Russia is Building the World's Largest Nuclear-Powered Icebreaker
27 replies, posted
[QUOTE]Russia already has a huge fleet of both diesel-powered and even nuclear icebreakers, but it recently penned an order for something the world has never seen before: a massive new 558-foot long, dual-reactor nuclear icebreaker that will be 46 feet longer and at least a dozen feet wider than any other icebreaker in its fleet. Powered by two 60-megawatt compact pressurized water reactors, it will be the world’s largest “universal” nuclear icebreaker.
This isn’t Russia’s first foray into nuclear-powered seagoing vessels of course. The hulking next-gen icebreaker will be built by Rosatomflot, the builder of the rest of Russia’s atomic fleet, which already includes about six nuclear powered icebreakers. The country is also planning to build a somewhat controversial floating nuclear power station that will employ the same RTM-200 pressurized water reactors as the icebreaker.
The primary difference here is that this new icebreaker, though bigger and more powerful than other nuclear- and diesel-powered ships in the fleet, will also be able to alter its draught (its depth below the water line) from between 28 to 35 feet via huge ballast tanks. That means it will be able smash its way through ice in the open waters north of the Asian continent as well as navigate shallower rivers throughout Siberia that would take it deep into Russia.
Justifying the $1.1 billion price tag: climate change. And oil. Arctic ice has already melted to the extent that shipping has increased along the lanes that connect Europe to Asia. And Russia has been aggressively trying to prove the extent of its continental shelf into the Arctic, where vast untapped energy stores are thought to be hiding in the currently-inaccessible seafloor. A massive nuclear-powered icebreaker that doesn’t require refueling for seven years at a time would certainly go a long way toward helping the Russian state access those Arctic energy reserves.
That is, as long as they don’t awaken the giant fighter-jet-flying, nuclear-armed, planet-destroying race of polar bears sent from space to protect them.[/quote]
Source: [url]http://www.popsci.com/science/article/2012-09/russia-building-worlds-largest-nuclear-powered-icebreaker[/url]
Imagined a giant hammer powered by jet engines, was disappoint.
This doesn't seem very [img]http://www.facepunch.com/fp/ratings/winner.png[/img].
I mean, the only reason they're doing this is because the ice caps are melting drastically.
[quote]...which already includes [B][U]about six[/U][/B] nuclear powered icebreakers...[/quote]
I didn't know we needed to estimate numbers that we can count on our hand.
[QUOTE=A B.A. Survivor;37684838]This doesn't seem very [img]http://www.facepunch.com/fp/ratings/winner.png[/img].
I mean, the only reason they're doing this is because the ice caps are melting drastically.[/QUOTE]
Might as well adapt.
[QUOTE=Jakobi;37684948]I didn't know we needed to estimate numbers that we can count on our hand.[/QUOTE]
You have six fingers?
Oh hey, I was considering a trip on Russia's [I]last[/I] "worlds largest nuclear powered icebreaker" which I think was called "50 years of Victory"
[quote]That is, as long as they don’t awaken the giant fighter-jet-flying, nuclear-armed, planet-destroying race of polar bears sent from space to protect them.[/quote]
Wut.
Cryostasis comes to mind, man that was a good game.
facepunch couldnt get laid even with an icebreaker that good
[QUOTE=mac338;37685832]Oh hey, I was considering a trip on Russia's [I]last[/I] "worlds largest nuclear powered icebreaker" which I think was called "50 years of Victory"[/QUOTE]
Fun fact: The 50 Let Pobedy (50 years of victory) was supposed to be launched 1995, fifty years after the end of WWII. However, due to lack of funds, the ship was not completed and launched until 2007. V:v:V
We all like tasty breath mints but this is a little extreme
Really, though, logically speaking, this is a fairly bad idea. In terms of saving polar ice caps, yes, this is a brilliant idea.
However, the risks (to me), are outweighing any form of benefit. Unless the reactors are producing gamma radiation, discard this entirely.
Gamma radiation can practically get through anything, except led. If even a single grain of it got out of the reactor core, and ended up in the ocean, or a meltdown occurred and the ship sunk, it would contaminate possibly all of the world's oceans and a fairly large amount of drinking water.
Seems like a bad move to me, honestly.
[QUOTE=EpicRandomnes;37698085]Really, though, logically speaking, this is a fairly bad idea. In terms of saving polar ice caps, yes, this is a brilliant idea.
However, the risks (to me), are outweighing any form of benefit. Unless the reactors are producing gamma radiation, discard this entirely.
Gamma radiation can practically get through anything, except led. If even a single grain of it got out of the reactor core, and ended up in the ocean, or a meltdown occurred and the ship sunk, it would contaminate possibly all of the world's oceans and a fairly large amount of drinking water.
Seems like a bad move to me, honestly.[/QUOTE]
Are you serious? There are hundreds(thousands?) of nuclear powered vessels already in use. How is this any different? Nuclear ships are perfectly safe with modern technology.
[editline]17th September 2012[/editline]
You can't be serious. Nobody is that stupid.
[QUOTE=EpicRandomnes;37698085]Really, though, logically speaking, this is a fairly bad idea. In terms of saving polar ice caps, yes, this is a brilliant idea.
However, the risks (to me), are outweighing any form of benefit. Unless the reactors are producing gamma radiation, discard this entirely.
Gamma radiation can practically get through anything, except led. If even a single grain of it got out of the reactor core, and ended up in the ocean, or a meltdown occurred and the ship sunk, it would contaminate possibly all of the world's oceans and a fairly large amount of drinking water.
Seems like a bad move to me, honestly.[/QUOTE]
Do you actually know anything at all?
This ship isn't even designed to save the ice caps, it's designed to drive through them.
[QUOTE=EpicRandomnes;37698085]Really, though, logically speaking, this is a fairly bad idea. In terms of saving polar ice caps, yes, this is a brilliant idea.
However, the risks (to me), are outweighing any form of benefit. Unless the reactors are producing gamma radiation, discard this entirely.
Gamma radiation can practically get through anything, except led. If even a single grain of it got out of the reactor core, and ended up in the ocean, or a meltdown occurred and the ship sunk, it would contaminate possibly all of the world's oceans and a fairly large amount of drinking water.
Seems like a bad move to me, honestly.[/QUOTE]
You are a moron. If you are stating something as fact, and you still feel the need to dot it with, personally and honestly and other such apologetic terms, you already know that it's bullshit, so stop it.
[QUOTE=frankie penis;37686126][video=youtube;8THGqrjUDGI]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8THGqrjUDGI[/video][/QUOTE]
Well that's enough internet for me today.
[editline]17th September 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=EpicRandomnes;37698085]Really, though, logically speaking, this is a fairly bad idea. In terms of saving polar ice caps, yes, this is a brilliant idea.
However, the risks (to me), are outweighing any form of benefit. Unless the reactors are producing gamma radiation, discard this entirely.
Gamma radiation can practically get through anything, except led. If even a single grain of it got out of the reactor core, and ended up in the ocean, or a meltdown occurred and the ship sunk, it would contaminate possibly all of the world's oceans and a fairly large amount of drinking water.
Seems like a bad move to me, honestly.[/QUOTE]
Except for the part where reactors on the ocean can be shut down pretty easily, do you really think they would slap on bog standard reactors? There are literally thousands of ships with nuclear reactors on them all around the world and with how big unfathomably huge the oceans are you could probably drop as few of these into the ocean and it would be a flash in the pan.
Also we don't drink the oceans so we're pretty safe in that regard.
[QUOTE=EpicRandomnes;37698085]Really, though, logically speaking, this is a fairly bad idea. In terms of saving polar ice caps, yes, this is a brilliant idea.
However, the risks (to me), are outweighing any form of benefit. Unless the reactors are producing gamma radiation, discard this entirely.
Gamma radiation can practically get through anything, except led. If even a single grain of it got out of the reactor core, and ended up in the ocean, or a meltdown occurred and the ship sunk, it would contaminate possibly all of the world's oceans and a fairly large amount of drinking water.
Seems like a bad move to me, honestly.[/QUOTE]
Oceans aren't drinking water, reactor leaks aren't that dangerous ([I]that[/I] dangerous, they're still pretty bad), we don't use lead for shielding because it's some special material, we use it because it's cheap for how effective it is. Water is also a very good barrier to radiation as well as great at cooling things down.
Plus this thing is designed to ram through ice, it's not like they're going to clip a rock, roll over and leak enriched plutonium straight into the sea.
Nuclear icebreakers are awesome.
[img]http://niggaupload.com/images/5L1wM.jpg[/img]
[img]http://niggaupload.com/images/frX08.jpg[/img]
[img]http://niggaupload.com/images/qUE2.jpg[/img]
Also
[img]http://niggaupload.com/images/hztTc.jpg[/img]
[QUOTE=EpicRandomnes;37698085]Really, though, logically speaking, this is a fairly bad idea. In terms of saving polar ice caps, yes, this is a brilliant idea.
However, the risks (to me), are outweighing any form of benefit. Unless the reactors are producing gamma radiation, discard this entirely.
Gamma radiation can practically get through anything, except led. If even a single grain of it got out of the reactor core, and ended up in the ocean, or a meltdown occurred and the ship sunk, it would contaminate possibly all of the world's oceans and a fairly large amount of drinking water.
Seems like a bad move to me, honestly.[/QUOTE]
I probably shouldn't tell you about the 100+ "nuclear waste dump sites" Used heavily by 14 countries in the late 1900's.
[QUOTE=Apache249;37691310]Fun fact: The 50 Let Pobedy (50 years of victory) was supposed to be launched 1995, fifty years after the end of WWII. However, due to lack of funds, the ship was not completed and launched until 2007. V:v:V[/QUOTE]
Neat. I was going on an arctic expedition to photograph but I figured there were [I]waaaaay[/I] better ways to do it than an expensive cruise that doesn't hit any worthwhile photographic points of intrest.
[img]http://hidesquadron.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/Borealis_ep2.jpg[/img]
?
It's coming to reality.
[QUOTE=dass;37699495][img]http://hidesquadron.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/Borealis_ep2.jpg[/img]
?
It's coming to reality.[/QUOTE]
HL3 ARG
EP3 CONFIRMED FOR WHENEVER THIS IS FINISHED (seriously, I couldn't find a date in the article)
[QUOTE=Pierrewithahat;37698655]Well that's enough internet for me today.
[editline]17th September 2012[/editline]
Good point. I barely know anything about radiation anyway, so I probably am an idiot for saying that. The thing about drinking oceans is actually true. A fair amount of water is processed from the oceans, and some freshwater steams and rivers actually lead into the oceans.
But still though, there's always the chance that something would go wrong.
Except for the part where reactors on the ocean can be shut down pretty easily, do you really think they would slap on bog standard reactors? There are literally thousands of ships with nuclear reactors on them all around the world and with how big unfathomably huge the oceans are you could probably drop as few of these into the ocean and it would be a flash in the pan.
Also we don't drink the oceans so we're pretty safe in that regard.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=EpicRandomnes;37709943][/QUOTE]
Lurk more my friend, lurk more.
Oh and maybe check stuff on wikipedia or something, before posting here.
[QUOTE=EpicRandomnes;37709943][/QUOTE]
Except when streams and rivers go to the ocean, it's a one way trip and you're talking a nuclear reactor dispersing radiation throughout an entire ocean, you'd be extremely unlucky for it to become more radioactive by more than 0.001 ppm, let's not forget that water is horrendously good at blocking radiation.
Then there's the part where you know, we already dump an obscene amount of radioactive material into the oceans already and Godzilla isn't running around.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
