Aircraft carrier nuclear reactor - photo

[Altair]

K15 pressurized water reactor of the French aircraft carrier Charles de Gaulle.

Fullsize image: https://diqn32j8nouaz.cloudfront.net...r_fullsize.jpg



Previously:

SL-1 reactor meltdown - video and photos
Chernobyl 4 reactor diorama - photo
GE Beetle mobile manipulator - photo
ML-1 mobile nuclear power plant - video
Manufacturing reactor pressure vessels in the 1960s - video

[neilbourjaily]

How many small to medium size towns could be powered by such a device? Energy independence is available if we'd get over the nuclear pile bug.

[Frank S]

How many small to medium size towns could be powered by such a device? Energy independence is available if we'd get over the nuclear pile bug.

Yep the sheeple are afraid of getting radiation poisoning from their electric meters and light bulbs in their homes if the power comes from a nuclear power plant

[metric_taper]

France was the only country (that I know about) that searched for a design, and then only used that design for all their land based plants. If a design problem was found, they all got the same service bulletin, and they all operated the exact same way so operators could move from location to location. I assume they also got a volume discount from using the same part number design (I can't remember if it was Westinghouse that sold them).

[schuylergrace]

How many small to medium size towns could be powered by such a device? Energy independence is available if we'd get over the nuclear pile bug.

The problem with nuclear is twofold: 1.) Private companies are running the plants, and their ultimate goal is to be as profitable as possible, which doesn't generally play well with being safety conscious, and 2.) We never have invested in the research to find a good way(s) to dispose of the waste products. But nuclear is no worse in a lot of ways than any other energy source, just the effects of a screw-up are much longer lived and possibly more widespread. We don't have good ways of getting rid of coal ash, either; liquid and gaseous fossil fuels contribute to global climate change, even when they aren't burned (and burning is a horrible waste of those finite resources); and even most renewables have problems with waste products and the impact of manufacturing conversion and storage devices. Nuclear, particularly nuclear fusion, could be an answer, but it isn't today...well, except by using that big nuclear fusion reactor that already powers our entire planet.

[neilbourjaily]

I rather suspect that operating a plant of the size shown above would not interest any commercial firms. There's insufficient volume to make them attractively profitable. Instead a better plan would be for communities to establish independent commissions/agencies that would cooperatively supply electricity. Staffing is always a problem. That could be solved in the early stages by employing the scores (hundreds?) of the exquisitely highly trained techs separating from the Navy.
As far as any concept of safe disposal, that approaches the same question as sustainability. Sustainability is a fantasy. Humans use resources and humans are increasing across the planet. Disposal? The problems with disposal and production are largely NIMBY-ism. Actively taking responsibility for your own waste and your own consumption are un-American. we're much happier seeing, not seeing, the wastes of mining or recycling, for example, in someone else's backyard, say Waste Texas (smirk).