Samsung Heavy Industries Partners With Denmark's Seaborg to Develop Floating Nuclear Power Plants
(web.archive.org)
🤓 BILL GAYTES 🏳️🌈 WTF!?
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?
SeaBORG?? No I think not.
I believe it's named after Glenn Seaborg, the Nobel winning chemist that worked on the Manhattan Project, and filled in quite a bit of the periodic table.
Or it could just be cover for an alien hive mind. 👽
nice work dude... i just couldnt resist the lame joke
What could go wrong?
I pronounced it like Trump and it was even more amazing.
With lasers?
with freaking laser beams attached to their heads?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nj5lDgV5PfY
Is this what "Watch the Water" might be about?
What does water represent for Q?
Waterfall of proofs coming (post DECLAS).
Information waterfall.
Sometimes a leak turns into a flood.
Slow drip > Flood
The flood is coming. Emails, videos, audio, pics, etc.
Prepare for the storm.
Water/Storm/Flood = Declas/Leaks/Arrests
"Watch the Water" https://www.newswars.com/venom-theory-is-covid-19-being-spread-via-drinking-water/
Samsung makes the sh*test appliances on the planet, so good choice for a nuclear power plant. A floating nuclear power plant.
What could possibly go wrong???
Oh, why the hell not? What's the worst that could happen, right?
Basically, nothing. We've already been there (see NS Savannah). Learn your history.
Typical Engineer. Sarc. Immaterial, Globohomo will not allow nukes for the slave quarters, because it does work
Do you have some technical objection, or you just want to thumb your nose?
We have lousy engineers since they went woke. Linear thinkers, trapped in a box.
Oh, like the lousy engineers at SpaceX? Or the lousy engineers that have developed computers and digital communications? Engineers come in all stripes and colors. Some are lousy and others are first-rate. They can do no more than their employer's vision can permit. That is just a fact of life. The Boeing Company (for example) used to be a paragon of engineering excellence---but once the merger happened and the McDonnell management ruled the roost, it has been sliding downhill ever since.
You think globohomo is going let us do anything in space? Just another distraction so they can finish killing us off. Engineers made the internet/social media phenomenon possible to ultimately be a weapon of mass destruction to end the human race, as we know it. Immediate concerns of food, heat/energy, human rights, and economic collapse will prove far more pressing for most.
Gee, like do what? Orbit the Earth? Go to the Moon? Establish a space station? Have commercial rides to space? What's your problem? All this isn't good enough for you? And if you really believed what you say about the internet, you wouldn't even be here to drink the Kool-Aid.
I do not mean to be ungracious, but it is hard to credit this combination of panic and paranoia. You might want to listen to yourself and rethink your tone.
Uranium one. Hydroelectric bad, The push for electric EVERYTHING, natural gas is now the devil.....I called this one long ago when the solyndra flop happened and the windmills didn't work.
We've all been groomed to love this idea.
...apparently so....
Russia is already building those beginning with Akademik Lomonosov, and the US used to have a prototype called the MH-1A in the 1960s
Thorium reactors floating..... Indonesia is very interest. If I remember correctly they already made a deal.... 500mW installations.
The Netherlands has a working Thorium reactor, but is, like other countries, trapped in the nuclear regulatory nightmare.
The 8 gas - turbine-installations can be swapped, and that saves a lot. However, due to the fact that electricity is tied to the world's oilprice......
Liberalization of the market and now this. Very convenient.
These thorium reactors are very safe and you could fly a 747 into them several times, no sweat. The design is indeed from the end 50/early 60.
And it works differently than a uranium-cake based system.
The resultant waste has a half life of 200 years. This would be advantageous where it concerns storage.
It could be perceived to use that in nano-diamond batteries, providing electricity to smaller needs, like homes, offices, shops, laptops, etc.
https://ndb.technology/
The nano-diamond batteries are interesting, but use carbon-14 as the radioactive isotope. This is not produced in power reactors.
Correct.
I am quite hopefull we can find some sort of solution there.
Floating nuclear bombs... What could ever go wrong with that scenario??? 🤣🤣🤣
...aren't most aircraft carriers and submarines nuclear?
Why yes, yes they are. However, I would think security on carriers and subs would be a lot more stringent/heavy/strong than on a floating power plant. I think... However, I could be mistaken...
There was the NS Savannah, a commercial nuclear-powered cargo ship launched in 1959. It was in service until 1972. No sabotage. No armed takeover. No nuclear bomb.
Valid point...
Your ignorance is astounding.
Why thank you. Your assholeness is overwhelmingly asinine... Instead of being insulting, why not explain your idea in a more cogent manner?
This motherfucker just doesn't go away...
It is not "carbon free" technology. It still requires fossil fuels to manufacture the plant and to process the radioactive material. What are they going to do with the spent fuel that is dangerous to life for the next several millennia?
Some good advantages - abundant water for cooling (emergency cooling) you can tow it away if it goes bad, potentially sink it in a deep trench (whats worse a tsunami or a airbourne meltdown?) if its going to blow. and you can pick up spent rods and move them by water which is safer probably, and then sink the old rods into deep sea trenches to cool off for a thousand years or whatever, and if they go bad, its in a trench, hardly any current to bring it up (save for the thermal current you might create with the others dumped there). I like it. Possible bonus: you might create new forms of deep sea life, or prompt a visit from the deep sea aliens upset about the littering.
...compelling observations....
What could go wrong …
Russia have been building these for some time now, they are towed to disaster sites to provide power and desalination.
Russia already did this.