Russians to deploy floating nuclear power plant

Lomonosov noted that nuclear powered marine vessels have a proven safety record going back 50 years. Many nations now routinely deploy nuclear powered ships, submarines and even ice-breakers.

What a load of BS. It defies logic to claim that a nuclear reactor on a ship built under tight spatial and mass constraints could possibly be safer than one on land. And guess what! There HAVE been numerous naval nuclear accidents. The only reasons the damage isn't as well known are:

1. Reactors used to power ships typically are smaller and thus easier to contain.
2. Most naval nuclear accidents are kept top secret.
3. It's harder to assess the damage caused by a reactor that's sunk to the bottom of the ocean.
4. The disasters typically haven't happened near populated areas.

So yeah, let's take nuclear naval ships, which have a pretty terrible record, and plop them down right next to cities. Genius.

http://en.wikiped...ccidents

> The Akademik Lomonosov will not be able to power itself however

o_O

He also stressed that the design of the vessel will be such that the platform will be capable of withstanding a tsunami

From the pictures of the Japan tsunami (and where all floating stuff close to shore ended up afterwards and in what state) I highly doubt that.

that nuclear powered marine vessels have a proven safety record

Does that include the half a dozen sunk nuclear submarines?

The Akademik Lomonosov will not be able to power itself however, which means it will be towed to wherever it's needed.

Which does not bode well for situations where it needs to be relocated quickly (e.g. in the event of an incoming tsunami - where moving a dozen miles off shore quickly might be the only chance of ot avoiding catastrophe)

build a fleet of the floating platforms

And the contingency in the event of a meltdown is what? Dump the core in the ocean? Great plan (/sarcasm)

Does that include the half a dozen sunk nuclear submarines?

Well, are there any serious radiation leaks from those? If not, then they are included.

Well, are there any serious radiation leaks from those?

You think the nuclear fuel in them is just going to magically go away? That sunken nuclear subs are rust/rot proof as opposed to other sunken ships somehow?

Fancy all that gunk in your food chain?

I think it would not cost too much more to equip such vessels with a pair of azipod propellers. They use electricity, can be turned 360 degrees to steer. So they work also as rudders.

I don't see anyone here foaming at the mouth protesting the recklessness of nuclear powered aircraft carriers and submarines??? oh yeah...that's another category. Sacred National Security blah blah..Why can't just be blunt and honest, say, my dicks and my sticks are bigger than yours, we got them, you late comers won't be allowed to learn to spell "nuclear" unless you are my dog/slaves/ allies, and will keep it that way, watch your heads, your upstarts ??

I don't see anyone here foaming at the mouth protesting the recklessness of nuclear powered aircraft carriers and submarines???

We aren't "foaming at the mouth" because they already exist and there's no chance of getting rid of them. I prefer not to waste my breath on useless things.

What a load of BS

1. Reactors used to power ships typically are smaller and thus easier to contain.

This will have 2 ship reactors.

2. Most naval nuclear accidents are kept top secret

So?

3. It's harder to assess the damage caused by a reactor that's sunk to the bottom of the ocean.

But it is much safer than having a meltdown on land.

4. The disasters typically haven't happened near populated areas

?? Harrisburg and fukushima are/were well-inhabited.

subs are rust/rot proof as opposed to other sunken ships somehow?

Their reactors certainly are. Contamination from the few naval accidents is undetectable and far away from water tables and people.

I highly doubt that

Oh my god. You know that tsunami waves do not rise up until very near shore? And that platforms can be designed to ride over these waves?

Ever see this vid of a small ship in the largest tsunami known to man?
http://www.youtub...fV-8dbCE

first time i have ever rated ghost above a 2

The advantages of a floating nuclear power station are obvious—electrical power could be brought to areas that are not currently being served by other means

This is not an advantage - stationary power plant will do the very same job. The main usage for such a plant is actually the construction of naval bases in connection to mining of oil from Arctic sea.

a meltdown could not happen, because it would be sinked, and the water would keep it cool.

double post

I think it would not cost too much more to equip such vessels with a pair of azipod propellers.

They are a bit big for that. This thing is the size of an oil rig (and more importantly: the mass of an oil rig). It needs to be towed.

This is not an advantage - stationary power plant will do the very same job.

The way they sell it is that in the event of a natural disaster such a station could be towed there to provide interim power until the local powerplants are restored (which is the only real 'pro' argument for this setup).

But in conclusion this type of floating powerplant is just a thinly veiled attempt at having nuclear powerplants that don't produce the ancillary costs in the event of a meltdown - as they'll just sink it (and let everyone else deal with the problems resulting thereof, rather than have their own soil contaminated).

My predominate question is: how rigorous is the process for ensuring safety and reliability? This floating reactor is coming from a country that recently made headlines for engineering a rocket which was designed to make it easy to accidentally install sensors upside down, leading to a spectacular launch failure.

I'm more wondering about what they'll do when the reactor reaches the end of its lifetime.

A reactor that size would have to be keept around for 30 years at least after shutdown before anyone could think about dismantling it. Somehow I doubt that they'll continually make repairs to keep it seaworthy during that time.

It'll just be: "Oops....didn't catch that leak in time. So sorry".

A reactor that size

Yeah. Two ship-sized reactors of the type used in ice breakers. Read the article asshole.

stationary reactor

Well the article says it can be mover to supply power where and when it is needed. I guess I am one of the few here who isn't smart enough to know what's in the article just by reading the title.

Does that include the half a dozen sunk nuclear submarines?

Well, are there any serious radiation leaks from those? If not, then they are included.

But if so, of course, then they are not included. :-|

Floating nuclear power plant and its Russian! They should call it floating Chernobyl:) Russian guys made my day, again.

Every argument "against" used here also applies equally to every nuclear-powered naval vessel (including nuclear subs, which spend most of their time at dock). Only difference here is the purpose of the shipboard reactors, and the intentions of the builders.

More outrageous boolshite

I'm more wondering about what they'll do when the reactor reaches the end of its lifetime

Geez I dont know why dont you do a little research and find out?

A reactor that size would have to be keept around for 30 years at least after shutdown before anyone could think about dismantling it

"two KLT-40 naval propulsion reactors"

"A reactor must be cooled down for at least three years after its final shutdown...The fuel elements are extracted and transported by ship and then rail to a storage facility....The still heavily radioactive reactor compartment can then be cut away...during the period of 1965 to 1988 the Northern Fleet had dumped four reactor compartments with eight reactors (three containing damaged fuel) in the Abrosimov Gulf in 20 to 40 meters of water." Six other compartments, containing nine reactors in all, had also been dumped into the water in the 1960s and 1970s."

-Disposal at sea has been proven safe.

I can see it now: a storm damages the reactor, it begins to melt down, and they simply take it out to sea and sink it...

I can see it now: a storm damages the reactor, it begins to melt down, and they simply take it out to sea and sink it...

"The U.S. Navy has accumulated over 5,400 "reactor years" of accident-free experience, and operates more than 80 nuclear-powered ships..."

"By 1989, there were over 400 nuclear-powered submarines operational or being built."

"Russia has four Kirov-class battlecruisers, though only one is active, the other three being laid up. The Soviet command ship SSV-33 Ural, based on the Kirov class, is also laid up. Seven civilian nuclear icebreakers remain in service: four of six Arktika class icebreakers, Taymyr, Vaygach, and the LASH carrier and container ship Sevmorput."

" The global warming debate in Germany had its origins in the controversy over nuclear
power triggered by the 1986 Chernobyl nuclear accident.
1
With calls for either an immediate
shutdown (e.g., the Greens) or phase-out (e.g., Soci
al Democratic Party or SPD) of all nuclear
plants, the construction of additional coal-fueled power plants was proposed to compensate for
the lost capacity of nuclear facilities. The parties supporting nuclear power—most importantly,
the governing Christian Democratic Union (CDU)
and its Bavarian sister party (Christian
Socialist Union or CSU)—found in the issue of climate change what they hoped would be an
effective counterbalance, arguing that nuclear power made good environmental sense when
confronted with the ominous threats posed by global warming."
http://aei.pitt.e...-06b.pdf

AGWites must have a different agenda.

Ryggesogn2: From your paper - "Seeking to disaggregate—and thereby better understand—the various influences on public efforts to address the challenges of global warming is a daunting task." -- Ummm, don't you think it's possible that the reactions of most sane people is based simply on scientific fact? Of course I don;t expect you to agree with that, given your long history on this site attempting in any way possible and failing (trolling, I call it), to discredit climate science. But that you're reduced to quoting amateur political analysis of EU politics by some unknown community college in the US north-west indicates the levels you have been reduced to.

based simply on scientific fact

What fact?
"Questions, not answers, are how science makes progress. "
"For all the talk about drawing conclusions in scientific studies, there is relatively little in science that is conclusive."
"Erwin Schrodinger, one of the great philosopher-scientists, said, "In an honest search for knowledge you quite often have to abide by ignorance for an indefinite period." Being a scientist requires having faith in uncertainty, finding pleasure in mystery, and learning to cultivate doubt. There is no surer way to screw up an experiment than to be certain of its outcome."
"Any scientist will tell you that facts are the weakest link in the scientific edifice." {Except AGW 'scientists'?}
"To be realistically engaged with science means appreciating doubt and uncertainty as the necessary precursor to knowledge and illumination. "
http://nautil.us/...inly-not

quoting amateur political analysis of EU politics by some unknown community college in the US north-west indicates the levels you have been reduced to.

Of course he made it all up?
Good papers have reverences and this was a good paper.

Cavander, Jeannine and Jill Jäger (1993), "The History of Germany's Response to Climate Change," International Environmental Affairs, Vol.5, No.1, pp.3-18.

And many other references.

the construction of additional coal-fired power plants

Yeah and in related news

"2.1 million people die [each year] from breathing fine sooty particles... generated from... coal fired power plants"
http://m.guardiannews.com/environment/2013/jul/12/air-pollution-deaths-climate-change

-Wonder how many people die from nuke plant pollution?

Some people care more about feel-good bullshit fairy tales than the facts. Some people are gladly willing to let people die rather than give these bullshit fairy tales up.

This includes of course all religionists, freemarketeers, and those terrified of all things nuclear.

Some people care more about feel-good bullshit fairy tales than the facts. Some people are gladly willing to let people die rather than give these bullshit fairy tales up.

For those so worried about soot killing people are you as worried about killing babies?
Auto supports people dying and early and often to ease the burden on the planet.

Some people care more about feel-good bullshit fairy tales than the facts. Some people are gladly willing to let people die rather than give these bullshit fairy tales up.

For those so worried about soot killing people are you as worried about killing babies?
Auto supports people dying and early and often to ease the burden on the planet.

And ryggy supports birthing them into families who cannot afford them because god demands it while magnanimously promising to feed them. But he never does.

Ryggy supports birthing babies for the sole purpose of fighting holy wars because thats what his religion is designed to do. If this wasnt the case then there would be no need for abortion, but ryggy is too selfish to admit this.

Ryggy wants to treat the symptoms while allowing his disease continue to ravage the earth.

By the way youre off-topic.

I love [NOT] those people who demand preserving the "life" of every fetus, so they can then demand that the resulting children shall be drafted into armies and brainwashed into murdering the followers of whatever religious leader may follow an alternative fantasy to the one they follow.

Auto likes war as a means to reduce the population.
It's inconsistent for someone to decry pollution that may cause unintentional death of humans while supporting intentional killing of humans.

Wars aren't effective at reducing overpopulation. Just look at any graph of population numbers throughout the ages. You will find only one visible cut in there: The black plague (and even that was pretty minor). Stuff like WWII doesn't even show up at all.

Floating nuclear power plant and its Russian! They should call it floating Chernobyl:) Russian guys made my day, again.

We have nuclear plants in Moscow and they have operated without the leaks and cancers associated with western reactors. I don't advocate nuclear but until we build large solar collectors, Stalin's technology will keep me warm when a woman isn't available.

Wars aren't effective at reducing overpopulation. Just look at any graph of population numbers throughout the ages. You will find only one visible cut in there: The black plague (and even that was pretty minor). Stuff like WWII doesn't even show up at all.

They are when they are intended to destroy the obsolete religionist cultures which cause the problem.

Where on your graphs and charts does family planning and the ONE BILLION ABORTIONS since ww2 fall? These could not have occurred in Eurasia had those prewar cultures survived.

This was the single most significant effect of their destruction. Growth reduction is their single greatest Benefit derived from their destruction. We can conclude that it was the primary Reason that the wars were Prosecuted.

The people are the enemies of Leaders everywhere. Religion is the enemy of people everywhere. Leaders seek to destroy religion so that they and the people can finally live in peace.

[qthroughout the ages. You will find only one visible cut in there: The black plague (and even that was pretty minor). Stuff like WWII doesn't even show up at all. Religions were Designed to outgrow and overrun the enemy. They are the only reason that western civilization was able to dominate the world.

Wars were fought and pops were quickly replaced by westerners in Persia, the western hemisphere, the British empire. Islam used the same Formula to conquer lands from Spain to India.

If you examine the historical demographics of populations you will see little overall growth because technology could not sustain it until the industrial revolution. But you WILL see a great deal of ethnic replacement. The specifics suggest an overarching Plan to equalize the sizes of all the various subgroups, and to begin softening their definition.

Slavery was used when people could not be compelled to emigrate. Khan was especially effective at amalgamating Asian pops.

What would happen if an American from the future traveled back in time to save some animal -- I don't know, maybe some large aquatic mammal -- from extinction, and needed to find his way to the "nucular vessels" to get power for a return journey? Chaos would ensue!

Well, are there any serious radiation leaks from those?

You think the nuclear fuel in them is just going to magically go away? That sunken nuclear subs are rust/rot proof as opposed to other sunken ships somehow?

Fancy all that gunk in your food chain?

Homer Simpson hasn't aged at all in how many years now?

Lomonosov said that plans are underway to build a fleet of the floating platforms to provide cities and towns across Russia with electricity for general use and more specifically for heating homes and businesses.

Not Lomonosov, but Aleksandr Voznesensky! Lomonosov is the name of the vessel.

I love it. A prototype for space power in deep space too. Good for you guys and gals over in Russia. More POWER to ya!

A meltdown in the ocean of a large reactor ought to have some spectacularly bad results. We will find a way to kill the ocean eventually, if we haven't already.

A meltdown in the ocean of a large reactor ought to have some spectacularly bad results. We will find a way to kill the ocean eventually, if we haven't already.

"Hydrothermal deep-sea vent fauna is naturally exposed to a peculiar environment enriched in potentially toxic species such as sulphides, heavy metals and natural radionuclides. ...Though only few radionuclide measurements are available, it seems likely that hydrothermal vent communities are exposed to high natural radiation doses. Various archived biological samples collected on the East Pacific Rise and the Mid-Atlantic Ridge in 1996, 2001 and 2002 were analysed by ICP-MS in order to determine their uranium contents ((238)U, (235)U and (234)U). In addition (210)Po-Pb were determined in 2 samples collected in 2002. "
http://www.ncbi.n...19362761

A meltdown in the ocean of a large reactor ought to have some spectacularly bad results. We will find a way to kill the ocean eventually, if we haven't already.

Not nearly as bad as an uncapped oil well deep in the gulf of Mexico.

If you bother to research you will find that this has been given a lot of thought.

"In one sense the sea is the best place for damaged nuclear equipment because of the dilution and cooling effect of vast quantities of sea water."
http://m.guardiannews.com/world/2000/aug/17/kursk.russia2

"In one sense the sea is the best place for damaged nuclear equipment because of the dilution and cooling effect of vast quantities of sea water."

Of course by dilution they mean, "spreading it all over the place". So if that's your goal then yes, the ocean is a great place to have nuclear meltdowns.

Of course by dilution they mean, "spreading it all over the place". So if that's your goal then yes, the ocean is a great place to have nuclear meltdowns.

"Future health effects from [Fukushima] may not be statistically detectable"

"extremely minor health consequences in the US"

-And these reactors will be much smaller than Fukushima. Nuclear material would spread out as it sank to the seabed, reducing the chance of continued criticality. Most all of it would stay there.

It would be much easier to clean it up there than in a land-based meltdown where material melts itself downward beneath megatons of concrete and steel and into the water table.

But the reactors they are using will be much smaller and of advanced design which minimizes the chance of meltdown and container breach.

100 of these have been sailing back and forth under the oceans for half a century with few accidents and NO loss of containment.

It makes much more sense to put them on barges than on land.

I wonder why they couldnt just retrofit obsolete boomers and put them to good use?