacity to innovate. I merely thought that this idea/project could be used to good effect in Canada's North. I have nothing but respect for Russian technology; you are great innovators.

[@skylaryoung5943]

Nuclear power if done right and disposed correctly seems better than other methods that pollute. But i think Nuclear Fusion is going to become more popular in the future.

[@lsellclumanetsolarenergyll5071]

I think we found an answer for Japan and Earth quake regions as well. Since it's floating all on water Weather like Hurrican's will be a threat but if you have the unit's movable to multiple grid stations you can move them around in case of an Emergency. Really something to think about.

[@bronzedivision]

No not really, actually you've found one of the few ways that nuclear power can be dangerous. A Tsunami is what caused the Fukushma disaster and boats near the show are by far the MOST vulnerable object to tsunamis. However, no nuclear reactor has have had an issue with an Earthquake at all. As for tsunamis if the walls are build correctly they're not much of a hazard either as the Onagawa NPP in Japan proved in 2011. So the best thing for Japan is to just keep building them normally but to employ actually useful specifications.

[@quietusplus1221]

Just found this channel. The accent takes a little getting used to, but the amount of information is impressive. I'm in, subscribed! It's a different accent, but you pronounce everything very well.

[@raabaddler5802]

So only 70 people lost and can be sunk in place when it fails, a vast improvement over RKB reactors

[@invisibleforce777]

I'm new to your channel. Your channel is so great! Your videos are so interesting, educational, informative, and professional. Thank you! Subscribing now.

[@mackfisher4487]

Storage & Decommissioning: Thank you for your presentation, atomic energy is very practical approach to limiting global warming, however I object to the deployment until we can come up with a viable way of storing spent contaminated materials.

[@royk7712]

even if this barge/ship is sunk, there would be no meltdown because if ship is damaged or reactor is breach, it will be cooled by the sea water which is a infinite amount of heat sink

[@doritoification]

Great video! Excited to see how ThorCon get on over the coming years

[@dougm3037]

The Greens have such a stranglehold here in Australia that nuclear power is currently illegal. I kid you not. It's so bad here that we've requested that French subs on order for our navy are converted at cost from nuclear to diesel electric. Utter madness!!!

[@ervandrush3116]

Really, convert nuclear subs into diesel? That's crazy

[@dougm3037]

@Gmail X A woman who looks like her should have more horse sense.

[@kiwibird8441]

@Gmail X been banned long before her

[@shawnnoyes4620]

Aussies should have went with Air independent propulsion - German Type 214 submarine -they employ advanced polymer electrolyte membrane fuel cells that assist in delivering it comparable range and endurance to the Collins class. google Sweden's Super Stealth Submarines Are So Lethal They 'Sank' a U.S. Aircraft Carrier (in mock battle)

[@shawnnoyes4620]

I am pro-nuclear for electricity and process heat. But, the stealth sub AIP is harder to detect than a nuclear sub.

[@csil2863]

Floating nuclear power plants is a great idea. I hope it is successful and employed in other regions.

[@sarahdon3435]

A nuclear reactor is not the same as a nuclear bomb. Showing nuclear explosions is misleading.

[@stefanschleps8758]

So is the concept of safe nuclear power. Hydrogen explosions are just a joy to be around. So... your misleading. How many disasters must we have before you brainiacs get it through your thick skulls ? Nuclear power is not safe. Can we store the spent fuel in your house ?

[@jimmitomato555]

Stefan Schleps before insulting fellow you tubers I would highly recommend spending more time educating oneself about nuclear science, especially different reactor design, nuclear fuel differences, (uranium vs thorium) and maybe even basic differences between fusion and fission. Not all nuclear technologies are wasteful and dangerous.....

[@insertnamehere8096]

Stefan Schleps www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/safety-and-security/safety-of-plants/safety-of-nuclear-power-reactors.aspx

[@CharlieK92004]

In my understanding, a ships reactor being small enough to fit in a ship, has a very highly enriched core, which can explode like a bomb.

[@gregorycotter6461]

That's a great idea.

[@davidbergaragonzalez5653]

Why stop there? Why not floating desalination plants?

[@oscariglesias9004]

This nuclear plant actually desalinates plenty of water for the near population

[@bronzedivision]

Literally already does that.

[@jangamaster8677]

Another super interesting video! Keep up the good work bro

[@elshazlio]

Great video, keep it up!

[@WormholeJim]

Back in the fifties, US Airforce was looking into building a nuclear powered high-altitude surveillance plane, but even as it was actually possible at that time to build a reactor with high enough output and still have it weigh little enough to get the plane off the ground, the necessary shielding to keep the pilots safe proved way too heavy to install in any efficient measure. Fast foreward 50-60 years, and now automated drone-systems have reached quite a sophisticated level of technology, and so the ancient cold war dream of a spyplane capable of hovering several miles above a location 24/7 for years on end without need for refuel or support lives on stronger than ever. Miniturized nuclear reactors zipping about in the air. Coming to a war theater near you in the future just around the corner.

[@kenwiltshire7834]

Fantastic and the de-salinated water as a by-product is great for many countries the world over where clean water is a problem.

[@Aatell764]

I love this idea, I'm a huge supporter of nuclear energy and this is absolutely incredible. Think of the possibilities.

[@dougmc666]

This is a great way to build reactors in a factory environment and ship the finished product to wherever it's needed. Countries like Germany who want to bail could just sell their reactors!

[@linkdeous3928]

i don't think you could that easily implant a "fixed" huge nuclear reactor on such a ship, + it's form 2 different country, so i'm pretty sure they have different "morphology" and wouldn't fit at all, unless germany start making their own nuclear barge ?

[@gubocci]

Hey Horizon, some feedback. Your visual content, editing and voiceover content is great. However you should get a better microphone and improve the audio production overall. Do that and you will be in the absolute top level of youtube content creators. Anyway, thanks for your work!

[@branvan69]

LOL, I don't think you know who the narrator actually is...

[@brucesims3228]

Question: Ok. So the plant is built and put into service. Fair enough. What happens when it's useful service is over? What becomes of the nuclear core? What water is being used to regulate the heat of the core? What happens to the radioactive structure of the ship itself? How come conversation tends to dry-up when someone starts asking these questions?

[@insertnamehere8096]

Fuel rods are removed and stored safely, and sometimes used as armor when the uranium is fully depleted, the ship is decommissioned and broke down as a regular ship when all the radioactive components are removed, water doesn't usually become radioactive in power plants. The uranium in fuel rods is cased so the uranium never actually comes into contact with the water www.quora.com/Does-water-become-radioactive-after-being-used-as-coolant-in-nuclear-power-plant en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ship-Submarine_Recycling_Program

[@stephennelmes2707]

Why not put it in Devonport dockyard with all the decommissioned nuclear submarines that we don't know what to do with?

[@insertnamehere8096]

Stephen Nelmes 🇺🇸we scrap and recycle ours

[@brucesims3228]

@@insertnamehere8096 Thank you. That was actually very helpful and informative. Much appreciated.

[@mcanderson0]

Sky! I didnt know you had more channels... are there any more, other than Skyships Eng and Horizon?

[@user-mp3eq6ir5b]

Basically a Towed Barge with a large Naval Nuclear Generating Station. It would be best used moored up semi-permanently for its Service Life and Mission.

[@michazajac5881]

well, the greatest boon of such barge is that it can provide power where no other power supply is available - and by so it can basically dictate the price. For other cities, where there would be a competition, it would be all down to economics. Anyone knows the price tag of this thing?

[@ronaldaubuchon2535]

Way to go. Lets make more.

[@recklessroges]

With climate change moving the coasts this makes more sense than I'd like to admit.

[@dougiedrever7168]

great idea

[@pushkard9377]

This channels content is quite good.

[@lsq7833]

Funfact: there are already over a hundred floating nuclear reactors, and a few of them have already sunk in decades past.

[@GH-oi2jf]

lsq78 - Yet you haven’t cited a single example. We know about the nuclear-powered submarines, so don’t bother citing those.

[@p4inmaker]

You just listed your own examples.

[@aleksandrkinyaev6703]

@@GH-oi2jf en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_marine_propulsion

[@yourerightmybad7363]

@@GH-oi2jf technically, a nuclear submarine will be a submerged nuclear reactor but yes, i guess that works either way

[@cianakril]

@@GH-oi2jf submarine reactors are actually bigger than the reactors used on this floating power plant so they are more than valid example.

[@aurorajones8481]

I love this idea. Reactors are usually built next to coastal waters for cooling so making a ship out of them with a semi perm dock is BRILLIANT! If anything should happen it can be towed away and fixed outside of human civilization. If Fukashima was structured like this things would have been different. Also all the nuke US carriers are nearing the end of their service life. Those reactors could be utilized for off shore power like this. Granted im no engineer so there might be other reasons this would not be possible but im not privy to that.

[@stanokalman9275]

nici, nice, very good idea.

[@JAGRAFX]

The small nuclear power stations being built by Russia are actually former marine-use reactors placed in a differently configured context. Not a bad idea since during the times when everyone in the neighboring city is angry at you; one can alway pull up anchor and leave town. I've worked at a total of four N-plants at two sites. "Small" or conventionally sized; nuclear plants always start out the same way. A older gentleman at one of my previous work locations told me that whatever the technology; nuclear plants always start out with the same degree of confidence and aspiration --- almost like the acquisition of a new, small pet dinosaur in the neighborhood. Everyone laughs as the tiny little dinosaur goes "Yap, Yap" as we give it a can of dog food. But the fact is five years from time present our dinosaur [even at the small size of 200 or so megawatts] will to have grown to the size of a large building and we are all trying to feed the thing with seventeen-hundred pounds of dog food a day or, as we have now found out, the thing is simply going to eat all of us. The radioactive waste dump trucks are leaving with the "product of the day" two-abreast lined up for miles. This is in fact what happened to the major world utilities when they decided to go in for a dime for nuclear power in the last century. Mark Twain lost a tremendous amount of money trying to develop a moveable type machine --- It was not until the 20th Century that movable type finally became a generalized reality with the invention of the LinoType Machine. Sometimes technologies just take a lot longer. A Nobel Prize physics laureate once said; one can defy the laws of Nature, for a time, if one has enough money.

[@TonyOlsenFerris]

These are Uranium 235/238 nuclear power plants. When will we see the cheaper, more efficient, safer, more compact, and less waste-producing Thoruim (LFTR) nuclear power plants?

[@Yoktometer]

Let's be real, you deserver so much more subscribers.

[@kokofan50]

Sinking a water cooled reactor is about the safest thing humans could do. You’re giving it a functionally infinite amount of coolant. Calling this the nuclear titanic is the dumbest thing I can imagine saying about it.

[@magisterrleth3129]

My problem is how exactly do they propose to have a sturdy-enough containment structure for the reactor that can also float?

[@GolddenWaffles]

Nuclear Reactors are on a “containment building” Which is pretty sturdy because that is its purpose. All reactors have this casing around them filled with water for cooling the reactor and creating steam for generators.

[@Emil-cj6ey]

Nice video

[@tyrstone3539]

Россия обладает лучшей ядерной энергетикой

[@goodtimes333888]

#cleanenergy I love it

[@congquypham8718]

Excuse me but are you the same person who's creating content on "Skyships"/"Skyships Eng" channel?

[@dezent]

Yes it must be the same person. Voice is identical.

[@MCAroon09]

looks like a part of a great solution for the problem that Russia always had: most of their land being useless and underdeveloped

[@montag5805]

Yep. Useless. Coal, oil, diamonds, forest, water etc etc etc

[@MCAroon09]

@@montag5805 they are all useless when there's no infrastructure or people to make use of them

[@montag5805]

@@MCAroon09 why do u think that there is no infrastructure?

[@caav56]

@@montag5805 Because there's none? You can see it for yourself on the maps. Mobile nuke plants like this help to lessen this problem major time by bringing several years worth of stable power production and heat generation in a single convenient package.

[@aitorinarra]

Love it!

[@tarunpande8974]

Good informative video

[@wendellcoleman1137]

These could prove to be very valuable to Taiwan, as they try and buttress their country against a Chinese invasion. Camouflage a couple of those bad boys a little and have them mobile, floating back and forth along their east coast, could help their survive ability against a Chinese missile barrage. Or they could station them at some island close by as backups, and call them into play after the island's other power plants have been taken out. And it can even provide backup potable water! If I was a marketing director for this country, I'd give Taiwan a call.

[@horeageorgian7766]

5:33 I type now on exactly the same HP keyboard. The nice thing about it: you can wash it under running water with soap.

[@movelikejaeger1914]

I think this path of development will lead to atomic powerplants in space, to Power ion thrusters for our First interstellar ships for example.

[@mirandela777]

Looking at how many $$ costs to lift a single fraking kg to low orbit today, you may want to wait some more decades... human species are doomed anyway, look what we did first with nuclear energy when invented - not something to help other peoples or to improve their life, but first we build a weapon, to kill more and more... we are a suicidal race, and the idiots & crooks lead us....

[@shubhambhati7087]

What kind of nuclear reactor it uses? And does it produce any nuclear waste? What happens to the nuclear waste? How do they dispose the uses nuclear rod's and radiated cooling water?

[@Lea_Kaderova]

Reactors are water-water type KLT-40S. Burned fuel rods are transported back to "Majak" nuclear facility to recyclation. Cooling water in primary cycle is still one and same. Secondary cycle is specially designed as thermal power plant, because KLT-40 reactors are designed to have 150 MW thermal output and "only" 32 MW electric power output.

[@wildandwooly]

Convert these to molten salt Fluoride Thorium Reactors and then you will have a breakthrough!

[@AStarkofWinterfell24]

Great humanitarian potential

[@davidchristensen6908]

This is a wonderful idea and I see this was made with to small of a power generation. I see the use of these all over the world. Small investment in a dock side small compared to siting and building generator, clean water and hot water plants. You get all 3 in one building. You never know Los Angles someday may be having to many brown out. Up pulls this barge and poof power and more fresh water and hot water if you need it.

[@scorpions8907]

Awesome

[@robertantrim6908]

The original nuclear power plant idea at the navy research Center ran there reactor using (regalith) or also known as a (Metal Salt) Reactor, it was and is a far safer way to build and operate a nuclear power plant. Check it out.

[@transkryption]

Thanks good discussion m to think m about

[@stanleytolle416]

This would be a good use of a molten salt reactor. These reactors would have the advantage of safety and the ability to pack much more power in a small foot print. Since these reactors work at much higher tempatures things like supercritical carbon dioxide turbines could be used which are like 1/10 the size for the same amount of power of steam turbines. The high tempature output can also be use for industrial operations that need these high tempatures. A companyThorCon is attempting to do this: www.powermag.com/a-thorium-molten-salt-reactor-when-and-where-you-need-it/ .

[@gavinmcintosh7022]

Imagine Thorium MSR,SMR CO2 supercritical reactors the size of shipping containers. Power can be shipped, truck to were it is needed.

[@not-kate2639]

Ayy my mans looking kinda red over here 6:55

[@ultimathule3834]

radiation sickness :^)

[@Z_Pavel]

he dressed up only for video

[@nicolek4076]

This film shows how ferociously difficult it is to speak completely correct English. The language commentary is very good, but ever so slightly wrong in places. The use of a non-English-speaking accent for this was thus a good choice.

[@dinosaurcomplaints2359]

I would like to see a chart showing the amount of coal, oil, and natural gas it takes to equal the output of one fuel cycle of the 150 mw reactor.

[@GolddenWaffles]

Just put it this way: 3 tonnes of refined Uranium on a nuclear plant can last for 5-7 years before reload of the reactor. And 3 tonnes of natural gas last around 3-5 days on a power plant.

[@grantchang81976]

Floating nuclear power plants are really versatile I need My own private floating nuclear power plants👼🏾

[@d8264]

What happens to the waste?

[@a-fl-man640]

makes sense to me. floating fusion reactors does too once they make it work.

[@tobyihli9470]

Personally, I am 100% for this. If the US government won’t let local governments build and operate their own nuclear power, than please, just get out of the way and let them purchase or lease this equipment from the Russians. That’s right, I believe in the ownership of intellectual property, and good on them if the spend the time and resources to develop it. Maybe once people see we are spending good money on something we could do ourselves they will wake up!

[@aspopulvera9130]

This floating power plant once docked here in the Philippines

[@ErnestJay88]

So, the main problem wasn't people who against it, but it produce too low power for the same cost as land-based nuclear power plant.

[@xponen]

it make it more safer so less people to argue against it.

[@БлаБлаБла]

Привет с палубы этого чуда юда

[@gregcoste5332]

what about cooling? the temptation of direct seawater is inches away? "Water, water everywhere and all the boards did shrink; Water, water everywhere and not a drop to drink" .. nuclear reactors are very thirsty machines

[@sunroad7228]

"No energy system can produce sum useful energy in excess of the total energy put into constructing it. This universal truth applies to all energy systems. Energy, like time, flows from past to future".

[@caav56]

Most of this energy was put into making them by supernovas and hypernovas long before us. We are just reaping the benefits.

[@sunroad7228]

@@caav56 You mean "We are just reaping the benefits" with the little assistance from B-52s, Sukhois and the media. Ask war-torn nations about "We are just reaping the benefits" and they tell you the truth what that really means. Humans are very lucky fossil fuels deplete quickly, and soon will be behind - so Supernovas no more.

[@tbates1987]

Hi, its a very nice video, I would like to know the source of the drawing you show at 0:45? Is this from a PDF or another video Thanks very much

[@Aatell764]

Did you ever manage to find it? I would love to see it

[@tbates1987]

@@Aatell764 nope i did not

[@Aatell764]

@@tbates1987 That's too bad I love some good blueprint/schematics. They should really list this kind of stuff in the description. It's called citing your sources.

[@pedroernesto6941]

imagine these ships in places that dont have political estability necessary for fixed power plants investiment

[@ArmstrongMixture]

Its like a food truck but for power generation. Shows up, does its thing, leaves without a trace.

[@GH-oi2jf]

Better to put them on land where they can be watched closely. But not in flood/tsunami zones.

[@haldir108]

The american company thorcon are making a similar concept, where the equivalent of the barge gets filled with concrete and laid to rest on the seabed. This avoids many issues of rough seas.

[@TocTeplv]

@@haldir108 You wont avoid earthquake with that decision

[@ThatManWithAPixelatedFace]

Is this the same guy behind the Skyships Eng channel?

[@GolddenWaffles]

Sounds like him right?

[@francisdexaviermaurinus4695]

Why you start a nuclear energy video with a bomb. Do we start eolic videos with propeller driven warplanes or a coal plant with explosions. What about starting a solar energy video with Cancer or lightning.

[@ivangrozny875]

Too bad that we have to wait for India or China to make first Liquid reactor, you would get much greater safety and power with this on a barge(U233). But meltdown on the sea is a non issue, water is excellent neutron moderator so i see the logic, you just dump the core into the sea :D.

[@GolddenWaffles]

Haha

[@arwo1143]

Wait a second The ships reactors can provide a total of 300 MW of thermal power, but only around 70 MW of electrical power....? We have some serious optimizing to do

[@EO2dave]

Who are the Scientist that are living on board this energy production Platform? And what do they do for fun?

[@PNurmi]

Besides what is on the barge, there is what ever the town they serve has for facilities.

[@user-mp3eq6ir5b]

EO2dave ☆ I would Imagine the Usual Human Activities for Fun as defined by Nuclear Technicians.

[@cianakril]

The plant is moored in a dock. They do normal human activities they can find in the port city where the plant is docking. Nor they are living on the vessel but get living space in the port city. The only reason for this plant to be floating is transportation to remote areas from the developed assembly location.

[@andrewtaylor940]

It's not a bad idea. The use of Reactors at Sea have a remarkably good safety record. And the ultimate backstop of "if anything goes wrong the reactor gets dumped into the deep water which fairly quickly cools and neutralizes the reaction. Naval Reactors are well refined. Heck the larger US Nuclear ships, the Carriers have equipment and protocals whereby they can hook up to the power grid and power a City in the event of a Natural disaster. I'm sure the Russian's have similar schemes. Creating a Dedicated seagoing power station is not a bad idea. As a business plan you could lease them into developing areas while they build land based facilities. Or bring them in and online as surge demand is needed.