tech

Japanese firms invest ¥10 bil in British floating nuclear plant project

17 Comments

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© KYODO

©2024 GPlusMedia Inc.

17 Comments
Login to comment

How about investing in green energy instead?

4 ( +11 / -7 )

So what happens when it's in the middle of a storm and it floats away?

1 ( +8 / -7 )

The problem of Japan is that there are nuclear controls and regulations.

If the nuclear plant is offshore the problem is solved.

-6 ( +2 / -8 )

What could possibly go wrong?

1 ( +5 / -4 )

Floating nuclear plant will simply irradiate the ocean directly if it is destroyed via natural or man made disaster. Sea life is not as valuable as life on land, until you realise your food source is now inedible. Who is going to be the first to risk it? Japan may be that guinea pig in this instance.

Stick to tidal generators, solar, wind, hydrogen and geothermal for natural energy with minimal "side effects". There are enough options to generate green power, but if you do need to supplement that with nuclear power, keep it somewhere that you can have full access to the plant at all times and place it where containment can be easily achieved and not close population centers or towns within 20-50km.

1 ( +5 / -4 )

This sounds very promising, I hope it will be a success so we don't have to worry about these plants anymore. Best of luck to all involved.

-4 ( +2 / -6 )

Great idea…not!

Sp much easier to illegally dump waste straight into the ocean with no oversight..

then what happens if there is a melt Dow just destroy the whole ocean?!

Absolute lunacy!

0 ( +5 / -5 )

It is interesting development though it also has risks if they depend on nuclear power generation.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

then what happens if there is a melt Dow just destroy the whole ocean?!

I'm sure they haven't considered things that Sanji has, such as the ocean being an almost infinite heat sink to prevent those melty Dows.

I'd worry more about your own frequent melt Dows.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

Russia already has had one for several years.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

It is believed that building nuclear plants offshore will make them less vulnerable to earthquakes and tsunami and also less costly than land-based plants.

Really? That's the takeaway here? It's so it can spew its waste directly into the ocean! Give it up already

Japan seems bent on doing literally anything but develop its own extensive renewable resources

0 ( +2 / -2 )

Hitachi has had the know how (for years now) to produce electricity through tidal wave movement but where is that being deployed?

1 ( +1 / -0 )

What could possibly go wrong?

Just like how "no one could have predicted the tsunami" some other rare event could occur resulting in another meltdown or radiation leak. Not to mention every time there is a storm they'll have to issue a public notice that "offshore nuke plant is safe" just creating anxiety every few months.

First you'll hear reports of "high levels of uranium" found near offshore nuke plant. Then you'll hear from officials that levels are "safe" and "normal" then years later you'll see then headline "officials covered up radiation levels for decades" and it just goes on and on.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

What could possibly go wrong?

Nuclear subs are floating nuclear power plants when they aren't diving. There have been a number of those that have sunk, too, without issue.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

The problem of Japan is that there are nuclear controls and regulations.

If the nuclear plant is offshore the problem is solved.

Depends. If it is sited inside Japan's territorial waters Japanese laws and regulations would apply. It is doubtful any such plant would be sited in international waters just due to the necessity of an undersea cable for the power, but if it were the UN's IAEA would regulate it.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Russia already has had one for several years.

Pffft. The US Army's power barge Stugis carrying reactor MH-1A was moored in Gatun Lake on the Panama Canal from 1968 to 1977 providing power and fresh water for an adjacent US Army base.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

Just like how "no one could have predicted the tsunami" some other rare event could occur resulting in another meltdown or radiation leak. 

A molten salt reactor (MSR) cannot meltdown because the fuel is already in liquid form. MSRs employ passive safety by the nature of the coolant. When temperature rises, the salt coolant expands, slowing down the nuclear fission reaction. If the reactor overheats, a plug melts at the bottom of the reactor, and the liquid fuel is immediately evacuated into a catch basin below the reactor where the salt expands and becomes a solid as it cools to below 500C. The risk of either a steam explosion, a hydrogen explosion, or a meltdown is effectively eliminated due to the nature of molten salt reactors. Meltdowns are not possible with thorium reactors because the reaction is not self-sustaining. A team from the Nuclear Research and Consultancy Group (NRG) the Netherlands has built the first molten salt reactor powered by thorium in decades

3 ( +3 / -0 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites