Nuclear Power Plants Are Floating on Water…Wait What?
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 19 июн 2024
- Both Russia and China are developing floating nuclear reactors. Although critics have dubbed it "Chernobyl on ice," it might have many benefits.
» Subscribe to Seeker! ruclips.net/user/subscription_c...
» Watch more Elements! • Elements | Seeker
Floating nuclear power plants are self-contained, low-capacity nuclear power reactors that are mass produced at shipbuilding facilities. They can be towed to ports or power towns that are experiencing power deficiencies.
Russia is building a fleet of floating nuclear plants and China is reportedly starting to build a floating nuclear power station set to be seaworthy by 2021 to provide power for its artificial islands
Nuclear power is one option to free humanity from our dependence on fossil fuels for energy.
Unlike oil, coal, or gas, generating nuclear power emits no carbon dioxide, though it does create radioactive waste, some of which has to be stored securely for thousands of years.
And unlike wind energy or solar energy, it can produce energy on demand. So a few countries are aggressively pursuing nuclear power, and some have even designed ships with reactors to serve as mobile power plants.
So is this idea ingenious or a disaster waiting to happen? Learn more on this episode of Elements.
#NuclearPower #Energy #PowerPlant #Science #Seeker #Elements
How This Rare Natural Fission Reactor Could Solve Our Nuclear Waste Problem
• How This Rare Natural ...
Read More:
World's first floating nuclear barge to power Russia's Arctic oil drive
phys.org/news/2018-05-russia-...
"Built in Saint Petersburg, the Akademik Lomonosov is currently moored in Murmansk where it is being loaded with nuclear fuel before heading to eastern Siberia."
China Is Building up to 20 Floating Nuclear Power Plants
futurism.com/china-floating-n...
"Floating nuclear reactors sound perilous, but the China National Nuclear Corp plans to develop them as a cheaper alternative to transmitting power from mainland China."
Chernobyl disaster
www.britannica.com/event/Cher...
"Chernobyl disaster, accident in 1986 at the Chernobyl nuclear power station in the Soviet Union, the worst disaster in the history of nuclear power generation."
____________________
Elements is more than just a science show. It’s your science-loving best friend, tasked with keeping you updated and interested on all the compelling, innovative and groundbreaking science happening all around us. Join our passionate hosts as they help break down and present fascinating science, from quarks to quantum theory and beyond.
Seeker explains every aspect of our world through a lens of science, inspiring a new generation of curious minds who want to know how today’s discoveries in science, math, engineering and technology are impacting our lives, and shaping our future. Our stories parse meaning from the noise in a world of rapidly changing information.
Subscribe now! / dnewschannel
Visit the Seeker website www.seeker.com/videos
Elements on Facebook / seekerelements
Seeker on Twitter / seeker
Seeker on Facebook / seekermedia
Seeker www.seeker.com/ 
Наука
Hi, thanks for watching! Want to learn more about nuclear power? Check it out here: ruclips.net/p/PL6uC-XGZC7X6YQV9lhyllw764uI9bhfh_
What what what?!
What happens when that Nuclear ship gets hit by a huge mega rogue wave
@@TRAVIESO_NA I think it will role over!
Do you heard about container ship's turning around in a Storm ?
I think the floating nuclear fission boat is a terrible idea, sure I don't want it in my back yard, but I don't want it over the sea where it could be harmful to aquatic life which reaches back here. And on top of that, we will need to filter sea water with Graphene at some point, when the world's population grows.
It also gives nuclear power plant companies the option not to deal with being told to shut down their power plants by the country, just in case.. when fusion comes a long, basically it gives them freedom to do what they want with it, as long as they want, and that.. is a big no to me.
Please check out my fusion energy / fusion power playlist by going to my channel, and then clicking on the subscribed channel called Technology Research, find the playlists, click "created playlists" to see them all, some are hidden. And then check out all the playlists there, especially the fusion energy playlist. Make sure to click on the title / text of each playlist, not the pictures. Please check out all videos from top to bottom. I would link it, but when I log out and come back to the videos with comments that have links, those comments aren't there, but when I log back in, they are there again. Nothing like talking to yourself, youtube is being toxic I think. I'm just being positive and interested in technologies, and sharing the info. Please check out all the playlists and share.
As you can see from comments, those who just *know this is **_bad_* don't want to learn, and we others know it anyway. You are partly preaching to the choir, and partly to deaf ears. What happened to curiosity and wish to learn?
At least Comrade Dyatlov will have his water pumps!
dojokonojo lol
Yeah he will have plenty of water in his core 😂
😂 man that was harsh.
@@karanjoshi2662 that was 300Sv/hr harsh 🙃
As a former Naval Nuclear Technician, onboard a Los Angeles class submarine, this is something we've been doing since the 60's. With reactors being run by kids, with no more than a high school diploma, without incident, for over 50 years. Nuclear powered ships, capable or producing their own power, isn't even a remotely new thing...
Currently the U.S. has 72 nuclear powered submarines, and 10 nuclear powered aircraft carriers in service. That's 82 nuclear powered vessels already out on the water...
"Is this a good idea..." well, we certainly seem to think so.
Thanks for telling classified information about us
If you think that’s classified, you’re a special kind of stupid.
@@arhumzia4087 Hahaha. You can "Google" that shit, for fuck's sake! You really are a special kind of stupid!
knowing about it and knowing how to build one are two different things arhum
although with submarines I would use the term float loosely. Haha. just giving you guys shit. I was on the Enterprise, yeah outdated nuke reactor stuff. I did my training on the Daniel Webster (former 626), yeah all I know is outdated nuclear reactors. I wouldn't call myself a kid. I was nearly 21 when I was done with all my nuke training.
Radioactive symbol /= biohazard symbol
but radiation is a biohazard
chill, this a joke.
What people don't realize is that if a nuclear reactor failed, it may have devastating consequences, but fossil fuel kills millions yearly even when they operate normally, with horrible long term effects.
All the major disasters (only 3 comes to mind, Three Mile Island, Chernobyl and Fukushima: only 3 in 50 years, must be some kind of record) involves designs that were made 1960's.
We need to build a series of mini reactors that don't take a decade to complete, with billion of dollars overrun so we can take advantage of the Learning Curve.
The US have nuclear submarines that can run for decades without blowing up.
@JohnnyGotHisGun Windscale in Britain was very serious but covered up.
@JohnnyGotHisGun only 3 that were very very serious compared to other criticality events. One way to put it is that Japans criticality where ouchi for something like 17 sieverts of radiation, is by far much more insignificant compared to fukushima, chernobl, windskale, three mile island. Those three were the worst accidents of which windscale was the worst of those three. Other accidents are either moderate or small since they were localized or the damage was very small.
@JohnnyGotHisGun what is this "uninhabitable swathes of Siberia" are you talking about? Did you pulled it out of your rear? There was only 2 nuclear power plants in the entire Siberia and none had an accident. The closest was a leak on Mayak nuclear facility in the Urals. It was the first nuclear facility in USSR, the one, where they made the first Soviet nuclear bomb, and in the end it only got slightly over background radiation noise.
1:10 'Chernobyl on ice' sounds like a Disney musical on an ice skating track lol
Russia : Power plants floating on Water
*Anatoly Dyatlov* : _Wait that's illegal_
Да ну, всё лигал, чувак
Dyatlov*
Gres0n are u high?
No it’s not illegal
Reactor threatens to meltdown:
*Drop core to cold sea!*
Meltdown prevented. If only Chernobyl floated...
Ok?
Alright?
Maybe I'm completely mistaken but aren't there nuclear powered submarines and ships right now loaded with weapons?
If so... what's wrong with a bigger reactor?
I just hope that nuclear power ships tugged into US and EU shores when they fail
A submarine requires far less power than the kind of power you get from a plant. Running one ship compared to a large city is quite different
Joy Chakravarty, not quite. Nuclear subs refers to the fact that they are powered by a nuclear reactor. And, yes, they also carry nuclear missiles.
Yes this video is pretty dumb.
@JohnnyGotHisGun I wouldn't call 90% as tiny minority
Russia and China: building reactors on ships
The US: let's invade Iran for clean coal!
Oil, right?
But I get the joke.
ur an idiot!!
china uses half the worlds coal, the US hit a record low in coal usage that renewable took it over in power production.
Angry Kittens Ironically Russia and China are the only large countries that have and currently are attempting to invade neighboring countries ((ie:Ukraine, Hong Kong, South China Sea, Chinese Belt and road etc). But this is RUclips, where ignorance truly is bliss.
@@miguellopez3392 Not in oil I think...
"So, when are we ending this whole 'fossil fuel' thing again?"
"When it ends. Okay?"
Nuclear power uses fossil fuels. It uses the fossils of ancient stars.
@@Omnifarious0 does that mean that stars are fossils left behind from the big bang or is it more true to say that of the CMB?
@@widget3672 - I mean that heavy elements like uranium are the fossils of ancient stars.
I just realized that the fossil fuel business has interests in making things worse, because then the mess they'll have made will force the public to switch to quick-solution-nuclear instead of green energy. With nuclear beeing what themselves will switch their investments to one day, they're profiting twice from acting bad.
oh so it comes from a supernova?
You seem to have a new intern for selecting stock footage. Or is it a new audience engagement strategy? Biohazard signs on barrels don't convey a narrative about radiation well. Also the New Safe Confinement is not a heavy concrete structure.
Most people don't realize that a lot of nuclear waste is housed around water. Water absorbs a lot of radiation
@@michaelskinner5006 most nuclear reactors are inside a modified isotope of water aswell.
I agree. The same way it seems misleading that while talking about nuclear power plants during the first 4 seconds, a fossil fuel power plant is shown
Tony stark: I have a nuclear reactor in my chest
Me: interesting...wait what?
Fun fact: we’ve been putting Nuclear Reactors in ships and boats since the 1950s. Think submarines and Russian ice breakers. What’s new???
R 04 this ones have higher energy output, difference is significant there
Again, missing the point. Actually watch and acknowledge what is being said in the video before commenting. These barges will have to power islands, not just the barge itself, so they will need a much higher energy output.
@@willinton06 Those new Russian icebreakers have 2 RITM-200's (2x175 MWth). The existing nuclear icebreakers are also around 300-350 MWth. The Akademik Lomonosov only has 2 KLT-40S's (2x150 MWth). Your statement is incorrect.
@josh otis Yes, because of course people will bring this thing into the stormy ocean for no reason and of course such objects aren't protected by swarms of helicopters and small guard ships ready to oof anything that comes to it within 1km range.
@@willinton06 this one has exactly the same nuclear output as a medium ship. There's even bigger nuclear reactors actively floating around and nobody cares. But as long as the word "plant" is thrown in the mix, ignorants are instantly triggered. Should have called it "nuclear powering barge", or something, and nobody would even notice this thing.
Us: has hundreds of nuclear powered ships, no one bats an eye
Russia: builds a nuclear offgrid power barge
Us: wait that's illegal
I might be wrong, bus as far as it goes, Russia uses this floating reactor for the uses of powering and providing heat at the remote port town of Pevek. And I believe they don't extract fossil fuels in that region but rather a rare-earth elements in an open mines nearby.
If Fukushima was built on a floating platform nobody would have known about it. BTW, the US navy has lost two nuclear powered submarines, the Scorpion, and the Thresher. They are still down there. Ask Forest Gump, shit happens.
US navy also deliberately sunk dozens of old reactors in the Western Pacific as "disposition" programs. It was forbidden only in the 90es.
YES YOU GOT THE POINT...
3.07 - Fears about floating nuclear power plant are OVERBLOWN
Maybe the authors did not know that in the United States there were also accidents at nuclear power plants. And Russia is the world's leader in the construction of nuclear power plants and the production of nuclear materials. And in addition to icebreakers, Russia has a bunch of other ships and submarines with nuclear reactors. But nooo. The authors do not bother your head with this knowledge ...
Fun Fact: Every 60 seconds in Africa a minute passes.
Please donate
A fellow men of cultere who watches big man Tyrone
Every 60 slaves are trafficked in 1 second in USA destroyed Lybia
Save the minutes 😫😫😫
Ok and in every 1/60 minutes a second passes
The largest US navy ships have two 300mw reactors. Depending on who you ask, 600mw is enough for roughly 600,000 people.
Again, it depends on who you ask as to how many homes a megawatt powers, and I understand why. There are tons of variables.
Furthermore, Russia used nuclear submarines to power cities after the fall of the soviet union...check it out for yourself!
You make this sound like something new. It's not by a long ways. The first floating power plant was the MH-1A developed in 1967 and used in the Canal Zone in the Republic of Panama from 1968-1975. I know this since I was stationed in the Canal Zone from 1972-1976 where it provided power to us. For more see this WikiPedia article on the power plant: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MH-1A
0:13 Talks about nuclear waste and shows picture of biohazard waste instead. I feel like I see things like this in every seeker video.
People need to get over their irrational fear of nuclear and educate themselves. Nuclear is a safe and effective method of power generation.
Safe ? I have strange flashbacks from 1986 april 26.
Russian floating nuclear ship is a massive achievement to humanity and we should learn from them. If the war bent leaders in America stops putting down Russia for one second and learn from them, we would be making great progress towards reducing coal use! Russia is the leader and we should take note! 😳😳😳
His closing was so golden 😂 He’s awesome.
There is a US company designing a floating nuclear power plant that is utilizing thorium, it will eat waste and produce power at 3 cents/kw-hour. Set to produce their first one by 2024, Thorcon.
Hi seeker
Another interesting video..
Thanks for the video...🙏👍😊
The canal zone in panama was once powered by a floating nuclear reactor. My neighbor worked as an operator on it when he was in the navy.
By a strange bit of coincidence, I once worked as a health physics technician for the same small nuclear support company that my neighbor did once he got out of the service, but we had never met. And here we are now, living near each other in Panama. Small world.
More reactors have we not learned from Chernobyl and Fukushima
Today's fact: In the 1920s, women in several US cities organized Anti-Flirt Clubs in to combat catcalling.
Lmao😂
Wahmen logic : If the catcaller is good looking mofo they call it compliment, if the caller fugly they call it harassment. = =!
@@zee9709 Who says that? Maybe 0,5% of women
Fast forward to 2010, PETA is calling for combating consumption of cats in China.
Are you the same guy who used to host 'Play Noggin'?
Yes that’s him.
The guy with stanky legs
You completely glossed way over the very serious issue of safe storage of nuclear waste which was an uncool thing to do. We've been dealing with this issue for decades. No one wants to have that waste in their states or countries, and we're pretty much out of existing space. Many nuclear power plants are forced to keep their spent fuel rods, and it's very far from being sustainable.
Very valid point. Fukushima 4 was not a reactor blowing up but spent fuel.
Fishes suffering from plastic pollution be like
*AA SHIT HERE WE GO AGAIN*
Movil Chernobyl... A weapon to surpass metal gear!
To power the extraction of fossil fuels!
*Oh* *The* *Irony* *!* ..
Adding efforts to what we don't use to produce power!
Its Russia.
You call it ironic but physics shows that nothing creates power unless you put power in. All we're able to do is "move" power. Once you understand E=MC^2 you realize many things. To mock this is to mock our universe. And at that points it's like, whatever bro.
@@flowmastaflam You didn't got the irony.
@@thingsiplay My explanation was that the more you know, the less ironic it becomes.
Use it for water desalination plants off the coast in the future
Seeker: Nuclear power plants float on water
Submarines: hold my fission reactor.
Worst case scenario in 30 years HBO make a great show about it.
He poisoned out water supply! Burned our crops and delivered a plague onto our houses!
-The guy who loves chocolate from Spongebob
we need molten salt reactors to do this sort of thing, and we can put them into shipping container boats as well as making all-in-one units to drop in the ground wherever. they run at high temperature so we can just let them cool in air instead of putting it on the coast or by a river, but if we DO put it near the coast, we can use the waste heat to desalinate water for free, in addition to generating anywhere from 60mw-1.5gw per single module.
Central committee: Where were you when the explosion happened?
Comrade Dyatlov: In the ocean swimming with the fishes 😂
Highly informative. We really should work with nuclear power, if it's good for the climate.
Russia and nuclear power bla bla bla... what about Three Mile Island accident or SL-1 Reactor in 1961?
No deaths.
What about thousand people death every year from coal power plant every year. The fear of nuclear is stupid.
Floating nuclear power plants? *Can't wait to see the ocean hulk out*
This is the solution for gigantic container vessels, oil/lpg tankers, city size cruise ships. Each of these already use electric drives connected to oil fired generators
If the unthinkable happens, we dont need water for anything, do we?
No, we don't. It's ocean water. Humans can't drink it. It's useless.
"Unthinkable" happened several times already. From all the reactors US had dumped in the Western Pacific, to Fukushima. Do you feel radioactive now? No, because there's so much water in the ocean, radiation disperse to background levels.
what about the oceanic life ?? when any of these go off.
the last irony was really kept me silence for a minute 😂😂😂.
nuclear power plant to power the extraction of fossil fuel WTF🤣🤣🤣
Look at Fukushima,contaminated sea water(they say treated,but I doubt it) is discharged back to the sea anyway...
Ugh... Water is one of the best radiaton moderators realy... Go research people a little on radiation moderators. Aparently you can swim in 3m depth swimming pool filled on the bottom with radioactive waste and yet on the surface no radiation. Go figure right? It aint without a reason most reactors use water as cooling and also as neutron moderators. Also what will do one reactor leak to the massive ocean if one banana gives off more radioactivity than that reactor making difference to the whole ocenas of world. And then again, water moderates very well radioactivity hencr minimal damage from radioactivity itself. Ingesting isotopes is different tho.
Here's a major disadvantage you overlooked: The plant has to be taken out of service at regular intervals for dry dock maintenance. Meaning you have to regularly tow it away for a LONG period of time. I believe the standard rotation for the US Navy is 18 months in service, 6 months for refits/maintenance in a dry dock. Assuming a similar schedule, you need to have 4 interchangeable barges for every 3 deployment locations, plus a suitable dry dock facility in range of all 3 sites to maintain continuity of service. No small feat. Plus moving something that large is difficult. I wouldn't be surprised if most of the damage happened while in transit. And then there's the aquatic pests. You need a team of divers on hand to regularly clear the water intakes of barnacles and similar.
Great video. Well done. One technical point worth understanding is that water is a nuclear moderator: it absorbs neutrons, slowing a nuclear reaction...
0:50 you know what's sets me off more? America and nuclear p.s I'm no Russian I'm indian
The barrels at 0:13 arent nuclear waste. Its biological / biochemical waste. Stop needlessly scaring people of nuclear power.
They use biological waste barrels to help the common layman see that it is dangerous and has to be stored somewhere safe. If they showed some metal crates underneath a great deal of water, I don't think it would be immediately recognised as nuclear waste or something that is dangerous. It is just for entertainment's sake, not trying to scare people.
@@oko3717 considering we face a climate crisis and people in democracies will potentially decide on what method of power generation should be used, its pretty imprortant that they know that nuclear waste isnt thrown away in plastic barrels in a landfill. This is one of the many missconceptions. Nuclear waste is stored very very safely. Noone has ever died as a concequence of nuclear waste
If a ship borne reactor has a significant issue, you can scuttle the ship to prevent the reactor core from melting. Chernobyl was a particular reactor design that could and did blow up due to lose of coolant. The United States built ONE of these around 1947 in Hanford, Washington. It was quickly realized what could happen with this design of reactor. The US then changed to a swimming pool design that is common today. To my knowledge the Hanford, Washington reactor was quickly retired.
I have heard that if we use liquid flouride thorium reactors( LFTR'S), the radioactive wastes produced will have a 300 or so years of storage which is small corresponding to the conventional uranium reactors. From a you tube video on LFTR, S.
You might want to update that supposedly better record. Even this year we had a sunk vessel
Nice thing is, if it fails, you can just sink the boat. Water is great neutron absorber
How do you get that power ashore? You have to build power lines miles out to see and it deep oceans. Seems like a huge pain. Also limits where you can take these ships too.
Floating reactor have the benefit of, if there was a failure, melt down or the like you could just take it to a extremely deep water and sink it. Small possibility of Godzilla.
I’d rather have radioactive material on land than having it in the water
militaries been doing from 60s, US, russia, china, india, france etc etc counties have reactors floting around the world. they are as safe as coal operated plants.
1:42 I love the motion of the ocean. I go with it Everytime. Can't get enough of it! (13 year old me) hehe hehe
Why not an artificial lake with a floating nuclear facility on it? way safe than the sea. Avoiding contaminate the sea and eventually causing a global contamination... And you have all the "goodies" of having a floating facility, like avoid earthquakes.
_”Nuke-u-lar, it’s pronounced Nuke-u-lar.”_
-Homer Simpson
I got a idea, maybe we can have every house with it's own extremely small reactor, like really small, I think that would be great
This floating nuclear power plants should also have some form of netting or devices to catch plastic and other debris in the ocean while they're generating energy they can clean the ocean
This guy reminds me of Dr. Christmas... that was the nuclear physicist Denise Richards played in that bond movie.
alot of potential for disaster relief, if you can just pull up with a ship and not worry about the state of the land infrastructure and repair the power to vital areas and connect them to the ship it would make relied alot easier and give the people who handle that a sort of beachhead.
That last note🤦🏾♂️🤦🏾♂️🤦🏾♂️ nicely done 👌
This skirts around the differences between the reactors in military ships and serving the grid. The military ones are way smaller, and work at lower pressures and hold way less fissile material. They are expensive per kW generated, but given their use this is justified.
Having a floating nuclear plant miles off of the shore has several advantages for the operator. The main one will a lack of regulation as it will be out of territorial limits. The main difficulties will be getting the power to land, and getting staff to and from, particularly in an emergency.
I suspect that in most places this will not be an acceptable move.
Military power plants also use uranium enriched to much higher levels than civilian ones...
@Seeker there was still one thing that you haven't covered that I am still skeptical about. What are we going to do with all the nuclear waste that will be accumulated?
Jesbaam Sanchez Well with Russia they can reprocess the waste and then use the plutonium in their BN-800 fast reactor.
Good video. Somethings to note : 1) the Soviet sub Komsomolets sank in 1989 and is leaking huge radiation on the sea floor near Norway., 2) NASA has successfully launched at least several spacecraft powered by small nuclear power plants on board.... Otherwise, 3) if a large earthquake destroys local power plants, towing a ship with a nuclear power plant aboard could allow it to provide energy to those communities
Alien invaders weapon of choice: 1 small pebble
The US navy has had a nuclear accident a submarine captain dumped a load of radioactive water near Helensburgh on the coast of Scotland.
Now you have done it , i can see the end of humanity on the horizon😮 .
What
@@BEAN6183RR
Never mind lets just sit and watch lol😅
3:44 great point on tsunami. If the plant can survive rogue ocean wave, means earthquake wont damage the whole system.
If these were thorium reactors (Moltan Salt Reactors) I'd be less concerned.
"Chernobyl on Ice" got a really strange, giggle-like squeak out of me.
Umm... How do you transmit the power generated? And in absolutely no way would constructing a nuclear PP on a vessel be cheaper than on land.
interestingly enough this way of building them is far cheaper than conventional plants.
there is a company in US who claim they can start building 1000MW floating nuclear plants at the price of 1 bill dollars/unit - that's comparable to natural gas.
Random question what is the difference between fussion and fission?
Fission - breaking large atoms apart. Uranium 235 is a prime example. Fusion - Ramming two hydrogen atoms together in a series of collisions to produce helium. This is how the Sun produces energy at its core. Its core is approximately 15 million degrees centigrade and the density of the hydrogen gas is about 8 times that of gold.
Dyatlov : hold my graphite
There's only 230 years of Nuclear fuel left, then what?
I think we should build one more generation of fission power stations/modules then hopefully we’ll have fusion in 20/30 years
Actually your last thing is wrong, most of the mining in Pevek is closed as mines are close to depletion. What Lomonosov did is replacing 75 year old coal power plant with horrible environmental impact.
The US Navy had Admiral Rickover, who "took no prisoners" concerning reactor safety. The modern US Navy missile systems and similar high-tech systems had their design and maintenance systems reconstructed to match his results and they now work pretty well using sailors as their local support staff. Safety in high-tech things is possible, including atomic reactors.
Not safe if I can walk onto a US carrier, get into the secure reactor room and ... Boom?
Security, safety and upkeep from corrosive saltwater would be a larger concern than a land based nuclear plant. Still, the benefits are greater for a power plant out at sea. The U.S has used Navy carriers to supply power to the grid during black outs in the past.
Many nuclear power stations are located along the coat. They use sea water as a means to condense steam in the condensers. That will be no different in the proposed floating power station.
On a deeper thought aren't ships and subs have nuclear warheads on it already
The Chernobyl disaster proved one thing: Steam is powerful stuff when it gets out of hand. But of course they already knew this back in the late 1800's.
I dont have my Boy Scout "Atomic" badge but aircraft carriers do it all the time.
Building something nuclear which is not explicitly designed for war - is illegal :)
Aircraft carriers and submarines already have nuclear reactors on board and have been operating for decades! The idea of putting a reactor on a ship is hardly novel. All that is different here is the reactor will probably be larger, and the purpose is ostensibly peaceful.
On demand mean it produce the whole time energy but solar and wind is “Random energy“
'nuclear power is made to free us from coal dependece' well not in the Philippines were things like these are decided by pure political interests,and absolute negligence to the scientific community, or even the idea of innovation.
4:06 what remote part? sounds more dangerous than space travel.
Please make video on how close are we to build iron-man arc reactor
The US DOD needs these and some small portable land versions too.
I don't see how this could go wrong
sneaky way to deliver a dirty bomb to another geographic location.
Not a bad ending after all, seeing it coming from USAF sponsored channel.
As soon as you're done is having a good power shift to get fossil fuels but I don't know sometimes I just think you'd think that
I don't know if there is a trend for nuclear power, or if it is just me who's interested in the topic and " happen " to find a ton of recent videos on this subject.
The motion of the ocean seems like something that would be on a cringy shirt