It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


Floating nuclear power plants a dangerous and expensive project

page: 1

log in


posted on May, 4 2011 @ 05:33 PM
How an idea as insane as a floating nuke plant ever came to realization is beyond me but here you have it.

Russia's floating nuclear power plant is an environmental time bomb, and production costs are going to be sky high, said Igor Kudrik, a Bellona expert on the Russian nuclear industry.

“Russia's plans for floating nuclear power plant represent enormous environmental and safety hazards, and the current from will be disastrously expensive, "said Kudrik.

Marking exactly 25 years since the Chernobyl accident, Bellona organized today a nuclear seminar where the organization’s new report was presented.

“The world's first floating nuclear power plant is now being built in St. Petersburg, and will be completed in 2012. It is scheduled to become operational in the earthquake-prone Kamchatka Peninsula in the Far East of Russia.


Do they never learn or do they just not care? Russian governments are insane. The 1957 Mayak accident and Chernobyl have apparently had no effect on Russia's conscience. They almost destroyed europe so they might as well try for the worlds oceans now.

posted on May, 4 2011 @ 05:52 PM
reply to post by FreeSpeaker

Is this a fusion or a fission plant.

There is a huge difference fusion reactors are very much safer because:
1) They can't "run away"
2) They leave few radioactive products when worn out.
3) They have no radioactive spent fuel.
4) They don't become dangerous if anything fails, they just stop.

posted on May, 4 2011 @ 06:17 PM
reply to post by AnteBellum

Good question.

I haven't been able to find much, just this.

Russian nuclear industry, including its nuclear energy-generating sector – has been engaged in a massive propaganda campaign extolling the virtues of low-capacity nuclear power plants (LCNPPs), complete with a push to speed up construction of a pilot floating combined heat-and-power nuclear power plant (FNPP) , a variation on the basic LCNPP concept.

posted on May, 4 2011 @ 06:24 PM
Getting closer.

The floating nuclear power stations are non-self-propelled vessels with a length of 144.4 metres (474 ft), width of 30 metres (98 ft), height of 10 metres (33 ft), and draught of 5.6 metres (18 ft). The vessel has a displacement of 21,500 tonnes and a crew of 69 people.[2][5]

Each vessel has two modified KLT-40 naval propulsion reactors together providing up to 70 MW of electricity or 300 MW of heat, enough for a city with a population of 200,000 people. It could also be modified as a desalination plant producing 240,000 cubic meters of fresh water a day.[6][7] Another modification will be supplied by two ABV-6M reactors with a capacity of around 18 MWe (megawatts of electricity).[8] Also, 325 MWe VBER-300 and 55 MWe RITM-200 reactors have been mentioned as potential reactors to use for the floating nuclear power station.[9]



The KLT-40 reactor is a nuclear fission reactor used in pairs to power Arktika-class icebreakers and singly to power the Soviet merchant ship Sevmorput and all Taymyr-class icebreakers. It is a pressurized water reactor (PWR), using 90% enriched uranium-235 fuel to produce 135 MW of thermal power and 32MW to 35MW electical power.

The KLT-40S variant is used in the Russian floating nuclear power station.


Our answer is fission.

posted on May, 4 2011 @ 06:54 PM
So this will be similar to a floating submarine. . . interesting!

With all the nuclear warships and submarines around this doesn't seem that bad of an idea. These vessels are made to endure combat situations so they are very robust.

I want to research this more now great find.

posted on May, 4 2011 @ 07:02 PM
reply to post by AnteBellum

I know what your saying but how will these things be secured? Imagine what a small, fast moving boat filled with HE could do and if there is a nuclear accident there would be a real problem getting needed help and equipment to the reactor.

posted on May, 4 2011 @ 07:33 PM
floating nuclear power plant

i dont know if this is smart or dumb all i can say is "WTF"

what will the world think of next

EDIT: i dont even wanna ask how they plan on doing this
edit on 4-5-2011 by ashtonkusher because: (no reason given)

posted on May, 4 2011 @ 10:24 PM
if it costs alot, and is complicated, why are they doing this again? for the motherland? i don't see the gain.
maybe its a game in russia, who can design the most rediculous nuclear reactor

posted on May, 5 2011 @ 10:16 AM
reply to post by FreeSpeaker

Nuclear Navy Wiki

There are hundreds of ships in the world that have been used for generations now without incident, but these are warships and submarines in which no expense is spared.
The idea Russia is using is innovative only that it has never been used for commercial use. This may be the Achilles Heel for it will not have the same upkeep and high scrutiny they would give to there weapons/vessels.
As far as safety goes nuclear power is very safe when the highest level of care is given to ensure proper functioning of the reactors. As we have seen in the major nuclear disasters this care has been forsaken for profit and that is where the discussion gets 'sticky' because we all need cheap energy to survive but at the same time to keep it cheap certain aspects must be sacrificed.
There is no such thing as clean energy coal, oil, solar, wind, geothermal, nuclear, wave all leave some type of footprint on the planet usually the ones that give the most bang for the buck are also the most dangerous to the environment. It is and always will be a teeter-totter we must try and balance.

posted on May, 5 2011 @ 02:33 PM
Wow, what a great idea.

You know, because the seas and ice floes are so calm and predictable and stable...

posted on May, 5 2011 @ 03:35 PM

Originally posted by AnteBellum
There are hundreds of ships in the world that have been used for generations now without incident, but these are warships and submarines in which no expense is spared.

We are talking about Russia here and they have been anything but accident free.

Nuclear submarine accidents

From 1961 up to the present, there have been a number of accidents(11) and incidents involving Soviet/Russian nuclear submarines. At least 507 people have died in accidents on submarines throughout this period. [567] The most serious accidents have been caused by fires that have resulted in the sinking of the submarine, or by severe damage to the nuclear reactor following overheating of the reactor core (loss of coolant accidents) and a number of smaller incidents in which radioactivity has been released. Most of the vessels affected by accidents have belonged to the Russian Northern Fleet. This chapter discusses only those accidents that have resulted in the loss of life and/or in releases of radioactivity.

There have also been a number of other incidents in which Northern Fleet submarines have been involved. These include collisions with other submarines, fires at naval bases and shipyards, submarines that have become entangled in trawler nets, accidents during test launches of submarine launched missiles, collisions with icebergs and so forth.


We have no idea of the environmantal impact these accidents have had because some of them sank into the ocean. If one of these floating plants anchored off shore had a fire or explosion the damage would be as bad as a land based plant depending on the winds.

The thing that sickens me is I'm sure they would intentionally sink one of these vessels if a reactor went out of control. The oceans huge right and it would just dillute away and no harm done. At least thats what they want us to believe.

posted on May, 5 2011 @ 05:59 PM
reply to post by FreeSpeaker

Garrett's grisly end illustrates yet another soaring cost of America's unquenchable thirst for energy: Deaths among those working the nation's oil and gas fields have risen at an alarming rate, The Associated Press has found.
At least 598 workers died on the job between 2002 and 2007, according to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. During that period, the number of deaths per year rose by around 70 percent, from 72 victims in 2002 to 125 in 2006 and a preliminary count of 120 in 2007.


It's like comparing red apples to green apples. The only difference is nuclear power is a 'sexy' topic at the moment and everyone wants a piece of the attention.
I do agree though Russia is not known for there attention to detail when it comes to safety standards. When they dropped the Tsar Bomba they luckily reduced its yield to 1/2 and that still created more chaos and damage then any other nuclear test in recorded history.
edit on 5/5/2011 by AnteBellum because: (no reason given)

posted on May, 5 2011 @ 07:17 PM
reply to post by AnteBellum

Yep, Russia really lacks attention to detail. If this was a US, Brittish, or French project I might feel a little safer. As I said when I learned of the Mayak incident and its repercussions, Russia scares me.

top topics


log in