It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Chernobyl at Sea? Russia Builds Floating Nuclear Plant

page: 1
2
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 26 2005 @ 06:32 PM
link   

The Russians are building a floating nuclear power plant. It will be finished by 2008. A targets for terrorists? How would a nuclear accident be at sea be compared to one at land, and would it be more vulnerable to a potentional accident when at sea?


NewsMax.com: Chernobyl at Sea? Russia Plans Floating Nuclear Plant

Russian Atomic Energy Minister Yevgeny Adamov said Tuesday that Russia planned to build its first floating nuclear power plant

Ministry planners hope to significantly reduce other costs by having the plant's staff live on the sea coast instead of on the floating platform.

The facility would be installed on a barge moored at a dock in the port of Severodvinsk in northwest Russia.

The plant's designed capacity is expected to reach 50 megawatts and will be used primarily to supply power to Severnoye, one of the biggest electricity consumers in the region.

In addition to building nuclear power plants, Severnoye also specializes in building nuclear submarines, some of which are part of Russia's Northern Fleet.


Future projects, shipbuilding, Baltiyskiy Zavod



Main technical data of the floating power plant:

  • Max.length 140 m
  • Midship breadth 30 m
  • Depth 10,0 m
  • Draught 5,6 m
  • Displacement 21760 t
  • Voltage 10 êV
  • Electrical power 70 MW
  • Heat supplied ashore 50 Gcal/h
  • Type of fuel nuclear fuel
  • Period of operation 40 years


I have a bad feeling about this...

Related links and resources:
MosNews: World’s First Floating Nuclear Power Plant to Be Constructed in Russia
www.antenna.nl..." target="_blank" class="postlink">WISE: Russia: World's first floating nuclear plant
Pravda: Russia to Create World's First Floating Nuclear Power Plant
Malaya Energetica: Floating nuclear thermal power plant

Related ATS-threads:
Worse Than Chernobyl? (by Vajrayana)
NEWS: Second Chernobyl Incident Possible (by BlackJackal)
Chernobyl - 2005 (by Harlequin)
Ignalina Nuclear Power Plant To Close Or Not? (by Hellmutt)
Huge Radioactive Leak At Sellafield - UK (by Hellmutt)
NEWS: Nuclear Leak At Sellafield (by MickeyDee)

[edit on 2006/4/23 by Hellmutt]



xu

posted on May, 26 2005 @ 06:45 PM
link   
I dont know much about the subject but, arent the nuclear submarines which are all over the oceans have nuclear reactors already, or the carriers, if yes, then it is not a first however it may be not as protected as the war machines.



posted on May, 26 2005 @ 06:53 PM
link   
Too bad we didn't have effiecient tunneling technologies and superconducting wires, we could build 'em a mile underground, with a mile of rock and dirt shielding the thing, it would be nigh impossible to attack and if it malfunctions the mile of rock and dirt will shield and population living on top of the reactor. Unfortunatly it's not really feasable atm.



posted on May, 26 2005 @ 09:13 PM
link   
This is just great,
the russians cant make safe reactors on land much less water. I think the russians drink to much vodka.



posted on May, 28 2005 @ 03:27 PM
link   
In case you don´t know where Severodvinsk is, here is a map:
Source: Bellona: Maps in The Northern Fleet report




Cosmos 1 is currently in Severomorsk (which is right next to Murmansk) where it will be mounted onto a ICBM to be launched into space from a submarine soon.
ATS: Two Space Vehicles To Be Launched From Submarine

[edit on 2006/4/23 by Hellmutt]



posted on May, 28 2005 @ 03:55 PM
link   
I just saw this. It's the same city as the floating nuclear power plant. Canada is working on a bridge...


Bellona: Canada can manage reconstruction of ”nuclear” bridge in Severodvinsk

2005-05-27



Canada will apply for a grant from the European Bank of Reconstruction and Development to repair the bridge used to ship spent nuclear fuel and nuclear waste from Zvezdochka shipyard in Severodvinsk.

Canada is ready to work closely to solve the problem of Yagra bridge over Severnaya Dvina River connecting Yagry Island, where nuclear submarines are being dismantled, with mainland in Severodvinsk. In particular, Canada will ask the European Bank of Reconstruction and Development to give a grant for the bridge reconstruction from the Northern Dimension Environmental Partnership. Canada also stated that it’s ready to manage this project, Interfax reported with the reference to the Canadian ambassador’s speech in Severodvinsk.

This project costs about $15m and can take 30 months.

Please visit the link provided for the complete story.

Click the link to read the full article...

[edit on 2006/4/23 by Hellmutt]



posted on May, 28 2005 @ 04:08 PM
link   
Seems to me, that this is "nothing new" - ALL Nuclear Submarines are basicly Nuclear Power Plants, running under extreme circumstances: several 100 meters below the water, loaded with heavy weapons etc.

The only thing that bothers me at this floating nuclear plant is, that its kind of near the urban area. If they made a floating power plant, they should sent it to a remote area, away from urban territory, or something.

But that also means, that in case of an accident, help is also very far away...

Maybe they could sell this working power plants to some people, that want them.

Thats what the Russkies probably had in mind.



posted on May, 28 2005 @ 04:30 PM
link   
You are right Souljah. They will defenately export them. But these power plants will be more powerful than the nuclear submarines. Thus a bigger disaster if something goes wrong...


www.antenna.nl..." target="_blank" class="postlink">WISE: Russia: World's first floating nuclear plant (This article is from July 26, 1996)


Russia has long had plans to build a series of small floating nuclear power plants for use in remote regions which are not connected to the national grid, or to replace thermal nuclear power plants that have grown too expensive because of high fuel transportation costs.

They will be used in inaccessible regions of the Far East, extreme North, Altay Territory and the Kola Peninsula." He noted that Russia is the world leader in small nuclear power plant production and sees these plants as potential export products, especially to developing countries. He added that Indonesia, South Korea, China, and Vietnam have all expressed interest.

But environmentalists are not convinced. "We know about the quality of the Russian fleet's nuclear reactors. A Komsomolet nuclear submarine is still located at the bottom of the North Sea," says Vladimir Sliviak of the Socio-Ecological Union/Antinuclear Campaign in Moscow.


[edit on 2006/4/23 by Hellmutt]



posted on May, 28 2005 @ 10:50 PM
link   
It will be.

For this project:
The marine reactor company
The shipbuilder
The uranium industry
The terrorists and the makers of limpet mines.

Against this project:
The fish, birds, mammals and other creatures in the sea
Native people
Anyone with a brain.



[edit on 29-5-2005 by Chakotay]



posted on May, 28 2005 @ 10:53 PM
link   
hmm i wonder if this is "fallout" from chernoble? if something happens just cut her loose and sink her. keeps people a little bit safer on the shore.



posted on May, 29 2005 @ 05:48 AM
link   
I have also heard somewhere about the plans to use old (not longer used) russian and US submarines as power supply stations or for water desalinization in some areas (especially Persian Gulf). Is it true?



posted on Jul, 10 2005 @ 04:33 PM
link   
Greenpeace has requested the Federal Security Service to ban the building of floating nuclear power plants. They say poor security makes them a "prime choice" for potential terrorist attacks and called for Russian authorities to scrap the floating nuclear power plant project and concentrate on development of alternative energy sources instead.

MosNews: Greenpeace Tells Russia to Scrap Floating Nuclear Power Plant



[edit on 2006/4/23 by Hellmutt]



posted on Jul, 10 2005 @ 07:17 PM
link   
Lets face it the greenpeace lobby wont be happy until we are all naked and living in caves. Progression is more natural than their claimed motives, this plant appears to be a very sensible alternative to a conventional nuclear plant which would take up a lot of room on land, this plant also offers the possiblity that if future requirements change it would be easy to move or suplement this plant.



posted on Jul, 10 2005 @ 09:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by jensy
This plant appears to be a very sensible alternative to a conventional nuclear plant which would take up a lot of room on land


Russia is 17,075,200 sq km
I think they could squeeze a nuclear plant in somewhere (Near China)


jra

posted on Jul, 10 2005 @ 10:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by XphilesPhan
This is just great,
the russians cant make safe reactors on land much less water. I think the russians drink to much vodka.


How many reactors do the Russians have? (I honestly don't know myself) and how many of melted down? One? Just because they have one accident (and a big one at that) doesn't mean they can't build safe reactors. They've learnt there lesson now i'm sure. No need to basicly call all Russians alcoholics either.



posted on Jul, 10 2005 @ 10:20 PM
link   
Can someone please outline the benefits of having a nuclear plant floating on water as opposed to sitting on land? I know it can't really be due to lack of space, especially in Russia's case.

Also, with regards to Canada offering to rebuild that bridge. It's funny how Russia is getting everyone to foot the bill for them. They're still a threat to our national security, are constructing weapons designed for an all-out nuclear war with our country, and we're giving them billions in aid and picking up the bill to dismantle all their old nukes. The Russians are geniuses!


jra

posted on Jul, 11 2005 @ 12:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by Rasputin13
Can someone please outline the benefits of having a nuclear plant floating on water as opposed to sitting on land? I know it can't really be due to lack of space, especially in Russia's case.


I think the main benefit would be the unlimited access to water for cooling the reactor. Perhaps also being out in the water, it will be a bit more isolated from more populated areas. Those are the two ideas that instantly come to mind for me.



posted on Jul, 11 2005 @ 03:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by jra

Originally posted by Rasputin13
Can someone please outline the benefits of having a nuclear plant floating on water as opposed to sitting on land? I know it can't really be due to lack of space, especially in Russia's case.


I think the main benefit would be the unlimited access to water for cooling the reactor. Perhaps also being out in the water, it will be a bit more isolated from more populated areas. Those are the two ideas that instantly come to mind for me.


Yes, and in case of BIG problems it can be sunk. It would be not very ecological but MUCH better than Chernobyl.



posted on Jul, 11 2005 @ 03:58 PM
link   
Russians have appalling records with nucleur engines. I read somewhere, that there may be up to 15! nucleur engines dumped in the sea north of Mermansk.

I know that heresay is useless, so I will try and find a link.



posted on Jul, 18 2005 @ 09:12 PM
link   

I found a link about the 15 nuclear reactors dumped at sea..


15 Russian nuclear reactors dumped at sea

Greenpeace on February 27 confirmed that 12 submarine nuclear reactors and three icebreaker reactors have been dumped in the waters off the coast of Novaya Zemlya. This is the first public disclosure that Russian submarines and their nuclear reactors were dumped in the Kara Sea.

One whole submarine, the K-27, powered by a liquid-metal cooled reactor, was dumped in the Stepovov Gulf after an accident in May 1968. Its two fuelled nuclear reactors were dumped in the same location off the southern island in 1982.

Eight reactors, three of which still contain their nuclear fuel, were dumped with sections of four accident-damaged nuclear submarines in waters just south of the K-27. The submarine sections -- from the K-11, K-3 Leninski Komsomol, K-19 Hiroshima, and one unknown -- were reportedly dumped during the years 1964-65.

Five more reactors litter the seabed, including the three damaged reactors from the icebreaker Lenin. More than 17,000 containers of liquid and solid radioactive waste were also dumped; the location of some 10,000 of these containers has now been made public.

Novaya Zemlya, an archipelago in the Arctic Circle used as a nuclear test site, is proving to be one of the largest nuclear dumping grounds. The information comes from sources inside the Commonwealth of Independent States, researched by Alexander Yemelanenkov, Russian chairman of the anti-testing association Towards Novaya Zemlya, and Andrei Zolotkov, a nuclear engineer aboard the Imandra, a nuclear refuelling ship for icebreakers in Murmansk.

“The waste from the nuclear icebreakers is a molehill compared to the mountain of waste created by the Russian nuclear navy”, said John Sprange, Greenpeace disarmament campaigner. “This is the beginning of an uncontrolled landslide.”

And some other interesting links on the same topic:
MAXIM: See Murmansk and die!
Russia: Spent Fuel and Radioactive Waste
Arctic Sea Dumping
Russia's Environmental Mess
Nuclear watch in the Far North
NUCLEAR ARMS CONTROL
Bellona: Dumping of radioactive waste

And regarding our floating nuclear power plants:
Russian Floating Nuclear Reactors - Proliferation Risks

[edit on 2006/4/23 by Hellmutt]




top topics



 
2
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join