Russia launches a floating Nuclear Power Plant

[AlTech]

Russia have launched a floating Nuclear Power Plant. It is on its way to an oil producing town to replace 2 aging power plants which are 44 and 70 years old respectively.

 

The power plant is located on a Barge and, in order to avoid Chernobyl 2.0, the barge is currently being slowly moved to a town called "Murmansk". From there refuelling will take place and a crew will move the power plant to its final destinaton in 2019.

 

 

Quote

After a period of time in Murmansk, the power plant will be towed to a small Arctic town called Pevek, according to German broadcaster Deutsche Welle. The floating nuclear power plant, called the Akademik Lomonosov, doesn't have any of its own propulsion hardware, so being slowly towed to its destination is a necessity. The company that built the plant, state-owned Rosatom Corporation, said in a press release that the second stage of the journey, from Murmansk to Pevek, will commence in 2019, with fuel and crew aboard the boat/power plant.

 

Once the plant reaches Pevek, it will be used to power the 100,000-person town, a desalination plant, and oil rigs. Rosatom says that the Lomonosov is intended to replace the region's Bilibino nuclear power plant, which provides 48MW of nuclear power and was built in 1974, as well as the Chaunskaya Thermal Power Plant, which is now 70 years old. Bilibino was once the northern-most nuclear power plant in the world, but after the Lomonosov is in operation, it will inherit that title.

The project has not been without the kinds of delays that nuclear projects seem to inevitably face: in 2015, the Norway-based website Barents Observer wrote that the Lomonsov would be put into service by October 2016.

 

And of course if this barge has an accident or bad weather then GG everyone in Russia .

 

Quote

Meanwhile, critics are concerned that a floating nuclear power plant is a situation ripe for disaster if the boat encounters extreme weather. In a statement, Greenpeace nuclear expert Jan Haverkamp cited concerns about the Lomonsov's flat-bottomed hull and its lack of self-propulsion despite the fact that it is intended to be anchored in relatively shallow water.

 

So yeah, I'm not for this kind of thing. I think it was a bit silly to try to do this cos the sea and the weather can be quite unpredictable.

 

Source: https://arstechnica.com/science/2018/04/russia-launched-a-floating-nuclear-power-plant-this-weekend/

[Levent]

"in order to avoid chernobyl 2.0" lol that might end up with just the opposite, unless you meant that nuclear fuelling has not taken place yet.

[Ezzy-525]

At least if "Chernobyl 2.0" did occur they could just sink the bloody thing.

[AlTech]

Just now, Ezzy-525 said:

At least if "Chernobyl 2.0" did occur they could just sink the bloody thing.

But wouldn't that contaminate the ocean?

[brwainer]

Just a reminder that the US, Russia, and I assume some other navies, have floating nuclear reactors already - aircraft carriers and submarines. The difference is that submarine reactors are tiny, and submarines with nuclear reactors spend most of their time submerged - that’s the point of putting a reactor on them - and aircraft carriers are bigger than this barge (less affected by weather) and can move to avoid weather. I don’t know off the top of my head how this reactor compares in power output to Aircraft Carrier ones, but this one is probably larger.

[Ezzy-525]

Just now, AluminiumTech said:

But wouldn't that contaminate the ocean?

I don't actually know...

 

Maybe if it was far enough from land and at a ridiculous depth perhaps? I mean obviously there would be some issues from it, but not as bad as Chernobyl was.

[BarackOBatman]

21 minutes ago, AluminiumTech said:

But wouldn't that contaminate the ocean?

Yes...

 

Not like it hasnt stopped anyone before... Especially the USSR, tons and tons and tons of contamination.

UK almost as bad as USSR so i hear.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean_disposal_of_radioactive_waste

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Techa_River

[brwainer]

1 minute ago, Ezzy-525 said:

At least if "Chernobyl 2.0" did occur they could just sink the bloody thing.

 

1 minute ago, AluminiumTech said:

But wouldn't that contaminate the ocean?

The reactor melting through the bottom of the hull and entering the water, or the whole ship sinking, is actually about the worst ecological disaster that can be imagined. It wouldn’t be “Chernobyl 2.0” it would be Apocolypse because the entire planet would end of being contaminated. Ocean currents are all interconnected.

[brwainer]

2 minutes ago, Ezzy-525 said:

I don't actually know...

 

Maybe if it was far enough from land and at a ridiculous depth perhaps? I mean obviously there would be some issues from it, but not as bad as Chernobyl was.

Try every ocean-based living product (fish, seaweed, shellfish), as well as most beaches, being contaminated. This is really something to be avoided.

[Ezzy-525]

5 minutes ago, brwainer said:

 I don’t know off the top of my head how this reactor compares in power output to Aircraft Carrier ones, but this one is probably larger.

A Nimitz class carrier can produce 194MW of power from it's reactor. Whereas the largest nuclear power plant on land produces 6384MW. So quite a big difference.

 

EDIT: Also...isn't a meltdown pretty much not possible if they dumped the reactor into the ocean? Meltdowns usually occur because there's no way to adequately cool the fissionable material.

[brwainer]

The good news compared to Chernobyl is that every country has come a long way in reactor design and operation, even if most aren’t building many plants nowadays. And they’ve talked about building this thing since the 80s so I hope that they’ve put the appropriate work into making it safe.

[brwainer]

9 minutes ago, Ezzy-525 said:

A Nimitz class carrier can produce 194MW of power from it's reactor. Whereas the largest nuclear power plant on land produces 6384MW. So quite a big difference.

 

EDIT: Also...isn't a meltdown pretty much not possible if they dumped the reactor into the ocean? Meltdowns usually occur because there's no way to adequately cool the fissionable material.

That’s a bigger difference than I expected.

 

Re: Meltdowns - the problem is that the casing normally used around the pellets, rods, whatever form factor the fuel is, is usually something that would be corroded by salt water. So if you dumped it to cool it down, or pumped salt water onboard without desalination, you would end up eroding your casing that keeps the fuel and coolant separate. 

Aside from any normal precautions against meltdowns, they may have made the whole system out of saltwater-resistant alloys, but that is just an idea.

 

Edit: typoes

[KarathKasun]

16 minutes ago, brwainer said:

 

The reactor melting through the bottom of the hull and entering the water, or the whole ship sinking, is actually about the worst ecological disaster that can be imagined. It wouldn’t be “Chernobyl 2.0” it would be Apocolypse because the entire planet would end of being contaminated. Ocean currents are all interconnected.

If this was the case we would all be dead now with how much used reactor fuel waste was dumped into the ocean by the UK.

 

Not to mention the couple of nuclear subs that have had catastrophic reactor failures.

[AshleyAshes]

25 minutes ago, AluminiumTech said:

2 aging nuclear power plants which are 44 and 70 years old respectively.

Quote

as well as the Chaunskaya Thermal Power Plant, which is now 70 years old.

 

 

It's not a nuclear power plant, it's a thermoelectric plant.  Here's why you should have caught this sooner: The world's first nuclear power plant, Obninsk Nuclear Power Plant, only became operational in 1954, or 64 years ago.  A power plant that went online 70 years ago, in 1948, would pretty obviously not be nuclear.

 

[Asche]

17 minutes ago, AluminiumTech said:

But wouldn't that contaminate the ocean?

Actually it would be a highly diluted contamination.

Still pretty bad tho. Like the one happening in Fukushima (Leakage from the blew-up reactor and uranium bars pool's directly in the ocean).

You would have to forbidden fishing in that area for a lonnnnnng time.

Hopefully, since Chernobyl incident, they know how to do things. (fingers crossed !)

[AlTech]

4 minutes ago, AshleyAshes said:

 

 

It's not a nuclear power plant, it's a thermoelectric plant.  Here's why you should have caught this sooner: The world's first nuclear power plant, Obninsk Nuclear Power Plant, only became operational in 1954, or 64 years ago.  A power plant that went online 70 years ago, in 1948, would pretty obviously not be nuclear.

 

Rip. Fixed it.

[TacoSenpai]

Insert "lets take our nuclear reactors and push them somewhere else!" meme

[dizmo]

26 minutes ago, AluminiumTech said:

But wouldn't that contaminate the ocean?

Not really. Direct area perhaps but it's not that bad. Plus it's a very small plant of its replacing only 48mW.

23 minutes ago, brwainer said:

 

The reactor melting through the bottom of the hull and entering the water, or the whole ship sinking, is actually about the worst ecological disaster that can be imagined. It wouldn’t be “Chernobyl 2.0” it would be Apocolypse because the entire planet would end of being contaminated. Ocean currents are all interconnected.

So all those sea based nuclear tests and the nuclear submarines that have been lost must have caused world catastrophe! Oh.. They didn't. They affected the direct regions slightly, but it's not something that's as bad as you're making it seem. 

[BarackOBatman]

6 minutes ago, dizmo said:

Not really. Direct area perhaps but it's not that bad. Plus it's a very small plant of its replacing only 48mW.

So all those sea based nuclear tests and the nuclear submarines that have been lost must have caused world catastrophe! Oh.. They didn't. They affected the direct regions slightly, but it's not something that's as bad as you're making it seem. 

Difference here is, he's talking about a meltdown. "Reactor melting through the hull" That shit is mega toxic. If they shutdown the reactor properly, I think everything would be (relatively) fine.

 

None of those nuclear subs sunk due to a meltdown.

 

Although considering the lower power of this reactor, i wouldn't expect anything Chernobyl 2.0 ish

[KarathKasun]

1 minute ago, BarackOBatman said:

Difference here is, he's talking about a meltdown. "Reactor melting through the hull" That shit is mega toxic. If they shutdown the reactor properly, I think everything would be (relatively) fine.

Meltdown at sea has happened before, its "bad" but not the end of the world.

[Asche]

@dizmo +1

Yep exactly.

 

@valdyrgramr Yes, but water is a strong natural barrier against radiation. And also against neutron rays. That's (partly) why nuclear plant reactor are built with a pool above the reactor.

So the ocean could be locally contaminated by human activity, and it's under close look by world wide agency to monitor the decay of the radioactivity in those area (if they still exist, apart from Fukushima obv.)

[BarackOBatman]

1 minute ago, KarathKasun said:

Meltdown at sea has happened before, its "bad" but not the end of the world.

Just partial meltdowns though, right?

[KarathKasun]

Just now, BarackOBatman said:

Just partial meltdowns though, right?

I believe there was a sub that actually sunk as well, but it was in military operations AFAIK.  Because of this we probably will not know much about it.

[BarackOBatman]

7 minutes ago, KarathKasun said:

I believe there was a sub that actually sunk as well, but it was in military operations AFAIK.  Because of this we probably will not know much about it.

Interesting.

 

That would make sense too. I imagine that it was one hell of a spectacle and a nightmare!

 

https://www.wired.com/2013/04/the-most-dangerous-manmade-lava-flow/

[Sauron]

1 hour ago, AluminiumTech said:

And of course if this barge has an accident or bad weather then GG everyone in Russia .

FTFY

 

Imagine Chernobyl but with a sea current dragging the nuclear waste around... either way modern reactors are much safer than they used to be and I would assume they learned their lesson since the last avoidable nuclear disaster, it should be fine.