A Floating Chernobyl?

REALLY?



"There goes the neighborhood!" Says all the contaminated fish.

What the phuck is in the COFFEE the Russkies are drinking?

cthia wrote:"There goes the neighborhood!" Says all the contaminated fish.

What the phuck is in the COFFEE the Russkies are drinking?

Oh brother. Another anti-nuclear hysteria with anti-Russian bias. Seriously, it's become tedious. Go find some Chinese to blame, they are the current Number One enemy for Divine Truth Of Democracy.

Dilandu wrote:

cthia wrote:"There goes the neighborhood!" Says all the contaminated fish.

What the phuck is in the COFFEE the Russkies are drinking?

Oh brother. Another anti-nuclear hysteria with anti-Russian bias. Seriously, it's become tedious. Go find some Chinese to blame, they are the current Number One enemy for Divine Truth Of Democracy.

I dated two Russian girls in college. I would have married one if she hadn't wanted to leave the US.

I'm anti-build-a-reactor-on-the-ocean. I'd be against it if America were looney enough to do it!

cthia wrote:I'm anti-build-a-reactor-on-the-ocean. I'd be against it if America were looney enough to do it!

Hello, you have hundreds of nuclear reactors in oceans. They called "nuclear submarines". And in therms of civilian-grade naval reactors, we, Russians, have order of magnitude more experience than all other world combined. Do you even heard about our fleet of nuclear icebreakers? Without them, the normal life of Far North would simply be impossible; only nuclear power could achieve the goal of creating path for cargo ships in winter Arctic.

The "Lomonosov" floatig powerplant used the same KLT-40 reactor, as on our "Taymyr" nuclear icebreakers & "Sevmorput" ice-rated nuclear cargo ship. Its a reliable, well-proven design, that performed flawlessly for decades. Our atomic industry learned from Cherbobyl disaster, so he greatest emphasis was put on reliability.

Dilandu wrote:

cthia wrote:I'm anti-build-a-reactor-on-the-ocean. I'd be against it if America were looney enough to do it!

Hello, you have hundreds of nuclear reactors in oceans. They called "nuclear submarines". And in therms of civilian-grade naval reactors, we, Russians, have order of magnitude more experience than all other world combined. Do you even heard about our fleet of nuclear icebreakers? Without them, the normal life of Far North would simply be impossible; only nuclear power could achieve the goal of creating path for cargo ships in winter Arctic.

The "Lomonosov" floatig powerplant used the same KLT-40 reactor, as on our "Taymyr" nuclear icebreakers & "Sevmorput" ice-rated nuclear cargo ship. Its a reliable, well-proven design, that performed flawlessly for decades. Our atomic industry learned from Cherbobyl disaster, so he greatest emphasis was put on reliability.

Oh please! That's the best you've got?

Personally, I don't like nuke subs swimming around the world's fish tanks either. Don't like oil tankers that pollute the oceans neither. So much for that.

But, what the hell has Russia learned from Chernobyl? Not a damn thing if dares to be irresponsible enough to build a floating nuclear reactor, knowing how dangerous they already are.

Let's see, you've learned enough from Chernobyl that there haven't been any more accidents since that 1986 incident.

So the 1992 accident in Saint Petersburg never happened, which released radioactivity which traveled over north-eastern Europe. Russian officials declared that they saw no immediate danger posed by the event.

Nor did the 1997 accident in Saint Petersburg happen where a worker, Sergei Kharitonov, revealed photographs of cracked walls and groundwater seepage at a nuclear power plant waste storage facility. He also revealed that the plant has been dumping 300 litres of contaminated water into the Gulf of Finland annually "for years".

Or the April 1998 accident in Saint Petersburg after a reactor was shut down after the discovery of a radiation leak.

Let's not even mention 2017 in the Ural region. You're still not even admitting that one.

So what have you learned, exactly? Does your new found knowledge include any morals, scruples and values that would dismiss the bolded parts above?

You haven't learned a damn thing, or you wouldn't be so irresponsible to build a NPP on the ocean, when you can't prevent accidents on solid ground!

What you should have learned, is that all the reactors in Saint Petersburg, at least, should be Scramed then Scratched. And everybody operating them dismissed.

cthia wrote:So what have you learned, exactly? Does your new found knowledge include any morals, scruples and values that would dismiss the bolded parts above?

You haven't learned a damn thing, or you wouldn't be so irresponsible to build a NPP on the ocean, when you can't prevent accidents on solid ground!

What you should have learned, is that all the reactors in Saint Petersburg, at least, should be Scramed then Scratched. And everybody operating them dismissed.

You are hysterical, it's pretty much obvious. You are taking incidents from 90s - when all Russia was in complete chaos - and trying to make them have some meaning almost three decades later. Maybe you should, I don't know, try to think for a change?

Akademik Lomonosov is a very interesting concept that solves a bunch of pretty much intractable issues with nuclear power plants and I hope that it succeeds.

Also, let's not forget that Lomonosov's deployment allows the decommissioning of an older nuclear power plant and a coal plant in the region; those are inarguably good things. If Rosatom can operate this plant safely (and they do have a decent track record), the benefits of this scheme far outweigh the risks (which, to be clear, are quite manageable!).

(and that's without going into possible risk mitigations: It would absolutely be feasible to park one of these things inside an inlet and then wall that inlet off to insulate it from major wave actions and make sure that leaks can be contained)

I'm with Dilandu on this one. The RBMK series reactors had a few shortcomings, but they had a lot of advantages over U.S. wet-core reactors. They just did not respond well to being operated way, WAY outside their normal limits. Nobody ever intended for 'tests' like the one on April 26 1986 to be run on a LIVE reactor by a political hack from the Kremlin with full authority to force the operators to violate EVERY safety procedure ever written.

It's a testament to the designers that it took almost four hours to blow it up. And, they could have stopped it, any time up to the last three minutes.
———————————
Always, always have a Plan O — for Oh Shit!

Article claims this is the worlds first floating nuclear reactor. Even ignoring all the reactors used to power ships they overlook the MH-1A - a pressurized water reactor the US built into a converted Liberty ship in the 60s and used to provide power to the Panama Canal zone into the mid 70s.

So the Russian's new floating pressurized water reactors are hardly the first. That doesn't mean that Russia will operate them safely; even ignoring Chernobyl the USSR and Russia have had a worse nuclear power safety record than the US - but it does mean the writers of the article didn't do their research.

Jonathan_S wrote:Article claims this is the worlds first floating nuclear reactor. Even ignoring all the reactors used to power ships they overlook the MH-1A - a pressurized water reactor the US built into a converted Liberty ship in the 60s and used to provide power to the Panama Canal zone into the mid 70s.

So the Russian's new floating pressurized water reactors are hardly the first. That doesn't mean that Russia will operate them safely; even ignoring Chernobyl the USSR and Russia have had a worse nuclear power safety record than the US - but it does mean the writers of the article didn't do their research.

To be exact, it is world first floating civilian reactor - MH-1A was operated by military.