(arstechnica.com)

1. kart23 ◴[02 Apr 21 18:45 UTC] No.26674533[source]▶

Fun/Depressing fact: The USA has more floating reactors than reactors on land.

replies(1): >>26674622 #

2. alex_anglin ◴[02 Apr 21 18:52 UTC] No.26674622[source]▶

Source?

3. toomuchtodo ◴[02 Apr 21 18:54 UTC] No.26674657[source]▶

US Navy nuclear fleet.

Caveat: US Navy is more responsible about operating its reactors than commercial generators.

replies(1): >>26674978 #

4. devoutsalsa ◴[02 Apr 21 18:55 UTC] No.26674668[source]▶

I think they're talking about the reactors in naval ships. The USA has little (any?) buoyant nuclear power generation for commercial use.

replies(1): >>26681112 #

5. yellowapple ◴[02 Apr 21 19:21 UTC] No.26674978{3}[source]▶

Further caveat: it's arguably much easier to cool a reactor when said reactor floats on a literally-planet-covering heatsink.

replies(1): >>26674998 #

6. toomuchtodo ◴[02 Apr 21 19:23 UTC] No.26674998{4}[source]▶

Absolutely. Worse case scenario, you scuttle the vessel and the reactor is surrounded by a cooling medium in perpetuity.

7. stjohnswarts ◴[03 Apr 21 14:01 UTC] No.26681112{3}[source]▶

Isn't Russia the only one that has tried that with ships?

Nuclear should be considered part of clean energy standard, White House says