• World’s first floating nuclear power plant to begin operating in Russia in 2016
    50 replies, posted
[IMG]http://rt.com/files/news/1f/ad/f0/00/floating.si.jpg[/IMG] [QUOTE]In three years, Russia will have the world’s first floating nuclear power plant, capable of providing energy and heat to hard-to-get areas as well as drinking water to arid regions. The unique vessel should be operational by 2016, the general director of Russia’s biggest shipbuilders, the Baltic Plant, Aleksandr Voznesensky told reporters at the 6th International Naval Show in St. Petersburg. The Akademik Lomonosov is to become the spearhead of a series of floating nuclear power plants, which Russia plans to put into mass-production. The floating power-generating unit, aimed at providing energy to large industrial enterprises, port cities and offshore gas and oil-extracting platforms, was designed on the basis of nuclear reactors which are equipped on the icebreakers ships. The technology has proved itself for over 50 years of successful operation in extreme Arctic conditions. The floating power plant is a vessel with a displacement of 21,500 tons and a crew of 69 people. It’s non-self-propelled and therefore has to be towed to the desired destination. Each ship will have two modified KLT-40 naval propulsion reactors together providing up to 70 MW of electricity or 300 MW of heat, which is enough for a city with a population of 200,000 people. The floating nuclear power plants are expected to be used in remote regions of Russia’s high north and Far East, which currently see economic growth suffering from a lack of energy. For export purposes, the floating power plant can also be modified as a desalination plant able to produce 240,000 cubic meters of fresh water on a daily basis. 15 countries, including China, Indonesia, Malaysia, Algeria, Namibia, Cape Verde and Argentina, have previously expressed interest in acquiring such power stations. The manufacturer stresses that the process of fuel enrichment on the vessels complies with the regulations of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) dealing with nonproliferation of nuclear arms. Like every atomic station the floating power plant is designed with a safety margin, exceeding any possible threats, which makes the reactors invulnerable to tsunami waves or crashes with other ships or on-land structures. The power-generating unit is to be replaced by a new one after 40 years, with the used reactor returned to a specialized facility for re-utilization. The vessels are said to be safe for the environment as they don’t release any hazardous substances during operation. [/QUOTE] [url]http://rt.com/news/floating-nuclear-plant-russia-759/[/url]
Wouldn't the water sort of insulate the radiation if anything were to go wrong?
That would power most of Portland, OR methinks. [editline]7th July 2013[/editline] Also, Russia just being badass, yet again.
when i saw the title i imagined a nuclear power plant in the sky
[QUOTE=matt000024;41353065]Wouldn't the water sort of insulate the radiation if anything were to go wrong?[/QUOTE] If it explodes, no.
[QUOTE=Adlertag1940;41353085]If it explodes, no.[/QUOTE] Yes, but a nuclear plant leaking is more plausible of an accident than a cinematic explosion I'd assume.
[QUOTE=matt000024;41353065]Wouldn't the water sort of insulate the radiation if anything were to go wrong?[/QUOTE] Sure, if the containment vessel remains completely intact and doesn't leak. But generally hen things go wrong that doesn't happen
I'm not feeling so good about this one. I think we remember Chernobyl.
[url=http://ocw.mit.edu/courses/electrical-engineering-and-computer-science/6-691-seminar-in-electric-power-systems-spring-2006/projects/ship_to_shore.pdf]Except the US navy has already done this.[/url] [editline]7th July 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=Adlertag1940;41353085]If it explodes, no.[/QUOTE] Nuclear reactors cannot explode in a "nuclear" explosion unless intentionally rigged to do so, and even then it'd require basically building a bomb inside the reactor. If [I]loses containment[/I] the worst you get is radiation spread.
[QUOTE=azndude;41353238]I'm not feeling so good about this one. I think we remember Chernobyl.[/QUOTE] i'm not feeling so good about building more houses i think we all remember straw buildings
Wouldn't nuclear subs/ships count as floating nuclear power plants?
[QUOTE=scout1;41353247][url=http://ocw.mit.edu/courses/electrical-engineering-and-computer-science/6-691-seminar-in-electric-power-systems-spring-2006/projects/ship_to_shore.pdf]Except the US navy has already done this.[/url][/QUOTE] ...at a maximum theoretical power capacity of 0.3~2.5MW, because they were not designed for the task. The OP's design would output up to 70MW because it's the first [i]purpose-built[/i] design.
[QUOTE=scout1;41353247][url=http://ocw.mit.edu/courses/electrical-engineering-and-computer-science/6-691-seminar-in-electric-power-systems-spring-2006/projects/ship_to_shore.pdf]Except the US navy has already done this.[/url] [editline]7th July 2013[/editline] Nuclear reactors cannot explode in a "nuclear" explosion unless intentionally rigged to do so, and even then it'd require basically building a bomb inside the reactor. If [I]loses containment[/I] the worst you get is radiation spread.[/QUOTE] No they have not. This is a civilian vessel solely designed to provide up to 70 MW of electrical power or 300 MW of heat. It can also be modified into a desalination plant which will become very useful in developing nations or the far east of Russia. 2.5 to 21MW from military vessels isn't the same, I don't think any nuclear navy is going to capitalize on the small amount of power they can provide.
[QUOTE=fishyfish777;41353288]...at a maximum theoretical power capacity of 0.3~2.5MW, because they were not designed for the task. The OP's design would output up to 70MW because it's the first [i]purpose-built[/i] design.[/QUOTE] [quote]The US Army also used ship to shore power to power remote stations. One notable case is that of the Sturgis/MH-1A, A WWII era Liberty ship equipped with a nuclear power plant used to provide power to the Panama Canal Zone from 1968 to 1975. The MH-1A power plant on the Sturgis generated 10MW electrical power which allowed the canal locks to be operated more frequently.[/quote] I don't need to quote the rest, but yes, it was purpose built. [editline]7th July 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=laserguided;41353315]No they have not. This is a civilian vessel solely designed to provide up to 70 MW of electrical power or 300 MW of heat. It can also be modified into a desalination plant which will become very useful in developing nations or the far east of Russia. 2.5 to 21MW from military vessels isn't the same, I don't think any nuclear navy is going to capitalize on the small amount of power they can provide.[/QUOTE] "first floating nuclear reactor" or "first 300MW floating nuclear reactor"? Article/title says one thing, and that is what I am referring to.
[QUOTE=azndude;41353238]I'm not feeling so good about this one. I think we remember Chernobyl.[/QUOTE] I do remember it. I remember how it's perfectly safe to swim in the water where they store the uranium rods.
[QUOTE=azndude;41353238]I'm not feeling so good about this one. I think we remember Chernobyl.[/QUOTE] I remember Chernobyl too, and how the reactor design was fundamentally flawed and this had been known for some time and its an old as fuck design anyway and the flaws were fixed and models of that type were subsequently shut down and [I]we don't have that problem anymore because of it.[/I]
[QUOTE=scout1;41353319]I don't need to quote the rest, but yes, it was purpose built. [editline]7th July 2013[/editline] "first floating nuclear reactor" or "first 300MW floating nuclear reactor"? Article/title says one thing, and that is what I am referring to.[/QUOTE] The author probably mean't first FNPP that actually exists today and not scrap from the 70's.
what happens if they use ocean water in the condensers and cause thermal pollution in the arctic ocean?
[QUOTE=matt000024;41353065]Wouldn't the water sort of insulate the radiation if anything were to go wrong?[/QUOTE] If there was a meltdown wouldn't ocean currents take the melted fuel rods and spread them out basically everywhere and cause a gigantic ecological disaster
Online forum speculation masters. Because our college degrees matter.
[QUOTE=laserguided;41353452]The author probably mean't first FNPP that actually exists today and not scrap from the 70's.[/QUOTE] So how is it the first, if one existed before it? If we cloned the woolly mammoth, would it be "the first woolly mammoth"?
[QUOTE=deadoon;41353631]So how is it the first, if one existed before it? If we cloned the woolly mammoth, would it be "the first woolly mammoth"?[/QUOTE] in existence yes.
[QUOTE=scout1;41353247][url=http://ocw.mit.edu/courses/electrical-engineering-and-computer-science/6-691-seminar-in-electric-power-systems-spring-2006/projects/ship_to_shore.pdf]Except the US navy has already done this.[/url] [editline]7th July 2013[/editline] Nuclear reactors cannot explode in a "nuclear" explosion [B]unless intentionally rigged to do so[/B], and even then it'd require basically building a bomb inside the reactor. If [I]loses containment[/I] the worst you get is radiation spread.[/QUOTE] Not even then. A reactor cannot, under any circumstance, produce a nuclear explosion. [editline]7th July 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=S31-Syntax;41353447]I remember Chernobyl too, and how the reactor design was fundamentally flawed and this had been known for some time and its an old as fuck design anyway and the flaws were fixed and models of that type were subsequently shut down and [I]we don't have that problem anymore because of it.[/I][/QUOTE] Well, you're mostly right: [img]http://i.imm.io/1bwUp.png[/img]
[QUOTE=Zeke129;41353542]If there was a meltdown wouldn't ocean currents take the melted fuel rods and spread them out basically everywhere and cause a gigantic ecological disaster[/QUOTE] Nah the Soviets dumped old reactors in the ocean all the time. Ecological problem? Yes. but the ocean is fucking huge.
[QUOTE=scout1;41353247][url=http://ocw.mit.edu/courses/electrical-engineering-and-computer-science/6-691-seminar-in-electric-power-systems-spring-2006/projects/ship_to_shore.pdf]Except the US navy has already done this.[/url] [/QUOTE] So?
[QUOTE=Adlertag1940;41353085]If it explodes, no.[/QUOTE] They can't explode. At worst, there can be a pressure buildup inside the reaction chamber causing a rupture in the containment vessels and releasing the radioactive material into the air. At least at sea, if there is a meltdown, they can always just flood the chamber. If worst comes to worst, scuttling the ship far out at seas shouldn't pose too large a problem.. Nuclear is still the safest option for sustainable power; kudos Russia. :D
[QUOTE=scout1;41353793]Nah the Soviets dumped old reactors in the ocean all the time. Ecological problem? Yes. but the ocean is fucking huge.[/QUOTE] A lot of countries used to dump [I]spent[/I], stable nuclear fuel into the ocean. A molten hunk of critical nuclear fuel at the bottom of a bay would be disastrous. [editline]7th July 2013[/editline] I'm probably using the term critical wrong but y'all know what I mean.
[QUOTE=fishyfish777;41353288]...at a maximum theoretical power capacity of 0.3~2.5MW, because they were not designed for the task. The OP's design would output up to 70MW because it's the first [i]purpose-built[/i] design.[/QUOTE] [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MH-1A"]Not even[/URL]. 10 MW of purpose-built power for Panama. You're late, Russia. [editline]8th July 2013[/editline] Wow I'm late.
I personally just love the idea of mass producing those. Seriously...mass produced nuclear power plants, that's some serious potential right there. Could give even small towns their own small nuclear power plants down that road.
[QUOTE=Riller;41354266][URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MH-1A"]Not even[/URL]. 10 MW of purpose-built power for Panama. You're late, Russia. [editline]8th July 2013[/editline] Wow I'm late.[/QUOTE] We can't all be first
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.