Samsung Heavy Industries Partners With Denmark's Seaborg to Develop Floating Nuclear Power Plants
(web.archive.org)
🤓 BILL GAYTES 🏳️🌈 WTF!?
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (61)
sorted by:
Floating nuke power plants doesn't sit right with me.
To me, the biggest issue is sabotage and it's difficult to protect. Right?
Aircraft carriers and subs are floating nuke plants.
Currently from now until year 2100, overall safety-wise, thorium nuclear is very promising. It does not operate under the higher pressures of uranium, shutdowns are far more agreeable. Economics at scale, cost, years to profit, have stagnated its progress.
https://www.world-nuclear-news.org/Articles/Indian-test-reactor-reaches-operation-landmark
https://whatisnuclear.com/thorium.html
Year 2100+, we should be extracting uranium from ocean waters as it's more economic at scale, more bountiful than trying to dig it from the earth's crust. Technologies from extraction methods should be more readily accessible then.
https://spectrum.ieee.org/uranium-from-seawater
Reading through this thread makes me sad, that people still fear the backlash from the downfalls of nuclear. Yes, it's worries are understandable. But people gotta start realizing sooner or later, Tesla's free energy isn't walking through the door. Solar, wind, coal, isn't cutting it in terms of efficiency, cost, or in coal's case, appeasing to the silly whimsicals of lefties. Nuclear is the definitively, the only studied option for the foreseeable future of mankind.
If people are worried about terrorist threats to offshore nuke plants, a single destroyer is more than enough to patrol its safety.
Were they joking about zero point energy in those emails?
Tesla's free energy will be available when the Cabal keeping it suppressed is destroyed.
Also have missile defense systems. Hardcore hardware & crews staffed 24/7..
Oranges to apples
Also, what sub or aircraft carrier,, has “Land Lines” attached to them?
Correct. And we've had them for 68 years without any sabotage or hostile takeovers. That worry is simply uneducated.
Its the opposite. Think about it. A nuclear plant on land has a huge fence barrier around it that is EASY to penetrate and hard to watch over if there is any sort of vegetation which there often is. Water is easy to watch. Its hard to navigate and in fact can be deadly if you're stupid about it.
Also in an emergency it can be moved away from population centers and/or important environmental areas, etc. Russia already operates several reactors off its shores.
Think of it like this. You have some city in the middle of nowhere Alaska that burns tons of natural gas of fuel oil to run generators providing 90% of their power. Move one large barge just off the coast and poof 100% of their power comes from an underwater cable on the sea bed. Leave that fuel oil system in place as a backup but you don't use it very often. In fact the nuclear plant supplies so much cheap power the town expands by 20% over the next five years. A new manufacturing plant moves to town... etc etc...
To do the same thing with a conventional land based power plant would cost far too much money. With it on the ocean in 20+ years when its time for maintenance you just bring in a new one and move the cable over. Your power is down for hours at most. You refurbish the old one for a whole year at a dry dock in Virginia or South Korea or wherever. All those HIGHLY skilled workers just live right by that dock town and do that one thing. They don't have to move temporarily for a year to Alaska which costs ass-tons of money. They have families etc etc. Sure they are well paid but the comparative cost and trouble is WAY less. That one facility can have multiple docks and cycle through a dozen barges every year.
Also if the technology changes and improves you can update to the new tech every 20 years super easy when you switch it out. With land based stuff you have to tear down irradiated buildings blah blah blah. Its a nightmare. With modular ship designs its far easier.
You are right only in the sense that if someone with a lot of money and manpower attacked it in full force it would be a lot easier to take over and/or move. But the same could be said for any land based plant. If 100 guys in full tactical gear showed up with belt fed weapons your average nuclear plant would fall in an hour flat.
You have some great points, certainly above my pay grade. I've been watching too many spy movies and thought of submarines, torpedos and saboteur frogmen so don't mind me.
It's no secret the cabal want to centralize power to keep the sheep in line so did it make sense to build it out in the sea away from the people where anything could happen and the public can't scrutinise their deeds?
Too elaborate. A submarine nuclear reactor has a power level about 1/10 of a commercial nuclear powerplant, and the rest of the submarine is very expensive. We have had commercial nuclear power since the Shippiingport plant in 1958 with no sabotage or armed takeovers. The containment building is essentially a fortress with strictly limited access points. There is no problem needing solving.
Gee, what could go wrong?