• kalpol@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    4 hours ago

    This has been done before,in the 1920s the USS Lexington, an electromotive aircraft carrier, was hooked up to Seattle to provide power when a hydro plant went dry in a drought.

    • Technoguyfication@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      8 hours ago

      Great! There’s plenty of precedent for floating nuclear reactors. Just look at any modern aircraft carrier or navy submarine. The US Navy operates hundreds of nuclear reactors at sea with a perfect safety record.

      • JasonDJ@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        5 hours ago

        There’s gotta be a way for the navy to commercialize reactor ships and use them for freight. Even if it means a crew of navy engineers on each freighter. I’d take the remote possibility of a nuclear incident in the middle of the Pacific, or even a dirty-bomb or two. Either one is going to cause less destruction than bunker fuel.

      • Allero@lemmy.today
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        6 hours ago

        Absolutely! Nuclear energy is one of the cleanest options, and it’s a superior option for a floating power station.

    • HakFoo@lemmy.sdf.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      31
      ·
      21 hours ago

      Old diesel locomotives have been repurposed similarly, since they’re literally a 3000hp generator and fuel tank on wheels.

    • RubberElectrons@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      23
      ·
      20 hours ago

      Some countries depend on them, Dominican republic for example. According to the locals it’s been reliable except during hurricanes, but that’s an extreme.

      • Boomkop3@reddthat.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        20 hours ago

        That makes sense. In an earlier climate conference some oil billionaires had a similar idea, but instead to create artificial scarcity and drive energy prices up by moving the power plant to the highest bidder

      • Technoguyfication@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        32
        ·
        22 hours ago

        We already have floating nuclear power plants and we’ve never had an issue with one (in the US at least). Look at any modern aircraft carrier or naval submarine. Many of them are able to be connected to shore and power nearby buildings in emergencies.

        • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          9
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          17 hours ago

          Floating nuclear power plants would be safer in disasters than ones on land if anything. We literally use water to block the radiation since it’s so effective at it.

        • Vanth@reddthat.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          12
          ·
          22 hours ago

          The article on Nimitz class carriers is a great Wikipedia rabbit hole to dive into.

      • Breadhax0r@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        19 hours ago

        I remember watching a youtube video about what i think was a large land train built by Russia that was a portable nuclear power station.

      • BaroqueInMind@lemmy.one
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        21 hours ago

        This was an excellent read, thank you for linking that Wikipedia article. I never knew about these and they are cool af