Floating Power Stations - a solution in search of a problem ?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Shannow

Shannow

Joined
Dec 12, 2002
Messages
43,888
Location
'Stralia
https://www.siemens.com/innovation/...iency/the-future-of-energy-seafloat.html

I can get certain things...
* Ships moored and providing emergency power (Happened to Sydney in the past, before the legislation to form an "Electricity Commission")
* Back end of nuke vessels providing power to some remote island (e.g. Pop Sci mags of the 80s.)


But the have what's utility scale power on a barge is weird...especially when they mention combined cycling it, as that entails boilers, demineralisation plants for boiler water and the like.

Environmental hazards of operating a power station NEAR water are bad enough...but ON water ???

Utility scale generation means a utility scale switchyard and protection systems, either on the barge or on land, not just a jumper lead.

I'm always excited at human ingenuity, but this has me intrigued as to the practicality...

I can't imagine aligning that thin, or managing shaft vibrations as the thing gyroscopes itself with the swell.
 
Imagine the loss if it sank. There have been massive cargo ships that just rolled over and died so I can't imagine the ramifications of a CC power plant just sinking.
 
Y'll are blinkered by positive thinking.

When the stuff hit the fan, if they could have towed, say

Windscale Pile #1
Chernobyl #4,
Fukushima #1, #2, #3 and associated storage ponds, etc

out to deep water and sunk it, do you think they wouldn't have considered it?

I bet they'd have liked to have the option, at least.
 
Originally Posted by Ducked
Y'll are blinkered by positive thinking.

When the stuff hit the fan, if they could have towed, say

Windscale Pile #1
Chernobyl #4,
Fukushima #1, #2, #3 and associated storage ponds, etc

out to deep water and sunk it, do you think they wouldn't have considered it?

I bet they'd have liked to have the option, at least.

They are not proposing the use of nuclear/steam powered generators, they will be using natural gas turbine powered generators.
 
Originally Posted by Ducked
Y'll are blinkered by positive thinking.

When the stuff hit the fan, if they could have towed, say

Windscale Pile #1
Chernobyl #4,
Fukushima #1, #2, #3 and associated storage ponds, etc

out to deep water and sunk it, do you think they wouldn't have considered it?

I bet they'd have liked to have the option, at least.


When the Miami (SSN755) was in drydock on fire they were considering towing it out to sea if the fire got to the reactor compartment. Didn't have to come to it but they could have.
 
Originally Posted by wag123
Originally Posted by Ducked
Y'll are blinkered by positive thinking.

When the stuff hit the fan, if they could have towed, say

Windscale Pile #1
Chernobyl #4,
Fukushima #1, #2, #3 and associated storage ponds, etc

out to deep water and sunk it, do you think they wouldn't have considered it?

I bet they'd have liked to have the option, at least.

They are not proposing the use of nuclear/steam powered generators, they will be using natural gas turbine powered generators.


I'm certain I've seen such a proposal.

But apparently its now a bit more than a proposal.

[Linked Image]


Oo-er. The Internyet just depressed me again.
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted by Ducked
Originally Posted by wag123
Originally Posted by Ducked
Y'll are blinkered by positive thinking.

When the stuff hit the fan, if they could have towed, say

Windscale Pile #1
Chernobyl #4,
Fukushima #1, #2, #3 and associated storage ponds, etc

out to deep water and sunk it, do you think they wouldn't have considered it?

I bet they'd have liked to have the option, at least.

They are not proposing the use of nuclear/steam powered generators, they will be using natural gas turbine powered generators.


I'm certain I've seen such a proposal.

But apparently its now a bit more than a proposal.

[Linked Image]


Oo-er. The Internyet just depressed me again.


Now tied up at a Murmansk near you, being fuelled up, then they'll tow it to a Pevek near you where it'll start generating.



Scary of course, but there are some obvious advantages, including not having to build it in the arctic.

The Chinese are also building some, probably partly with an eye to export opportunity.

https://www.rosatom.ru/en/press-cen...ved-in-murmansk-to-be-loaded-with-fuel-/
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted by mk378
Intentionally sinking nuclear waste in the ocean is frowned upon.


I frown upon lots of things regularly, but they keep right on happening.
 
Originally Posted by Ducked
Scary of course, but there are some obvious advantages, including not having to build it in the arctic.

The Chinese are also building some, probably partly with an eye to export opportunity.

https://www.rosatom.ru/en/press-cen...ved-in-murmansk-to-be-loaded-with-fuel-/



I don't find it scary
21.gif
We've had floating NPP's in the form of the US Navy for decades, it's pretty safe. I think it's a novel idea to be able to portably provide power where needed and avoid fossil fuels. Nukes are the only drop-in replacement for fossil generation, you aren't making 120MW of wind or solar that fits handily into a container ship for propulsion and operations. A 140 acre solar farm wouldn't run the lights and ancillaries on the Maersk.
 
Originally Posted by OVERKILL
Originally Posted by Ducked
Scary of course, but there are some obvious advantages, including not having to build it in the arctic.

The Chinese are also building some, probably partly with an eye to export opportunity.

https://www.rosatom.ru/en/press-cen...ved-in-murmansk-to-be-loaded-with-fuel-/



I don't find it scary
21.gif
We've had floating NPP's in the form of the US Navy for decades, it's pretty safe. I think it's a novel idea to be able to portably provide power where needed and avoid fossil fuels. Nukes are the only drop-in replacement for fossil generation, you aren't making 120MW of wind or solar that fits handily into a container ship for propulsion and operations. A 140 acre solar farm wouldn't run the lights and ancillaries on the Maersk.


Its a nuclear power station, so its inherently scary, (ashore or afloat) however expedient it might be.(shrug)

Admittedly not as scary as a USN nuclear ballistic missile submarine...... Oh wait, you don't find them scary either.

Since being scary is WHAT THEY ARE FOR, perhaps you should demand a refund?
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted by Garak
They weren't meant to scare Canada.
wink.gif



I think they were meant to scare everyone.

But if they didn't scare Canada, since Canada didn't (AFAIK) pay for them, no refund.

(Sorry, assuming everyone is from the USA. Irritating when people do it to me, which happens here quite a lot.)
 
Is it easier to move electricity from the middle of ocean to the land or fuel (LNG) from the middle of ocean to the land? Unless you move the consumption to the middle of the ocean, it is probably not much use doing this. This is assuming you do not need to worry about it tipping over in a storm and sink.

If you find a constant vortex that you can run a turbine continuously for free energy, yes. If you are burning natural gas for electricity, I'd say no. A data center, maybe if you don't mind losing it (i.e. only calculation but not data storage), but is it better than putting it in Iceland?
 
Originally Posted by Ducked
Originally Posted by wag123
Originally Posted by Ducked
Y'll are blinkered by positive thinking.

When the stuff hit the fan, if they could have towed, say

Windscale Pile #1
Chernobyl #4,
Fukushima #1, #2, #3 and associated storage ponds, etc

out to deep water and sunk it, do you think they wouldn't have considered it?

I bet they'd have liked to have the option, at least.

They are not proposing the use of nuclear/steam powered generators, they will be using natural gas turbine powered generators.


I'm certain I've seen such a proposal.

But apparently its now a bit more than a proposal.

[Linked Image]


Oo-er. The Internyet just depressed me again.
. The US did it first. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/MH-1A
 
Originally Posted by PandaBear
Is it easier to move electricity from the middle of ocean to the land or fuel (LNG) from the middle of ocean to the land? Unless you move the consumption to the middle of the ocean, it is probably not much use doing this. This is assuming you do not need to worry about it tipping over in a storm and sink.

If you find a constant vortex that you can run a turbine continuously for free energy, yes. If you are burning natural gas for electricity, I'd say no. A data center, maybe if you don't mind losing it (i.e. only calculation but not data storage), but is it better than putting it in Iceland?


I THINK the Russian one, the proposed Chinese ones, and that historical US Army one on an old liberty ship, are/were moored up next to shore facilities.

MIT has a design, based on oil rig technology, for bigger deep water offshore plants. That has the advantage that its relatively immune to tsunamis. This is also claimed for the Russian one ("invincible of tsunamis"IIRC), which is a pretty big claim.

The other (of course unstated and perhaps not considered) advantage is they could, in extremis, sink it in place. Emergency scuttling may not be practical for the Russian one since its operating area probably won't be ice free offshore in the winter.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

OVERKILL
  • Locked
Mini-nukes, the future of distributed power?
2
Replies
36
Views
6K
wwillson
Back
Top