Russia Promotes Floating Nuke Plants
MOSCOW, June 4 (UPI) — A floating nuclear power plant being built in Russia is generating interest in other countries, a nuclear official said Monday.“Some 20 countries have shown interest in floating NPPs, including Indonesia and China,” Sergei Krysov, deputy general director of the state-controlled nuclear power plant company Rosenergoatom said, RIA Novosti reported.
Russia started building its first floating nuclear power plant in April in the northern Russia city of Severodvinsk and expects to complete it around 2010.
| What would happen to an ocean in the event of a nuclear meltdown? How could you possibly contain the radiation? I don’t know about Russians and nuclear power plants. Can you say Chernobyl? I knew you c… |
Found by Bubba Martin.
first of all chernobyl didnt happen in RUSSIA but in ukraine that was part of USSR (just like russia)
second reason why that happened was because they didnt have enough money to repair etc on time
these things aside i do think it is not worth risk to build it there
Can you say Chernobyl? Does it rhyme with Three Mile Island?
Do your research, hhopper, before crying wolf.
I read up on this months ago. These power plants require thermal cooling, what better place than near-zero ocean water?
Also they don’t blow up like a bomb. If there’s a problem, they’ll sink it to the bottom, where it will cool down on it’s own.
If cooled rapidly, it won’t blow up, nothing to scatter.
As far as engineering is concerned, Russians are the best. I’m more concerned with previous Third-World countries now entering industrial age.
#3, Mark Derail, As far as engineering is concerned, Russians are the best.
Well, that’s a tough point to argue, I’ll need more specificity than an opinion. Who got to the moon first? Their giant boosters just “blew” on the pad, even though Tsiolkovsy was a genius.. How many russky computers have you bought lately? Last thing I want is a nuclear meltdown in an ocean. And TMI didn’t melt, nor was it even close to the Chernobyl disaster. But they do make some of the finest vodka! 🙂
US and Canadian engineers are the best, too. On par I’d say.
Can’t say a country building / not building computers as a good gauge of engineering, that’s more an economic thing. You have to build cheap. Moon first? Politics overpowered economic sense.
As far as physics engineering is concerned – including space – Russians have a much better track record than anyone else.
The Russians should go to the moon and mine Hydrogen-3. They could get there before anyone else if inclined to do so.
Back to blowing up – all the nuke reactor problems have always been heat related. Being in cold sea water is a plus.
How can you have a catastrophic meltdown when you have an unlimited supply of cold water?
This idea is hardly new. A U.S. company started construction of a floating nuclear plant that was to be anchored off Jacksonville, FL in the 80’s. The location, in the middle of hurricane alley, was a major factor in the scrapping of the project (along with the general decline in nuclear power in the U.S. in the 80’s).
Rev 16:3: The second angel poured out his bowl on the sea, and it turned into blood like that of a dead man, and every living thing in the sea died.
Rev 11:18: The time has come for judging the dead, and for rewarding your servants the prophets and your saints and those who reverence your name, both small and great— and for destroying those who destroy the earth.”
Keep it in mind, folks.
Anti-nuclear power plant hysteria is nonsense. Nuclear energy is one of the best ways to create energy. The technology has improved dramatically since the 70s or 80s. Numerous studies have shown that. We need nuclear power in our long term energy plans. You all have to get over it. Both TMI and Chernobyl are not examples. The technology used to build them is no longer used.
Isn’t the arctic ocean heating up? How much will this (or the dozen others) add to the warming?
But they do make some of the finest vodka! 🙂
Which could explain some of the other problems.
Actually, in an old Popular Science (or similar magazine) in the late 50’s-early 60’s, I remember plans for a U.S. Nuclear Dirigible (also nuke planes, ships, etc.) that was part of Atoms For Peace (as I recall… don’t have it at work with me).
Also, regarding water, remember that many of the old reactors were ‘pool’ reactors (e.g. University of Arizona.. I remember seeing it when I toured the Engineering Building when I started at the UA).
J/P=?
Keep in mind that I am generally a proponent of NPPs when constructed and operated properly. That said there is a lot of misinformation about NPPs including in this short thread. First, TMI did start melting down, in fact a good chunk of the core did melt it was just contained and did not explode in the way that Chernobyl did. I don’t recall anymore what type of plant this floating one is supposed to be however if it’s a traditional design (PWR, BWR, RBMK, PBMK, etc.) you do NOT want a melting core to be quickly cooled by water in fact that is what creates the danger of explosion (see Chernobyl).
What happens is that when an extremely hot core comes in contact with water the heat energy converts the water to steam extremely rapidly and steam expands creating an explosion which blows apart the core and carries little bits of it high into the atmosphere where they drift around and fall places where you don’t really want your core to go. Again, see Chernobyl. In this case the last place you want a meltdown to occur is anywhere near water. However, water is needed for day-to-day cooling operations which generate the power.
Now that we’ve cleared that up it should be explained that there are lots of new reactor designs such as the pebble bed reactor which should be much safer than the designs from the 1970s which are currently in use and may not present the same catastrophic failure scenario. Obviously with the current demand for electricity none or few of the existing NPPs can be removed from service without being replaced. As the silly anti-NPP protesters would probably prevent a new plant from being built these old plants continue to operate far past their initial operating licenses. A smart activist would petition for a new (safer) plant to be built and the old ones decommissioned.
Most current floating nuclear plants are in the hands of the US Navy in the form of aircraft carriers and submarines. There are a are a few floating nuclear power plants that don’t float anymore. The Thresher and an unknown number of Soviet subs for example.
If you remove the potential for combat and the ability to move the safety factor should improve.
Better yet the submerged nuclear power plant.. Put it under a couple of thousand feet of water run it until the fuel is exhausted, open the seacocks, wait a couple of hours, close the seacocks and swim away.
Repeat as needed.
Perry
1.
Look at the ocean tides and the currents.
If these ARE in the realm of another nation, Even if it has to be SUNK…
WHOM are you going to polute..
2.
Look at the Fish populations…Spawning areas…
3.
Deep locations, and sinking something into the crust ISNT an option.
Maybe the latest technology IS much better. But is it worth taking the chance of polluting an ocean? It would be impossible to contain the radioactivity if it happened. At least on land it would only spread in the atmosphere. (Which is bad enough.)
8. TV Addict- I’m Ok with it as long as they put the nuclear waste in your neighborhood, otherwise I dont like the idea. How about it, you still OK with it?
#12
Good point! seems as if this is already been going on for 50 years so it would be more about transmission of the power most effectively.
#4, Mark Derail, As far as physics engineering is concerned – including space – Russians have a much better track record than anyone else.
The U.S. wins, hands down. How many Buran missions actually flew? Zero. It’s a museum now. How many Soviet rovers are on Mars? Zero. How many Russian probes at the outer planets? Zero. (Pioneer and Voyager are still going, wish the funding for communications was there). How many Russians walked on the moon? Zero (regardless of motivations, political or not, they couldn’t get there). I just don’t see how you can say their track record is better than NASA’s.
Disposal of nuclear waste is still a big problem, but some new solutions are at hand, see here (middle page jump, see whole page if interested):
http://www.etsu.edu/writing/3120f99/zctb3/nuclear2.htm#nw4
#18
Nice link is the engineering feasible for the subduction zone I wonder?
Even if Dumped into the Ocean…
Has anyone ever Seen what Live STEAM can do…
If not Dumped BEFORE it reaches a certain temperature, This thing may NEVER cool down. and will just BOIL water and fish and plankton for ever.
It will crack water into Hydrogen and Oxy… and Just Keep burning, and burning.