25 Jun '15 11:53>10 edits
http://phys.org/news/2015-06-nuclear-power-miles-sea.html
it has certain advantages over land-based nuclear power plants. One is safety: the sea water can serve as an infinite source of cooling water in case of emergency—no pumping needed.
The link also implies it should be cheaper but the link gives no indication of by about how much so it is pretty hard to guess how economical this would be from the link. Providing it can be made cost effective and economically competitive with renewables (else what's the point? ) and providing it can be made very safe, I for one would have no objections to this.
Perhaps this idea could be combined with the concept of a thorium particle accelerator reactor which should in theory be much safer than all other types of fission reactors to date; if the two are combined i.e. make it a floating sea-bound thorium particle accelerator reactor, it will have the combination of all the excellent safety features of both and surely could be designed to be extremely safe indeed! Then it wouldn't no longer be a question of safety but rather just its cost effectiveness; will that really be cost effective? If not, might as well just stick too renewables some (if not already most/all ) of which already have a proven track record for cost effectiveness ( including hydroelectric ) and the cost of the rest will eventually come down so that they all will become cost effective from every point of view.
it has certain advantages over land-based nuclear power plants. One is safety: the sea water can serve as an infinite source of cooling water in case of emergency—no pumping needed.
The link also implies it should be cheaper but the link gives no indication of by about how much so it is pretty hard to guess how economical this would be from the link. Providing it can be made cost effective and economically competitive with renewables (else what's the point? ) and providing it can be made very safe, I for one would have no objections to this.
Perhaps this idea could be combined with the concept of a thorium particle accelerator reactor which should in theory be much safer than all other types of fission reactors to date; if the two are combined i.e. make it a floating sea-bound thorium particle accelerator reactor, it will have the combination of all the excellent safety features of both and surely could be designed to be extremely safe indeed! Then it wouldn't no longer be a question of safety but rather just its cost effectiveness; will that really be cost effective? If not, might as well just stick too renewables some (if not already most/all ) of which already have a proven track record for cost effectiveness ( including hydroelectric ) and the cost of the rest will eventually come down so that they all will become cost effective from every point of view.