• Biblical Families is not a dating website. It is a forum to discuss issues relating to marriage and the Bible, and to offer guidance and support, not to find a wife. Click here for more information.

Underwater Nuclear Reactor Operator

nuclearcookiecrumbcake

nuclearcookiecrumbcake

New Member
Male
Hi,
My name is Matt. I recently retired from the US Navy as a submarine propulsion plant operator. I have been to 12 countries and served on 3 submarines. I have made some friends local to northwest Missouri, and was encouraged to join this site, so here I am. My ambition is to start a farm and to serve God with it. I look forward to meeting you all.
 
Welcome!
 
Interesting job experience @nuclearcookiecrumbcake! And now I know someone I can ask a random question I've wondered about for years...

Would it be feasible to put a nuclear reactor for power generation on the seabed? Russia has floating reactors that connect to towns, but that seems a disaster waiting to happen in a serious storm. But on the seabed you'd be unaffected by waves, even tsunamis, and have unlimited cooling potential being surrounded by water, so it could be safer than on land. It would obviously be rather difficult to engineer, would need to be considerably larger than a submarine reactor, and if you did have a meltdown although the plant would be cooled quickly it could be an environmental disaster. But is it completely stupid or plausible?
 
nuclearcookiecrumbcake said:
Hi,
My name is Matt. I recently retired from the US Navy as a submarine propulsion plant operator. I have been to 12 countries and served on 3 submarines. I have made some friends local to northwest Missouri, and was encouraged to join this site, so here I am. My ambition is to start a farm and to serve God with it. I look forward to meeting you all.
Click to expand...
Shalom love and blessings, welcome
 
jcee said:
What's up, Matt! I was looking for land out there not that long ago between KC and Columbia areas. Great place for a farm!
Click to expand...
I keep thinking about moving to Missouri, but haven't pulled the trigger yet. Like a lot of us here at BibFam, I'm a gardener and am homestead oriented. Missouri has a lot going for it. They get adequate rainfall (as opposed to the Eastern Washington desert where I live), the land is much more affordable than here, and the political environment is much better than communist Washington (Eastern WA isn't communist, but we don't control the State, Seattle does).

I was mainly looking at the Ozark region, but visited Missouri a couple years ago and was really surprised how beautiful NW MO was (in a LOTR "Shire" sense).
 
Bartato said:
I keep thinking about moving to Missouri, but haven't pulled the trigger yet. Like a lot of us here at BibFam, I'm a gardener and am homestead oriented. Missouri has a lot going for it. They get adequate rainfall (as opposed to the Eastern Washington desert where I live), the land is much more affordable than here, and the political environment is much better than communist Washington (Eastern WA isn't communist, but we don't control the State, Seattle does).

I was mainly looking at the Ozark region, but visited Missouri a couple years ago and was really surprised how beautiful NW MO was (in a LOTR "Shire" sense).
Click to expand...
Can you start local seccesion movement?

How is Greater Idaho project going? At least, you can copy idea.
 
MemeFan said:
Can you start local seccesion movement?

How is Greater Idaho project going? At least, you can copy idea.
Click to expand...
Most people in Eastern Oregon seem to like the idea. I could go for Truly Greater Idaho (Idaho, Eastern WA, and Eastern OR). The people of E. WA and E. OR share a lot more in common with Idaho than we do with Seattle and Portland.

Eastern WA has a much larger population and economy than E. OR, and is about equal to all of Idaho.

Sadly, I don't think it will be happen. It would have to be approved by everyone involved. The Federal Government would have to approve it (and Democrats never will) and then all states involved would have to approve it. I don't know if Idaho would approve it, but I don't think WA or OR would.

Such a move would cause cause OR and WA to lose electoral college votes.
 
Bartato said:
Most people in Eastern Oregon seem to like the idea. I could go for Truly Greater Idaho (Idaho, Eastern WA, and Eastern OR). The people of E. WA and E. OR share a lot more in common with Idaho than we do with Seattle and Portland.

Eastern WA has a much larger population and economy than E. OR, and is about equal to all of Idaho.

Sadly, I don't think it will be happen. It would have to be approved by everyone involved. The Federal Government would have to approve it (and Democrats never will) and then all states involved would have to approve it. I don't know if Idaho would approve it, but I don't think WA or OR would.

Such a move would cause cause OR and WA to lose electoral college votes.
Click to expand...
Only option is then to make federales accept new realities on ground.
 
FollowingHim said:
Interesting job experience @nuclearcookiecrumbcake! And now I know someone I can ask a random question I've wondered about for years...

Would it be feasible to put a nuclear reactor for power generation on the seabed? Russia has floating reactors that connect to towns, but that seems a disaster waiting to happen in a serious storm. But on the seabed you'd be unaffected by waves, even tsunamis, and have unlimited cooling potential being surrounded by water, so it could be safer than on land. It would obviously be rather difficult to engineer, would need to be considerably larger than a submarine reactor, and if you did have a meltdown although the plant would be cooled quickly it could be an environmental disaster. But is it completely stupid or plausible?
Click to expand...
If money were unlimited, you could put a reactor on the seabed. Getting to work would be quite a chore and has its own limitations. There are at least two reactors on the seabed that the US Navy currently monitors: the USS Thresher and the USS Scorpion. Both suffered the destructive casualty of sinking, and both have no release of contamination to the environment. So a catastrophe suffered by a reactor in the ocean will not create an environmental catastrophe if the same protocols for containment kept by submarines are also kept by this hypothetical seabed reactor.

I'm not sure what the benefit of having a reactor on the seabed is, because it does produce extraordinary difficulties in access for routine operations and maintenance. Honestly, I think the floating reactor idea is a good one because you would be able to tow it out to sea (much like a ship or submarine) during a storm to keep it from being damaged. However, it would not be useful as a power supply (obviously), during the storm, which would be problematic for other emergency and infrastructure services, such as hospitals and water treatment plants.

There were poor engineering fundamentals for the Fukushima plant, that have been corrected. The reactors withstood the earthquake and tsunami as designed. But the problem was that the earthquake dropped the height of the seawall, which allowed the tidal wave to flow into the Fukushima site. The emergency generators and battery power supplies were in the basement, instead of high above a flood zone, and key cooling valves failed shut, instead of open on a loss of power. The 2011 Fukushima disaster prompted a review of all reactor plant emergency capabilities and processes. Frankly, I think that a land based reactor plant with an adequate reserve cooling supply is the safest, most reliable power source we have on the planet.
 
Thanks for the comprehensive reply! To clarify why I had it and what I was envisioning:
nuclearcookiecrumbcake said:
I'm not sure what the benefit of having a reactor on the seabed is
Click to expand...
Dealing with public worries about nuclear power plants. Nobody wants a land-based reactor in their backyard. A seabed reactor can be positioned close to a major city yet neither in the city itself nor in the surrounding farmland that feeds the city, and is out of sight out of mind. Also, for an island with limited space (I live in New Zealand, land area is limited but sea is unlimited).
nuclearcookiecrumbcake said:
because it does produce extraordinary difficulties in access for routine operations and maintenance.
Click to expand...
Shallow water, built several stories high, top of the building is out of the water, no harder to access than an oil rig - just dock at it and then go down the elevator to the reactor itself. But the main bulk is below the water, only the small access level is at risk of damage from storms and tsunamis.
nuclearcookiecrumbcake said:
Frankly, I think that a land based reactor plant with an adequate reserve cooling supply is the safest, most reliable power source we have on the planet.
Click to expand...
I agree. But there is not always a good place to put one, or a place which people won't object too strongly to.

Anyway, might be a silly idea, but it's interesting to ponder such things. I never anticipate being in a position to actually build one though!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top