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: 2
4
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 29 2005 @ 09:25 PM
link   
I just found this. It´s very interesting and covers a lot about this subject.


Bellona:

Floating nuclear power plants in Russia: a threat to the Arctic, World oceans and non-proliferation

Bellona presents electronic version of the report, which analyses the environmental, economic and political consequences of the implementation of the floating nuclear power plants project by the Russian Agency of Atomic Energy.

Download PDF-version (840 KB)


[edit on 2006/4/23 by Hellmutt]




posted on Sep, 1 2005 @ 01:20 PM
link   
If they set it too far of shore (lets say, 15km), how will the power be transfered to the city, I don't think it would be realistic for huge wires in the water for that. It has to be by the shore.



posted on Sep, 4 2005 @ 06:01 PM
link   
this will only spell disaster when the russian hating east europeans send their boys over to "investigate" the structure ...

they better keep it in one of their landlocked lakes or seas. i dont want them contaminating my ocean.



posted on Sep, 13 2005 @ 11:48 AM
link   
The Russians are going to build it. China will produce the barge and Russia will take care of the reactor equipment.


Bellona: China to build barge for floating nuclear plant

China will produce only the barge while Russia will take care of the reactor equipment. The first nuclear power plant should be finally assembled at the Sevmash plant in Severodvinsk (in the Arkhangelsk region in northern Russia).

China offered the best conditions for the barge production and in addition it will issue Russia a long-term credit covering the price of the barge. The price tag of the contract with China is $86.5m.

The mini-station will be located in the White Sea, off the coast of Severodvinsk. It will be moored near the Sevmash plant, which is the main facility of the State Nuclear Shipbuilding Center.

The reactors will be loaded with nuclear fuel once every three years and will have a lifespan of 40 years.

Please visit the link provided for the complete story.



posted on May, 16 2006 @ 06:15 AM
link   
Russia is going to get rid of its surplus nuclear submarines by 2012. People call them "floating Chernobyls". Several countries are helping out with the scrapping of the submarines.


RIA Novosti: Russia getting rid of floating Chernobyls

16/ 05/ 2006



During the Cold War, the Soviet Union built more nuclear-powered ships than any other country - about 250 nuclear missile submarines, five surface ships, including several heavy missile cruises of the Admiral Ushakov class, eight ice-breakers, the most famous of which bore Lenin's name, and one lighter carrier ship Sevmorput. But no infrastructure was built for scrapping these ships after decommissioning. There was no system for the storage and disposal of liquid and solid spent fuel and other radioactive waste. As a result, Russia has inherited a huge problem of cleaning its territorial waters and lands of what people have dubbed the "floating Chernobyls." The sinking of any decommissioned submarine with nuclear fuel may trigger a major ecological disaster.

Deputy head of the Federal Agency for Nuclear Power Sergei Antipov, the number one domestic expert on submarine dismantling, believes that although by 2012 Russia will have disposed of its submarines, it will still have to remove spent fuel from coastal storage facilities, and recover contaminated territories. These tasks will be very time-consuming.

A total of 120 compartments with submarine nuclear reactors will be kept on open grounds, losing their radioactivity.

Please visit the link provided for the complete story.



posted on Jun, 19 2006 @ 08:57 PM
link   
And they will build it. A contract was signed last Wednesday so they are now going to build the world's first floating commercial nuclear plant. The "yes" sayers say it's completely safe and claim that nothing can possibly go wrong. The "no" sayers say it is absolutely not safe and claim that it can indeed go terribly wrong. Who to believe?



BBC: Floating atomic plant for Russia

14 June 2006



Under a contract signed on Wednesday, the plant will be built at an Arctic site where atomic submarines are made. Work is expected to start next year on two nuclear reactors and the 144m (475ft) platform for them, despite environmentalists' concerns.

[---]

Charles Digges, editor of the Norwegian-based Bellona website, told the Associated Press that floating nuclear plants were "absolutely unsafe - inherently so". "There are risks of the unit itself sinking, there are risks in towing the units to where they need to be," he said. But Sergei Kiriyenko, head of Russia's Federal Atomic Power Agency, dismissed such concerns, saying the country had more experience of building nuclear submarines than any other in the world. "There will be no floating Chernobyl," he said

Please visit the link provided for the complete story.

What did they say about the Titanic back in 1912? She could not possibly sink...



posted on Jun, 19 2006 @ 09:12 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.

I'm going to assume you're not American, as you seem to have not heard about Three Mile Island, and its nuclear nightmare.?

Or was your statement just a worthless crap shot at Russia?

NN



posted on Jun, 19 2006 @ 10:40 PM
link   
I was about to mention that.

Sure the russians had Chernobyl... the Americans had 3 mile island.
The russians set off nuclear warheads back in the fifties offshore.
The Americans continued to do it in the sixties aswell on their own land.

I really dont think the Americans have anything to scoff at.


A nuclear reactor built offshore would actually be safer, assuming they follow standard containment practices. A reactor with immediate access to cool water can prevent an overheating reactor from melting down ALOT better than any land based nuclear reactor the rest of the world has.

Luckily for the americans, Canada now provides the US with a huge chunk of their nuclear power. What was the latest figures? Ontario Nuclear Power plants alone power over 60% of the american eastern seaboard last I checked.

... we just cant trust them to do it themselves



posted on Jun, 23 2006 @ 01:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by purelogik
this will only spell disaster when the russian hating east europeans send their boys over to "investigate" the structure ...

they better keep it in one of their landlocked lakes or seas. i dont want them contaminating my ocean.


are you joking?

Man this is just ahha... sorry.... seriously haha....


back to the topic, uhm, is it that bad? I mean we have aircraft carriers and submarines with nuclear powerplants... how is this worse?



posted on Jun, 23 2006 @ 01:29 PM
link   
I don't know about the background of the project, but having a floating plant does have the advantage of being able to deliver a lot of energy at a different remote location, by just towing the barge. Maybe they have projects in mind that will require lots of energy, in a few separate locations.



posted on Jul, 1 2006 @ 12:37 PM
link   
The difference between Three Mile Island and Chernobyl was that Chernobyl wasn't equipped with a containment shell. I believe this was because it was configured to contribute to nuclear weapons in some manner. Nobody was hurt during Three Mile Island, and very little radiation was released into the atmosphere (if I remember correctly, it spread such that each person exposed received less radiation than is given during an x-ray).

Those were the only two incidents using 50-year-old technology. Today's technology and standards are much less prone to such accidents. A reactor on land would be perfectly safe (from accidents, at least), so it all depends on the integrity of China's barge.

This topic reminded me of the mini-reactor that was supposed to be built/ sent to Alaska. Has anyone followed that story? It was an interesting idea, but I haven't heard if it ever got off the ground.



posted on Apr, 15 2007 @ 09:18 PM
link   
Russia has begun the construction of the floating nuclear power plant. It will be put into operation in 2010. They plan to build at least seven such power plants

Kommersant: 1st Floating Nuclear Plant to be Put into Operation in 2010


Apr. 16, 2007

Russia began construction of its first floating nuclear power on Sunday, announcing plans to build at least six others. Top national security and nuclear officials visited a formal ceremony in Severodvinsk on the White Sea coast.

The power capacity of the first floating nuclear plant, which is due to be commissioned in 2010, is 70 MWt.

[---]

More than 12 countries have already shown interest to the project, according to Russian nuclear officials.

Please visit the link provided for the complete story.


[edit on 2007/4/15 by Hellmutt]



posted on Apr, 16 2007 @ 01:19 AM
link   
I think Russia has learned from Cherobyl, and they are now building extremely safe reactors. Personally, provided it isn't some poorly designed pile of crap like the RMBK-1000, I don't have a problem with it.



posted on Apr, 17 2007 @ 05:37 PM
link   
The US has i think 32 new plants on the drawing boards to be started in the next 2-3 years. They are adding a reactor or two to several plants already.

mikell



posted on Apr, 17 2007 @ 10:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by johnsky
Luckily for the americans, Canada now provides the US with a huge chunk of their nuclear power. What was the latest figures? Ontario Nuclear Power plants alone power over 60% of the american eastern seaboard last I checked.


Canada does not power 60% of the US eastern seaboard. Might want to look at New York, New England and PJM ISOs.



posted on Apr, 19 2007 @ 04:35 AM
link   
You know, I find it really irritating that everyone just spouts off the names of the only two major commercial nuclear accidents and thinks that they're an immediate trump card that will force pro-atomic people to back down.

And good for the Russians, floating atomic plants will be able to provide reliable power to remote areas without the uncertainty and environmental risk of shipping large amounts of fuel oil or diesel across treacherous waters at infrequent intervals.



posted on Apr, 21 2007 @ 06:30 PM
link   
Ha ha, this is soooo cool. I've allways wanted my own nuke reactor (for personal reasons)

But it's far too hard to pinch one stuck to the ground. Now I'll be able to knick one with the use of my trusty swiss army knife to just cut the moreing ropes!! No more batterys for moi



posted on Apr, 21 2007 @ 09:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by sardion2000
Too bad we didn't have effiecient tunneling technologies and superconducting wires, we could build 'em a mile underground,


By the time you dig down that far it's time to install geothermal harvesters, which an MIT panel says is a technology that can power the entire US... forever without needing actual fuel.

www.google.com...



posted on Apr, 23 2007 @ 01:12 AM
link   
The way I look at it. Any nuclear reactor when achieving a full meltdown will eventually touch the water table underground, which flash boils the water table, and sends a massive amount of contaminated earth flying everywhere.

(Luckily we have never experienced a full scale meltdown).

If the reactor is already sitting on the water, then there is less material to send flying outward.

Plus, I think it would be alot more difficult to clean up contamination in an underground water table, than if the water that flash boiled were already on the surface.

Essentially, I'm not trying to claim that a water borne reactor would be much safer... but it wouldn't be any more dangerous than the current reactors already in use.

As mentioned above, the world has learnt from the mistakes of the reactors that have had critical failures... safety systems are in place to ensure that never happens again.

I know the Canadian CanDo reactors have 4 redundancy systems in place. Or was it three? I cant remember. But the fact of the matter remains, the reactors that have reached ciritcal failures in the past either had their redundancy systems taken down, or only had the one.



posted on May, 4 2009 @ 10:22 AM
link   
These plants are in the news again, and it seems like the capacity will be 70 MW. There's a new thread:

Russia to build floating Arctic nuclear stations (by Max_TO)




top topics



 
4
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join