/sci/ - Science & Math

>>4292678

>what would a nuclear plant look like underwater anyway?

A lot like a submarine, since that's basically what they are; French navy subs, minus everything except the reactor, life support and hull. That way they can build them in existing facilities from existing, standardized components. This is made possible as the French Navy is deeply involved with FlexBlue and providing the funding.

http://www.gizmowatch.com/entry/flexblue-an-offshore-nuclear-reactor-as-electricity-alternative/

It makes more sense than it seems to at first glance. The underwater environment supplies equal and opposite pressure to push against the outside of the steam pressure vessel which on land would be straining under a huge inside/outside pressure differential. There's also the fact that it's immersed in collant and the entire outside metal skin can be used as a heat exchanger. The netting prevents crude depth charges from getting close enough to cause damage, the difficulty for terrorists trying to locate and reach them exceeds nuclear plants on land (especially since they are beyond the range of Scuba equipment except on mixed gases) and finally the docking collar is proprietary and secret such that only custom submersibles will be able to gain entry for maintinence personnel.

>>3621461

But it was attacked. The point is made. When you position yourself out to sea on a platform inhabited by people trying to build something nice, it's an invitation to anyone with boats and guns who wants to come take those nice things for themselves.

Not so in even shallow water; Submersibles are not cheap or common, and protecting against depth charges is as simple as erecting a net over the colony, like the one that protects flexblue subsea reactors (pic related)

Living underwater has challenges too. If you're deeper than 100 feet the habitat must be 1atm or you wind up using heliox for breathing gas which gets expensive fast. And a 1atm colony will be exponentially more expensive than an ambient pressure one. So really, the only affordable way to build a subsea community today is to make it ambient pressure and no deeper than 100 feet. So really, we'd both have trouble with storms unless some wealthy benefactor decided to dump money on construction of a true 1atm colony that could be situated beyond the depth storms can affect, and use a normal air mixture.

There's a ways yet to go for both approaches. Seasteads have to move past the oil rig design to be truly safe at sea, and subsea colonies need cheaper, stronger materials so 1atm structures don't cost so much or a new breathing mixture for ambient living structures that can be used below 100 feet like heliox but without the expensive helium.

>>3587913

>undersea disasters will be an eventuality

The irony being that disasters like the japanese tsunami afflict cities on land all the time but we don't see it as a reason to abandon efforts to live on land.

Although, if the fukushima reactor had been one of these, it would still be fine. at 300 feet depth these are beyond the reach of storms and they are slightly positively buoyant, suspended by shock absorbant restraints, so an earthquake wouldn't do shit to them.

>>3551540

>One interesting possibility would be a small nuclear reactor in the ten to fifty megawatt range, though some will of course want to steer cleat of that.

Subsea reactors are actually in the works as we speak (pic related) due to the benefits of being immersed in coolant, in a location terrorists aren't equipped to reach and there being no regulations/a legal grey area when it comes to industrializing the sea.

However, for it to be worth the utility company's money to put a reactor where we'd all live, there would need to be enough of us to sell their power to. Nuclear reactors power a shitload of homes. We'd need the equivalent of a large city's population living underwater before the business case would make sense for the power company.

>>3435494

Supposing you already have a source of abundant energy that separates oxygen from sea water and provides your initial habitat with power, like a french 'Flexblue' subsea nuclear reactor (pic related).

It takes longer to make a biorock dome, but in what sense would it cost more? You need the metal skeleton to start with, but that's just rebar. Concrete structures contain that anyway.

>>3340342

Forgive me but I don't think the world is ready for a documentary series set to Dethklok songs.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NbaRq1T4Dbk

I am excite, /sci/. A french utility company called FlexBlue has made public intentions to build nuclear reactors within enormous cylindrical pressure vessels, which will comprise the largest 1atm manned habitats in history. And in fact, the only 1atm habitats ever.

They will be 300+ feet deep, too deep for scuba, offering superior protection from potential terrorists. (Unless they somehow master saturation diving and get a support vessel with a diving chamber onsite without being noticed) The docking ring will be the only way in or out, and of a proprietary design, such that only FlexBlue's submersibles can dock with it.

Life support will operate the same way it does aboard nuclear submarines; Hydrolysis will pull oxygen directly from the surrounding water. It will be used only for the few days per month that nuclear technicians spend aboard these automated reactor habitats.

It makes engineering sense; OCean water is free radiation shielding, free ubiquitous coolant, the land is free where they plan to build this thing, and the external pressure will actually aid in the containment should the interior pressure containment vessel break.

It also sets a lot of exciting precedents. First 1atm habitat. First habitat accessible by docking ring. Largest habitat ever. And if there's a company with the equipment to manufacture these, additional ones could be commissioned without the reactor inside as civilian colonies, built nearby the reactor which would produce both the power and oxygen for it.

Due to the depth involved, nuclear power would have to be used to produce oxygen from sea water, as an overhead buoy would be impractical. A benefit of this approach is that it can also be used to generate pure drinking water.

Pic related; Planned undersea reactors being built for use in France. Each one is a 1atm habitat with a docking ring that a special minisub can attach to so that technicians can get inside for inspection/maintinence. The technologies that make this project possible also make a deep sea vent base possible.

>>3033838

Well, Challenger Station will be 1atm, but only 250 feet deep as it needs to be within the photic zone.

There are subsea nuclear reactors in the works that would have a habitable 1atm interior so safety inspectors, maintinence workers and nuclear technicians can get inside and do their thing. It has a docking ring like I described, where a specially designed submsersible will attach.

They'll actually be less susceptible to tsunamis as anywhere below 200 feet, you're immune to surface storm disturbance, and by suspending them a short distance above the seafloor they can avoid shock transferrence from the quake itself. They're also immersed in a constant supply of coolant, and deeper than terrorists have the means to dive.