3 ms·

Russia Launches Floating Nuclear Power Plant; It's Headed to the Arctic

15 points by dcgudeman 8y ago

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
slededit 8y ago
Water is great at containing radiation, to the point that you can safely swim at the top of radioactive cooling pools (just don't go too deep). Should something go wrong, scuttling the boat is a much better containment method than what is possible on land. There are issues with debris escaping from the vessel however - but the problem is much simpler than on land.
- lighthazard 8y ago
  What happens in the case of a fallout? It can contain radiation, but how effectively?
  - slededit 8y ago
    If you sank it before containment was breached nothing would escape into the atmosphere and therefore there would be no fallout. There would be leakage in the ocean itself but its effect is more localized due to water attenuating the radiation. While research is pretty scant, there have been containment failures at sea. Currently 8 submarines nuclear subs have sank. In general their effects have been much less than Chernobyl the only land equivalent.
stephengillie 8y ago
"The nuclear power plant has two KLT-40S reactor units that can generate up to 70 MW of electric energy and 50 Gcal/hr of heat energy during its normal operation," Rosatom said. "This is enough to keep the activity of the town populated with 100,000 people." I'm glad there's no fuel in it while they're towing it from St. Petersburg to Murmansk.
booblik 8y ago
But dozens of nuclear submarines, with hundreds of nuclear missles floating around are safer? That power plant is literally a drop in the sea.
petre 8y ago
KLT-40S reactor is the same type of PWR used on Taymyr-class icebreakers. So it makes little difference if an icebreaker or a floating nuclear power plant passes through international waters. Also, small naval PWRs like this one are safer than a full scale nuclear powerplant, of which many are scaled up naval power plants. https://www.economist.com/news/science-and-technology/21726058-floating-reactors-are-their-way-submarine-ones-may-follow-atomic-power https://www.economist.com/news/science-and-technology/217260... https://www.economist.com/node/17647651 https://www.economist.com/node/17647651 http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2008/jun/09/john-mccain/navys-record-unblemished/ http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2008/jun/...

15 points by dcgudeman 8y ago

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

Water is great at containing radiation, to the point that you can safely swim at the top of radioactive cooling pools (just don't go too deep). Should something go wrong, scuttling the boat is a much better containment method than what is possible on land. There are issues with debris escaping from the vessel however - but the problem is much simpler than on land.

lighthazard 8y ago
What happens in the case of a fallout? It can contain radiation, but how effectively?
- slededit 8y ago
  If you sank it before containment was breached nothing would escape into the atmosphere and therefore there would be no fallout. There would be leakage in the ocean itself but its effect is more localized due to water attenuating the radiation. While research is pretty scant, there have been containment failures at sea. Currently 8 submarines nuclear subs have sank. In general their effects have been much less than Chernobyl the only land equivalent.

stephengillie 8y ago

"The nuclear power plant has two KLT-40S reactor units that can generate up to 70 MW of electric energy and 50 Gcal/hr of heat energy during its normal operation," Rosatom said. "This is enough to keep the activity of the town populated with 100,000 people." I'm glad there's no fuel in it while they're towing it from St. Petersburg to Murmansk.

booblik 8y ago

But dozens of nuclear submarines, with hundreds of nuclear missles floating around are safer? That power plant is literally a drop in the sea.

petre 8y ago

KLT-40S reactor is the same type of PWR used on Taymyr-class icebreakers. So it makes little difference if an icebreaker or a floating nuclear power plant passes through international waters. Also, small naval PWRs like this one are safer than a full scale nuclear powerplant, of which many are scaled up naval power plants. https://www.economist.com/news/science-and-technology/21726058-floating-reactors-are-their-way-submarine-ones-may-follow-atomic-power https://www.economist.com/news/science-and-technology/217260... https://www.economist.com/node/17647651 https://www.economist.com/node/17647651 http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2008/jun/09/john-mccain/navys-record-unblemished/ http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2008/jun/...