Lets consider disaster at Puerto Rico, energy deficit in SA etc.Somebody need electric energy quickly and cheap.
Tony Abot is considering building a nuclear plant in Australia in the time whole world going in other direction.
But there is another way.
Why not to build the complete nuclear plant on the ship?
Massive like big container ship or oil tanker.
Our nuclear plant could be then anchored several kilometers of the shore and supply whole city or small country with cheap electricity from nuclear reactors onboard. In worst case scenario, our ship could be towed far into sea and sink.
The ship could be built in one shipyard in the world and then sail to any place.
Construction should be much cheaper than the similar object on the ground - as our nuclear plant don't need to worry about overheating in the deep water seas.
Disposal also could be cheaper, while dropping into the deep ocean then digging on the land underground.

If Australia anytime in the future considers building a nuclear power plant that should be our plan:
1) order large ship in Korea shipyard
2) order the best, newest technology nuclear reactor from France? Japan ? US ? Russia or China
3) assemble together and manage by Australian crew.A similar concept was already considered on small scale by Russian and US but never realized. So why not to come back after another 50 years passed and technology improve, how we could build it now in the 21st Century?

The problem would be transmission. There would be any number of portable diesel generators, easily mobile and able to be spliced into the existing network.

I seem to recall a story about HMAS Ovens docking at a QLD port and powering up a local grid from its generators after power was knocked out.

The beauty of the concept is that if you don't longer need or like that ship, can send /sell /hire to another place it needs.
Transmission of electric energy from ship to the shore shouldn't be a problem. Underwater cables already communicate plenty of offshore wind farms.

The US already has 86 nuclear-powered vessels including 75 submarines. The super aircraft carriers are up to 165 GWe

Were only ever 300km away from nuclear reactors anyway they orbit the earth .

Select to expand quote

Macroscien said..
The beauty of the concept is that if you don't longer need or like that ship, can send /sell /hire to another place it needs.
Transmission of electric energy from ship to the shore shouldn't be a problem. Underwater cables already communicate plenty of offshore wind farms.

Time for an electrical engineer to chime in. Wouldn't there be some substation needed on the jetty for the boat to connect to? And are there different types of substation that step power down from 250kV to 33kV and 11kV then down to 240?

Select to expand quote

Agent nods said..
The US already has 86 nuclear-powered vessels including 75 submarines. The super aircraft carriers are up to 165 GWe

That right. The aircraft carrier is a good example, right size ship for our plans. We just need to rid off, all this junk inside, planes, rockets.Just big nuclears generators inside, and minimum crew.I am sure that the latest US aircraft carrier ( MS Bush ?) cost already more than the most expensive nuclear plant on the planet. And it is completely useless !!

You need to read about the consequences of radiated water escaping into the environment. The ongoing disaster that is ****ushima is a so far narrowly averted global disaster. It doesn't get the publicity it should. Sinking a nuclear reactor is a horrible thought.

Really dumb idea.

We have access to energy from the largest thermonuclear reactor in the solar system.

It's called the Sun.

So long as the wifi is a solid connection I can't see any negatives with the proposal

A couple of things~
I'd prefer the ship hull to be built in a country like the U.S. where they use virgin steel, much better quality. Asian country's steel is mostly reconstituted old Chevys and Fords, basically scrap metal melted down.

If you're going to have an energy source at the coast, it would be better if it were tidal or wave generated. I've always thought that source of energy, is a huge untapped source that occurs all over the world, but the coastal environmentalists don't like it. A new huge hotel complex on the beach, no problem, a non-polluting energy source on the beach, no way. Pisses me off.

Select to expand quote

Mastbender said..
If you're going to have an energy source at the coast, it would be better if it were tidal or wave generated. I've always thought that source of energy, is a huge untapped source that occurs all over the world, but the coastal environmentalists don't like it. A new huge hotel complex on the beach, no problem, a non-polluting energy source on the beach, no way. Pisses me off.

Yes, I've always had this thought as well. The Gulf of St Vincent produces a very large rip (all around it). I thought of this idea a few years ago as I was struggling to beach start one day, but a development like this will never get off the ground in our current political environment.

Look at this country: Like a boss. As the cost of a few, it benefits so many. If this was Australia, there would be no new telescopes on Mauna Kea.

www.reuters.com/article/us-hawaii-telescope/hawaii-approves-telescope-on-volcano-sacred-to-indigenous-people-idUSKCN1C4099

PS/ Sorry to drag politics into this discussion.

Not all coastal areas have good tides, wind & waves. Besides which, the suggestion is for a relocatable temporary power plant. Myusernam pointed out that diesel generators are a dime a dozen and are also appropriately sized to fit into local grids. S/he isn't often right, but I think so this time

can you explain why its a good idea to have a leaking nuclear reactor sunk in the ocean rather than in a managed controlled excavation on land?

Select to expand quote

Poida said..
can you explain why its a good idea to have a leaking nuclear reactor sunk in the ocean rather than in a managed controlled excavation on land?

And why it's a good idea (other than cheap as you've pointed out) to drop the waste into the ocean?

Select to expand quote

The idea of nuclar power plant is presented as alternative to land base object. IMO from this two sea based plant is simply safer. It could be read If we are going to have nuclear plants at all. Now, one may say that nobody need n.p and they shouldn't be build at all.
For purely technical reason and safety, if we ever needs n.p.p sea is much safer. If isys next time strike power plant instead of office building the disaster will render half of small country unlivable.

Anyway within 20 years fussion reactors will invented, designed and build . This type doesn't cause any significant risk of radiation so future is bright.

Good idea Macro'...
Only read if you want to nudge a thought or two into the options - most people are very fixed in their opinions on Radio-Activity in most all forms - but it is a fundamental in our universe... so better control / knowledge is always going to give better outcomes...

A few things come to mind.. (not wave or tide power sources - g8 in a few zones but at present our ingenuity has yet to overcome the construction requirements - it was a big thing when I did an Oceanography/Geology degree in the late 70's and it is still just as big = small).

1) ..When the KODAK company shut down (the camera film people) - the main HQ/ production plant in the burbs of New York city - they had to shut down a small nuclear power plant built in the basement.. it was there for decades in a high population zone unknown and no-worries.. (I think they were involved in building prototypes for the US Navy??)

2).. Why hasn't the option to go the non-thermo-nuclear bomb material (Uranium 238) route been followed - from my slightly hazy memory on the topic - these nuclear power plants (are there 2 in service today??) can use basic yellow cake or take today's spent waste and use it - making it way less toxic by the time it is spent.. and without an active promoter it stops. So it is not a borderline runaway nuclear reaction controlled by dampers and cooling systems and bizarre leaps of human ingenuity built into the emergency shutdown systems which can have one or more risk events over-looked (think Tsunami - & Japan) despite the best intentions.

The reason we went the footpath we did was rooted in the 2nd World War and subsequent cold war. This only really started to be vaguely rationalised by McNamara's - mutually assured destruction (MAD) policy = early 60'es -- so the need to be able to produce that amount of weapons grade material has long passed (arguably not really a need at the industrial levels the industry cycled through in the first place).

So Uranium in it's natural state is radio active and heck if it is not as efficient as the purified and exceedingly toxic UR238 who cares - I just want to know that global warming is stopped now.. with a functional power source until fusion can be conquered -
U have to be a realist about the current state of play with battery systems - the scaled up ones are not that much better than your phone's which is deteriorating by year 3. So do you really fancy a Tesla needing a new $10,000 (US!!) battery refurbishment 3-5 years after U bought it for $150K -Lithium batteries are pretty toxic too - we can hardly re-cycle plastic - which should be a no-brainer - so Lithium batteries - naah. The advances in Super(/Ultra) Capacitance is a bright light on extending current battery life.

And Macro's point if you used this approach linking to the grid would be factored in as a requirement no point otherwise.. Modern life w/o power is ****ty.. principals or not.. we do not have the survival skills or the capacity to sustain life at the current density w/o it.
A nuclear powered war ship has been very well prototype for decades - it is not exactly new techo' - but the benefits to the poor sods in the hurricane zone would be immense. And hey a hurricane coming lift anchors chug off-shore shut the hatches and submerge.

Better to have the ability to contain spent nuclear fuel than the current in-ability to control CO2 production = death through a billion emission sources but just not in may life time so - she'll be right...

Hey Macro- what do you know about Ammonium based fuel sources - and the current improvements to the energy requirements to make this viable for use as a fuel. It is liquid, it burns to N2 and H20 (Nitrogen and water),it is not as energy dense as Hydro carbon but it is not puny on the energy front either - think most modern explosives - our current infra-structure for LPG would handle it - another topic for a no TV / or other project evening

Cheers
AP..

AMSA does not have any nuclear powered ships able to be accepted in the register. It would not be within the grounds of Marine Orders.

Also The Australian engineers with steam tickets would have to do a Nuclear Power endorsement. This is also not offered in Australia.

Oh also the left will cry at the suggestion.

#voteno

This idea still doesn't fly in disaster zones for the simple reason that the problem after a storm is not that the power plant has been destroyed, but that the power lines have been blown over and had trees fall on them. It doesn't matter that you float in a power plant if you can't distribute the power.

Select to expand quote

Mr Milk said..
Myusernam pointed out that diesel generators are a dime a dozen and are also appropriately sized to fit into local grids. S/he isn't often right, but I think so this time

Yep, happens all the time. Victoria is predicting significant generation shortfalls this year due to the recent closure of Hazelwood power station, and will most likely be temporarily installing some diesel or gas turbine generation. These aren't the 'fit in your car boot' generators that you buy at Bunnings, they're big ass things that will power a small suburb. Sometimes they come in shipping container form factor for convenient transport. You usually need them to get over a summer peak, so you can have a few months notice to ship them in.

You can buy them 2nd hand on the internet, going for a song.

cfaspower.com/Gas_Turbine_CTG_20Mw_30Mw.html

If not nuclear ships than maybe floating wind generators could do the trick of providing safe and clean electricity :
www.inverse.com/article/37245-floating-wind-farms-solve-humanity-energy-needs

BTW . Queensland is now announcing restriction on using Airconditioners during summer. Installation of solar panes is now highly restricted by city councils and government. Isn't solar panel peak power comes in the best time to cover up increased demand for airconditioning?
A few years ago I was allowed to put 15 kw panel on my roof ( 5 kw for each phase), so I hurry up to install 3 phase system.After completing costly upgrade ( 8 grands) rules have been changed and 5 kw solar is all anybody is allowed, regardless how many electric phases home may have.

Select to expand quote

AquaPlow said..
Good idea Macro'...
Only read if you want to nudge a thought or two into the options - most people are very fixed in their opinions on Radio-Activity in most all forms - but it is a fundamental in our universe... so better control / knowledge is always going to give better outcomes...

Ironically the best defense for North Korea instead of atomic bombs and rockets could be building on massive scale nuclear power plants.In the case the US or neighboring South Korea or Japan want to strike power plants, massive amount of radioactive material will be released to the atmosphere.It will affect not only North Koreas but everything at thousand kilometer radius. That should create enough deterrent to touch North Korea. As for benefit Korean could enjoy cheap electricity and transformation from military nuclear to really peaceful. Now any strike from neighbors will be a suicidal act. As to US I am not sure. They will feel quite safe at the distance and could strike anyway.In such case, all affected by radiation countries should be allowed to emigrate an masse to US . Few billions from Asia will hurry to escape at any price.