Best Places To Hook Off Shore Power Plants In To the U.S. Power Grid

Discussion in 'Science' started by Dayton3, Nov 7, 2018.

  1. Dayton3

    Dayton3 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 3, 2009
    Messages:
    11,520
    Likes Received:
    1,913
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    One of the dreams of mine has been the massive expansion of nuclear power to generate electricity for the continental United States. Naturally there is massive resistance to this from the "not in my back yard" groups and associated anti nuclear groups.

    But the Russians themselves had indicated a solution to this problem.

    Off shore (presumably portable) nuclear powerplants. After all we have dozens of nuclear powered U.S. warships and very few people around the U.S. get up in arms when they dock at any port.

    I've proposed a network of nuclear powerplants built aboard large ships or barges that can be moved to needed areas and tied directly into the three major U.S. power grids (Eastern, Western, Texas). We have the major coasts of the East, West, and Gulf and large ocean going ships or barges can pretty much reach any point accessible by the Great Lakes. Obviously the vast majority of the U.S. population lives near the coastlines and could get their electricity from such sources.

    So what are the best points to attach a barge (or large ship) with nuclear reactors into the various U.S. power grids? And how many large floating reactors would it take to make a major difference in generating capacity. ?
     
  2. tecoyah

    tecoyah Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 15, 2008
    Messages:
    23,918
    Likes Received:
    5,815
    Trophy Points:
    113
    One word....Fukushima.
     
  3. Dayton3

    Dayton3 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 3, 2009
    Messages:
    11,520
    Likes Received:
    1,913
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    What about it?
     
  4. tecoyah

    tecoyah Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 15, 2008
    Messages:
    23,918
    Likes Received:
    5,815
    Trophy Points:
    113
    One large storm, say a hurricane, and you have a Nuclear disaster.
     
  5. Dayton3

    Dayton3 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 3, 2009
    Messages:
    11,520
    Likes Received:
    1,913
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Ships or barges can be moved. The U.S. Navy routinely moves scores of its ships from port to avoid hurricanes.

    Note, that a barge that can be moved (towed) at only 4 knots (a quarter of a commercial vessels speed) can be relocated nearly 200 miles away in only one days time. More than enough to avoid the worst effects of any conceivable hurricane. Say one day to disconnect from the grid and one day of tow time, as long as these floating powerplants got two days of warning of a hurricane they would be perfectly safe from a storm. And since we've had weather satellites, no hurricane has ever hit coastal areas of the U.S. with anything less than 3-5 days of warning time.
     
    Last edited: Nov 7, 2018
  6. Mamasaid

    Mamasaid Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2018
    Messages:
    3,757
    Likes Received:
    1,211
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    But now you have to replace the plant's production on the grid for a week+.
     
  7. tecoyah

    tecoyah Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 15, 2008
    Messages:
    23,918
    Likes Received:
    5,815
    Trophy Points:
    113
    And you for some reason think a Nuclear reactor with the power output you imagine would fit on a barge?
    How do you propose it be attached to a grid without the intense infrastructure involved?
    Do you imagine it being detached and moved in the few days warning of a storm?
    What do the people do while it is detached...no power means no water and sewage.?

    You need to examine the logistics here and then you will understand why only Russia will do this, they obviously do not care what happens.
     
    Last edited: Nov 7, 2018
  8. Dayton3

    Dayton3 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 3, 2009
    Messages:
    11,520
    Likes Received:
    1,913
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    An area about to be hit by a major hurricane is supposed to normally be evacuated anyway. Thus electrical needs will drop dramatically.
     
  9. tecoyah

    tecoyah Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 15, 2008
    Messages:
    23,918
    Likes Received:
    5,815
    Trophy Points:
    113
    So the floating disaster waiting to happen only powers the local coasts?

    What happens when the Storm track shifts (as it always does)…..play dodge ball?
     
  10. Mamasaid

    Mamasaid Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2018
    Messages:
    3,757
    Likes Received:
    1,211
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    But not to zero, because first responders need it. Don't get me wrong, this is a very interesting idea.
     
  11. Dayton3

    Dayton3 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 3, 2009
    Messages:
    11,520
    Likes Received:
    1,913
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Quite doable. At any rate even if a ship sinks with operational nuclear reactors aboard its hardly a disaster. The U.S. has lost two submarines (Thresher and Scorpion) and the Soviets/Russians as many as 8 submarines with operational nuclear reactors aboard and their has been no indications of radioactive contamination from any of them.

    Remember that 20 feet of water offers about the same equivalent radiation shielding as one foot of lead.
     
  12. Moi621

    Moi621 Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2013
    Messages:
    12,409
    Likes Received:
    3,293
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Nuclear

    It Only Takes One oopsy
     
    Last edited: Nov 7, 2018
  13. Dayton3

    Dayton3 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 3, 2009
    Messages:
    11,520
    Likes Received:
    1,913
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    What the hell does that even mean?

    I would assume you know that commercial nuclear powerplants can NOT explode in any type of nuclear explosion don't you?
     
  14. Moi621

    Moi621 Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2013
    Messages:
    12,409
    Likes Received:
    3,293
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    It's not the explosion duh-uh
    It's the pollution with "half" life measured in thousands of years.
    Or is it tens of thousands.
    Timmy, stop picking your tumor


    Never forget the coincidences - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Conqueror_(1956_film)#Cancer_controversy



    Nuclear
    It only takes one oopsy.
    3 Mile Island. Poisoned Earth.
    No boom required
     
  15. Dayton3

    Dayton3 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 3, 2009
    Messages:
    11,520
    Likes Received:
    1,913
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    No one died or was injured by nuclear materials at Three Mile Island. So much for a "poisoned Earth".

    You're reading too much anti nuclear propaganda.

    And just because the half life of some nuclear materials is tens of thousands of years that does NOT Mean that it remains dangerous that long. Many nuclear materials become pretty innocuous long before their half lives are over.
     
  16. Mamasaid

    Mamasaid Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2018
    Messages:
    3,757
    Likes Received:
    1,211
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Then what in the world did we spend $1 billion dollars and 14 years cleaning up? I want my money back.
     
    Moi621 likes this.
  17. Moi621

    Moi621 Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2013
    Messages:
    12,409
    Likes Received:
    3,293
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male

    YOU go live there!

    I have not seen any follow up regarding cancers and this population, have you?

    No not anti Nuc propaganda.
    A Biologist with strong education in Molecular Biology and Biochemistry.
    An understanding at the atomic level how radiation injures, kills.
    Not political at all.
     
    Last edited: Nov 7, 2018
  18. Mamasaid

    Mamasaid Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2018
    Messages:
    3,757
    Likes Received:
    1,211
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I have. There was no resultant rise in cancers in the area.
     
    Dayton3 likes this.
  19. BarleyPopGuy

    BarleyPopGuy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2018
    Messages:
    1,077
    Likes Received:
    663
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    The risk/reward for nuclear power says it's worth it.
     
    Dayton3 and roorooroo like this.
  20. Dayton3

    Dayton3 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 3, 2009
    Messages:
    11,520
    Likes Received:
    1,913
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    You up thread used cancers associated with the actors and production staff of the John Wayne movie "The Conqueror" as an example of the dangers of radioactivity.

    What you did not mention was that "The Conqueror" was filmed downwind of ACTUAL OPEN AIR NUCLEAR WEAPONS TESTS.

    Even mentioning that in a thread about commercial reactors is foolish.
     

Share This Page