# Submarine Nuclear Reactors



## R.Philip Griffin (Jan 16, 2006)

For the last 50 years small nuclear reactors have been running safely inside submarines, and all the crew living in these subs have been going about their various duties very safely as well. My query is why have these small reactors not been used as power supplies for large cities and small towns and reduce the amount of power lines which take nearly a quarter of generated power in overcoming the resistance of the powerline? Of course, being a closed system, there are no evacuation of greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere, and that is a very fashionable idea these days.


----------



## Brian Twyman (Apr 3, 2005)

NZ and the South Pacific have declared the area nuclear free since the 1980s. That puts an end to the matter for us !


----------



## trotterdotpom (Apr 29, 2005)

For a view of how nuclear reactors have been running in submarines take a look at http://spb.org.ru/bellona/ehome/russia/nfl/nfl8.htm - not as good as you might think, they just don't tell us about it!

The reason they have not been used on land is: 

The various wastes generated have a half life varying from from a few days to thousands of years.

The waste generated can be used to make plutonium for nuclear weapons.

See Chernobyl.

See Three Mile Island.

I don't want my grandchildren to glow in the dark.

I'm not sure if the power loss through cables is 25% or not, but the same power would be lost in passing from a nuclear power plant to the point of use as from any other power station, it still needs cables.

John T.


----------



## Tony D (May 2, 2004)

I recal seeing Savanna the American nuclear powered cargo vessel once,don't recal where now,also recal years later reading that she did 150,000 miles on about seventy pounds of Uranium,we have to be insane to ignore a power source like that.
Surely it cannot be beyond our ken in the second millenium to design a safe nuclear power plant.


----------



## Pat Thompson (Jan 25, 2006)

Greetings,

Savannah is or was (1984) laid up as a museum on the other side of the jetty from a ww2 Carrier in Charleston

Aye

Pat Thompson


----------



## benjidog (Oct 27, 2005)

Brian Twyman said:


> NZ and the South Pacific have declared the area nuclear free since the 1980s. That puts an end to the matter for us !


Brian,

I think you are being a bit optimisic with this declaration - if the lunatics take over the asylum and start firing weapons you will get your share of fallout the same as everyone else. I remember in the 80s there were signs round a number of cities in the UK saying that they were a nuclear-free zone. Great I thought - the Russians won't bother zapping you guys then! Hmmm .....

As an aside, there was a report in the UK papers last week (which could be a load of cobbler's awls for all I know) that looked at death rates caused by radiaiton over a long period (I think about 40 years). The conclusion was that unless you were within about 1.5Km of a nuclear blast, the increased death rate would be significantly less than that caused by smoking, excess drinking etc. The study included data from Nagasaki and Hiroshima. Food for thought maybe.

Regards,

Brian


----------



## Tony D (May 2, 2004)

Watched a do***entry a while back about Chernoble, apparently its become something of a wild life haven since the accident,critters that have not been seen for a hundred years have appeared and are apparently thriving,


----------



## Brian Twyman (Apr 3, 2005)

benjidog said:


> Brian,
> 
> I think you are being a bit optimisic with this declaration - if the lunatics take over the asylum and start firing weapons you will get your share of fallout the same as everyone else. I remember in the 80s there were signs round a number of cities in the UK saying that they were a nuclear-free zone. Great I thought - the Russians won't bother zapping you guys then! Hmmm .....
> 
> ...


Brian

I am not being optimistic and do not necessarily agree with it. I was opposed to it when the policy was introduced. I have known several friends in RN & USN who have served in nuclear warships. I understand the value of such ships in maritime tactical warfare and wish we had some.We have had no visits or exercises with USN ships for over 25 years, our treaties with ANZAM have been nulified and it affects our trade with the USA. The Labour government introduced it and received great political gain. Everone thinks green these days,so the policy continues.i.e. no nuclear ships or weapons in the South Pacific ! 
Brian


----------



## benjidog (Oct 27, 2005)

Brian,

Sorry - when I referred to "You" being optimistic in my last post I was referring to the governments in the area - not you personally!

Brian


----------



## R.Philip Griffin (Jan 16, 2006)

trotterdotpom said:


> For a view of how nuclear reactors have been running in submarines take a look at http://spb.org.ru/bellona/ehome/russia/nfl/nfl8.htm - not as good as you might think, they just don't tell us about it!
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## cboots (Aug 16, 2004)

Tony D said:


> Watched a do***entry a while back about Chernoble, apparently its become something of a wild life haven since the accident,critters that have not been seen for a hundred years have appeared and are apparently thriving,


This follows the same line of reasoning as pointing out that the best sites in the UK for wild life, both flora and fauna, are military firing ranges. The simple fact is that, apart from a few shells, they are relatively undisturbed by human activity. Besides, I shouldn't think anyone bothers much to check the wildlife for radiation related illnesses.
CBoots


----------



## K urgess (Aug 14, 2006)

I don't know about radiation monitoring on UK firing ranges but there is constant work being done at Chernobyl.
Try - http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/04/0426_060426_chernobyl.html
For some interesting information.


----------



## trotterdotpom (Apr 29, 2005)

R.Philip Griffin;120794
John said:


> Sadly, yes...... http://www.lutins.org/nukes.html#subs
> 
> There are a lot of other American nuclear stuff ups on the same site. Fortunately, the ship ones are not all that recent, but does that mean the technology is better or just the information security blanket?
> 
> ...


----------



## Tony D (May 2, 2004)

There doesn't seem to much joy in waiting for working fusion power to make the scene,seems to me fusion power is rather like the be all and end all cure for cancer,it will always be fifty years in the future.
I recal ZETA in the early fifties,once that was up and running it was not going to be worth printing and sending out electricity bills,yeh sure.
If nothing else conventional nuclear power ie fission generation would free us from our increasing relience on imported oil and gas,because I can see nowt but trouble from that direction,the signs are already there.


----------



## R.Philip Griffin (Jan 16, 2006)

Trotterdotpom, thanks for the US site. I'm afraid the chances of WA getting mini reactors is very remote. Our socialist government here is very anti and "not in our time" minded. My thoughts on the subject of nuclear waste are that within very few years there will be technology in place to make use of such material. Of course, if governments will allow it, the answer lies in "hot rocks" technology-no green house gases, no waste of any description. All we need is someone or company brave enough to overcome government intransigence. But that is another thread.


----------



## cboots (Aug 16, 2004)

The major imponderable in regard to existing nuclear technology is waste disposal. Challenge any expert who is expounding the joys of nuclear generation on waste and they will change the subject. Assuming, or hoping, that a workable solution is just around the corner is in the same camp as Tony describes in regard to fission technology with the added problem that if the decision is taken now to go along the nuclear route, and the magic waste dump is not discovered, we are left holding a very big bucket of pooh. In regard to "hot rocks" technology there are several schemes around Australia that are at a mix of proposal and development stages, probably the most advanced is that being undertaken by Geodynamics at a site in the Cooper Basin, South Austalia. I am no engineer but as I understand it this involves drilling down to very hot rock layers and injecting water, or another heat transfer medium, down in order to raise steam. The more conventional geothermal technology involves mining hot water and is already in use in suitable geographic locations, New Zealand being one I believe. A problem with this type of technology is location, the Geodynamics project I understand has the advantage of reasonable closeness to the existing grid. Obviously this is not always the case.
On another tack, I am intrigued by our friend above's reference to the "socialist government" in WA; he is obviously applying some definition of socialist that I am not familiar with. I know it is only speculation at present, but I would bet that any future Liberal/Coalition state government would be just as anti nuclear reactors in their domain as the existing ALP ones. It is to do with the demographics of their electorate. No one wants a nuclear reactor in their back yard, care of the back yard is a state issue, therefor state governments will oppose nuclear reactors. Prime Minister Howard, and others, who boldly declare they would be happy for their children to attend a creche next door to a nuclear reactor only do so in the sure knowledge that it is not going to happen.
CBoots


----------



## Bearsie (Nov 11, 2006)

The French produce 80% + of their electricity with nuclear power plants.
Never hear much about accidents or problems dealing with the waste.
How do they do it?
I do know that they have one training school for all operators and all plants are to the same design whereas US Plants are all custom build one off's.


----------



## Tony D (May 2, 2004)

I remember watching a interview with James Lovelock thinker up of the Giai priciple and therby darling of the greens, he shocked and horrified all his worshipers by stating that we should start building nuclear power stations, and we should start building them as a matter of urgency yesterday, and that he would quite happily allow the all the dangerous nuclear waste produced thus far by the nuclear industry to be dumped in a hole in his back garden,and that all the dangerous nuclear waste produced thus far by the nuclear generation industry would indeed fit into a hole in his back garden.
He is no longer the darling of the greens.
(Scribe)


----------



## cboots (Aug 16, 2004)

Sorry guys but all the nuclear waste in the world requires a hole much larger than anyone's back garden. I haven't a clue where the French dump their waste at the moment but the operative word is "dump". They will be doing what pretty well everyone else does which is seal it up and drop it in a hole somewhere and hope for the best. Just keep hoping for the next 20,000 years. There has always been a small minority in the Green movement who felt that nuclear power had to looked at. Having looked, most rejected it on the grounds that I have already stated. There are some "experts" who support nuclear and still claim Green credentials, the most prominent here in Australia presently being a guy called Tim Flannery, rapidly building a good career path as the "acceptable face of environmentalism" from the government's perspective. It would be easy to sneer, he will, afterall, be invited to sit on every enquiry from here to doomsday as the tame greenie, so I shalln't. Tim, and others like him, are entitled to their view, but it has to be remembered that there are numerous others who are as well qualified and better, who are firmly of a different view.
CBoots


----------



## Derek Roger (Feb 19, 2005)

Anybody ever heard of the real small nuc reactors called " Slow poke reactors ??"


----------



## K urgess (Aug 14, 2006)

For an idea of what the French are up to and the estimate of generated nuclear waste have a look at this -
www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/reaction/readings/french.html


----------



## Tony D (May 2, 2004)

this is the James Lovelock interview its not quite the same as the one I watched its more about climate change than nuclear power but he does have something to say about nuclear waste.
http://www.firstscience.com/home/ar...lovelock-on-climate-change-page-3-1_9814.html


----------



## lakercapt (Jul 19, 2005)

using ships power plants to generate electrical power for the national grid is not a new concept After WWII "T2" tankers were sailed to their destination with fuel oil and the generators used rather than for propulsion but for the electrical power they produced.
Pity those old nuclear subs could be utilized for that same purpose.


----------



## trotterdotpom (Apr 29, 2005)

Derek Roger said:


> Anybody ever heard of the real small nuc reactors called " Slow poke reactors ??"


Reminds me of the well known phrase: "Have ya slimed yet, Limey?"

John T.


----------



## cboots (Aug 16, 2004)

Getting back to the original topic I am sure that I have read somewhere of decommissioned nuke subs being used as generating plants for isolated communities. I am pretty certain the Russians used this idea in certain of their rather out of the way places, maybe someone else with a better memory can fill in the details for us. All I would add by way of comment is that it is a long haul from some Russian in Siberia being offered a decom nuke as an alternative to freezing his fur boots off, to those of us in not quite such a desparate plight being asked to accept a nuclear power plant on our proverbial doorstep. The criteria applied to making the decision would be, I suggest, a trite different.
CBoots


----------



## trotterdotpom (Apr 29, 2005)

*It's all good fun until someone loses an eye!*



Marconi Sahib said:


> For an idea of what the French are up to and the estimate of generated nuclear waste have a look at this -
> www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/reaction/readings/french.html


Interesting reading, Fubar. 

There's no wonder the French accepted nuclear power so readily. They're a very charming people, but they hit the p*ss at age 10 and start smoking the first of a continuous chain of Gauloise at age 12 - what's a little radiation added to the self-destruction mix?

Sounds like they're not too impressed with the waste problem though. A cigarette lighter full of nuclear waste for each family of 4 after 20 years adds up to 15 million lighters (who needs lighters when you light one smoke of the last?)! That doesn't take account of the waste generated by industrial and commercial use of nuclear power either.

Putting it all in a cupboard and hoping someone comes up with a good idea to fix it sounds a bit risky to me.

John T.


----------



## trotterdotpom (Apr 29, 2005)

Remember this little gem about the Russian subs laid up and rotting in Murmansk?

12/95: NORTHERN FLEET TAKES OVER KOLA POWER GRID 
The Administration of the Northern Fleet has taken all the facilities of the Kola energy grid under its temporary control to prevent future energy cut-offs. Earlier in the year, the Kola power authorities cut power to the Northern Fleet due to its 20 billion ruble debt to the energy industry. Four decommissioned nuclear submarines neared a nuclear accident as a result of the power cut-offs. Navy officers evaded the accident "by putting a gun to the head of the person responsible for the power switch." 
[Yadernyy kontrol, December 1995, p. 1.] 


John T.


----------



## trotterdotpom (Apr 29, 2005)

cboots said:


> Getting back to the original topic I am sure that I have read somewhere of decommissioned nuke subs being used as generating plants for isolated communities. I am pretty certain the Russians used this idea in certain of their rather out of the way places, maybe someone else with a better memory can fill in the details for us. All I would add by way of comment is that it is a long haul from some Russian in Siberia being offered a decom nuke as an alternative to freezing his fur boots off, to those of us in not quite such a desparate plight being asked to accept a nuclear power plant on our proverbial doorstep. The criteria applied to making the decision would be, I suggest, a trite different.
> CBoots


Remember this little gem about the Russian subs laid up in Murmansk (not supplying power, just rotting)?

12/95: NORTHERN FLEET TAKES OVER KOLA POWER GRID 
The Administration of the Northern Fleet has taken all the facilities of the Kola energy grid under its temporary control to prevent future energy cut-offs. Earlier in the year, the Kola power authorities cut power to the Northern Fleet due to its 20 billion ruble debt to the energy industry. Four decommissioned nuclear submarines neared a nuclear accident as a result of the power cut-offs. Navy officers evaded the accident "by putting a gun to the head of the person responsible for the power switch." 
[Yadernyy kontrol, December 1995, p. 1.] 

John T.


----------



## R.Philip Griffin (Jan 16, 2006)

cboots said:


> The major imponderable in regard to existing nuclear technology is waste disposal. Challenge any expert who is expounding the joys of nuclear generation on waste and they will change the subject. by Geodynamics at a site in the Cooper Basin, South Austalia.
> CBoots


Ahoy Cboots. Your points are well taken, and yes a conservative government will follow this same as the socialist one. Your point on the disposal of waste being a case in point. WA was one of three sites in the world chosen by a waste disposal company to bury radioactive waste here. WA was chosen as being geophysically and politically stable. The conservative government of the day knocked it on the head. Anyhow I guess that for me, it's all very theoretical. I don't want my gradchildren to be electrically deprived and getting a system in place to provide clean plentiful electricity seems to be the important thing. Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Three Mile Island and Cheynobl all create a very emotional and negative reaction to the nuclear option, although they were several years ago, they are still with us. The Hot rocks option seems to be the way to go- it's new and so far has had no negative press- generally they haven't discovered it yet. Man proposes God disposes will see what is going to happen.


----------



## Nairda59 (Jul 6, 2005)

benjidog said:


> Brian,
> 
> I think you are being a bit optimisic with this declaration - if the lunatics take over the asylum and start firing weapons you will get your share of fallout the same as everyone else. I remember in the 80s there were signs round a number of cities in the UK saying that they were a nuclear-free zone. Great I thought - the Russians won't bother zapping you guys then! Hmmm .....
> 
> ...


Spot on Brian
Remember the wonderfully neutral Greater Manchester Council spent hundreds of thousands of pounds putting up the signs to ward off Russian missiles on all roads into Greater Manchester.
The question now is - did it work ? 
I think not.


----------



## cboots (Aug 16, 2004)

At the risk of being facetious I could point out that no Russian missiles fell on Greater Manchester.
CBoots


----------



## Tony D (May 2, 2004)

I recal when Sunderland declared itself a nuclear free zone,the councill announced they were going to throw their nuclear bunker open for the public to inspect,the offer was withdrawn a few weeks later with the statement that the bunker had been destroyed by vandals,
Just as well Ivan didn't kick off.
(EEK)


----------



## trotterdotpom (Apr 29, 2005)

Tony D said:


> I recal when Sunderland declared itself a nuclear free zone,the councill announced they were going to throw their nuclear bunker open for the public to inspect,the offer was withdrawn a few weeks later with the statement that the bunker had been destroyed by vandals,
> Just as well Ivan didn't kick off.
> (EEK)


What makes you think the perpetrators were Mackem yobbos? Is it still there? Maybe if it was re-opened it would be found to be daubed with "Moscow Dynamos Rule OK".

John T.


----------

