Russia’s First Floating Nuclear Power Plant Arrives in the Arctic

May 23, 2018, 04:10 AM

bigdeal

quote:
Originally posted by Rey HRH:
For those who asked how bad could it be, it could be very bad. For a U 235 to fission, it must first absorb a neutron that has been attenuated to 2.4 Mev. Once absorbed, it becomes U236 and splits creating energy and some particles including a couple of neutrons which when attenuated, start the next chain of fissions. The more water there is, the more attenuated neutrons there are, the more neutrons, the more fission. Normally, water that attenuates the neutrons heat up and lose their attenuating ability, that ain’t going to happen in the ocean.

Thanks so much for putting my concerns to rest.

I'm no nuclear researcher or scientist, but I think I'd agree this is likely a very bad idea, one we could all end up reaping the 'fallout' from.

May 23, 2018, 05:14 AM

r0gue

quote:
Originally posted by jimmy123x:
quote:
Originally posted by pedropcola:
I am no green peacer but that sounds like a horrible horrible idea.

These are my thought exactly. But we do have many nuclear ships and subs that seem to do fine.

The two most obvious differenced are We vs. They (which has been mentioned) and the great difference in the amount of nuclear fuel (which I'd not yet noticed in this thread). One could reasonably assume they'll have this thing scaled up to produce a massive amount of power. It's size indicates that is so. It's not a garage for the worlds second largest air-force. It's all nuclear power plant. And it appears rather huge.

May 23, 2018, 05:53 AM

kkina

In post-Soviet Russia, atom splits you.

May 23, 2018, 09:24 AM

bubbatime

Looks like a decent idea to me. Any accidents or fires or explosions and the damn thing sinks to the bottom. The ocean contains radiation much better than a Chernobyl.

I’d actually like to see nuclear expansion. The worlds top 100 to 200 freighters/tankers should be nuclear powered in my opinion. The amount of oil these ships consume is mind boggling.

May 23, 2018, 09:26 AM

joel9507

quote:
Originally posted by caneau:
How is this any different than an aircraft carrier?

For one, this thing would probably have more room for backups and spares, not having to dedicate space for planes, fuel, weaponry, ammo, missiles, etc.

May 23, 2018, 09:45 AM

dogmush

It uses a modified version of the same reactors they already run in Icebreakers and their nuke powered freighter. Not exactly new or untested technology. It's also replacing an old Soviet Era graphite-moderated nuke plant. So the total safety is probably going up quite a bit.

At least the Russians are actually doing something about power production rather than messing around with Solar plants (Ivanpah) that barely work and windmills that can't be scaled.

May 23, 2018, 10:59 AM

BBMW

Not to mention nuclear submarines. They have lots of those. And they've disposed of a lot of the earlier generations of them...

... badly.

quote:
Originally posted by Rey HRH:
Russia has nuclear powered surface ships.

<snip>

May 23, 2018, 11:04 AM

matthew03

They must not get episodes of Deadliest Catch in Russia.

May 23, 2018, 11:06 AM

Georgeair

quote:
Originally posted by Balzé Halzé:
Nevertheless, that thing is pretty cool.

I agree, though I'd rather it never be active. I'd love to see more details on the construction and operation..

May 23, 2018, 11:19 AM

tatortodd

quote:
Originally posted by dogmush:
It uses a modified version of the same reactors they already run in Icebreakers and their nuke powered freighter. Not exactly new or untested technology. It's also replacing an old Soviet Era graphite-moderated nuke plant. So the total safety is probably going up quite a bit.

At least the Russians are actually doing something about power production rather than messing around with Solar plants (Ivanpah) that barely work and windmills that can't be scaled.

The billion dollar question is what happens to the hull when they moor it over winter (BTW, in the arctic that is September thru mid-June) to power remote coastal cities in the arctic circle? If you look at the pic in the OP's post, it's sitting on two barges not an ice breaker.

I found this article on Yahoo stating that the destination port is Pevek which is in the arctic circle and they're not going around "the horn" (aka the Chukotka Peninsula) into the sub-arctic region.

A few years ago, a Finnish ice breaker leased to Shell for their drilling campaign in the Alaska side of the Chukchi Sea (aka the same sea in the Arctic Ocean the floating Russian nuclear power plant is heading) managed to get a 1 meter long hull breach. In '81, Canada even managed to sink an icebreaker. If that can happen to a Finnish and Canadian ice breakers, imagine what can happen to a Russian barge?

May 23, 2018, 12:17 PM

Expert308

quote:
Originally posted by jimmy123x:
quote:
Originally posted by pedropcola:
I am no green peacer but that sounds like a horrible horrible idea.

These are my thought exactly. But we do have many nuclear ships and subs that seem to do fine.

We don't keep our nuclear powered ships and subs tethered to a fixed location all winter surrounded by ice.

May 23, 2018, 01:03 PM

BBMW

Just a thought, and I don't know how this will work. If it's a pressure water design, it's going to have a secondary cooling loop that's going to be used to generate steam for the turbines. This is going to need a condenser. That waste heat could be used to melt any ice that might try and build up around it.

quote:
Originally posted by tatortodd:
quote:
Originally posted by dogmush:
It uses a modified version of the same reactors they already run in Icebreakers and their nuke powered freighter. Not exactly new or untested technology. It's also replacing an old Soviet Era graphite-moderated nuke plant. So the total safety is probably going up quite a bit.

At least the Russians are actually doing something about power production rather than messing around with Solar plants (Ivanpah) that barely work and windmills that can't be scaled.
The billion dollar question is what happens to the hull when they moor it over winter (BTW, in the arctic that is September thru mid-June) to power remote coastal cities in the arctic circle? If you look at the pic in the OP's post, it's sitting on two barges not an ice breaker.

I found this article on Yahoo stating that the destination port is Pevek which is in the arctic circle and they're not going around "the horn" (aka the Chukotka Peninsula) into the sub-arctic region.

A few years ago, a Finnish ice breaker leased to Shell for their drilling campaign in the Alaska side of the Chukchi Sea (aka the same sea in the Arctic Ocean the floating Russian nuclear power plant is heading) managed to get a 1 meter long hull breach. In '81, Canada even managed to sink an icebreaker. If that can happen to a Finnish and Canadian ice breakers, imagine what can happen to a Russian barge?

May 23, 2018, 01:10 PM

BigSwede

From the makers of the Trabant

May 23, 2018, 02:18 PM

RichardC

It'll come from beneath the sea …

May 23, 2018, 05:46 PM

tatortodd

quote:
Originally posted by BBMW:
Just a thought, and I don't know how this will work. If it's a pressure water design, it's going to have a secondary cooling loop that's going to be used to generate steam for the turbines. This is going to need a condenser. That waste heat could be used to melt any ice that might try and build up around it.

quote:
Originally posted by tatortodd:
quote:
Originally posted by dogmush:
It uses a modified version of the same reactors they already run in Icebreakers and their nuke powered freighter. Not exactly new or untested technology. It's also replacing an old Soviet Era graphite-moderated nuke plant. So the total safety is probably going up quite a bit.

At least the Russians are actually doing something about power production rather than messing around with Solar plants (Ivanpah) that barely work and windmills that can't be scaled.
The billion dollar question is what happens to the hull when they moor it over winter (BTW, in the arctic that is September thru mid-June) to power remote coastal cities in the arctic circle? If you look at the pic in the OP's post, it's sitting on two barges not an ice breaker.

I found this article on Yahoo stating that the destination port is Pevek which is in the arctic circle and they're not going around "the horn" (aka the Chukotka Peninsula) into the sub-arctic region.

A few years ago, a Finnish ice breaker leased to Shell for their drilling campaign in the Alaska side of the Chukchi Sea (aka the same sea in the Arctic Ocean the floating Russian nuclear power plant is heading) managed to get a 1 meter long hull breach. In '81, Canada even managed to sink an icebreaker. If that can happen to a Finnish and Canadian ice breakers, imagine what can happen to a Russian barge?

Assuming (and it's a BIG assumption as the arctic ocean is a huge heat sink) that the heat can be used to melt the ice, what happens during unplanned downtime (pump failure, pipe leak, switchgear blowing on electric pump, etc)? The Russians aren't known for their redundancy and when (not if) it goes down it's crushing time on the barges and they will be faced with a nuclear reactor sinking with water temps that make personnel survival time very short. Can they shut it off in a controlled manner before abandoning?