Did we not already learn our lesson that nuclear power plants on or near the ocean are bad, very very bad! Stop this nonsense. Build it on tracks or as a vehicle if you realy want to... anything but this!

@freemo

It depends on who builds them. The US has been operating nuclear-powered sea vessels (lots of them) since 1954 without any nuclear incidents, while USSR/Russia has had many nuclear incidents at sea.

Nuclear-powered marine vessels are in use for a variety of applications. We also use nuclear power for many of our deep space missions. (Actually, there was a plutonium RTG (Radioisotope Theroelectric Generator) on Apollo 13 when it crashed into the ocean and they think it ended up in the Tonga Trench, they're not sure.)

Yes, if they're carrying the really hot stuff it can be a security issue. Russia has a bunch of nuke-powered icebreakers -- not much worry about somebody hijacking one of those in the middle of the arctic.

I think the Danes are competent engineers and they'd have no problems with accidental release. But they may not be calculating in the extra cost of 24x7 high security for those ships.

@Pat A lack of nuclear incident in the past is not a good mark for acceptability. A single incident, any incident, becomes uncontained, that is unacceptable regardless.

It is also incorrect to say there has been no incidents. There have been 2 US incidents where a nuclear vessele has sank and its nuclear material, as such, leaked into the ocean. Thankfully these vessels carry much much less nuclear material than a power plant so the damage was less but still very real.

@freemo

I wasn't aware of those US incidents.

In any case, there have been lots of incidents and the impact has not been apocalyptic. Those incidents caused much less impact than, say, a large oil spill.

@Pat A **lot** of people have died of cancer that didnt need to because of our nuclear contamination. It doesnt need to be apocalyptic to be serious.

Also as I already said, which you seem to be ignoring, is that the nuclear power plant on a US army vessle is **much** smaller than a power plant designed to provide power for a city or town. So it isnt exactly comparable to the plan we are discussing which are mobile power plants that hook into power grids.

@freemo

A lot MORE people die of cancer from gas/oil/coal plants. And that's when they operate to spec.

I just researched this a little more thoroughly. The Danish ships use molten salt reactors -- much safer than what's on military ships/subs. Also, they are small, about 200MW -- comparable to a nuclear marine vessel. And they are designed so the fissionable material will solidify if there is ever a breach.

And they are designed to be used in developing countries to offset coal plants and other really ugly stuff. that causes disease, pollution, and wars.

@Pat irrelevant. No one is claiming you should use gas oil or coal either. I am perfectly ok with building nuclear power plants inland where the ability to contain a leak is much more feasible.

@freemo

The Fukushima plant is a completely different animal. There is no comparison whatsoever. That was light-water reactor with pressurized hydrogen, And particular plant was the shittiest design ever. It required active powered pumps to cool the core, an insane design.

The Danish ships are molten salt reactors. Much safer.

And the fact they replace gas/oil/coal IS significant. It's opportunity cost. If they use the gas/oil/coal plants, that's terrible for people and the environment.

The cool thing about the ship idea is that they can build them in developing countries where there is the talent and infrastructure to do it properly, whereas in developing countries most kinds of power plants are much more difficult build.

@Pat Inland power plants also replace coal plants, so again your argument of coal is a moot point here.

The ships being safer and less likely to blow is nice and all, but again not acceptable enough reason to have them on the water. Nuclear material should never be on or near the water.