Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Floating Nuclear Power Plant Seized By Court

Unknown Lamer posted more than 2 years ago | from the smokers-sighted-nearby dept.

Power 122

An anonymous reader writes "The world's first nuclear barge has been impounded while still under construction — but not because of looming safety or environmental concerns. The shipyard's parent companies are embroiled in bankruptcy proceedings, and Russia's state nuclear corporation, Rosatom, was worried that a creditor would end up with this valuable nuclear asset, and asked the bankruptcy court to seize the barge to protect it."

cancel ×

122 comments

Nuclear-powered First Post. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37110508)

Brought to you by nuclear fission.

Re:Nuclear-powered First Post. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37110568)

Lazy summer days on the ol' fission barge

Obligatory. (1)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | more than 2 years ago | (#37110576)

Ship: Noun. "A hole in the water into which one pours money."

Re:Obligatory. (1)

blair1q (305137) | more than 2 years ago | (#37110634)

If you want to be able to move hundreds of tons of ship and cargo with the force it takes to parallel-park a VW, you're going to have to expect a balance in your karma somehow.

Re:Obligatory. (1)

X0563511 (793323) | more than 2 years ago | (#37112300)

Those engines and screws put out just a bit more force than that... It's because the mass is so immense that it "looks" so weak. (eg the thrust/mass ratio is very low)

Re:Obligatory. (1)

blair1q (305137) | more than 2 years ago | (#37113040)

They do, but you could push the QE2 away from the dock by leaning into it.

Re:Obligatory. (1)

SecurityTheatre (2427858) | more than 2 years ago | (#37111854)

Break
Out
Another
Thousand

Not nuclear, just a barge (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37110582)

So... it's not nuclear...just a barge. I'm glad I'm here on Slashdot to keep up with important news like this.

Re:Not nuclear, just a barge (2)

NoNonAlphaCharsHere (2201864) | more than 2 years ago | (#37110732)

It's not even NewsFor Nerds, it's just a "Insert 'Oh noes! The radiations!' flamewar here" story. Must be a really really slow news day.

Re:Not nuclear, just a barge (2)

SomePgmr (2021234) | more than 2 years ago | (#37111774)

To be fair, if they stayed away from any topic that degrades into everyone screaming bloody murder at each other, we wouldn't have a /. at all.

People will argue about nearly anything, or brutally shoehorn [politically-charged-topic] into any discussion.

Re:Not nuclear, just a barge (3, Funny)

Chris Burke (6130) | more than 2 years ago | (#37112942)

People will argue about nearly anything, or brutally shoehorn [politically-charged-topic] into any discussion.

No, we won't! That's exactly the kind of stupidity I'd expect from the pro-offshore-drilling astroturfers, though.

Re:Not nuclear, just a barge (1)

networkBoy (774728) | more than 2 years ago | (#37113316)

I hereby award you one gold star.

Re:Not nuclear, just a barge (1)

SomePgmr (2021234) | more than 2 years ago | (#37113402)


Lol. As I write this, further down, we have people flipping their shit over spelling and grammar, how stupid all Americans are, Halliburton, the tyranny of Obama/unions/campaign financing, military spending, and of course the evils of nuclear power generation.

Le sigh.

Re:Not nuclear, just a barge (1)

baegucb (18706) | more than 2 years ago | (#37113430)

lol, you'll have the moderators wondering. Is this +1 funny, or +1 troll for funny ;)

Re:Not nuclear, just a barge (2)

rubycodez (864176) | more than 2 years ago | (#37110928)

no, the steam systems and turbines are installed, power cabling in progress, only the two reactors are on site and not installed yet. more than normal barge.

Siezed? (3, Funny)

cepler (21753) | more than 2 years ago | (#37110584)

Siezed? O RLY? Maybe Seazed! Or...maybe.... Seized!

Re:Siezed? (1)

OutLawSuit (1107987) | more than 2 years ago | (#37110772)

I before E except after C... Oh wait. Damn English!

Re:Siezed? (2)

jdpars (1480913) | more than 2 years ago | (#37111030)

I before E except after C... except in words derived from the Latin word "capio." It's complicated.

"I before e ..." (1)

WebManWalking (1225366) | more than 2 years ago | (#37111298)

My version: "I before e, except after c, or when sounded like a, as in neighbor or weigh, ... with weird, scientific and foreign exceptions."

Note that weird, scientific and foreign all fall into the weird category. Caffeine is an example of scientific. A stein is an example of a beer-containing foreign exception, and therefore the quintessential German example. On the other hand, keiretsu is not an exception, despite how Sean Connery pronounced it in Rising Sun. (It's sounded like a, if you pronounce it in a less Scottish manner. I guess he thought it was German.)

Re:"I before e ..." (1)

Cryacin (657549) | more than 2 years ago | (#37111856)

No, it's I before E except when at sea. Which totally explains the barge.

Re:"I before e ..." (1)

WebManWalking (1225366) | more than 2 years ago | (#37112714)

Good loopback!

Re:"I before e ..." (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37112046)

i before e except after c and when pronounced other than a long e sound (the neighbor and way thing is just a specialized example that covers the most common occurrences). Notice that all of your "weird" examples don't have the hard long e sound. Foreign is also an exception but the large majority of those follow the pronunciation rule as well. Scientific is the only truly off category that I know of.

Re:"I before e ..." (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37112178)

German uses both ie (pronounced "ee") and ei (pronounce "eye"). Examples are Sie (you) and Sein (existence). Don't confuse Sie (you) with See (sea), even though they are pronounced pretty much identically.

Re:Siezed? (1)

MartinSchou (1360093) | more than 2 years ago | (#37114220)

There are 21 times as many words in the English language that break this "rule" than do not.

It's weird how some of these sayings have come into being with no basis in truth, isn't it? I can only that society would break down if this was the case for other sayings.

No doubt the veil of ignorance is being torn down as I type.

Re:Siezed? (1)

SnarfQuest (469614) | more than 2 years ago | (#37111092)

I before E except after C... Oh wait. Damn English!

You'd need to be an Einstein to get all the rules straight.

Re:Siezed? (1)

h4rr4r (612664) | more than 2 years ago | (#37111262)

That is not an English word.

Re:Siezed? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37111732)

That is not an English word.

No, but there are plenty of english words that don't fit that rule either.

Re:Siezed? (1)

h4rr4r (612664) | more than 2 years ago | (#37111976)

True, but English is not really a rule based language. It is not truly phonetic and really needs to be fixed.

Re:Siezed? (1)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 2 years ago | (#37112338)

In fact, there are more English words that don't fit that rule than do. It's just that quite a few of the ones that do are common.

Re:Siezed? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37111942)

Hence the phrase: "More honour'd in the breach than in the observance."

Re:Siezed? (1)

hedwards (940851) | more than 2 years ago | (#37110862)

Yeah, well, what do you expect from an article that keeps misspelling nucular.

Re:Siezed? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37111094)

I love the fact that they are so adamant that you cannot edit your posts. But you misspell something in your submission, that is just fine to change.

Time for your head to explode. (4, Funny)

blair1q (305137) | more than 2 years ago | (#37110608)

From TFA:

In 2009, Rosatom announced plans to send a fleet of floating nuclear power stations to the Arctic, where they could power deep-sea drilling for oil and gas.

There's so much wrong in that meme that I'm going to have to go lie down and hope I forget it happened.

Re:Time for your head to explode. (3, Funny)

Arancaytar (966377) | more than 2 years ago | (#37110674)

What's wrong with that? It combines the impressive safety of nuclear fission with the emission-free awesomeness of fossil fuels AND the completely non-existent risk of an oil spill polluting an entire ocean. Best of three worlds!

Re:Time for your head to explode. (2)

NoNonAlphaCharsHere (2201864) | more than 2 years ago | (#37110782)

I got cancer just reading that.

Re:Time for your head to explode. (2)

ColdWetDog (752185) | more than 2 years ago | (#37110846)

Just think of the possibilities of a major radioactive oil leak happening in the Arctic Ocean in the midst of Polar Bears, Whales and Walruses. Should be good for one or two mutant monsters, a superhero and a whole generation of Micheal Bay movies.

Re:Time for your head to explode. (1)

royallthefourth (1564389) | more than 2 years ago | (#37111364)

And toy tie-ins: it's made of Legos, according to the photograph
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_floating_nuclear_power_station [wikipedia.org]

Re:Time for your head to explode. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37112392)

And toy tie-ins: it's made of Legos, according to the artist's rendition

Re:Time for your head to explode. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37111224)

Na, you just got cancer from reading it via your cell phone, in which millions of radio, xray, and infred sources are beaming right into your ear lobe. Cancer...at the speed of 4G!

Re:Time for your head to explode. (1)

ArsonSmith (13997) | more than 2 years ago | (#37111196)

reminds me of a bumper sticker I saw about 10 years ago:

Nuke gay whales for Jesus!

still remember it, so it must have been good.

Re:Time for your head to explode. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37111318)

The one I saw read: Nuke Unborn Gay Whales for Christ
I may need to get a set of these printed up just for fun.

Re:Time for your head to explode. (1)

FrankSchwab (675585) | more than 2 years ago | (#37111514)

Reminds me of the t-shirts my friend had made up and sold in, oh, 1983: Nuke the gay unborn baby whales for Jesus. Had a pretty cool graphic in the center, tool. Still have a couple in my closet, young'un.

Re:Time for your head to explode. (1)

Mindcontrolled (1388007) | more than 2 years ago | (#37111720)

And for nearly thirty years, it had no effect on the cthulhu-forsaken bigotry that abounds these days. Not even held it constant, as said bigotry got worse. Cthonians take me, we are at the point where that shirt would be taken serious by a significant amount of people. Interesting times, indeed.

Re:Time for your head to explode. (1)

interkin3tic (1469267) | more than 2 years ago | (#37110894)

It makes more sense than their plans for nuclear-powered zeppelins for tuna fishing, or the hydroelectric-powered satellite for mining antimatter.

where they could power deep-sea drilling for oil.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37111022)

where they could power deep-sea drilling for oil and gas... ...using a new exclusive Halliburton hydraulic fracturing technique utilizing a medium of whole baby seal and whale oils, Amazonian mahogany, ivory, Monsanto round-up ready soybeans, and plutonium.

Re:Time for your head to explode. (1)

JoeMerchant (803320) | more than 2 years ago | (#37111134)

From TFA:

In 2009, Rosatom announced plans to send a fleet of floating nuclear power stations to the Arctic, where they could power deep-sea drilling for oil and gas.

There's so much wrong in that meme that I'm going to have to go lie down and hope I forget it happened.

Did you read that meme on /.? Using a computer? and internet connection? What percentage of the electricity used in operating (and manufacturing) those things was generated by Coal (which is usually worse than nuclear or oil for the environment.) Are you going to go lie down in an air-conditioned room?

If they don't use nuclear power to support the drilling operations, they'll likely use oil - the more nuclear power they use, the less oil they will have to use, the more oil to power your car, etc. and the longer before we all have to shut down our air-conditioners because electricity costs too much for the middle class to afford anymore.

Re:Time for your head to explode. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37111622)

You're absolutely missing the point. What if the coal mine built a nuclear plant to run their machinery?

The point is, you're sitting on a huge convenient fossil fuel resource that can be used to run all the equipment! Refining the oil on-site might be a problem; but gas can be used to boil water and run a steam turbine. That generates electricity which can be sent all over the platform.

The "savings" of gas and oil from using nuclear would have to be negligible for some obvious reasons. First, if the energy required for drilling were that great you'd be getting a terrible return on your drilling. You'd be better off just building a nuclear plant at home. Second, nuclear technicians and equipment have got to cost a lot more than gas/oil. They certainly have to be built to much higher standards too. Otherwise you might destroy the entire Alaskan crab fishery or something. No more Dangerous Catch. Just danger. How do you put a price on that? Yuck.

OTOH, the aforementioned coal mine probably uses a lot of diesel; but diesel is relatively cheap. Finding a diesel mechanic is as easy as thumbing through the yellow pages, and if he screws up the worst case scenario is that he loses some fingers and you lose a few hours of production.

Re:Time for your head to explode. (1)

JoeMerchant (803320) | more than 2 years ago | (#37111820)

If I were running an Arctic drilling operation, I'd much rather sail up and start work right away - I'd like to have PLENTY of power to keep the workers warm - right away. I'd like to have a self-contained system that I know is working before I leave port. The added complexity of utilizing fossil fuels on site will increase the risk of spills and accidents- in an already hostile environment. Yes, nuclear accidents are bad (ref: K-19), but so are oil spills.

Re:Time for your head to explode. (1)

SecurityTheatre (2427858) | more than 2 years ago | (#37112042)

The point is, you're sitting on a huge convenient fossil fuel resource that can be used to run all the equipment!

That's not really how it works.

While I agree that glowing arctic seals are bad, the alternative is (sadly), having a tanker full of refined petroleum from Venezuela or Vladovostok come steaming the 15,000 miles from the refinery in a tanker in order to seasonally refuel a platform.

They're not going to dump raw unfiltered natural gas from a vent into the multimillion dollar steam turbines or engines.... I suspect the hydrogen sulfide and other things in naturally it would be very bad for the equipment... It's generally quite heavily refined before use... and crude oil is far worse.... Full of all sorts of long-chain hydrocarbons mixed up in different ratios. I can't imagine trying to burn it in a remote area and maintain a reliable system...

I'm all about 'save the whales' but *IF* we are going to be drilling in the arctic anyway, this isn't a terrible idea to consider.

Re:Time for your head to explode. (1)

Zantetsuken (935350) | more than 2 years ago | (#37111960)

WHOOSH

The GP's point is if you are going to bother building a nuclear plant, why not just skip the oil and coal altogether? If you can build 1 or 2 nuclear plants that would replace 2 to 3 coal fired power plants, isn't that a much more straightforward path? Instead, somebody decided to only make the nuclear plant the middle man?

The same issue is one of the major roadblocks to electric cars. "Oh we're running out of oil for the cars, lets make a nuclear plant to harvest oil!" instead of "Lets build a nuclear plant, the electricity from which will power EV's!" If you're going to build a nuclear plant, at least make it actually effect the core issue more directly instead of prolonging you running out of gas - get rid of the gas altogether.

Re:Time for your head to explode. (1)

blair1q (305137) | more than 2 years ago | (#37112784)

Dingdingdingdingdingdingding!

Building a nuke plant to pump oil isn't about energy. It's about money and ignoring the consequence.

Re:Time for your head to explode. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37112940)

Nuclear is *cheaper* than using that oil for power.

These "floating reactors" are basically ships with 2 icebreaker reactors. $400m or so for 150MW reactors - it's not clear if this is 150MWe or 150MWt. If this is 150MWe, then this is cheaper than using oil - oil that has to be *hauled in* to fuel the oil platform so it can drill.

EV are currently too expensive to matter. Make me a $20k car that lasts 10 years and drives 200mi on one charge. Hell, I'll settle for 100mi or even 100km when it is -30C outside.

Re:Time for your head to explode. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37113238)

I'm French, you insensitive clod!

Pretty crazy idea anyway (0)

elrous0 (869638) | more than 2 years ago | (#37110642)

Using nuclear power on a ship?

Re:Pretty crazy idea anyway (2)

neokushan (932374) | more than 2 years ago | (#37110702)

As opposed to a submarine?

Re:Pretty crazy idea anyway (1)

gstoddart (321705) | more than 2 years ago | (#37110738)

Or an aircraft carrier.

Re:Pretty crazy idea anyway (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37110832)

Or a fleet of icebreakers.

Re:Pretty crazy idea anyway (1)

CrimsonAvenger (580665) | more than 2 years ago | (#37110954)

Or the Savannah.

Re:Pretty crazy idea anyway (1)

edxwelch (600979) | more than 2 years ago | (#37112630)

Russia doesn't exactly have a good safety record regarding sea-going nuclear reactors. 3 of their nuclear subs are currently lying on the bottom of the artic sea.

Re:Pretty crazy idea anyway (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37110728)

US Navy thinks nuclear power is very useful.

Re:Pretty crazy idea anyway (1)

MagikSlinger (259969) | more than 2 years ago | (#37110838)

Please take me to your nuclear wessels!

Re:Pretty crazy idea anyway (1)

Capt.DrumkenBum (1173011) | more than 2 years ago | (#37111770)

Thank you for that. I was thinking of that myself.

Re:Pretty crazy idea anyway (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37110742)

Aren't there some US carrier ships that have this?

Pretty crazy when done by another country I bet.

Re:Pretty crazy idea anyway (1)

YrWrstNtmr (564987) | more than 2 years ago | (#37110760)

There are a few aircraft carrier crews that don't think it's too crazy.

Re:Pretty crazy idea anyway (3, Insightful)

avandesande (143899) | more than 2 years ago | (#37110826)

The ironic thing is that they could have possibly anchored this off the coast of Japan and prevented the meltdown.

Re:Pretty crazy idea anyway (1)

vlm (69642) | more than 2 years ago | (#37111164)

The ironic thing is that they could have possibly anchored this off the coast of Japan and prevented the meltdown.

Naah the real irony was the general business model for floating plants was, we'll build a 3rd world country a plant and let them have the electricity... until they stop paying... at which point it gets towed away. This time its the builders who got towed not the 3rd world country.

The other funny part is creditors are known for doing stupid things when they seize "their" property. Imagine a repo guy hauling core assemblies thru town on the back of a stereotypical repo lift truck. I'm glad the courts seized it instead of the repo clowns.

Re:Pretty crazy idea anyway (1)

modecx (130548) | more than 2 years ago | (#37112646)

I think it'd be more popular (and profitable) to rent these out to water-starved but well-off countries, to power desalination plants. A float it in, as a turnkey system, complete with technicians and all; that would be pretty nifty.

Re:Pretty crazy idea anyway (1)

garyebickford (222422) | more than 2 years ago | (#37113070)

Not only that, but the excess heat (efficiency of a nuclear power plant is only about 33%) could also be used to distill more water, improving the total efficiency somewhat. Then all we have to worry about is the localized salt pollution.

Maybe they can also use the salt somehow, with some of the excess heat and some of the energy, to absorb CO2 from the air??? taking clues from the Solvay process, maybe make sodium carbonate and ammonium chloride, both useful products.

Re:Pretty crazy idea anyway (1)

rubycodez (864176) | more than 2 years ago | (#37110958)

yeah, that's almost as crazy as a nuclear reactor on a B-36, who'd be insane enough to put any money into a concept like that, or build a couple reactors for that? hahaha

Re:Pretty crazy idea anyway (2)

SnarfQuest (469614) | more than 2 years ago | (#37111600)

Obama? As long as he could filter the money through some Union and into his campaign funds. He could create several more temporary minimum wage jobs at a mere $280,000/job.

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

Re:Pretty crazy idea anyway (0)

X0563511 (793323) | more than 2 years ago | (#37112382)

Erm, the B-36 was a piston powered craft.

Unless your are talking about nuclear warheads, which while they might satisfy the technical requirements to be called a reactor, are almost never considered such.

OH WAIT! You're talking about the NTA (B-36H-20-CF). Yea, that was a one-off repurposed craft for a scrapped project. Don't think that counts.

Re:Pretty crazy idea anyway (1)

garyebickford (222422) | more than 2 years ago | (#37113046)

Yeah, and the government still owes my family $400,000 plus interest from 1955 or thereabouts, for unpaid bills on that scrapped project. B*()^(&^(&#(*&%!!!!

Re:Pretty crazy idea anyway (1)

zlogic (892404) | more than 2 years ago | (#37111058)

Russia has been building nuclear-powered ships [wikipedia.org] for decades.

Re:Pretty crazy idea anyway (1)

atrain728 (1835698) | more than 2 years ago | (#37112244)

What, sir, would you make a ship sail against the wind and currents by lighting a bonfire under her deck? I pray you, excuse me, I have not the time to listen to such nonsense. -Napoleon Bonaparte, when told of Robert Fulton’s steamboat.

Re:Pretty crazy idea anyway (1)

IrquiM (471313) | more than 2 years ago | (#37112544)

You must be American

NS Savannah [wikipedia.org]

Fucking eminent domain (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37110656)

They're just stealing this to sell to a greedy developer who wants to turn it into a floating football stadium.

ISR (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37110668)

This is the thread to put all of the "In Soviet Russia" jokes

Re:ISR (1)

rubycodez (864176) | more than 2 years ago | (#37110998)

In post-soviet russia, barge provides power to *you*

Epic Fail... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37110734)

LAND SHARK!.....rather....LAND BOAT!
LOL! Does anyone remember that from Saturday Night Live?

Warehouse 14 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37110754)

They'll have to clear out an entire shelf in the evidence room to store that.

In soviet russia nukes float you! (1)

Joe_Dragon (2206452) | more than 2 years ago | (#37110864)

In soviet russia nukes float you!

How government works (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37110972)

Remember this is not unique to Russia. All governments work this way. Yes, seize the barge to keep it out of the hands of those evil "creditors". You know. The ones who took all the risk and provided the money for the project. No, heaven help us if they find a way to get some of their investment back. Just take the asset, and fuck them. This is what governments do. To all you people out there screaming for more government and more laws - all you are doing is asking for a tighter noose around your own necks. When government smells trouble the first thing it does is confiscate, seize and expropriate - as the US is soon to find out.

To all you people out there holding "gold certificates" and laughing themselves to sleep, you will also find out how useful said piece of paper is when the shit hits the proverbial fan. Gold? What gold? Didn't you know? The government took all the gold... It has happened before.

Re:How government works (1)

bws111 (1216812) | more than 2 years ago | (#37111124)

Reading problems? The creditors did not invest in the barge, the government did. The shipyard is the one with financial problems, and the government wants to protect it's investment in the barge before the barge gets declared as an asset of the shipyard.

Re:How government works (1)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | more than 2 years ago | (#37111740)

Somebody ran a fiber line out to Galt's Gulch again. A backhoe should be around to correct the problem in the near future; but best to ignore it until then...

Isn't nuclear safer at sea anyway? (2)

mj1856 (589031) | more than 2 years ago | (#37111040)

In case of meltdown, just head it out to the middle of nowhere. Or am I missing something?

Yes (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37111122)

It's not a "middle of nowhere".

Re:Isn't nuclear safer at sea anyway? (1)

vlm (69642) | more than 2 years ago | (#37111206)

In case of meltdown, just head it out to the middle of nowhere. Or am I missing something?

The other part you're missing is there is usually no shortage of coolant water, thus preventing the meltdown. Unless they do something idiotic with a sandbar, of course. Its pretty hard to melt something down if its below sea level. Despite the cost, I'm thinking future coastal japan reactors are probably going to be built below sea level.

Re:Isn't nuclear safer at sea anyway? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37111668)

Japan is planning to fade out nuclear power. So I doubt that they will build new ones on or off shore.

Re:Isn't nuclear safer at sea anyway? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37111564)

Yes you missed, that the water is not staying on one place. Streams move it around the world.

Re:Isn't nuclear safer at sea anyway? (1)

Mindcontrolled (1388007) | more than 2 years ago | (#37111830)

No not at all, you are not. In case of meltdown, unload the externalities on whoever the fuck you please and run of with the profits while the costs are socialized. The working model of the nuclear age. Congratulations for rediscovering a decade old model. Feel the loving hand of the free market shoved up your, ahhh.... well... no... feel how YOU shove the loving hand of the free market up someone else's arse and caress his prostate? Feels great, doesn't it?

The US did this decades ago (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37111042)

These are not the first nuclear power plant barges in existence. The US did this a long time ago.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MH-1A

There's no money to decomission it, but the Army did just get funding to repaint it, so it looks all shiny and nice.

Best place for them (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37111048)

Building on a ship sounds like a much better idea than building on land near a densely populated area.

Lasers (1)

SnarfQuest (469614) | more than 2 years ago | (#37111152)

The barge was last seen out at sea, with sharks wearing some head ornaments being attached to the power cables.

Floating Cities (1)

royallthefourth (1564389) | more than 2 years ago | (#37111292)

I'm surprised this wasn't about someone trying to create electrical infrastructure for one of those libertopia floating cities in the ocean

wait wait wait... (1)

Charliemopps (1157495) | more than 2 years ago | (#37111484)

before everyone gets all upset (ok, admittedly too late) we should all realize how important such a ship would be after a Zombie Apocalypse. If you were the captain of such a ship... filled with recently picked up goodies and food stuffs from China... upon coming to shore in California and realizing the demise of mankind you could sail from port to port picking up the few remaining, non-zombie, hot chicks that will be milling about (this is clear from every motion picture on the subject ever made) and go about remaking society in your own image.

Re:wait wait wait... (1)

GodfatherofSoul (174979) | more than 2 years ago | (#37111710)

Silly man. The captain will be irresistibly charming to the the heroes until slowly the tyrannical nature of his command is revealed and the characters find themselves outside of his trusted circle; enslaved on that very ship with the other hapless souls. Only after a charismatic call to rebellion will the protagonist lead the revolt against said captain, climaxing in a Michael Bay-esque explosion and congratulatory smooch from the hottest of the slave girls.

Oh, and the Black guy gets killed first.

In Soviet Russia (0)

mholve (1101) | more than 2 years ago | (#37111742)

...Barge seize you!

Floating Nuclear Power Plant? (1)

jkiller (1030766) | more than 2 years ago | (#37111818)

Just ride the wave... this solves the all tsunami problems...

Re:Floating Nuclear Power Plant? (1)

confused one (671304) | more than 2 years ago | (#37112684)

And end up a kilometer inland, away from your source of cooling water.

Not that crazy (1)

Keyboarder (965386) | more than 2 years ago | (#37113408)

Before everyone starts WTFing over a floating reactor, it's worth noting that the US Navy currently has just under 30 floating reactors in service, and another 70 in service that not only float, but are designed to sink and come back up.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...